Contact: Rosalind Rutt, ext 6745 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) To agree that the comments in Section 4 of the attached report be submitted to the Regional Assembly as the County Council's response to the consultation on the South East Plan discussion papers.

(ii) To endorse the need for sub-regional strategies to be prepared for South Hampshire and the Western Corridor (including the Blackwater Valley).

(iii) To agree that Hampshire County Council should play a full and active role in the development of the South East Plan, and the relevant sub-regional studies, in line with the new duties of responsibilities for principal authorities set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(iv) To endorse the vision of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire for the future planning of that area.

2. Reason

2.1 The decisions support Aims 1, 2 and 3 of the Corporate Strategy as follows:

(i) Aim 1 - Maximising Life Opportunities - is supported through the promotion of improved access throughout the region to essential services, improved health, and reduced poverty and social exclusion.

(ii) Aim 2 - Stewardship of the Environment - is supported through the promotion of programmes of renaissance and renewal, creative management of the countryside, and more prudent management of natural resources across the South East.

(iii) Aim 3 - Achieving Economic Prosperity - is supported through the promotion of diverse, steady and sustained regional economic growth, increased education and skills levels, and a balanced rural economy.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not offering written comments to the Regional Assembly on the discussion papers.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member 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

Contact: Rosalind Rutt, ext 6745 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) has recently published discussion papers, "A Clear Vision for the South East", to inform a series of workshops entitled the Spring Debates. Decisions on core issues will establish a framework for the development of policies, proposals and targets in the South East Plan which will look ahead to 2026.

1.2 This report considers the issues and questions contained in the discussion papers and recommends the response from Hampshire County Council. The report also considers the recently completed sub-regional studies which cover parts of Hampshire and the vision formulated by the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH).

2. Background

2.1 As part of the changes to the planning system proposed by Government, Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) are to be developed to guide development of land use and transport across the region. In the South East this strategy will be called the South East Plan. When the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (which received Royal Assent on 13 May) comes into force, such strategies will become statutory documents, replacing current regional planning guidance and county structure plans.

2.2 The South East Plan will be a strategic planning document with a wide remit. It will cover issues such as health and education, as well as traditional planning issues such as housing, transport and waste management. The Plan will need to distribute housing growth and related development down to District level.

2.3 The Spring Debates, 20 workshop events, are being run across the region during April and May, to develop a vision for the region and the broad spatial principles for the distribution of development. The views from these debates will be reported to a workshop of the Regional Planning Committee on 16 June and then to a decision making meeting of the Committee on 29 June, the Executive on 2 July and finally the Assembly on 21 July.

2.4 Following the Spring Debates, the Regional Assembly aims to develop a draft South East Plan for formal consultation in early 2005, to be submitted to the Secretary of State in summer 2005. It is intended that the consultation will be on a preferred strategy, with alternative spatial options also being described.

2.5 The Assembly has published a set of 11 discussion papers which identify the key issues across the region on the following topics:

(i) Regional Context;

(ii) Appraisal, Assessment and Proofing of the Plan;

(iii) Futures and Patterns of Change;

(iv) Projections and Forecasts;

(v) Economy and Employment;

(vi) Housing;

(vii) Transport and Access;

(viii) Social Issues;

(ix) Natural Environment and Resources;

(x) Sub-Regions; and

(xi) Strategic Issues.

The papers can be seen at www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/southeastplan. Paper copies are available in the Members' Room and from Jacqui Hall on request (telephone: 01962 846806).

2.6 Paper 11 on Strategic Issues is an overarching paper, bringing together and summarising the material in the other ten papers. It sets out a draft vision statement for the region which focuses on improving the region's quality of life in its widest sense.

2.7 Sections 3 and 4 of this report comment on the process and the questions and issues raised in the 11 discussion papers.

Sub-Regional Studies

2.8 Under the new planning system, RSS will be able to include more detailed sub-regional strategies for selected areas. Late amendments to the Bill point out the role of counties. SEERA commissioned studies for ten sub-regions to help it decide for which areas the South East Plan should include sub-regional strategies. Three of these relate to parts of Hampshire: South Hampshire, the Western Corridor (which includes North Hampshire) and the Blackwater Valley. These sub-regional studies have now been completed and are being discussed in the relevant Spring Debates workshops.

