APPENDIX 8

HOUSING PROVISION IN SOUTH HAMPSHIRE

Overall House Building Target Set by SEERA for this Sub Area

4,000 new homes per year 2006-2026.

On the basis of this new housebuilding and the predicted fall in the average size of households, it is forecast that the population of South Hampshire will increase by around 7%.

Consultation Options

The consultation for South Hampshire was more complicated, reflecting the more detailed spatial strategy work done by PUSH. The survey sought stakeholder responses on three separate issues:

(i) the overall proposed share of development being met from brownfield urban sites;

(ii) the proposed SDAs (around 9,000 dwellings, employment, transport links and community facilities on new greenfield sites) north of Fareham and north/north-east of Hedge End; and

(iii) the distribution pattern of the remaining 12,500 dwellings in urban extensions for which three different options were proposed as follows:

Responses to Consultation

Question 1 Do you think the 38,000 additional dwellings proposed on previously used land within the cities and towns is too little, about right, too much?

Parish and Town Councils

Parish and town councils across the county as a whole generally thought that the proposed figure was too much. The message from those within South Hampshire was less strong, within almost equal weighting given to the other two choices.

Stakeholders

Environmental, amenity and social groups, and development interests also thought that the proposed figure was too high.

Key Agencies

The main concern to come from key agencies was the calculations behind the Urban Capacity. English Nature stress the need to incorporate the provision of green infrastructure, through retention of existing green space and the provision of new green space, into any urban capacity calculations. This also applies to the extent of land at risk from coastal flooding and concerns regarding coastal squeeze and managed realignment. They also reiterate the need to pay consideration of all sites of high nature conservation value within South Hampshire's urban environments. The Environment Agency also raised concerns that some previously developed land was low lying and would be at increased risk of flooding as a consequence of the predicted rise in sea level.

Residents

The majority (56%) of Hampshire residents feel that a further 38,000 houses on brownfield sites in South Hampshire is too much. Interestingly, there is no obvious preference between rural or suburban residents for or against this housing figure in South Hampshire, perhaps reflecting the view that the overall figure is slightly less important than where those numbers will actually be located.

This is reinforced by the fact that 63% of South Hampshire responses felt the figure was too high. Those people who do not live in the South Hampshire area were less interested in providing a view on the options (1/3 of North Hampshire residents choosing don't know/not sure). This demonstrates that those who actually live in urban South Hampshire are understandably more concerned at the level of development proposed in their area.

Borough/District Council Preferences

Whilst there was general support for the current estimate it was clear that a higher figure would also receive widespread support. The only note of caution came from Gosport which did not support proposals to build family homes above supermarkets or car parks as this does not improve quality of life.

Question 2 To what extent do you support the proposal for a SDA within Fareham Borough?

Parish and Town Councils

Parish and town councils across the county as a whole generally supported the proposed SDA. Two-thirds of those within South Hampshire also indicated their support.

Stakeholders

The majority of environmental, amenity and social groups were either supportive or very supportive of this proposal. This was in marked contrast to the views of development interests who were more evenly split.

Key Agencies

The Environment Agency (EA) considers that the creation of Strategic Development Areas of the scale proposed has the potential to be more sustainable than a number of smaller extensions to smaller urban areas, whilst Southern Water support the concept as it minimises the cost of providing the necessary infrastructure.

The EA and Highways Agency were both concerned that it will result in increased pressure on the M27. Encouraging people to use public transport is as much about changing attitudes and lifestyles as providing physical infrastructure, and this is something that needs to be considered, and every effort should be made to providing viable alternatives to the public car, and alternative means of accessing Portsmouth and Southampton.

English Nature is concerned that development at the north of Fareham location is `leapfrogging' the M27, and potentially having a detrimental effect upon the character and functioning of the countryside north of the motorway. As a result they urge the County Council and PUSH to seek specialist advice from landscape colleagues, both in-house and at the Countryside Agency when assessing these implications. Portsmouth Water believes that development at this site would also require additional mains supply, but owing to the sites close proximity to existing infrastructure, this should not be a problem.

