Archived decisions

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

With the concurrence of the Chairman under Section 100(b)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, this matter has been included on the agenda to ensure that the most up-to-date information is presented to Members.

1. Summary

1.1 The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) submitted Part One of the South East Plan to the Government in July 2005. Part One comprises the region-wide strategy and policies, including house building targets for each county area and for sub-areas of counties. Work is however outstanding on the apportionment of the sub-area house building targets between district council areas. Part Two comprises the sub-regional policies for the nine sub-regions which SEERA has defined, two of which cover parts of Hampshire. The sub-regional policies will focus on housing, employment and infrastructure, including transport.

1.2 In North Hampshire this work has been commissioned in respect of the wider Western Corridor/Blackwater Valley Sub-Region, though it is possible that the County Council may wish to submit its advice specifically in respect of North Hampshire. In South Hampshire the work has been commissioned from Hampshire County, Portsmouth City and Southampton City Councils, though, as previously agreed, this is being developed through the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire. All the above advice is required to be submitted to SEERA by 9 December 2005.

1.3 The District housing allocation issues and options have been subject to extensive consultation with stakeholders (through the "Where Shall We Live?" document) and with the general public through the Special `Hampshire Now' edition published in September. The consultation exercise closed on 21 October 2005.

1.4 This report summarises the technical and impact/appraisal work and consultations undertaken, and makes recommendations on the district-level house building figures and sub-regional policies to be submitted to SEERA.

2. Framework for District-Level Housing Figures

2.1 Last July SEERA submitted house building targets for county areas and sub-areas thereof to the Government. For Hampshire, including Portsmouth and Southampton, the figure is 6,100 per year, apportioned by SEERA as follows:

(i) South Hampshire (including Portsmouth and Southampton) - 4,000 new dwellings each year;

(ii) Central Hampshire and New Forest - 800 new dwellings per year; and

(iii) North Hampshire - 1,300 new dwellings per year.

3. Public Consultation Arrangements

3.1 SEERA and the county/unitary councils across the South East of England agreed to conduct the public consultation on a county-wide basis by publishing a single set of proposals for each county. SEERA provided very limited funds to the councils that they asked to lead the consultation process, which significantly limited the scope of the exercise without additional resources being provided by the councils themselves. In Hampshire, options were prepared for each of the three parts of the county, and were published in a single document called `Where Shall We Live?'.

3.2 About 5,000 copies of `Where Shall We Live?' were distributed across Hampshire, including Portsmouth and Southampton. Copies were sent to organisations, including statutory bodies, all district, parish and town councils, businesses, development interests and environmental groups, and to individuals who requested a copy. A reference copy was placed in each public library.

3.3 In addition a special edition of the County Council's magazine `Hampshire Now', exclusively dealing with this topic, was commissioned, funded and published by the County Council, and distributed to homes across the County Council's area. It was known that a copy may not reach every home because it was not possible to use the normal distribution arrangements, so steps were taken to promote the consultation through making copies available in public libraries, citizen advice bureaus, museums, GP surgeries, petrol stations and local shops. A bulk supply was also sent to every parish council with the offer of more if needed. It is acknowledged that the distribution was disappointing, and therefore additional measures were taken during the consultation process.

3.4 Use was made of the media to make people aware of the consultation. A briefing meeting was held for parish/town councils and one for social and environmental groups, together with two events for business people/organisations. Information was also made available on the web and a dedicated telephone helpline was open during normal office hours (with a voicemail at other times). In addition, district councils also undertook their own complementary activities/initiatives to further raise awareness and encourage responses, ranging from posting information on their web-sites to holding local public meetings.

4. Key Issues

Demographics

4.1 In parallel to the consultation, forecasts have been made of the future population. Overall, the population of Hampshire, including Portsmouth and Southampton, is forecast to rise by just under six percent between 2006 and 2026 assuming that house building proceeds at the rate currently envisaged by SEERA.

4.2 Taking account of the house building proposed in the options, the total population of Central Hampshire and New Forest in 2026 is forecast to be the same as now, while in North Hampshire the total population is forecast to increase by around 7%. These small forecast changes in population are despite the substantial amount of house building, reflecting the predicted fall in the average size of households. In South Hampshire, where more substantial housing development is proposed associated with the PUSH `steady rising growth' strategy, the total population is forecast to increase by around 7% from 2006-2026. This information is of key importance in respect of some aspects of future service and infrastructure provision planning, which is driven by population rather than housing numbers.

