Contacts: Stuart Jarvis, ext 6126 email: [email protected]

Ejner Knudsen, ext 7430 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions were taken:

(i) That HM Treasury be informed that the County Council:

(a) acknowledges that sustainable choices on transport, housing, planning and economic development in the south-east should not be taken in isolation but that principal authorities acting together be the proper forum for decision as the elected representatives of the people;

(b) regrets the failure of the proposals to address:

(i) the way that local priorities, as determined by local authorities, will be considered in the process;

(ii) how the local levels of resources will be determined by the regional agencies or the long-term provision for investment necessary to ensure the development of sustainable communities; and

(c) is alarmed that the proposals give no certainty over the funding of the essential infrastructure crucial to the development of sustainable communities; and

(d) is aware of the difficulty of calculating regional transport allocations by way of a formula, and recommends that the Government should establish a working group to consider this issue. Hampshire County Council would be willing to participate in such a working group.

(ii) That Cabinet endorse the proposed response to the specific consultation question set out in the attached appendix.

2. Reason

2.1 On 8 December 2004 HM Treasury, in collaboration with the Department for Transport, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry, published proposals to improve decision making by establishing clearer assumptions on funding for regional transport, housing and economic development. The proposals include two major innovations. First, the establishment of regional transport funding allocations and second, the suggestion of longer-term regional resource distribution assumptions to influence allocations in future Spending Reviews.

2.2 This decision supports Aim 4 of the Corporate Strategy (Building Strong and Safe Communities) by seeking to ensure that the County Council continues to represent the views of the local community at regional and national levels.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 The option of not responding to the consultation was rejected because to do so would mean a missed opportunity for the County Council to influence emerging Government policy on regional funding allocations.

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

9174Decn/SJ/EK