Hampshire County Council Cabinet 28 November 2005 South East Plan: Final Sub-Regional Policy Advice to the South East England Regional Assembly Supplementary Paper on Appendix 8 (Advice on South Hampshire housing distribution) Report of the Director of Environment

Item 6

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

1. Towards a housing distribution for South Hampshire

1.1 This Supplementary Paper draws together the many strands of work set out in the main report (Item 6) to propose a housing distribution for South Hampshire . This Paper is also due to be considered by PUSH Leaders when they meet on 1 December 2005.

1.2 To date, debate has been on the total amount of new housing to be planned for in each local planning authority area, implying a single figure for the rate of housebuilding over the 20 years of the South East Plan. This paper puts forward the concept of submitting to the Assembly, figures for housebuilding in each authority's area for each of the 5 year periods covered by the Plan. This would have a number of advantages and also resolve some difficult issues.

1.3 In order to more accurately reflect the uncertainty over the detailed scale and location of each SDA, it is proposed that they should form separate allocations in the Sub Regional Strategy, rather than be artificially factored into the District allocations at this stage. The SDA allocations would have a footnote to explain that work will be progressed on developing the concept further, and identify the relevant authorities who would participate in this work.

1.4 The strategy for South Hampshire is rooted in urban renaissance and regeneration. It is clear from that the "urban capacity" element of the new housing and employment provision is the most directly appropriate component of the overall land supply in policy terms. In recognition of the new urban capacity figures now available, which show an increase for most Districts, it is proposed to identify a minimum greenfield figure, rather than an overall target/allocation for each District and the two SDAs making it clear that this will be dependent on urban capacity delivery. It is considered that this is a robust, responsible and pragmatic approach, reflecting the core policy approach of "plan, monitor, manage".

1.5 The advantages of this approach are that it would:

· Reflect PUSH's approach of presenting the overall strategy in 5 year phases;

· Make explicit that the contribution from each District will vary over the 20 years of the Plan;

· Allow PUSH's overall strategy of `steady rising growth' to be reflected more transparently in housing provision, including the element of frontloading of provision of new housing in order to clear the backlog of housing need and to provide housing to support the forecast increase in employment;

· Dovetail in with SEERA's requirement that infrastructure provision must be split into 5 year blocks and enable clear links to be made between provision of key elements of infrastructure in particular 5 year time periods and the release of housing land in that same or subsequent 5 year period;

· Provide clearer guidance to LDFs which may cover only part of the 20 year period;

· Avoid a situation which could occur where developers during LDF preparation and public inquiries, argue that additional land must be allocated in the early years to meet the average annual figure for the whole 20 years. This is particularly relevant in those Districts containing an SDA.

· Finally it would more accurately reflect the current state of knowledge and development of the SDAs, for which significant further work is required to be completed before realistic detailed figures can be produced and distributed between Districts.

1.6 There are however three significant issues associated with this approach:-

· Estimates of urban capacity in the two cities have gone down significantly in the latest review from the previous higher range figures. It was considered that the original figures should continue to be used for the cities, and the new figures and assumptions for the cities further audited and reviewed to identify further opportunities. To accept significantly lower figures for the cities will increase the call on greenfield land, and fundamentally therefore bring the PUSH philosophy into question. Southampton City Council does not support the retention of the highest urban capacity figure for the city. (see 2.4 below)

· The residents and Stakeholder survey responses indicated a clear preference for lower urban capacity figures. Further analysis is indicating that this preference is stronger in the main urban areas than the outer areas of PUSH (note that no data is available for the cities). The difficulty of adopting lower figures for urban potential are firstly that it weakens and undermines the urban focus of the strategy and secondly, that it is at variance with Government policy. There is a strong possibility that higher estimates would be included at a later stage in plan preparation. PUSH needs to understand in more detail the concerns held by respondents and seek to address them in the delivery of the strategy, particularly the design of individual schemes.