Residents

There is broadly more support for a Fareham SDA than there are objections. However, those in South Hampshire are evenly split in their view on it, but Central Hampshire residents seem more keen to see this option taken up (57% supportive, to the 17% who are against).

Borough/District Council Preferences

Fareham and three other councils indicated their support for the proposal, subject to some caveats - notably provision of infrastructure and the adoption of a `Plan, Monitor and Manage' approach to the delivery of the strategy for South Hampshire. Only Winchester indicated major reservations, including loss of countryside, landscape intrusion and traffic impact. It proposed a smaller SDA augmented by extensions elsewhere in Fareham Borough.

Question 3 To what extent do you support the proposal for an SDA to the north-east of Hedge End?

Parish and Town Councils

Parish and town councils across the county as a whole generally supported the proposed SDA. Just under two-thirds of those within South Hampshire also indicated their support.

Stakeholders

The majority of environmental, amenity and social groups were either supportive or very supportive of this proposal. This was in marked contrast to the views of development interests who were more evenly split.

Key Agencies

Many agencies raised similar concerns to the Fareham SDA (see above). In addition, Portsmouth Water noted that although the SDA is outside its area of supply, it is crossed by a mains pipe, so it would be possible to supply the site using the mains, although the economics of supplying the site would depend on the outcome of the review of abstraction licences on the River Itchen, but at this point it believes that this can be done.

In terms of sewage treatment and water quality Southern Water has initially identified no constraints to development, but precise assessment is only possible once location, scope and timing of development is known.

Residents

There is broadly more support for a Hedge End SDA than there are objections. Again, those in South Hampshire are evenly split in their view on it, but Central Hampshire residents are more keen to see this option taken up (54% supportive, to the 22% against).

Borough/District Council Preferences

Three councils indicated their support for this proposal. However, both Eastleigh and Winchester Councils were unable to support the proposal. Neither thought that sufficient work had been done to justify the size or location of the proposal. Winchester put forward various alternatives including reducing its size, relocating it to the west of Hedge End or having more urban extensions serving the west of the sub-region instead.

Question 4 Which option do you support for locating the around 12,500 new homes proposed on greenfields elsewhere?

Parish and Town Councils

Parish and town councils across the county favoured Option C, with Options B and A competing for second place. This is in marked contrast to the views of parish and town councils within South Hampshire, who preferred Option A, followed by C then B.

Stakeholders

The environmental, amenity and social groups collectively favoured Option B, with A and C competing for second place. Development interests supported Option A, followed by C and B.

Key Agencies

Both the Environment Agency and English Nature are concerned that the effects of proposed development over the Emer Bog Special Area of Conservation which lies between North Baddesley, Romsey and Valley Park, has not been fully appreciated. Any urban extension in this area needs to avoid adverse impacts on this SAC.

English Nature is also concerned that the areas North of Whiteley and extension to the West of Waterlooville Major Development Area are areas characterised by attractive and ecologically rich landscapes and they strongly advise that the sustainability of such extensions be tested.

Portsmouth Water is concerned over the proposals for urban extensions at Havant (Leigh Park). The proposed reservoir site at Havant Thicket needs to be respected, as well as the Country Park and the new pipeline infrastructure between the reservoir and Havant and Bedhampton springs. However, English Nature accepts that an urban extension in this location, dependent on infrastructure, could offer potential for regeneration of the area and improve people's quality of life.

English Nature welcomes the recognition that only a modest amount of new greenfield development is appropriate in East Hampshire and New Forest, but is concerned that any development in New Forest will inevitably result in indirect impacts on the National Park. Consequently, English Nature is seriously concerned about options A and B, that promote greenfield development in the vicinity of the New Forest. It also queries whether urban extensions in East Hampshire will contribute to PUSH's vision for regenerating the older areas in the sub-region.

Residents' Preferences

The response to this question gave no absolute preference; there was a slightly higher support overall (27%) for option C (concentration of housing near Waterlooville and Whiteley), followed by slightly less support for option A (20%). More significantly, the support for option A and C was very evenly split in South Hampshire, but with more support for option C from Central Hampshire residents.

