Archived decisions

Contact: Stuart Roberts, ext 6782 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Individuals and organisations have been invited to make representations on the draft South East Plan which has been submitted to Government by the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA). This report recommends the representations which should be made by the County Council. They focus on three key themes: the amount of development proposed; infrastructure provision; sustainable development and quality of life. Some of the proposed representations are in support of various policies in the draft Plan; others seek amendments to the document.

1.2 Issues arising from the representations made by all parties will be discussed at an informal public inquiry called an Examination-in-Public (EiP) during winter 2006/07. Selected issues only will be discussed and participation will be by invitation. It is proposed that the County Council should state its wish to participate in the EiP.

1.3 A draft list of the issues and participants will be published on 31 August 2006, with four weeks for comments.

2. Background

2.1 The South East Plan is the inaugural Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South East of England. It will set the amount and broad location of new urban development over the next 20 years. It will identify the new transport and other infrastructure which is needed, and will conserve the natural and built environment. When finalised, the South East Plan will supersede the County Structure Plans in the Region. District Councils' Local Development Documents - which will replace Local Plans - must accord with the Plan.

2.2 The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) is responsible for preparing the draft South East Plan. SEERA submitted a draft Plan to the Government in March 2006, after which there was an opportunity for individuals and organisations to make representations on the draft Plan until Friday 23 June 2006. The main issues arising from the representations will be debated at an EiP during November 2006 to March 2007.

2.3 A copy of the draft Plan has been place in the Members' Room; a copy is also in the Environment Department library.

2.4 This paper recommends the representations which the County Council should make on SEERA's draft Plan and recommends arrangements for the County Council's involvement in the EiP process.

3. Public Consultation Arrangements

3.1 The public consultation began on 31 March 2006 and closed on 23 June 2006 - a period of 12 weeks. This consultation period was relatively long, in recognition of the local elections taking place on 4 May which created a hiatus period for the local authorities concerned. The consultation has been low key, comprising a press release, press advertisements in 38 local newspaper groups and placing of documents in local authority offices and main public libraries. SEERA also sent a copy of the document to each parish/town council. Postcards providing a brief summary of the draft Plan were sent to venues including public libraries and post offices.

3.2 Hampshire County Council has endeavoured to raise awareness amongst Hampshire people and organisations by publishing a 16 page guide to SEERA's 340 page draft Plan; the Guide was sent to all district, parish and town councils and to about 300 other organisations. A leaflet offering a free copy of the Guide was sent to around 1200 Hampshire people who commented in earlier South East Plan consultations or who had asked to be kept informed of the Plan's progress. A supply of the leaflets was placed in each County Council public library.

3.3 Although the official closing date for representations was Friday 23 June 2006, the County Council has been granted the facility to submit officer recommendations by that date, with this Cabinet's confirmation or any amendments being submitted immediately following this Cabinet meeting.

4. Proposed Overall Approach

4.1 SEERA's draft Plan is some 340 pages long and contains 196 draft policies. It incorporates, with only cosmetic changes, the advice submitted last December in respect of sub-regional policies, by the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH), and the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-Region Members' Steering Group.

4.2 It also includes the District-level housebuilding figures submitted by Hampshire County Council in respect of Central Hampshire and New Forest. However, the draft Plan does not incorporate the advice submitted solely by Hampshire County Council (with one exception described later) based on the resolution of the Council meeting held on 8 December 2005.

4.3 The submission of representations on the draft Plan provides an opportunity to reiterate and pursue the points in that Council resolution. It also provides the opportunity to comment on other aspects of the draft document. However, rather than taking a scattergun approach of making comments across the draft Plan, this Paper instead recommends making a limited number of representations focused on a few key themes. This would signal the key issues on which Hampshire County Council feels the EiP should concentrate and would also avoid spreading officer resources too thinly. The proposed key themes are:

(i) the amount of development proposed;

(ii) infrastructure provision; and

(iii) sustainable development and quality of life.

4.4 Section 5 below recommends the representations which the County Council should make in relation to each theme. The representations comprise not only changes which the Council would wish to see made to SEERA's draft Plan, but also explicit support for those parts which the County Council endorses. Such expressions of positive support are an important counter weight to the objections which other parties are likely to make.

5. Proposed Representations

5.1 On the theme of the amount of development, the follow up representations are proposed:

(i) The amount of housebuilding proposed for the Districts within Hampshire County Council's area will only be acceptable if accompanied by adequate and timely infrastructure and services. Hampshire County Council will strongly resist any proposed additional provision.