· The sustainability appraisal highlighted a number of concerns regarding further urban intensification, including increased flood risk in low lying coastal areas, potential loss of open space and biodiversity. These issues need to be considered further by PUSH as the strategy is developed. A higher housing figure for Southampton would resolve a concern identified in the appraisal that the city would not provide sufficient homes to meet the needs of its population. A similar issue for Totton and the Waterside would however remain and would probably mean that some of this area's future needs being met elsewhere - most likely in neighbouring Southampton or Southern Test Valley.

Proposed Distribution

2.1 Table 1 below shows a distribution based on the approach outlined above. Figures for the periods 2006 - 11 and 2011 - 16 are fixed and would be used to inform the preparation of Local Development Frameworks. One noticeable feature is that total supply 2006 -11 (23,000) is about 29% of the total is estimated at over 23,000 dwellings. This `frontloading' of housing development fits well with the proposal to increase GVA in the early years mainly through increasing employment. This level of housebuilding should also go some way to addressing the current backlog in housing that PUSH has identified.

2.2 There is considerable uncertainty over the amount of development that could be expected to come forward in the urban areas post 2016, particularly within Southampton and Portsmouth. In the event that urban potential is not realised any shortfall would have to be re-distributed within the other authorities within each sub-area. More detailed work is also required to develop the SDA concept further. Masterplanning needs to be undertaken, led by the districts directly affected (Fareham, Eastleigh and Winchester) and the County Council, working with others to fully scope the potential within the areas of search. PUSH will continue to refine its work in this area. For these reasons target figures are given for the period 2016 - 2026 and will require further testing as the strategy develops.

2.3 Table 2 below shows the same overall figures in Table 1 sub-divided into contributions from commitments, urban capacity and new greenfield developments. About 62% of the new homes are expected to be built on previously developed land - slightly above the Government's target of 60%.

2.4 Since the preparation of the report, Southampton City Council have now advised that the Urban Capacity estimate for the city should not exceed 14,5000 units, primarily in response to the decision of ABP to withdraw from the proposaed Royal Pier development project.

2.5 Adopting this lower figure for Southampton would result in a shortfall of 1,800 units. To be consistent with the policy of retaining the existing balance between east and west for the sub region this would need to be made up through additional Greenfield allocations in Test Valley, New Forest or Eastleigh. This could be accommodated within the options consulted upon in `Where shall we Live', but would be contrary to the stated performances of the authorities concerned.

Recommendations

The Cabinet recommends that the County Council should:

1. Submit to SEERA the distribution of District Housing numbers in South Hampshire set out in Table 1

Table 1 Proposed distribution for South Hampshire 2006 - 2026, by phasing period

	2006-11	2011-16	2016 - 21*	2021 - 2026*	Total
New Forest	600	500	219	219	1,538
Test Valley	650	2,750	255	255	3,910
Southampton	7,150	1,950	3,600	3,600	16,300
Eastleigh	3,400	1,900	891	892	7,083
North East/North of Hedge End SDA	0	0	2,600	3,400	6,000
Winchester	1,400	3,800	1,044	245	6,489
Fareham	1,700	1,100	407	407	3,614
Fareham SDA	0	0	5,000	5,000	10,000
Gosport	1,400	500	583	582	3,065
Portsmouth	4,650	2,950	3,550	3,550	14,700
East Hampshire	350	600	75	75	1,100
Havant	1,800	2,950	726	725	6,201
Total	23,100	19,000	18,950	18,950	80,000

* target figures, reflecting uncertainty over realisation of urban potential, especially within Southampton and Portsmouth

Table 2 Proposed distribution for South Hampshire 2006 - 2026, by source of supply

Districts	Large site Commitments1	Urban capacity	New greenfield	Total
New Forest	608	930	0	1,538
Test Valley	411	1,000	2,500	3,911
Southampton	3,496	12,804	0	16,300
Eastleigh	2,709	3,374	1,000	7,083
North-east/North of Hedge End SDA	0	0	6,000	6,000
Winchester	1,648	1,056	3,784	6,488
Fareham	1,774	1,840	0	3,614
Fareham SDA	0	0	10,000	10,000
Portsmouth	3,052	11,648	0	14,700
Gosport	1,141	1,924	0	3,065
East Hampshire	15	585	500	1,100
Havant	1,491	3,210	1,500	6,201
Total	16,345	38,371	25,284	80,000