Contact: Stuart Roberts, ext 6782 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The report of a South Hampshire Study will shortly be published. It analyses the current situation and presents a range of forecasts of the future in respect of the area's economy, transport, housing and the environment. The Committee is invited to consider the issues raised in the report, a summary of which is attached as Appendix 1. Copies of the full Study report have been placed in the Members' Rooms.

1.2 On 27 October 2003 the Cabinet considered a report (attached as Appendix 2) on the arrangements for regional and sub-regional planning in relation to Hampshire. The Cabinet report set out the next steps for deciding if sub-regional strategies are needed for South Hampshire, the Western Corridor (which includes Basingstoke town and the northern part of Hart and Rushmoor Districts) and the Blackwater Valley. It proposed Member steering arrangements for the preparation of such strategies, in the event that they are required, and proposed how the County Council should seek to influence the preparation of the Regional Spatial Strategy.

1.3 Although the proposed Member steering arrangements would be at Leader/ Executive Member level for speedy and efficient decision-making, the Cabinet paper envisaged reports being presented to the Environment Policy Review Committee as work progresses to facilitate a wider debate on the key issues. This report on the South Hampshire Study is such an example.

Recommendation

That the Committee:

(i) considers the issues raised in the South Hampshire Study; and

(ii) identifies whether there are any other issues which should be addressed by a prospective sub-regional strategy for the area.

8325/SR

APPENDIX 1

SOUTH HAMPSHIRE STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The purpose of the South Hampshire Study is to provide the foundation for the preparation of a land use and transportation strategy for South Hampshire for the next 20 years. The Study relates to the built-up area of South Hampshire together with the separate settlements and undeveloped areas immediately adjoining. A wider area of interaction has also been defined. The Study is essentially a factual analysis of information and forecasts, from which key conclusions are drawn.

Regional and European Linkages

2. South Hampshire has many important economic linkages with European and global markets. Development of these linkages could help to expand the local economy and reinforce South Hampshire's role as a 'gateway' from the UK to mainland Europe and the world.

3. There are some 30,000 flights annually from Southampton Airport, and 59,000 and 25,000 shipping movements from the ports of Southampton and Portsmouth respectively.

4. South Hampshire is generally well connected to the rest of the South East and other regions, and there are many economic and social linkages between them. The planning of South Hampshire must be considered as part of the wider South East region and Europe.

5. Connections include transport links, cross-commuting, trips for shopping, tourism and recreation and business links.

Economy

6. With an economy worth around £15 billion, South Hampshire generates least two thirds of Hampshire's total Gross Domestic Product and 13 per cent of the South East economy.

7. The urban centres continue to provide the highest concentration of jobs. However, there is a broad dispersal of employment throughout the sub-region.

8. One of the key reasons for the designation of South Hampshire as a Priority Area for Economic Regeneration in South East England, is the need to address high levels of deprivation.

9. South Hampshire has pockets of high unemployment and severe deprivation, especially in inner city wards and outlying housing estates.

10. Regional Planning Guidance suggests that tailored regeneration strategies and positive planning policies are needed to tackle deprivation. Schemes under the Single Regeneration Budget also have a role to play.

11. A major decline in manufacturing has been offset by an increase in service sector employment. Public services, retail, hotels and restaurants, and business services are now the biggest employers in South Hampshire.

12. In 2001 manufacturing accounted for 13% of total employment in the Study Area. The largest employment sectors are shops, hotels and restaurants (26%), public services (24%) and finance and business services (21%).

13. There is substantial commuting within the Study Area and to/from Winchester and West Sussex. Some South Hampshire residents commute to London, Surrey and Basingstoke; there is also commuting into South Hampshire from Dorset and Wiltshire.

14. Tourism and shopping are important elements of the South Hampshire Economy.

15. The commercial ports of Southampton and Portsmouth continue to make substantial contribution to the South Hampshire economy.

16. The Port of Southampton is one of the largest and most diverse ports in Europe and generates some 11,300 jobs associated with the Port and its related activities. The commercial and ferry port operations in Portsmouth are much smaller but still significant.

17. Rationalisation of MoD operations is likely to result in growth in defence related activity in and around Portsmouth.

18. Portsmouth Naval Base employs some 14,000 people, in addition to 6,500 ship-based service personnel.

19. The continued growth in use of Southampton International Airport is important to the South Hampshire economy. It has seen considerable growth in passenger numbers in recent years whilst there is demand for possible further commercial expansion.