(ii) Express reservations about whether the housebuilding proposed can be supplied with an assured water supply and about whether the waste water which will be generated can be treated without adversely affecting the water quality in rivers. Pertinent to this, are the concerns expressed by SEERA's Regional Planning Committee that the analysis of future water supply in the Region undertaken by the Environment Agency is based on highly optimistic assumptions about increased water efficiency by households in future and about the timescales for the construction and completion of new reservoirs.

(iii) Support for the draft Plan's policy statement that the proposed housebuilding provision in the three north Hampshire Districts is conditional on the outcome of assessments of the degree of constraint on development imposed by the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and that if those uncertainties cannot be resolved, then the amount and distribution of new housebuilding in the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-region (of which north Hampshire is part) would be fundamentally reviewed, requiring reconsideration of the whole Plan.

(iv) Support the statement in the draft Plan that local authorities should adopt a `Plan, Monitor, Manage' approach to housing provision - this must mean phasing the release of land for housebuilding to match planned requirements and prioritising the development of brownfield sites in preference to greenfield land.

(v) The figure proposed in the draft South East Plan of 795 new homes per year in Basingstoke town and environs be accepted for the period up to 2016, but that thereafter the figure should be should be 370 to recognise the current waste water treatment constraint. This figure to be reviewed at the first review of the South East Plan taking account of the conclusions of a waste water study which will be then have been completed. (See paragraphs 6.8 - 6.11 below for further details).

(vi) The housebuilding and employment land provision figures proposed in the draft South East Plan for South Hampshire be accepted for the period up to 2016. Thereafter the figure should be amended to reduce housebuilding provision by 7,000 and employment land provision by 100,000 square metres of floorspace.

(vii) Support for the target that 35% of all housebuilding region-wide should be affordable housing, but that this challenging target will not be achieved, especially in rural areas, unless local authorities are able to set lower thresholds and more ambitious quotas for affordable housing on development sites. It will also require increased Government funding for affordable housing schemes. The draft Plan needs to spell this out and thus give support to local planning authorities in making the changes.

(viii) Request deletion of the first three sentences of paragraph 2.11 in Section E6 which state that in north Hampshire there is a shortfall of 40-60 hectares of employment land, most of which should be met in Basingstoke. Although this statement was derived from advice submitted by Hampshire County Council last December, the shortfall in other parts of the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-region has not similarly been calculated, so it is inconsistent to treat areas differently. The policy to which this paragraph relates, authorises Local Development Frameworks to allocate new employment land to meet identified shortfalls, and technical work is underway by the north Hampshire District Councils in conjunction with the County Council to refine the land required for inclusion in those Local Development Frameworks.

5.2 The need for new development to be accompanied by new/improved infrastructure has been forcefully articulated in previous comments to SEERA and the Government, and in the County Council's `Holding out for Hampshire' campaign. Without Government assurances on adequate investment in infrastructure, new development is not acceptable. Due in large part to the efforts of County Council Members within the Regional Assembly and its committees, the draft Plan contains a strong policy on infrastructure and implementation (Policy CC5). This proposes that the scale and pace of development will be dependent on there being sufficient capacity in existing infrastructure to meet the area's current needs and the provision of new infrastructure to meet the needs of new development. The funding for this infrastructure will require substantial contributions from central Government, the draft policy adds, and proposes a concordat between Government and SEERA.

5.3 A separate Implementation Plan is part of the suite of documents submitted to the Government by SEERA: it lists the new strategic infrastructure required in South Hampshire and the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley together with cost estimates where known. The lists include infrastructure required to serve development and infrastructure improvements which would be needed irrespective of new development in order to address existing deficiencies. This information was compiled for SEERA last year by Hampshire County Council and the other Principal Authorities. Further work and discussions with the infrastructure agencies are underway to refine the information and to fill information gaps. This further work will be complete by this summer for presentation to the EiP. The County Council should signal this further work through its representations on the draft Plan.

5.4 Accordingly, the following representations are proposed on the theme of infrastructure provision:

(i) Support for the thrust of draft policy CC5 on infrastructure provision, and in particular its statements that the scale and pace of development must be conditional on infrastructure provision and funding, and that development shall not proceed until the relevant planning authorities are satisfied that the necessary infrastructure to serve the development is available or will be provided in time.

