Archived decisions
REPORT OF THE
Cabinet / Leader
PART II
DRAFT REGIONAL ECONOMIC STRATEGY
Further to the Cabinet's earlier response to the Consultation Document relating to the roll forward of the Regional Economic Strategy (RES) to 2016, a draft RES has now been published to which the County Council has been invited to respond. The draft Strategy is a substantial 90 page document and is accompanied by a series of annexes revising baseline data and various consultee responses in addition to a Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment. The Cabinet considered and agreed their response to this document on 26 June 2006 to meet the submission deadline of 30 June 2006.
The draft Strategy has an overall vision that "by 2016 the South East will be a world region achieving sustainable prosperity". It comprises a set of values, targets and challenges and for each challenge an overall goal is identified together with a set of targets and actions to achieve success. In total there are 83 wide-ranging actions from process to delivery. As in the earlier Consultation Document, the draft Strategy refers to types of area e.g. inner South East, rural South East and coastal South East with the rural South East being allocated a small section of its own with references to priorities such as market towns, farming, premium food products, traditional crafts, broadband and green tourism. It has a number of guiding principles relating to maintaining global competitiveness, "smart growth" as a means of achieving targeted growth whilst minimising the impacts on the environment, and infrastructure investment (including broadband) being recognised as crucial to avoid a spiral of decline. The draft Strategy now has a clear action programme together with a rationale, an identified lead organisation (or partners) and in most cases, a clear target.
A key challenge for the next ten years will be achieving, in a sustainable way, the target of at least a 3% average annual increase in Gross Value Added per capita. Whilst a variety of actions is proposed (such as to reduce consumption, waste and carbon dioxide emissions), there is no clear link between these actions and the measure of the ecological footprint. There will be clearly differentiated economic policies according to the needs of each area and this is of particular importance to a large and diverse region such as the south east. The principle of "diamonds for growth" goes some way towards this but does not allow for the consequential linking of all aspects of the Strategy at sub-regional level. The designation of south Hampshire as a diamond for growth will require further discussion as to the precise boundaries, and the identification of Basingstoke as the inner South East diamond for growth is a cause for concern given local infrastructure issues. The draft Strategy proposes the establishment of a Regional Infrastructure Fund as a "revolving loan fund" for which clear guidelines and the mechanics of how it will operate need to be agreed. In regard to infrastructure, there is disappointingly no mention of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road which is needed to unlock one of the potentially largest employment sites in the South East.
Although the Cabinet welcomed that the draft Strategy has recognised many of the issues raised by the region's stakeholders, they were however of the view that in its final form it will be expected to demonstrate stronger links with the South East Plan in terms of overall development and a greater recognition of the role of sub-regional strategies. Furthermore, although the Strategy is strong on practical actions and the rationale for these, there is an absence of rigorous analysis of the interrelationships between supply side factors (labour, land, infrastructure) and the targeted growth.
The final Strategy will impact on Hampshire and the County Council's ability to continue to achieve economic prosperity, therefore the Cabinet agreed that the following specific statements were included in the County Council's response:
That Hampshire County Council:
1. welcomes the response of SEEDA to the points made in the Council's comments on the earlier Consultation Draft
2. wishes to see further work to assess the development impacts which could arise as a result of the 3% per head growth target, particularly in the context of the South East Plan
3. recommends SEEDA to focus on bringing underperforming areas up to the regional performance and on reducing disparities across the region, including upskilling the existing workforce and helping those excluded from work, whether by disability, age, race or gender to gain fulfilling employment
4. seriously doubts the capacity of Basingstoke to absorb substantial increases in growth until the local infrastructure issues are resolved
5. wishes to see specific reference to both the economic contribution made by the Blackwater sub-region, and its current need for investment in infrastructure
6. whilst welcoming the commitment of SEEDA to `smart growth', wishes to see a parallel commitment to the needs of lower skilled workers
7. wishes to see a commitment under `key roles for local authorities' for SEEDA to work to align its resources with targets set out in Local Area Agreements
8. broadly welcomes the establishment of a Regional Infrastructure Fund but insists that allocation of Planning Gain Supplement should be at the discretion of the Local Authorities
9. reiterates its view that the growth targets set in the Draft are only achievable in so far as the necessary infrastructure is also provided
10. urges the inclusion of a specific reference to precise pieces of infrastructure such as the Chickenhall Lane Link Road in Eastleigh
11. reminds SEEDA of the significant issues impacting on rural areas through changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, training needs and rural isolation, and urges SEEDA to continue to recognise and help enhance their potential
12. believes that there needs to be further discussion of the precise boundaries of the south Hampshire "diamond for growth", and that this needs to ensure that the quality of the environment in adjacent rural areas is not damaged
13. wishes to see specific reference to the pressures on future development created by the designation of "Special Protection Areas" under the European Directive and specifically in relation to Government requirements for Local Authorities to obtain mitigation land.