20. Passenger numbers at the airport grew from 200,000 per annum in the early 1990s to 1 million in 2003 and are expected to grow further.

21. Focusing on the development and expansion of business clusters is one option for capitalising on South Hampshire's economic strengths.

22. Existing or emerging clusters include the marine sector; pharmaceuticals; aviation; electronics, telecommunications and computing; media/creative arts; and scientific research and development hubs.

23. Development of employment floorspace averaged 103,000 square metres per year over the last 15 years and 88,000 square metres per year over the last seven years. Development for industrial use continued despite employment decline in manufacturing.

24. Substantial amounts of employment floorspace have been lost primarily to housing. In the two cities, the creation of new floorspace has not kept up with the loss of existing space.

25. Between 1998 and 2002, around 270,000 square metres of employment floorspace was developed or given planning permission for other uses. Around two thirds of the loss was concentrated in the two cities. Apart from in the two cities, this loss was more than offset by the creation of new floorspace.

26. Supply of employment land is not meeting demand, especially for move-on accommodation for local businesses.

27. The local authorities have identified some 1.3 million square metres of employment floorspace which is planned for, has planning permission or is currently available for occupation. However, these figures do not reflect constraints that some sites have in meeting local needs, while some sites are not available in the short term.

28. The forecast increase in employment in the service sector will outweigh the projected decline in manufacturing jobs, resulting in an overall growth in demand for labour between 1996 and 2026.

Transport

29. South Hampshire has good road and rail networks, though substantial sections are congested at peak periods and this is forecast to worsen. Road traffic growth and car ownership are above the national average. Yet, nearly one in five South Hampshire residents live with walking distance of a rail station and the rail network has the capacity to carry more passengers.

30. If current trends continue unchecked then the ability of the transport network to cater for the additional travel demands associated with any future spatial strategy will be severely jeopardised.

31. Responsibility for transport infrastructure and operations is largely in private hands; each tends to be undertaken in isolation. The `Solent Transport' partnership was formed in 2002 to plan and co-ordinate South Hampshire's transport.

32. The objectives of the sub-regional spatial strategy for South Hampshire and those of the Solent Transport partnership will need to be fully integrated with one another.

33. Transport investment alone cannot solve the problem. Lifestyle and behavioural change are equally important.

34. New and more innovative solutions need to be investigated including better land use and transport integration, provision of infrastructure and services, and better co-ordination of investment across all modes. A complementary programme of non-transport or `soft policy' behavioural change initiatives will also be needed.

35. Possible measures include high density development around transport hubs, more stringent parking controls, congestion charging/road pricing, individualised transport planning, reallocation of road space to modes other than the car, and development of a South Hampshire Rapid Transit network.

Housing

36. A failure to recognise and plan for housing need will cause social problems and adversely affect economic performance.

37. South Hampshire could need to plan for 50,000 - 82,000 new dwellings between 2001 and 2021.

38. There may be a be a need for up to 33,000 extra dwellings, in addition to those currently expected to come forward between 2001 and 2021. Most of the extra dwellings would need to be built on greenfield land.

39. The Regional Spatial Strategy will set the actual provision to be made.

40. The supply of new affordable houses is falling well short of needs, and is a major issue which must be addressed by the sub-regional strategy.

41. The cost of re-developing brownfield sites for residential uses and improving social mix reduces the opportunities for securing affordable housing provision in the urban areas.

42. In the six local authorities wholly within the Study Area, there is a need for nearly 5,000 affordable houses each year whereas only 840 per annum are being built or acquired.

43. The provision of key worker housing in South Hampshire needs to be addressed if the economic regeneration objectives of RPG9 are to be met.

44. House prices have risen beyond the reach of many people and employers are experiencing problems in recruiting and retaining key staff. This can adversely affect public services and the local economy or result in larger journeys to work from areas where properties are cheaper.

45. In the older urban areas the age and condition of a significant part of the housing stock will become an increasingly important issue to address, especially within the private sector. Redevelopment schemes will need to enhance local environments and offer a mix of house types and tenure. Overall densities may fall thereby increasing the pressure to identify land for housing in adjoining areas.