South Hampshire Technical Work

4.3 The issues and options in South Hampshire are more complex and three additional pieces of technical evaluation have been undertaken. The first is a strategic evaluation of the implications of the housing options for quality of life. This evaluation has been undertaken by consultants (Chris Blandford Associates) who were also commissioned to carry out an audit of the environmental and other constraints that could limit the amount of housing development that could be accommodated in each District, particularly through urban extensions. Officers of the South Hampshire authorities undertook an update of the estimates of urban capacity for housing prepared in 2004.

4.4 The appraisal has been unable to show that urban extensions will support the renaissance of the two cities and older urban areas to the extent expected from the Strategic Development Areas (SDAs) and urban capacity. The larger extensions are expected to offer new employment opportunities and could compete with both the SDAs and established areas unless managed. The proposed extension to Whiteley (common to all options) will, however, create an opportunity to develop a more sustainable community in this location.

4.5 In developing a preferred strategy it will be necessary to show how potentially adverse impacts identified in the Sustainability Appraisal proformas (or of sub-regional problems generally) will be mitigated. This will need to be tempered against how the future regional policy framework might be implemented in Hampshire in such a way that addresses the identified impact concerns (avoiding the need for mitigation).

North Hampshire Technical Issues

4.6 There are two strategically significant constraints which could limit development in North Hampshire, but the extent of the constraint is not yet certain:

(i) the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) which comprises a suite of sites in Hart and Rushmoor Districts designated under the European Habitats Directive as internationally important for several species of ground-nesting birds; and

(ii) secondly, the Environment Agency is concerned that further development at Basingstoke may increase the volume of discharged water to a level which does adversely impact on the ecological value of the River Loddon, constraining future development unless/until appropriate wastewater discharge arrangements can be made.

Proposed Aldershot/Farnborough/Camberley Regional Hub

4.7 In early summer SEERA put forward several new proposals for transport hubs where additional development would be located, and has asked for advice from the respective sub-regions on the merits of the proposals. One of the proposed new hubs is Aldershot/Farnborough/Camberley where SEERA believes there is scope for additional development, particularly on Ministry of Defence land which may be released for civilian redevelopment. The Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-Region Members' Steering Group has considered the proposed designation and resolved to strongly reject the proposal as inappropriate on three grounds:

(i) the designation would not accord with the South East Plan's definition of a `hub' (a single point where transport routes (spokes) converge and intersect);

(ii) there is no scope for development beyond that already put forward in the District-level housing options; and

(iii) Ministry of Defence land not already included in those District-level housing options would not be suitable for development.

5. Economic Development and Employment Land

5.1 The conclusion reached by the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-Region Members' Steering Group is that, across the sub-region as a whole, sites already available or in the planning pipeline for industrial and business development will be sufficient to cater for demand up to 2026. Whilst this may be true for other parts of the sub-region, separate forecasts undertaken for Hampshire County Council specifically for North Hampshire indicate that there is likely to be a significant gap between demand and current supply of employment land. Depending on the assumptions made - on which work is continuing - there could be a need for 40-60 hectares of additional land for employment purposes in North Hampshire. It is recommended that this view should be communicated to the next meeting of the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-Region Members' Steering Group on 30 November 2005, together with the advice that most of this should be allocated at Basingstoke.

5.2 For South Hampshire, the aim is to achieve higher rates of economic growth over the next 20 years and reduce the gap in economic performance compared to the region as a whole. Achieving this target will require new policy interventions and public initiatives by various regional and local agencies, including improvements to transport and telecommunications, training to up-skill the workforce, and making available suitable land and premises. Forecasts of the demand for sites for industrial and business development indicate that the existing supply of employment land will not be sufficient. New sites will need to be allocated for employment purposes if the aim of increased economic growth is to be achieved.

5.3 Additional technical work is needed to confirm and refine the figures; this will be undertaken early next year enabling further evidence to be provided at the time of public consultation on the South East Plan next summer.

5.4 It is therefore proposed that the County Council advice to SEERA in respect of employment land provision for North Hampshire, and for South Hampshire, should be based on the principles outlined above, and more fully detailed in Appendices 2 and 3.