2.9 At the beginning of May the Steering Group for the Eastern Dorset, South Hampshire and Isle of Wight Study forwarded its report to the Regional Assembly. The report concluded that South Hampshire should form a sub-regional strategy area within the South East Plan, covering urban South Hampshire from the Waterside to Havant, as far north as Romsey and the boundary of the South Downs National Park but excluding Winchester. Growth should be focused on the two cities and existing urban areas, with new development located in the most sustainable locations. Growth is supported on the basis that that it will attract, and indeed is dependent on, significant levels of public and private investment, to address not only the consequences of future growth but also other issues that the area currently faces. The Sub-Regional Strategy will need to demonstrate that the benefits of growth are really deliverable and that they outweigh the environmental and social costs that might also arise.

2.10 In March of this year the Blackwater Valley Network submitted a sub-regional study report to the Regional Assembly. The report draws upon the content of the Atkins and Ancer Spa study of the Blackwater Valley, produced in April 2003, together with views expressed on that study during last year's consultation exercise. It considers a number of growth scenarios, including the request by the Regional Assembly that a higher growth level should also be looked at.

2.11 The report concludes that it is debatable whether the Blackwater Valley should be given sub-regional recognition in the South East Plan or whether it should be identified within the wider Western Corridor, but with its own identity protected and established joint working arrangements between the authorities and other partner organisations continuing.

2.12 On 26 April 2004 the Western Corridor Sub-Regional Study Interim Report was submitted to the Regional Assembly. Further work relating to the key issues will be undertaken, together with the role of and vision for the area, and the need for various forms of infrastructure to support growth, including sewage treatment and disposal and water supply. The report considers the consequences of different levels of growth within the study area to 2026, including the assumption that housing growth across the study area as a whole will continue at the current (RPG9) level, and the alternative assumption that there will be an increase to 50% above current levels across the study area for the 20 year period 2006 to 2026.

2.13 Work on the sub-regional study so far suggests that the following issues need to be addressed by the South East Plan:

(i) Growth area status? The evaluation of different scales and distribution of growth is being carried out as part of the study, for which further work is required. If the study area, or part of it, is to be expected to accept substantial further growth, should it be recognised as a growth area in order to secure the appropriate investment to support that growth?

(ii) Labour supply/demand balance: large parts of the study area are forecasting a substantial surplus of jobs over the locally available labour supply. The initial findings suggest that it may not be realistic to move to a situation of balance across the study area, and if this is the case, how large an imbalance is acceptable and what measures should be taken to deal with the consequences of imbalance?

(iii) Transport problems are some of the most complex and intractable in the region. Any new proposals for further growth in the area will depend critically upon the development and implementation of a new sub-regional transport strategy and long-term investment programme.

(iv) Affordable housing: the level of house prices relative to income and the geographical extent of the high priced area is greater in this region and adjoining parts of the London fringe than almost anywhere else in the country.

(v) Quality of life: consideration needs to be given to how quality of life is evaluated, in order that it can be given sufficient weight in appraising the options for the scale and distribution of growth.

3. Comments of the Director of the Environment on the Process

3.1 The Spring Debates are to help the Assembly decide on the structure of the South East Plan. The comments in this report concentrate on a small number of key strategic issues, to ensure that the County Council's key messages get through to the Regional Assembly and are not lost in a welter of detailed comments. Accordingly, although officers have identified some technical deficiencies within some of the papers, these matters will be picked up during the routine liaison work with the Assembly's officers, and are not covered in this report.

3.2 The Assembly's closing date for comments is 28 May. The recommendations in this report will be sent before this date followed by a formal confirmation (with any amendments). This report was prepared prior to the Members' workshop on 26 May; additional points arising from that event which are not already covered in this paper will be reported orally at the meeting. It is regrettable that pressures from Government on the Regional Assembly have resulted in such a short timescale for plan preparation and the lack of opportunity for a full and comprehensive debate. It is to be hoped that the next stages in plan preparation will provide opportunities for more meaningful engagement, in keeping with the spirit of the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act.

3.3 Regardless of what the papers contain, or omit, it is important that the debate should focus on looking ahead to the content of the strategy: what kind of South East region do people want to see in 20 to 50 years' time, and what sort of plan is needed to achieve this? Without this long-term vision (beyond the 2026 horizon of the plan) it would be easy to become immersed in the mass of details in the discussion papers. Crucial decisions will need to be made about the future of the region and the role of Hampshire within it. The County Council needs to decide whether it wishes to play a leading role in the development of the RSS and welcome the planning of new development (which is likely to involve higher rates of housebuilding and earmarking new greenfield sites through the sub-regional strategies), or to stand back from the process and react to documents as they emerge from the Assembly. The provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act clearly signal a positive and leading role for county councils in the new development planning arrangements, and it is recommended that this authority should embrace that role in the South East Plan process.