Borough/District Council Preferences

Only those authorities with urban extensions proposed gave a view. With the exception of Havant all preferred the one which contained lowest option for their area (A for Winchester, B for east Hampshire and C for Test Valley and New Forest). Havant supported option A (its highest option) and objected strongly to options B and C.

Main findings of the Sustainability Appraisal

Use of previously developed land

Development within the urban areas will not in itself provide sufficient housing to meet PUSH strategy vision/objectives. Achieving strategy objectives will be dependent upon a combination of urban capacity, SDAs and urban extensions.

The implications of the re-use of urban land for housing will require careful planning having regard to sustainability issues such as the impacts on the transport network and flood risk. The latter is a particular issues for low lying urban areas which will be at increased risk of flooding as a consequence of predicted sea level rise, unless flood defences are enhanced.

Further development within the towns and cities may threaten local biodiversity and put pressure on some facilities (eg open space). It also puts pressure on water resources and infrastructure unless efficiencies are made in both new development and the wider housing stock.

Fareham and Hedge End SDAs

A more detailed assessment is required once the boundary of the SDA have been identified.

Irrespective of the specific locations, past experience suggests that it will be a significant challenge to create and sustain vibrate communities where none have previously existed. Opportunities to be more water and energy efficient must be taken and behavioural change in travel patterns secured through appropriate and timely investment. The challenge to achieve social cohesion and integration should not be underestimated.

The SDAs will also require careful planning to ensure that local biodiversity is enhanced and not lost as a consequence of development.

The SDAs must be developed in tandem with a programme of urban renaissance to ensure that they complement rather than compete with established urban areas.

Urban Extensions

The absence of specific development locations has resulted in much of the assessment being caveated. A further assessment will need to be undertaken once specific development locations have been identified.

These options score particularly poorly compared with the other options on sustainable travel objectives. Although many urban extensions can be located within walking or cycling of key services and facilities, most are likely to be too small to create opportunities in modal shift from private to public transport. On the other hand, higher scales of development are likely to create a fragmented distribution pattern giving rise to increasingly complex travel patterns and more trips by car, for which public transport alternatives may not be viable.

Option C also performs less well generally since in spatial terms it would provide the least benefits (eg affordable housing provision) to the western part of the sub-region as opposed to both options A and B. The change in emphasis would not only be housing but also employment related development, which are also planned for the larger urban extensions.

However, because option C concentrates development in two very large urban extensions there will be a greater prospect of securing investment in public transport to serve them than is likely under the other two options

The total amount of housing proposed for Totton and the Waterside (through urban capacity and urban extensions) is unlikely to meet the future housing needs of people living within these areas under all three options.

Urban extensions will require careful planning at the LDF stage to ensure that local biodiversity is enhanced and not lost as a consequence of development

Preferred Option

The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire has yet to formulate a view on its preferred option. A further report will be tabled at the meeting on this subject.

South Hampshire: Public Consultation Results

Stakeholders views on urban capacity

Do you think the 38,000 additional dwellings proposed on previously developed land within the cities and towns is ...?

Residents views on urban capacity

Do you think the 38,000 additional dwellings proposed on previously developed land within the cities and towns is ...?

Stakeholders views on Fareham SDA

To what extent to you support the proposal for a Strategic Development Area within Fareham Borough?

Residents views on Fareham SDA

To what extent to you support the proposal for a Strategic Development Area within Fareham Borough?

Stakeholders views on Hedge End SDA

To what extent to you support the proposal for a Strategic Development Area to the north-east of Hedge End?

Residents views on Hedge End SDA

To what extent to you support the proposal for a Strategic Development Area to the north-east of Hedge End?

Stakeholders Views on Urban Extensions

Which option do you support for locating around 12,500 new homes proposed on greenfields elsewhere?

Residents Views on Urban Extensions

Which option do you support for locating around 12,500 new homes proposed on greenfields elsewhere?