6. Transport and Other Infrastructure

6.1 The need for improvements to the transport network is widely considered to be a high priority in addressing the growth agenda. Taking account of the problems brought about by previous under-investment and growth in demand for travel, an assessment has been made of the critical investment required to cater for growth in the two sub-regions. These sub-regional transport strategies would seek to enhance quality of life and economic prosperity by a package of measures designed to:

(i) reduce the need to travel;

(ii) improve accessibility to local services and facilities;

(iii) make best use of the existing transport network, through traffic management, variable speed limits and signing, junction improvements and better travel information for the public;

(iv) encourage shorter journeys within urban areas, utilising local public transport and park-and-ride;

(v) promote specific transport links (road and public transport) to address congestion hotspots and link the proposed SDAs and employment areas; and

(vi) support the continued sustainable growth of the sub-regional economy by improving long distance strategic corridors (road and rail) to cater for economically important journeys and serve the ports and airport.

6.2 The package of measures in the South Hampshire sub-region is estimated to cost in the region of £1.6 billion, whilst the North Hampshire elements of the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley sub-region are likely to cost in the order of £500 million. In each sub-region it will be necessary to identify a suitable delivery mechanism to coordinate implementation of the transport strategy across the many administrative boundaries. In South Hampshire the established Solent Transport partnership (now part of the PUSH arrangements) may provide a mechanism to be developed to support this function. Further details of the Transport strategies, including identification of significant proposed schemes, are set out in Appendix 4 of the report.

Other Infrastructure

6.3 At a region-wide level work was done by Roger Tym and Partners, but this is a very high level, and it is felt that more detailed local advice is required. It is difficult in some cases to be too specific at this stage of the development of the sub-regional strategy, since detailed scale, timing and the exact location of developments will not be determined until much later in the planning process, primarily through Local Development Frameworks, prepared by local planning authorities. Therefore, for some aspects of infrastructure provision, a local formula approach is recommended at this stage, rather than fully detailed proposals. This is however entirely consistent with the nature of the advice being sought. It does of course remain of paramount importance that the case for infrastructure funding continues to be made as the more detailed requirements are identified. It is also clear, from even the most cursory consideration of the emerging picture, that developer contributions alone cannot be expected to meet all the infrastructure needs; let alone help to address the backlog.

6.4 A full summary of the work done to date, for North and South Hampshire, is set out in Appendix 5 of this report. It is proposed that this should form the basis of the County Council's response to SEERA in respect of the "other infrastructure" requirements for the South East Plan in the relevant sub-regions.

7. Stakeholder Consultation Emerging Results

7.1 Some 950 responses have been received to the `Where Shall We Live?' stakeholder consultation document. These responses come from a variety of organisations and individuals, including parish councils, Government agencies, amenity and campaigning groups and development interests. The questionnaire itself was the same as that in `Hampshire Now', and included provision for multiple choice or `tick box' responses to a set of questions, but also provided a facility for any other comments in a free text box at the end of the questionnaire.

7.2 Some 860 respondents commented on the proposed options for District Housing allocations, but just over 100 respondents declined to express preferences but limited their submissions to the free text question.

7.3 The responses relating to each of the Hampshire sub areas are analysed and reported in detail, in the sub-regional housing allocation commentaries that are set out in Appendices 6, 7 and 8 (North Hampshire, Central Hampshire and South Hampshire respectively) of this report.

7.4 An extract of the questionnaire explaining the different options is attached as Appendix 9.

8. Public Consultation Emerging Results

8.1 The responses to the Hampshire Now Special have been analysed, though some additional analysis, further disaggregating responses below sub-regional level, is outstanding at the time of drafting this report. The sample size was down on the previous campaign, but with nearly 7,500 replies, once again a reasonable number of returns has been secured. This type of survey is not designed to produce a representative sample of the population, and over 80% of the respondees were aged over 45 (54% of the adult population of Hampshire is aged 45 and over) with no responses from anyone under 18. The majority of responses (55%) were from males (48% of the county's population is male) though the geographic distribution of respondents was close to the expected levels (comparing the share of the overall response from each District with its share of the overall population), although Rushmoor and Basingstoke had slightly lower than expected response rates and Fareham had a slightly higher one. At the sub-regional level, in North Hampshire, Basingstoke had more responses than expected, and Hart and Rushmoor fewer; there were no significant variances in Central Hampshire, while Havant had a lower response and Fareham a higher one in South Hampshire.

8.2 The residents responses relating to each of the Hampshire sub areas are analysed and reported in detail, in the sub-regional housing allocation commentaries that are set out in Appendices 6, 7 and 8 (North Hampshire, Central Hampshire and South Hampshire respectively) of this report. At the time of drafting this report, additional detailed analysis of the South Hampshire figures is still to be fully analysed and reported, and an update will be presented at the Cabinet meeting.