(ii) This support is conditional on acceptance that the term `infrastructure' is defined as including the full range of facilities required for a sustainable community, including green space (landscaping, amenity open space, recreational areas, and land for nature conservation) and not just `hard infrastructure' such as roads, transport and utilities.

(iii) This support is subject to the inclusion in the draft Implementation Plan of refined and more comprehensive information in infrastructure requirements which the County Council is collating from infrastructure providers.

(iv) Call for infrastructure funds to be established and managed through existing arrangements and joint working below regional level, in contrast to the proposal in the draft Plan for there to be a regional infrastructure fund only. The former would be more sensitive to locally determined infrastructure funding priorities and have greater democratic accountability.

(v) Support in principle for the proposed transport delivery agency for South Hampshire which would be based upon the existing Solent Transport partnerships and which would have the responsibility and necessary powers to manage and integrate public and private transport.

5.5 Previous County Council comments to SEERA have rightly emphasised that development must be sustainable and must not be at the expense of quality of life. There are several policies in the draft Plan which seek to ensure that new development, and the Plan itself, are sustainable, and which thus merit support. Some other policies need refinement or strengthening. The following representations are proposed in order to achieve sustainable development and protect quality of life:

(i) Object to draft waste policy W3 on regional self-sufficiency insofar as it relates to new proposals for the apportionment of 2.2 million tonnes of London's waste for landfilling in Hampshire. Such proposals are contrary to Hampshire's `core' minerals and waste planning strategy and there are insufficient suitable sites in the right location and with sustainable transport access to meet this requirement.

(ii) Seek amendments to the policy for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) to remove the erroneous distinction made by SEERA's draft Plan between AONBs and National Parks and which thus, wrongly, downgrades the value of AONBs.

(iii) Support for the draft policies which seek more sustainable resource use, sustainable construction, achieving a net gain in biodiversity across the Region, and ensuring that new development is well-designed and is concentrated within existing urban areas.

(iv) Support for the draft policy SH14 which, inter alia, proposes that new commercial and residential buildings in South Hampshire should achieve the Ecohomes/BREEAM `very good' standard for emissions, energy use, water efficiency and use of recycled materials, and from 2012 should achieve the `excellent' standard. However, the draft Plan's region-wide policies - which would apply to the rest of Hampshire - set less stringent standards; for sustainability and consistency reasons, the proposed region-wide standards should be raised to match those proposed for South Hampshire.

(v) Support the region-wide policy CC10b which enables Local Development Documents to designate Strategic Gaps to prevent the coalescence of settlements which are larger than 10,000 population. This would enable the designation, for example, of the Blackwater Valley as a Strategic Gap in order to ensure that Farnborough and Camberley retain their separate identities, and the similar designation of land between Fleet and Aldershot/Farnborough.

(vi) Support the policy SH3 which identifies the location of Strategic Gaps in South Hampshire in line with region-wide policy CC10b.

(vii) Support the draft policy (CC12) which seeks to enhance the character, distinctiveness and sense of place of settlements, but seek amendments to strengthen it and secure its implementation, by requiring local planning authorities to undertake landscape and townscape character assessments.

(viii) Call for wide publicity to be given to the completion this autumn of the Appropriate Assessment of the draft Plan and for time to be allowed for interested parties to make comments. The Appropriate Assessment - a statutorily required assessment of the impact of the draft Plan on sites of European importance for nature conservation - ought to have been available during the current consultation period. However, it is not likely to be published until this autumn just before the start of the Examination-in-Public. It may therefore be necessary to adjourn the EiP to allow sufficient time for interested parties to make further representations or to revise those already submitted to take account of the new information.

5.6 The paragraphs above set out the representations which the Cabinet is recommended to make on SEERA's draft Plan. The formal requirement, however, is for respondents to set out more fully the reasons why they support or oppose a particular policy/paragraph, and if they are seeking changes to the draft Plan, to supply a revised wording of the policy/paragraph. That more detailed material is set out in Annexes 1 and 2.

5.7 The EiP Panel also request respondents to indicate whether they wish to participate in the debate at the EiP on the issues to which their representations relate. It is proposed that the County Council should indicate its wish to do this.