46. Just under 20,000 dwellings (5.6% of stock) are estimated to be unfit in the local authorities wholly within the Study Area. Approximately 90,000 dwellings in South Hampshire were built before 1919, half of which are unfit or in substantial disrepair. Some 2.3% of total stock was vacant in 2002, which is consistent with normal vacancy rates necessary for the housing market to function.

Environment

47. Local and global factors affect the approach to environmental issues and will be important influences on a long term strategy for South Hampshire.

48. These factors include the growing awareness of the importance of environmental and natural resources; the value placed by local communities on nearby undeveloped land, and the human impact on resource consumption and the global environment.

49. The opportunities provided by, and constraints on development arising from, the designation of two new National Parks will have implications for any sub-regional strategy.

50. The new National Parks proposed for the New Forest and South Downs will replace the existing Heritage Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Chichester Harbour is also designated as an AONB. Most of the Itchen, Hamble, Test and Meon valleys remain largely undeveloped open countryside and retain their recreational, wildlife, landscape and tourism value, although they are affected by development pressures.

51. The requirements of European Habitat Regulations necessitate a stringent environmental assessment of any development proposals.

52. The enhancement of biodiversity should be an integral part of any sub- regional strategy.

53. Parts of the New Forest, river valleys, Solent coast and estuaries are protected by European and, in some cases, by international habitat legislation. Other areas are protected under national legislation. Policies and proposals must also take account of their impact on particular species and on biodiversity generally.

54. Landscape characterisation treats designated and non-designated landscapes equally. There is an opportunity to apply this approach to the preparation of a strategy for South Hampshire.

55. Landscape character assessment identifies the features of different rural landscapes without judging their worth. It also links landscape, biodiversity, history and cultural identity.

56. Strategic gaps maintain areas of open countryside separating built-up areas across much of South Hampshire. Their continued relevance and boundaries will need to be reviewed in developing a spatial strategy based on the principles of sustainable development.

57. Long term future development within the sub-region will no longer be able to take water supply for granted. New water infrastructure and resource development should be provided in a sustainable way consistent with the required enhancements to water quality and the need to maintain habitat sensitivity.

58. The implications of the effects of climate change on a spatial strategy for South Hampshire will be significant.

59. Climate change will create many challenges for South Hampshire, requiring adaptations to sea defences; flooding warnings; farming methods; recreation and tourism patterns, and domestic lifestyles.

60. The concentration of economic, recreational and habitat values on the South Hampshire coast provides a unique dimension to the sub-region.

61. South Hampshire still contains significant areas of open coastal areas of environmental importance. The coast is also important for its major commercial ports of Southampton and Portsmouth and for its marine-related industries.

62. The spatial strategy for the sub-region should be based on objectives which attach an importance to the quality of urban environments equal to that of the environment outside urban areas.

63. The quality of the urban environment is also crucial to secure urban renaissance, encourage people to live in urban areas and maximise the development potential of brownfield sites.

64. Sustainable development of the urban fringe is needed to provide multi-purpose countryside for the benefit of local communities and businesses and adjacent urban areas. New development on the urban edge should bring positive quality of life improvements to rural and urban residents.

65. The countryside around the urban areas of South Hampshire is a complex area of rapid change and competing pressures for land. Many areas of urban fringe are highly valued locally and there are opportunities to capitalise on this.

APPENDIX 2

Contact: Stuart Roberts, ext 6782 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

That:

(i) the South Hampshire Study document be published for information;

(ii) in the event of SEERA commissioning the preparation of sub-regional strategies for parts of Hampshire, the County Council should promote the establishment of a cross-authority Member Steering Group for each sub-regional strategy area based on the principles set out in paragraph 5.4 of the report; and

(iii) members of the Cabinet consider what mechanisms, if any, they wish to pursue with regard to a Hampshire-wide vision on the distribution of housing and employment growth and associated infrastructures.

2. Reason

2.1 To safeguard and further Hampshire's interests through the envisaged regional and sub-regional spatial strategies, and ensure democratic accountability in the process.

2.2 The Environment Policy Review Committee will consider the item on 29 October 2003.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 To not be involved in the preparation of sub-regional strategies.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor T K Thornber

8280/SR

Contact: Stuart Roberts, ext 6782 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This decision paper reports the completion of the South Hampshire Study which it is intended should be published later this year. This paper sets out the next steps for deciding if sub-regional strategies are needed for South Hampshire, the London to Swindon corridor (which includes Basingstoke town and the northern part of Hart and Rushmoor Districts) and the Blackwater Valley. It proposes Member steering arrangements for the preparation of such strategies, in the event that they are required, and proposes how the County Council should seek to influence the preparation of the Regional Spatial Strategy.

