AT A MEETING of the CABINET of HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at The Castle, Winchester on Monday 28 November 2005.

Chairman:

p Councillor T.K. Thornber, CBE

Councillors:

a Mrs P.G. Banks p T.G. Knight

p C.R.H. Davidovitz p R. Perry

p J.K. Glen p Mrs M.D. Snaith

p Felicity Hindson, MBE p M.J. Woodhall

p D.A. Kirk

Also present: F.G. Allgood, JP; Mrs E.M. Byrom; K.G. Chapman; M.G. Cooper; B.D. Dash; Dr. R.J. Ellis; Mrs C.A. Leversha; Mrs P.G. Peskett; J.K. West

64. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were noted from Councillor Mrs Banks who was attending an NHS Trust Board meeting on behalf of the County Council.

65. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were mindful that, where they believe they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should normally at the time of the debate, declare their interest, and, having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed.

66. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2005 were confirmed as a correct record.

67. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

The Chairman reported that he had been given notice by Councillor Allgood that he wished to speak on Item 6 of the agenda.

68. SOUTH EAST PLAN: SUB-REGIONAL POLICY ADVICE TO THE SOUTH EAST ENGLAND REGIONAL ASSEMBLY

Councillor Perry requested, for the purpose of clarity, that the official record show that he did not have friends in the building industry, or indeed have any personal connections to that industry, as had been reported in the House of Commons (Hansard).

The Cabinet considered the report of the Director of Environment (Item 6 in the Minute Book) setting out the proposed final sub-regional policy advice to the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) in respect of the South East Plan. The Deputy Director of Environment circulated supplementary information that had not been available at the time the report was published as part of the agenda papers. This comprised a revised decision sheet; replacement appendix 3; replacement page 32 to appendix 6; additional information to appendix 8 (further analysis of residents' consultation responses and advice on South Hampshire housing distribution); new appendix 10 on sub-regional policies, and a briefing note detailing the potential impacts on National Parks.

In amplifying the supplementary information and the main report, the Deputy Director of Environment brought the key issues to the Cabinet's attention, including details of the technical appraisal work that had been undertaken and the outcome of the extensive consultation with stakeholders and the general public.

Councillor Allgood was invited to speak at this point of the proceedings.

During the course of the ensuing discussion, the Cabinet expressed strong concern that:-

_ the amount, density and type of housing proposed could have a detrimental effect on the quality of life for the communities of Hampshire and this was not acceptable;

_ strategic gaps, which were viewed as absolutely essential, must be retained;

_ it was paramount that adequate funding from central Government be available to support the infrastructure necessary for the proposed level of house-building, and this should take into account the current deficit on transport systems and the road network;

_ reduced Government funding was being made available for major transport schemes such as the Chickenhall Lane Link Road, Stubbington By-Pass and Botley By-Pass, all of which were currently on hold, thus exacerbating the infrastructure concerns;

_ for areas already suffering chronic congestion, such as Gosport, the infrastructure concerns that have already been raised must be adequately addressed; members were of the view that the introduction of congestion charging is not the way forward;

_ a decision was still awaited on the Light Rapid Transit scheme submitted to the Government as a means of tackling the congestion situation in Gosport and the surrounding area, and this was very disappointing;

_ the outcome of the public consultation exercise clearly demonstrated that the people of Hampshire have real concerns about the proposed development set out in SEERA's plans for Hampshire;

_ the `broad brush' approach by SEERA for the whole of the South East was not working and that proposed solutions, which were unacceptable, should not be thrust upon Hampshire;

_ adequate recreational space must be provided in new development, taking account of the potential additional pressures on the National Park(s) from proposed development

In conclusion of a full discussion, the Cabinet agreed amendments to the proposed recommendations and the substantive decision sheet is attached to these minutes as Appendix 1. These recommendations would be submitted to a meeting of the County Council to be held on 8 December 2005. It was also noted that the Western Corridor/Blackwater Valley Sub-Regional Group would meet on 30 November 2005, followed by a meeting of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) on 2 December 2005. Any significant developments arising from these meetings will be reported at County Council.

69. LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE AGREEMENT (LPSA) 2

The Cabinet considered the report of the Chief Executive (Item 7 in the Minute Book), which reviewed progress to date with LPSA2 and the timescale for negotiating and signing off the agreement with the Government. In expanding on the report, the Chief Executive advised that the County Council had been able to design the targets to meet local needs and therefore anticipated significant achievement. During the course of answering the Cabinet's specific questions, the Chief Executive confirmed that a list detailing the lead officer for each of the targets was available and would be circulated separately.

During the course of the ensuing discussion, the Cabinet welcomed the opportunities that the LPSA2 presented, such as to engage even more with the agenda for 16-19 year olds, but expressed concern in respect of some of the target indicators such as free school meals which was not considered to be a good form of measurement.

In conclusion, the Cabinet agreed the report's recommendations in principle subject to detailed consideration of the final targets in January 2006. Accordingly, a revised decision sheet is attached to these minutes as Appendix 2.

70. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION - POLICY FRAMEWORK

The Cabinet considered the report of the Chief Executive (Item 8 in the Minute Book) detailing a proposed change to the County Council's Constitution in order to update the list of plans and strategies that form the Council's current policy framework. The Cabinet adopted the proposed recommendation for submission to the County Council on 8 December 2005.

Hampshire County Council Amended

Decision sheet

Cabinet Appendix 1

28 November 2005

South East England: Final Sub-Regional Policy Advice to the South East England Regional Assembly

Report of the Director of Environment

Contact: Stuart Jarvis, ext 6124, email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions were made in respect of the County Council's role in advising the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) on its development of the South East Plan, distributing the sub-regional housing totals allocated by SEERA between District Council areas.

That the Cabinet recommends that the County Council should:

_ note that the County Council no longer has any statutory duty to prepare a Strategic Plan to set the framework for the development of the County of Hampshire, and that this is now the responsibility of the unelected South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) through its Regional Plan;

_ note that the advice offered is based upon a widespread consultation exercise with the public of Hampshire to which more than 7,000 replies were received;


_ note that the County Council in respect of the planned development in the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Area (PUSH) does not believe that the planned level of growth in that sub-region's GVA is sustainable;

_ note that without substantial commitment from central Government as to infrastructure funding, development in Hampshire cannot be achieved and in particular, draw attention to the deficit in transport systems and road networks;


_ affirm that Hampshire County Council has met its statutory obligations under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and at the request of SEERA, has provided advice on the allocation of SEERA's housing totals between Districts in Hampshire. The County Council has facilitated this process and worked closely with District and Unitary Councils in Hampshire, including facilitating an extensive local consultation process. This is now submitted to SEERA on the basis that Hampshire County Council advises that the following is the outcome of this process conducted on behalf of SEERA, but that the County Council reserves its own position:

(i) note the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal work to date (summarised in Appendix 1) and reflect this consideration in determining its advice to SEERA;

(ii) submit sub-regional advice to SEERA in respect of employment, transport and other infrastructure, for North and South Hampshire, based on the principles set out in the report (including the Appendices 2, 3, 4 and 5), accompanied by relevant technical work reports;


(iii) object to SEERA in respect of its proposed Aldershot/Farnborough/ Camberley regional hub on the grounds set out in Section 6 of the report, and that the County Council fully endorses the stance of the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub Regional Steering Group on this matter:

(iv) submit to SEERA advice on the distribution of District Housing numbers in North Hampshire set out in Appendix 6 of the report;

(v) submit to SEERA advice on the distribution of District Housing numbers in Central Hampshire set out in Appendix 7 of the report;

(vi) submit to SEERA advice on the distribution of District Housing numbers in South Hampshire, tabled at the Cabinet meeting, in the context of the information set out in Appendix 8 of the report, subject to any additional considerations following discussion of these matters by PUSH on 1 December 2005; and

(vii) submit appropriate sub-regional policy advice to SEERA based on the principles set out in Appendix 10.

2. Reason

2.1 This decision supports Aims 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Corporate Strategy (Maximising life opportunities, Stewardship of the Environment, Achieving Economic Prosperity and Building strong and safe communities) by setting out proposals for the long-term spatial planning framework to guide the management of development and change in the county's environment, economy, infrastructure and communities over the next 20 years.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 To provide partial or no further sub-regional advice to SEERA, which was rejected as it would be in breach of the County Council's and Unitary authorities statutory duties and responsibilities, and would deny a full Hampshire input to the development by SEERA and the Government of the long-term sub-regional planning framework for the area.

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, CBE

9322Decn(Rev)/SJ

Contact: Jill Lovelock, ext 7591, email: [email protected]
Paddy Hillary, ext. 7391, email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report reviews the progress to date with the LPSA2 and the timescale for
negotiating and signing off the agreement with Government.

1.2 The following decision is sought:

That the Cabinet support the formal submission and arrangements for
concluding the agreement, in principle subject to detailed consideration of the final targets in January 2006.

2. Reason

2.1 The County Council has been working with partners to identify priority areas for action and stretch targets of performance to form the submission for a second round Local Public Service Agreement for Hampshire.

3. Other options considered and rejected: Not applicable.

4. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker or a member or officer consulted - Not applicable.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standard's Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:
Councillor T.K. Thornber, CBE

Contact: Debbie Vaughan, ext no 7330, email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the Cabinet recommend to the County Council an amendment to the Constitution in respect of Part 1, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.01 (c) in order to specify the plans and strategies that form the County Council's current policy framework, as detailed in the attached appendix.

2. Reason

2.1 The above proposed amendment reflects changes in legislation and the County Council's Comprehensive Performance Assessment rating as `excellent'. The matter was considered by the Governance Committee on 27 October 2005 (report attached as an appendix).

3. Other options considered and rejected

3.1 Not to update the Constitution.

4. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker or other Executive Member consulted - none.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - none.

6. Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent - none.

Approved by: ..................................... Date: ...................................

Councillor T.K. Thornber, CBE