6. Provision for Housebuilding

6.1 The draft South East Plan proposes the construction of 6,100 new homes per year in Hampshire including Portsmouth and Southampton - this would increase the total number of homes by 122,000 (17 per cent) between 2006 and 2026. Forecasts have now been prepared of the population change which would result from that proposed housebuilding. Due to the predicted fall in the average size of households, the population would increase more slowly - by only 5 per cent. Most of that population increase would be due to natural change of the existing population; only about 35,000 people would be in-migrants to the county - a small increment onto the existing 1.6 million population.

6.2 The advice submitted to SEERA by the County Council last December called for some of the housing provision at Basingstoke and in South Hampshire to be held in reserve. If that is to be prosecuted effectively through the EiP, the concepts need to be developed into more detailed proposals, including the mechanisms for triggering any release of the reserve.

6.3 The draft South East Plan aims to improve South Hampshire's economic performance and sets a target of achieving a Gross Value Added (GVA) of 3.5% by 2026. The draft Plan says this will involve an employment increase of 59,000 between 2006 and 2026 as well as an increase in productivity, and will require land for business development and housebuilding together with increased investment in transport and other infrastructure. It proposes the allocation of land to accommodate 2 million square metres of new business floorspace and 80,000 new homes 2006-2026. Up to 2016, the focus will be on sites already allocated for development and on other brownfield land, together with a few modest urban extensions; during 2016-2026 this focus will continue but with greenfield development being concentrated in two Strategic Development Areas (SDAs) - one to the north/north east of Hedge End and the other to the north of Fareham. This strategy is based on advice submitted by PUSH.

6.4 The aim of increasing economic prosperity in South Hampshire is laudable. However, the Advice submitted by PUSH acknowledges that achieving it will require enhanced skills training, development of the industrial infrastructure including removing transport bottlenecks, and ensuring the availability of land and property. The detailed lists of new public sector actions and interventions under these headings are substantial and will require increased funding for transport and other infrastructure investment on which there is, as yet, no certainty. Moreover, GVA growth in South Hampshire has for many years been around 2.75% per annum, so increasing it substantially will be a major challenge. In that regard, PUSH's target of achieving 3.5% per annum by 2026 can be regarded as laudable but over optimistic; a more realistic but still stretching target, would be 3.25% by 2026.

6.5 An Alternative Scenario has been developed using the same forecasting model, assuming the same increase in productivity and steadily rising growth, but on the basis of reaching an average of 3.25% per annum by 2026. This scenario would mean slightly fewer new jobs (54,000 instead of 59,000), and would require slightly less new floorspace for business development (1.87 instead of 1.97 million square metres) and 73,000 instead of 80,000 new homes 2006-2026.

6.6 This approach would mean reducing the provision for development in South Hampshire 2006-2026 by 100,000 square metres of business floorspace and 7,000 new homes.

6.7 It is suggested that this Alternative Scenario is a sounder basis at the current time, for planning South Hampshire's future. However, the rate of economic growth can be monitored and if that monitoring shows that the sub-region's economy in growing at a faster rate such that the PUSH target seems achievable, then the amount of land for business and housing development could be increased when the South East Plan is formally reviewed.

6.8 The draft South East Plan proposes the construction of 795 new homes per annum in that part of Basingstoke and Deane Borough which lies within the North Hampshire sub-area i.e. Basingstoke town and environs. This figure was provided to SEERA by the County Council as Basingstoke's apportionment of the 1,300 per annum total which SEERA had set for North Hampshire, but it was not a figure endorsed by the County Council.

6.9 There are concerns about the future capacity for sewage treatment and disposal for the Basingstoke area, primarily related to the capacity of the River Loddon to accommodate increased discharges without detriment to its ecological value. A study is to be undertaken by consultants for the Environment Agency, with financial contributions by the County and Borough Councils, to explore the issues in more detail, to establish potential solutions, and to help inform decisions on how much housebuilding can be accommodated. It is hoped that the initial findings of the study will be available in time for this winter's Examination-in-Public of the South East Plan, but the full findings including detailed costings and phasing of infrastructure will take 1-2 years to complete.

(NB: Paragraphs 6.10 - 6.11 below are subject to confirmation by Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council of the capacity for development within the draft Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan and of the Environment Agency comments thereon.)

6.10 Pending the full findings of that study, it seems prudent to take a cautionary approach towards housebuilding provision in Basingstoke. In that regard, the Environment Agency did not object to the amount of development proposed within the draft Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan (approx 11,650 new homes). However, development beyond that would need to be conditional on the outcome of the study.