2. The New Strategic Planning Framework

2.1 The new Development Plan system proposed in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill transfers the strategic planning function from County Councils to Regional Assemblies. The Bill proposes that each Regional Assembly should prepare a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). Sub-regional spatial strategies may also be prepared by the Regional Assembly for selected areas where substantial change or development is envisaged.

2.2 County Councils will have a role in assisting their Regional Assembly with the preparation of the RSS and sub-regional strategies.

2.3 Under the Planning Bill, Minerals and Waste Local Plans will be replaced by Minerals and Waste Local Development Frameworks. County Councils will prepare these; they will also continue to deal with planning applications for mineral and waste development. The Member arrangements for steering work on the new Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework will be the subject of a future report to the Executive Member for Environment.

3. The South East Region

3.1 The Planning Committee of the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) has triggered the formal start on the inaugural RSS for the region. It has set an ambitious timetable for the work (in order to meet Government targets) leading to public consultation on spatial options in late 2004 and submission of the full draft strategy to the Deputy Prime Minister in summer 2005. The full timetable is set out in the appendix.

3.2 Once the RSS has been finalised by the Deputy Prime Minister - expected in autumn 2006 - it will supersede all Structure Plans in the Region. Until then, the Hampshire Structure Plan remains in force.

3.3 SEERA has identified ten sub-regional study areas within which a sub-regional strategy may be needed. Three of these cover parts of Hampshire:

(i) South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight including Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth and Poole;

(ii) the London-Swindon corridor (which includes Basingstoke town and the northern part of Hart and Rushmoor Districts); and

(iii) the Blackwater Valley.

3.4 To help it reach a decision on which areas should have a sub-regional strategy and their boundaries, SEERA intends to commission the local authorities to undertake study work on the linkages with neighbouring areas and to draw up spatial strategy options. A brief for this work is expected imminently. It will require study completion by February 2004.

3.5 After considering the results of this study work, SEERA will decide for which areas sub-regional strategies should be prepared. SEERA will then commission the local authorities within those areas to prepare strategies by summer 2004.

4. The Current Situation in Hampshire

4.1 Current arrangements for joint working within the three potential sub-regional areas affecting Hampshire vary:

(i) the Blackwater Valley already has a Network Members' Group which has guided a lot of strategic work for the sub-region;

(ii) some of the authorities in South Hampshire already meet at both officer and leader level, and work has been done on issues for the area;

(iii) authorities outside Hampshire are already working together on the London-Swindon corridor. County Council officers have joined discussions with them over extended arrangements, now that the study area includes parts of Hampshire.

4.2 The Strategic Planning Joint Advisory Panel (JAP) provides a county-wide focus and will continue its role of implementing and monitoring the Hampshire Structure Plan until it is replaced by the adopted RSS.

4.3 The Association of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Authorities (HIOW) received a report on regional and sub-regional planning at its meeting on 26 September 2003. It resolved:

(i) Officers continue to press the South East England Regional Assembly on the future role envisaged for county, district and unitary authorities in strategic planning, and the proposed mechanism for involving these authorities in preparation of the Regional Spatial Strategy;

(ii) Officers in each of the sub-regional study areas proposed by the Regional Assembly advise Members locally how best to take forward work on sub-regional strategies; and

(iii) The Association considers its possible role in facilitating coordination of strategic planning across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

4.4 The proposals set out in this decision paper respond to and take forward the HIOW resolutions. They draw a distinction however between the study work to be undertaken over the next few months and the preparation of sub-regional strategies which will follow on from the studies. The study work will essentially be a technical exercise which, it is suggested, can be satisfactorily steered by Members through established reporting mechanisms. The sub-regional strategies, in contrast, will grapple with and seek to resolve major, potentially controversial issues such as the distribution of new housing up to 2026. The preparation of these merit more in-depth involvement by Members. Proposals for this are set out below, which balance the need for wide, political engagement, cross-authority, consensual decision-making and the very pressing timetable in which the RSS needs to be prepared.