3.4 One possible spatial option for the region is that of new strategic development areas (to complement the existing ones at Ashford and elsewhere) with major clusters of development, which could attract both public and private funding (Discussion Paper 11, paragraphs 4.17 to 4.19). The sub-regional strategies are the most appropriate vehicle to select spatial options for development and will need to look at wide-ranging alternatives, including the potential for strategic development areas.

4. Comments of the Director of Environment on the Discussion Papers

4.1 The discussion papers are to be broadly welcomed although there are concerns about the treatment of some issues and that others are not covered adequately, or at all. However, it would not be appropriate to respond to the consultation by sending the Assembly a critique of the papers. It would be better to look ahead to the next stage of draft plan preparation by alerting the Assembly to topics which the County Council fears may, on current indications, be inadequately or inappropriately dealt with. This approach should be more effective in influencing the Regional Planning Committee, Executive Committee and Assembly meetings over the next two months, as they draw up the principles on which the draft plan will be based. The suggested response set out in the rest of this report also focuses on a limited number of key issues, in order to avoid the major points being obscured by a confusion of details.

4.2 The overall aims of the South East Plan must be to maintain and improve quality of life in the region; to foster more sustainable communities and to create new ones. Whilst housing and economic growth will be necessary, they should not be the only drivers of the Plan.

4.3 How the Plan is implemented will be the key to its success or failure. Whatever the levels of growth, planning and investment for appropriate and timely infrastructure will be crucial to ensure a good quality of life, the prudent management of natural resources and a rich environment. The Plan should aim to provide utilities, facilities and services, transport and other infrastructure concurrently with growth. Some of this will require a visionary and long-term approach to planning - for example, solutions to transport problems are likely to require major infrastructure projects, the scale, funding streams and location of which are not yet clear. There will be substantial areas where neither the Assembly nor local authorities have a direct role (such as water supply), and implementation proposals must be

particularly robust in these areas. Infrastructure provision will require explicit commitments by national Government if the South East Plan is to be deliverable, both to address existing problems and to support new growth.

Climate Change and Water Resources

4.4 Climate change is a fundamental issue affecting the region. The Plan must give greater recognition to these issues than the Discussion Papers have done and give clear guidance on potential measures to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.

4.5 The effect on water resources and management is also likely to be an issue, with possible deficits in water resources over the period of the Plan unless new initiatives are taken. The Plan must address issues such as new water infrastructure, water conservation, waste water treatment and groundwater flooding, which remains an important issue in Hampshire. The Hampshire Water Consultation Group (the County Council, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council, the Environment Agency and the six Water Companies), believes that the Discussion Papers may understate the severity of the situation; the Group is preparing a position statement for submission to the Assembly.

4.6 Sea-level rise will pose difficult choices on whether to raise coastal defences or to accept sea inundation in some locations. New building might need to be prohibited in some low-lying coastal areas. It will be vital to keep the existing undeveloped coast free from urban development to meet longer-term strategic requirements, such as coastal de-salination plants, or compensation for habitats lost elsewhere on the coast where coastal defences are maintained in the face of sea-level rise.

Urban and Rural Regeneration

4.7 The Plan needs to address urban regeneration and to take a more integrated approach to urban and rural areas than that in the Discussion Papers. Rural and suburban issues are mentioned but their treatment is patchy. The Plan should clearly establish the roles of urban and rural areas, the linkages between them, and the future of town centres, market towns and villages.

Housing and Economy

4.8 Paper 4 suggests that the range of 28,000 (the average annual building rate in RPG9) to around 36,000 dwellings per annum (pa) in the region to 2026 is a reasonable basis for discussion and further evaluation in terms of their implications (Paper 4, paragraph 5.1). The Assembly officers believe that demographic projections and other factors pointing to 28,000 pa should be regarded as being the absolute minimum and may be an underestimate of housing need.

4.9 The County Council will wish to see clear and robust evidence to support the need for higher levels of growth. The amount of additional housing to be provided above this minimum ought to be properly determined by the South East Plan's objectives and factors that can be influenced by the plan strategy. Such objectives might be to house the growing workforce required by the region's expanding economy and/or to address the backlog of unmet need and rate of house price increases, as suggested by the Barker report. The provision of housing and economic growth need to complement each other, both in terms of amount and location. Unrestrained job growth and restricted housebuilding, for example, would lead to labour shortages, especially in public services, rising house prices and/or long distance commuting. The Western Corridor Study identifies these as key issues for that area.