6.11 On this basis, the draft South East Plan's proposed housebuilding rate of 795 per annum could be sustained up to 2016, but unless the waste water treatment constraint can be overcome, the housebuilding rate would then have to drop to 370 per year. Such a scenario provides a reasonable lead-in period for completion of the waste water study and for the first review of the South East Plan which would decide whether the figure should be increased.

6.12 The advice also referred to the possibility of surplus defence land being released for development at Whitehill/Bordon, which would be additional to the housebuilding figure put forward for East Hampshire District. Since then, the prospects of that land release have become a little clearer, although some uncertainty still remains.

6.13 The Ministry of Defence has announced that two bidders have been shortlisted to provide - under a Private Finance Initiative - all armed forces training nationwide, including that currently provided at Whitehill/Bordon. One of the bidders intends to retain and expand the training facilities at Whitehill/Bordon whilst at the same time releasing a modest amount of brownfield land for redevelopment for civilian purposes. The other bidder intends to cease all training at the town, which would release a much larger area of land for redevelopment. The former together with some greenfield development would enable 700 - 1,000 new homes to be built; the latter, some 1,300 - 2,400 homes. Both options could, in different ways, benefit the area and provide the springboard for new jobs, shopping and leisure facilities in the town.

6.14 Leading Members and officers of East Hampshire District Council are enthusiastic about the opportunities which town expansion would bring. However, important issues remain to be resolved. Two Special Protection Areas for birds adjoin the town and these could severely constrain the amount of housebuilding which can take place. Discussions on this are continuing with English Nature. Secondly, a viable scheme for new shopping and leisure facilities has yet to be finalised; if these new facilities cannot be secured, then additional housing at Whitehill/Bordon would add to the number of people who travel (almost entirely by car) to other towns for shopping and leisure. In other words, the development would not be sustainable.

6.15 Pending resolution of these uncertainties, the County Council should continue to adopt a cautious approach to expansion at Whitehill/Bordon, whilst also doing what it can to help realise the District Council's aspirations for the town in a sustainable way.

7. Joint Representations by the Sub-Regional Member Groups

7.1 In parallel to the County Council and other local authorities responding individually to the draft Plan, the sub-regional Member groups are considering whether to make joint representations. Those Member groups are PUSH, the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Members' Steering Group, the North Hampshire Members' Group, and the Central Hampshire and New Forest Members' Group. All four groups are scheduled to meet in late May or early June and the outcomes of those meetings will be reported to this Cabinet meeting.

8. Next Steps

8.1 The representations made on the draft Plan will be considered by the independent Panel which has been appointed to conduct the EiP. The EiP will debate, in a round-table format, only a limited number of key issues, while participation in the debates will be at the invitation of the Panel. The Panel will select the issues and participants taking account of the representations on the draft Plan. The list of issues and participants will be published in draft on 31 August 2006, with an opportunity for individuals and organisations to comment on it until 28 September 2006.

8.2 The final list will be published on 12 October 2006. Participants will be required to submit statements by 9 November 2006 - two weeks in advance of the start of the EiP - in order that the other participants can read them in advance. A more detailed explanation of the format of the EiP and the process leading up to it is set out in Annex 3.

8.3 The short time for comment on the draft list of issues and participants - four weeks - precludes the County Council from commenting on the list through the formal decision-making process. In any event, the comments can be regarded as `administrative action' pursuant to the resolution of this Cabinet meeting, in order to secure debate of the issues of concern to the County Council and to secure its participation in those debates. Therefore it is proposed that the Director of Environment, in consultation with the Executive Member for Environment: North Hampshire and Spatial Strategy, be authorised to respond on behalf of the County Council to the draft list of issues and participants.

9. Impact Assessments

9.1 The draft South East Plan has policies to address social disadvantage and promote social inclusion. However it does not directly address issues of gender, race, disability, age or religion and its potential to impact directly on these groups is limited, although it is recognised that the draft Plan has a spatial dimension which can involve public access, the location of facilities near to concentrations of minority groups, and their access to facilities. However, these issues will come to the fore when specific development sites are considered, which is the province of Local Development Documents prepared by District and Unitary Councils, rather than the South East Plan.