5. South Hampshire

5.1 Over the last year or so, officers of the Hampshire strategic planning authorities (Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council) in consultation with the Hampshire District Councils have been undertaking a study of South Hampshire. This analyses the current situation and presents a range of forecasts of the future in respect of the area's economy, transport, housing and the environment. The Study report has now been completed, subject to some further minor editing. It is proposed to publish it for information.

5.2 The Study was originally conceived to help inform the roll forward/review of the Hampshire County Structure Plan. The changes to the Development Plan system proposed in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill now mean the Study will instead provide the foundation for the preparation of a sub-regional spatial strategy, in the event that SEERA decides one is necessary.

5.3 The recent establishment of an Urban South Hampshire Leaders and Chief Executives Group heralds closer working on key issues and is to be welcomed. However, it does not include several local authorities - New Forest, Test Valley, Winchester, East Hampshire - parts of whose areas fall within the likely sub-regional strategy area. It also does not include non-local authority members as SEERA Planning Committee does. Consequently, whilst this could be a suitable member body to steer the South Hampshire Strategy, arrangements would need to be made to include input, where appropriate from these authorities and other sectoral groups.

5.4 If a dedicated Member Steering Group were to be established for the sub-regional strategy, either as a sub-group of the Urban South Hampshire Leaders and Chief Executives Group or as a stand alone, it is suggested that it should be based on the following principles:

(i) to include Member representation from all authorities within the area to be covered by the strategy;

(ii) to include input from outside the local authority sector, consistent with the composition of the SEERA Planning Committee;

(iii) to be chaired by one of the three strategic planning authorities (recognising the greater role which SEERA is looking for them to play in the work);

(iv) composition to be one Member from each authority, but two for each of the strategic planning authorities (for the same reason as (iii) above);

(v) representation to be at Leader/portfolio holder level (to ensure they can speak authoritatively on behalf of their council and enable appropriate decisions to be made by the meeting rather than requiring reference back to each authority for ratification);

(vi) decisions to be reached on a consensus basis where possible, with majority and minority views being forwarded to SEERA in the event of any disagreement between local authorities; and

(vii) meetings to not be open to the public (since the body will not be making any formal decisions but working to build consensus and agree collective recommendations to SEERA).

5.5 Reports will be presented to the Environment Policy Review Committee as work progresses to facilitate a wider debate on the key issues. This could be supplemented at key stages by a seminar open to all Members. Alternatively, an advisory group could be established to support the Executive Member.

5.6 The Member Steering Group would be mirrored by an officer group which would support it, together with smaller officer working parties as necessary.

5.7 If this arrangement is agreed by Hampshire County Council and is supported by the other authorities who will be involved and by SEERA, it would be prudent to hold the first meeting in late 2003/early 2004. This would enable the body to finalise its methods of working and to consider a project plan for sub-regional strategy preparation well before March 2004, when the work is due to begin.

5.8 It may be possible and desirable to expand the role of the Solent Transport Area Transport Strategy Panel in relation to the above spatial strategy function (see Agenda item 8).

6. London to Swindon Corridor

6.1 County Council officers are participating in officer-level discussions between the relevant authorities about Member steering arrangements for the area, and are espousing the principles embodied in paragraph 5.4 above. There is recognition that active Member engagement in the process is essential and that this will inevitably require new structures to be established. The authorities' officers, led by those wholly within the study area, are exploring suitable working arrangements.

7. Blackwater Valley

7.1 A Blackwater Valley Sub-regional Study was undertaken during late 2002/early 2003 by consultants Atkins/Ancer SPA for the Blackwater Valley Network of local authorities. The Study was published in May 2003 for public consultation; a process in which the local authorities were also consultees. The Executive Member for Environment approved the County Council's response to the consultation in July 2003.

7.2 The Blackwater Valley Network Members' Steering Group considered the comments made during the consultation at its meeting on 26 September 2003. It resolved that the next steps should include the preparation of a strategic vision for the area, the reassessment of statistics and projections using data from the Census of Population 2001, the identification of strategic public transport solutions/initiatives and an audit of environmental assets.

7.3 SEERA has yet to come to a view on whether the Blackwater Valley is a separate sub-region for which a sub-regional strategy should be prepared. There were differences of view on this matter amongst the local authorities too. If it were to be treated as a separate sub-region or part of a larger sub-region; the work in the paragraph above would provide a foundation for the preparation of a sub-regional strategy. If, on the other hand, it were decided that it is not, then the work would provide a valley-wide context for, and help inform the preparation of, individual Local Development Frameworks (LDFs).