4.10 The substantial increases in housebuilding rates postulated in the Barker Report (up to a doubling of current building rates) are higher than any identified demographic or economic forecasts and raise important questions about infrastructure capacity and environmental impact. The Regional Assembly is proposing a very cautious approach on the Barker scenarios and does not believe that housing policy should be based primarily on moderating house prices (which is likely to be largely beyond the scope of planning policy, at least in the short and medium term). This approach is supported by the County Council.

4.11 On 5 May 2004 the Environment Policy Review Committee adopted the following recommendation (for noting):

"That the Committee recognises that the planning of future housing provision will be a key issue in the preparation of the South East Plan, and that the Committee has a key role in scrutinising the emerging regional and sub-regional documentation to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between the provision for housebuilding and other considerations as a key element for developing our vision for Hampshire."

4.12 These and other alternative policy objectives as to future housebuilding rates must be strengthened, made explicit and fully debated before key decisions are made. It is also crucial to address other housing issues such as the appropriate infrastructure and funding to create high quality, sustainable communities, the renewal of existing stock, and options to bring down house prices by mechanisms other than a massive increase in supply, such as through increased funding for the building of affordable and key worker housing.

Accessibility and Infrastructure

4.13 It is important that the South East Plan focuses on long-term, regional and cross-boundary transport issues. Matters which can be adequately dealt with at a local level should be left to Local Development Frameworks and Local Transport Plans.

4.14 Greater emphasis needs to be put on the requirement for transport investment, particularly to improve accessibility and travel choice throughout the region. The South East Plan needs to explicitly make the link between the level of development proposed and the transport requirements needed to service the different spatial development options; something not adequately done in the Discussion Papers. It should also identify what the infrastructure backlog is, and how this is to be addressed.

4.15 Disparities in accessibility to social and healthcare, education and leisure services is a key issue which can only partly be addressed through the South East Plan. It is important to make the links with other relevant plans and strategies and to explore opportunities to work with partners (such as health and local authorities) to help deliver the Plan. The Plan should also consider opportunities for major regional and sub-regional cultural facilities, such as venues for sport, recreation and the arts.

Natural Environment and Resources

4.16 The South East Plan needs to go considerably further than Paper 9 in addressing strategic biodiversity and landscape matters. The paper's emphasis is on wildlife sites of national and international importance. The Plan needs to recognise that there is a much larger area of land that is important for biodiversity. It should also look at positive opportunities for development to contribute towards enhancing the natural environment and increasing biodiversity on the one hand, and the potential impact of development on biodiversity and the measures required to avoid this on the other.

4.17 Areas designated nationally for their landscape value (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the New Forest and the proposed National Parks) together make up a significant part of the region. The Plan should consider what positive role they should play in the region, and how sensitive planning and management can enhance their special character whilst meeting regional and local needs. Wider countryside policies should support a working landscape, with robust policies which respect the countryside for its distinctive local character. The Plan should advocate the use of landscape character assessment in determining sensitive landscapes and those that have the capacity to absorb change, whilst still retaining their underlying character.

4.18 The South East Plan must now acknowledge the decision on Dibden Bay. The strategy of reserving this area for long-term port use is no longer appropriate in view of the Government's decision to turn down proposals for a port, due to the environmental impact on internationally protected sites.

Sub-Regional Strategies

4.19 The Steering Groups of Members for the Sub-Regional Studies in South Hampshire and the Western Corridor believe sub-regional strategies need to be prepared for these areas. There is general agreement that the Blackwater valley should be subsumed into the Western Corridor strategy but as a distinct sub-area.

4.20 The four district and two unitary authorities in urban South Hampshire have prepared a statement (attached as an appendix) setting out a vision for the future planning of urban South Hampshire. This has been submitted to the Regional Assembly as an annex to the South Hampshire Study. The statement supports further economically driven growth, focussed on the regeneration and renaissance of the two cities and older urban areas. It does, however, highlight that for a strategy to be successful, a real commitment will be required from the Government to provide substantial funding for key transport enhancements, particularly to improve access into Portsmouth and Southampton from other parts of the sub-region. Subject to that commitment, these authorities support the designation of the Urban South Hampshire sub-region as a "Strategic Development Area" in the South East Plan. Hampshire County Council, which is also a member of this informal group of authorities, now needs to formally determine whether it will endorse this statement.

Recommendations

1. To agree that the comments in Section 4 of this report be submitted to the Regional Assembly as the County Council's response to the consultation on the South East Plan discussion papers.

2. To endorse the need for sub-regional strategies to be prepared for South Hampshire and the Western Corridor (including the Blackwater Valley).