9. Sustainability Appraisal

9.1 A Sustainability Appraisal of all the South East Plan's emerging policies is being undertaken by consultants ERM for SEERA at each stage of plan preparation. This includes the options for District-level house building figures. To assist with the appraisal, SEERA has requested the county and unitary councils to complete a set of appraisal forms for each option and submit these along with the recommended housing figures. The appraisal forms for the options for house building in Hampshire have been completed by County Council officers in consultation with City/District Council officers in each sub area. The conclusions, which emerge from those appraisal forms, are summarised within the relevant appendix on housing figures attached to this report. This enables the County Council to take account of the findings of the appraisal before making its recommendations to SEERA; a failure to do this could leave the County Council's recommendations vulnerable to legal challenge.

9.2 The findings of the appraisal and the scoring against the 25 individual criteria must be treated with caution. Some of the criteria rely on the assessor taking a view on future behaviour patterns of residents or on national policy outcomes. For example the likelihood that development in one area compared with another will be more or less likely to encourage less private car use or greater educational attainment, must remain a largely subjective judgement. It must also be recognised that many of the factors identified in the criteria can only be indirectly influenced by the planning system. This does not justify dismissing the appraisal findings altogether; rather that the limitations of the appraisal process being used by SEERA must be recognised with the appraisal being just one factor to be considered in selecting the preferred option.

9.3 Reservations must be expressed over the robustness and integrity of the approach being followed by SEERA in preparing the Sustainability Appraisal. It is debatable whether it satisfies the relevant Regulations and at best represents the bare minimum that could be done. The approach of using identical criteria for assessing draft sub-regional policies for distinctively different sub-regions with different scales of development allocations and varying associated impacts can be questioned, together with the extent to which the results of the appraisal are actually leading to changes in the draft strategy and policies (the latter being in part also a consequence of the very fast timetable for plan preparation). Undertaking a sustainability appraisal to a satisfactory standard is a statutory requirement, so these shortcomings could leave the appraisal process and indeed the whole South East Plan open to legal challenge. It is recommended that SEERA be informed of these reservations.

10. Conclusions

10.1 The North Hampshire Authorities met with the County Council on 7 November, with PUSH meeting on 8 November and again on 1 December, and the Central Hampshire Authorities met with the County Council on 11 November. These meetings were primarily held to consider the consultation responses and to review the proposed options and preferences in the light of these responses and any other relevant additional information. Following the November meetings of these three Groupings, revised proposals have been drawn up for North and Central Hampshire, while further work is underway in respect of South Hampshire, prior to the PUSH meeting on 1 December. It is proposed that these revised and emerging proposals should now be given further consideration by the County Council, acknowledging that the South Hampshire position is still being reviewed at the time of drafting this report. In addition, the Inspector's report from the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan Inquiry was also published at the time this report was being finalised. It is therefore possible that further refinement may be required in respect of the North Hampshire proposed hybrid option, which will be reported at the Cabinet meeting.

North Hampshire

10.2 A new hybrid option is proposed, based on consultation Option 3, but allocating slightly more houses to Basingstoke (and slightly less in Hart) in recognition that Basingstoke is a regional transport hub. The South East Plan sees such hubs as appropriate locations for major development. This combination would mirror, and allow development of, current Local Plan allocations at Basingstoke. It represents a compromise between the preferences of the three Borough/District Councils, recognising that the sum of their preferences falls short of the overall house building target for North Hampshire. A joint meeting of Executive Members of the County and three Borough/District Councils on 7 November 2005 acknowledged the preferences expressed by the three Borough/District Councils but also recognised that the County Council needed to submit a set of figures for North Hampshire which summed to SEERA's overall total for the area. The emerging proposed hybrid option was explained to the authorities at this meeting. The new hybrid option, and the context which led to its development are fully detailed in Appendix 6 of this report, but the annual housing totals would be as set out below:

Basingstoke and Deane (part) 795 pa

Hart (part) 195 pa

Rushmoor 310 pa

10.3 An allocation of 310 per annum for Rushmoor Borough would be in line with the Borough Council's wishes and is the figure for the Borough most favoured by North Hampshire residents, Parish and Town Councils, and development interests. It would acknowledge the potential constraint of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area by allowing additional land to be earmarked, if necessary, for recreational open space and correspondingly less for house building within the masterplan for the Aldershot Urban Extension.