Recommendations

1. That the following representations be submitted as the County Council's response to the draft South East Plan:

(i) To seek amendments to the following policies:

CC1 (Sustainable Development)

CC5 (Infrastructure and Implementation)

CC12 (Character of the Environment and Quality of Life)

H4 (Affordable Housing)

H5 (Housing Density and Design)

NRM1 (Sustainable Water Resources, Groundwater and River Water Quality Management)

NRM3 (Sustainable Flood Risk Management)

EN1 (Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy)

W3 (Regional Self-sufficiency - Waste)

W4 (Sub-Regional Self-sufficiency - Waste)

C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

SH3 (Sub-Regional Strategic Gaps - South Hampshire)

SH11 (Transport Management and Integration - South Hampshire)

SH12 (Scale and Distribution of Housing Development - South Hampshire)

WCBV3 (Scale and Distribution of Housing Development - Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley).

(ii) To support the following policies:

CC3 (Resource Use)

CC4 (Sustainable Construction)

H1 (Housing Provision - Support Plan, Monitor, Manage)

NRM4 (Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity).

(iii) To make a procedural representation in respect of the need to give adequate publicity to, and allow proper debate at the Examination-in-Public of, the Appropriate Assessment of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, including extending the Examination-in-Public programme if necessary.

2. That the Director of Environment, in consultation with the Leader, be authorised to finalise the formal representation forms for submission to the Examination-in-Public Panel.

3.. That the County Council should seek an invitation to participate in the debates at the Examination-in-Public on the issues to which the representations relate.

4. That the Director of Environment, in consultation with the Leader, be authorised to respond during September on behalf of the County Council to the draft list of Examination-in-Public issues and participants.

765Rpt/SR

ANNEX 1

(OBJ)

(SEPARATE DOCUMENTS)

ANNEX 2(SUB)

(SEPARATE DOCUMENTS)

ANNEX 3

The South East Plan Examination-in-Public

Public consultation on the draft South East Plan closed on 23 June 2006. Issues arising from the representations made will be discussed at a type of public enquiry called an Examination-in-Public (EiP) during winter 2006/7. This appendix explains the nature of the EiP and the process leading up to it.

The format of an Examination-in-Public

An Examination-in-Public (EiP) comprises a series of round-table discussions of selected issues conducted by an independent panel of Planning Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State. The format is intended to test the soundness of the draft Plan, and not to hear objections/representations. Only invited participants can take part; they are selected by the Panel to ensure that a range of opinions are aired. No individual or organisation has a right to appear at the EiP, even if they made objections/representations on the draft Plan. The format enables an informal round table discussion between the panel and participants, with seating to enable the public and press to observe. Legal advocacy and cross examination are regarded as inappropriate to an EiP. Thus it is totally different to the public inquiries into District Local Plans which have taken place in recent years.

A three person Panel will conduct the EiP of the draft South East Plan: Corinne Swain, Martin Shaw and Mary Travers. Corinne Swain and Martin Shaw conducted the EiP into the regional waste and minerals strategy in 2004 while Mary Travers conducted the Eastleigh Local Plan Inquiry. They are supported by a Panel Secretary Susan Morgan and are based in an office at Guildford.

Selecting the EiP issues and participants

After the close of public consultation, the Panel will analyse all the representations and identify the issues they feel merit discussion at the EiP and the participants who will take part. The Panel will publish the draft list of EiP issues and participants on 31 August 2006, for comments by 28 September 2006.

The Panel will publish the final list on 12 October 2006. Participants will be able to submit a statement on the issue to be debated, but these must be sent to the Panel by 9 December 2006, so that they can be circulated to other participants in advance of the discussion.

The South East Plan EiP programme

The EiP of the draft South East Plan is currently planned to occupy 11 weeks during 27 November 2006 to 30 March 2007. The first three weeks at Woking will deal with region-wide matters, before the EiP moves around three other locations at which sub-regional issues will be discussed:-

The participants will vary according to the issue under discussion. The number of seats will be limited and it is unlikely that every Council will be invited to take part. Hampshire County Council is likely be invited to participate in some of the debates relevant to Hampshire but this is not certain. There is more likelihood that a representative of groups of authorities rather than individual District Councils will be invited.

After the EiP

After the EiP, the Panel will present their report to the Secretary of State, including their recommendations on how the draft Plan should be amended. The Secretary of State will consider the Panel's report and then publish the modifications he/she proposes to make to the draft Plan. There will be a period of public consultation on the draft modifications, after which the Secretary of State will finalise the Plan.