3. To agree that Hampshire County Council should play a full and active role in the development of the South East Plan, and the relevant sub-regional studies, in line with the new duties of responsibilities for principal authorities set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

4. To endorse the vision of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire for the future planning of that area.

8766/RR

APPENDIX

Views of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire

The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) consists of the seven local authorities whose areas comprise the urban core of South Hampshire: Eastleigh Borough Council, Fareham Borough Council, Gosport Borough Council, Hampshire County Council, Havant Borough Council, Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council. Their Leaders have considered the sub-regional study. The statement below sets out the Partnership's vision and aspirations for the future planning of urban South Hampshire.

1. We believe that urban South Hampshire has immense natural advantages and a bright future. It has an environment that is the envy of many parts of England, with easy access to rural hinterlands and miles of beautiful coastline. It has a vibrant economy, world class higher education institutions, and excellent transport links, by air, road, rail and sea. Historically it has been England's sea gateway to the continent, the Americas and beyond and it still plays this role today. Most of all, it is a place where businesses want to invest and where people want to live.

2. Growth has occurred on a massive scale over the last 40 years. South Hampshire is now the largest urban area in the south of England outside London. This growth has created a complex urban area focussed on two major cities and a series of adjacent complementary settlements, which now form an almost continuous conurbation adjacent to the Solent coastline. The complexities of our local government arrangements, with two Unitary cities, four District Councils and a County Council has meant that it has been more difficult to achieve a coordinated approach to the strategic planning of the area. It is to achieve that unified voice that PUSH was established.

3. It is our view that further growth in the area is to be welcomed. We must plan for sustainable development and change in a way which will maximise the benefit to the area and its people. Such an approach must acknowledge the differences and particular needs of the various locations that make up South Hampshire, while at the same time recognising the complementary and common interests which the whole area shares as a continuous urban area with a common future.

4. Economic growth will bring many benefits to the area. It will bring more investment, more jobs, more people to enrich communities and more services to meet their demands. The challenge we face is how to create regeneration through growth: to build the necessary infrastructure, tackle the problems the area faces, maintain its superb environment and enhance its prosperity and well-being. We need to be able to meet this challenge in order to move confidently towards status as a growth area and eventually create a world class city region.

5. The following issues are key to our approach to growth:

· A better transport infrastructure, with an emphasis on better choice and availability in public transport, which allows people to move more efficiently and safely within the region.

· Complementary and parallel investment in utilities, services and facilities to maintain and enhance the quality of life for residents, businesses and visitors.

· Enhancing the advantages of particular localities within the area (motorway corridor, town or city centre, waterfront or suburb) as a focus for appropriate employment and business development that will enhance prosperity.

· Facilitating and encouraging inward investment, whilst recognising that indigenous growth will be the main driver of the area's economic future, building on its strengths in research and innovation, and its emerging business clusters.

· Ensuring that economic growth benefits all sections of the community and that there is investment in skills to enable people to participate in local employment growth and opportunities.

· Regenerating older urban areas to enhance their particular historic and environmental qualities, and to further develop the social and cultural infrastructure to support them.

· Ensuring that housing development focuses on the changing needs of a changing population, including smaller housing units and more affordable housing.

· Respecting the environment, safeguarding bio-diversity and areas of high ecological importance, and providing access to recreational and countryside areas.

6. Development that is sustainable needs to respect the balance between housing and employment, be of the highest quality, be supported by appropriate infrastructure, and have the least possible impact on greenfield sites and high quality spaces within and between settlements. It needs to be supported by investment in facilities, services and skills.

7. New development should be carefully targeted to locations where it would benefit the sub-region, through associated transport improvements for example, or helping to reduce social deprivation. The overall focus should be on the regeneration and renaissance of the two cities and older urban areas, embracing mixed use development and very high densities in appropriate locations. Development elsewhere must show it would complement and not conflict with that aim.

8. We believe the case for a sub-regional strategy covering South Hampshire is overwhelming and indisputable. For such a strategy to be successful, a real commitment will be required from the Government to provide substantial funding for key transport infrastructure enhancements, particularly to improve access into Portsmouth and Southampton from other parts of the sub-region. Subject to that commitment, we support the designation of the Urban South Hampshire sub-region as a "Strategic Development Area" in the South East Plan.

9. The future for South Hampshire is bright. We want to see it become a world-class city region in the South of England. We are committed to meeting the challenges of sustainable growth and we call on the Government to make the necessary investments to ensure that we can achieve our aims.

NB: This is a provisional statement which is subject to formal approval by some authorities through their normal constitutional arrangements.