10.4 195 per annum for Hart District would represent a compromise between the 160 sought by the District Council and the 280 favoured by Parish/Town Councils, development interests and North Hampshire residents. It would mean a halving of the recent rate of house building and would require no new land to be earmarked for housing beyond that in the existing Local Plan.

10.5 795 per year in Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council would be closer to Option 3 than Options 1 and 2; Option 3 being that favoured by the Borough Council, residents, Parish/Town Councils and development interests. Unlike 710 per annum, the figure of 795 would allow development, within timeframe of the South East Plan, of the land identified for development in the draft Borough Local Plan. However the Inspector's recommendations to limit the plan's proposals to an end date of 2011 remove the provision identified for the period up to 2016 within the local plan. If the Inspector's recommendations are accepted by the Borough Council, then the Local Development Framework would need to include provision for a greenfield urban extension of Basingstoke to ensure an adequate supply of housing land. In order to ensure that this land would be well served with infrastructure and as sustainable as possible, it may be necessary to identify a larger area than needed to meet the allocation of 710 hours per annum, which would not necessarily be expected to be fully developed within the plan period.

Central Hampshire and New Forest

10.6 Following analysis of the consultation responses a new hybrid option has been developed, sharing the development amongst all Districts, but with an increased amount of house building at Andover and correspondingly less in East Hampshire District. In addition, it is necessary to allow for the implementation of existing planning permissions and other infilling within settlements in the Odiham/North Warnborough area which was transferred to Central Hampshire and New Forest from the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-Region after the consultation options were drawn up. If Ministry of Defence land becomes available at Whitehill/Bordon, then development would be proposed on a larger scale than the current provision for the Central Hampshire area. Therefore this would be advanced as an addition to the current "residual Hampshire" planning total of 800 dwellings per annum. This approach would be in line with the preferences expressed by stakeholders, residents and the Borough/District Councils. It was endorsed by a joint meeting of Executive Members of the County and Borough/District Councils held on 11 November 2005. On the above basis, the 2,000 dwellings would be shared as follows:

Basingstoke and Deane (part) 100

East Hampshire (part) 200

Hart (part) 100

New Forest (part) 100

Test Valley (part) 1,000

Winchester (part) 500

10.7 Subsequent to the joint Member meeting referred to above, updated information has become available on the supply of land already earmarked for house building. This erodes the 2,000 dwellings for which it was thought that new greenfield sites would be needed; the revised figure is 700. The updated figures show an increase in land supply in most Districts; a distribution which is in line with the preferred option above. The updated figures mean that nearly all the new housing required by the preferred option could be accommodated on sites already allocated for development in adopted/draft Local Plans or within the estimates of urban capacity. The preferred option would require two Boroughs - Basingstoke and Deane and Test Valley - to identify additional greenfield land for development when they prepare their Local Development Frameworks.

10.8 SEERA requires that the figures for each District be submitted as house building provision per annum. Translating the figures above into that format means the following dwellings per annum:

Basingstoke and Deane (part) 30

East Hampshire (part) 200

Hart (part) 5

New Forest (part) 130

Test Valley (part) 250

Winchester (part) 185

Total 800

South Hampshire

10.9 The position with South Hampshire is more complex. Within the consultation, three components of the growth strategy were independently tested, and there was no clear consensus on the preferred approach among consultees. At the time of drafting this report further work is underway on the development of one or more possible hybrid options to address some of the emerging issues and preferences from the consultation, and the updated technical work. The consultation results also require further analysis in order to gain a proper understanding of the responses, and to consider an appropriate response. An update on the South Hampshire position will be reported to the Cabinet meeting.

11. Next Steps

11.1 After this meeting, the final County Council advice to SEERA will be considered at its meeting on 8 December. The advice must be submitted to SEERA by 9 December. SEERA will then consider the sub-regional submissions during the early part of 2006, before submitting the remainder of the South East Plan to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by 31 March 2006. The Plan will subsequently be formally placed on deposit for a final round of consultation before the public examination, probably early in 2007.

Recommendations

The Cabinet recommends that the County Council should:

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

2. 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;

3. 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;

4. approve the proposals for the distribution of District Housing numbers in North Hampshire set out in Appendix 6 of the report, as the basis of its advice to SEERA;

5. approve the proposals for the distribution of District Housing numbers in Central Hampshire set out in Appendix 7 of the report, as the basis of its advice to SEERA; and

6. approve the proposals for 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, as the basis of its advice to SEERA, subject to any additional considerations following the consideration of these matters by PUSH on 1 December 2005.

9322Rpt/SJ