7.4 In the event that a sub-regional strategy were prepared for the Blackwater Valley, the existing Blackwater Valley Network Members' Steering Group would have an important role to play, but it could be more efficacious to establish a dedicated, smaller Member Steering Group to guide strategy preparation based around the principles set out in paragraph 5.4 above. There is also a Blackwater Valley Authorities Leaders and Chief Executives Group that meets regularly which could fulfil this role.

8. Rest of Hampshire

8.1 SEERA officers have asked the Hampshire authorities to undertake technical work for the rest of Hampshire to help them prepare the main RSS. The nature of the technical work has yet to be specified, but will presumably include completions data, land supply information, constraints and capacity for future development, etc. County Council officers are well placed to lead this technical work which will need to cover all districts, and will draw on the technical work undertaken as part of the South Hampshire Study and Blackwater Valley Study.

8.2 This paper assumes that the County Council will want to be more proactive than simply providing SEERA with technical data, and will want to influence the emerging RSS as it affects Hampshire. Specifically, that the County Council in conjunction with the Hampshire Unitary and District Councils will want to collectively develop a vision/perspective on the amount and broad distribution of housing and employment growth, and the associated infrastructure required. This vision could serve three purposes: firstly to influence SEERA before it formulates its draft strategy, secondly to provide the basis for the Hampshire authorities to put forward an alternative to SEERA's strategy in the event that the latter is unacceptable to the Hampshire authorities, and thirdly to provide a platform, if necessary, for lobbying for the infrastructure required to support development. (Hopefully, the first would obviate the second.)

8.3 Considerable background work has been undertaken already through the Task Teams established for the erstwhile roll forward/review of the Structure Plan; the main job now is to think about/vision an appropriate overall strategy. This will need to inform and be informed by the parallel work on South Hampshire, London to Swindon corridor and Blackwater Valley.

8.4 Such a vision for Hampshire would enable the County Council to maintain an overview of the county as a whole and to link this to delivery of county level services. It would also enable clear links to be made with the Hampshire Local Strategic Partnership and the Community Strategy, which will have an interest in, and a wish to influence, spatial strategy.

8.5 It is suggested that existing Member reporting mechanisms - the Strategic Planning JAP and papers to Executive Members - could provide the necessary steer for this work. It is likely that District Councils would press for equal representation on the Panel. An alternative is for this work to be steered by a sub-committee of HIOW. Whatever arrangements are adopted, it will be necessary to consider how to achieve input from other sectors.

8.6 If JAP is to continue beyond monitoring of the current Structure Plan, it is suggested that the strategic authorities be asked to review their nominated representatives on JAP to ensure they include both environmental/planning and community strategy portfolio holders. This would ensure that Members can speak authoritatively on behalf of their authorities and facilitate linkages with community strategies. To keep other county councillors briefed and enable them to air their aspirations and concerns, seminars could be held at appropriate stages, open to all Members.

8.7 A third alternative would be for the County Council to promote its own position only, and not engage with any other organisations at a county-wide level.

8.8 A vision which has the support of all or most of the Hampshire authorities would carry more weight with the Regional Assembly. Achieving that is therefore the greater prize, although it will be more difficult to realise than the preparation of a County Council vision for Hampshire. Sharing of information, ideas and aspirations with other County Councils in the Region should also be pursued; it would be very difficult for SEERA to resist a combined vision for the South East put forward by the county authorities.

9. Resources

9.1 On the basis of current expectations of the work, it is envisaged that the County Council's involvement during the current year 2003/04 described above can be resourced from existing budgets. SEERA will meet the costs of document publication, public consultation and other non-staff costs of the work it commissions The resource implications for 2004/05 are being considered as part of the budgetary planning process.

Recommendations

That:

(i) the South Hampshire Study document be published for information;

(ii) in the event of SEERA commissioning the preparation of sub-regional strategies for parts of Hampshire, the County Council should promote the establishment of a cross-authority Member Steering Group for each sub-regional strategy area based on the principles set out in paragraph 5.4 of the report; and

(iii) members of the Cabinet consider what mechanisms, if any, they wish to pursue with regard to a Hampshire-wide vision on the distribution of housing and employment growth and associated infrastructures.

APPENDIX

TIMETABLES

1. Regional Spatial Strategy

2. Sub-Regional Strategies