Archived decisions

Contact: Jeremy Smith, ext 6730 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report summarises the outcome of the statutory consultation carried out following the submission of the Core Planning Strategy (the Strategy) and recommends no significant changes to the Strategy at this stage. It also proposes that the positions on the acceptance of London's waste and on land-won sand and gravel supply are robustly defended.

1.2 A number of objections to the Strategy were received, the majority of which are minor in nature and can be addressed by clarification or suggesting minor textual amendments. However, there are two main areas where a robust defence of the Strategy's position is required, these are on the acceptance of London's waste and the land-won sand and gravel supply. In taking this approach it is consistent with the objectives of the `Core' Strategy concerning the protection of biodiversity, historic heritage and protection of communities. The decision is also necessary as part of the County Council's duties under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act to prepare Minerals and Waste Development Plan Documents.

2. Background

2.1 The Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Core Strategy (the Strategy) is a Development Plan Document (DPD) jointly produced by Hampshire County Council in partnership with Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils and the New Forest National Park Authority.

2.2 The County Council approved the DPD on 30 March 2006. The Strategy was subsequently submitted to Government on 31 May 2006. Following submission to Government, a statutory six week period of public consultation took place.

2.3 The consultation responses received will inform a Public Examination into the Strategy, which is scheduled to begin on 23 January 2007. A Pre-Examination Meeting is scheduled for 25 October 2006 at which the programme for the Examination will be outlined.

3. Summary and Response to the Consultation

3.1 In total 165 organisations and individuals made 773 representations. A petition including 218 signatures was also received (see paragraph 3.3). Whilst many of the consultees felt the Strategy was sound, either fully or in part, a number of objections were received. The majority of these are considered to be minor in nature and it is suggested these can be resolved either through suggesting minor textual changes to the Strategy or providing brief written comment or justification. There are several areas of more concern, where a more robust defence of the County Council's position is necessary.

3.2 It is not considered that any of the responses are likely to result in rejection of the Strategy although changes may be made by the Planning Inspector.

3.3 The majority of these responses (95), and the petition, related to objections to two sites in the New Milton area - Walkford Farm and Roeshot - which the respondents have inferred from the Strategy's Key Diagram could potentially be developed. However the Strategy, as worded, states that no further land-won sand and gravel sites are required in the Forest area provided existing Preferred Areas (in the current Minerals and Waste Local Plan) gain planning permission and no change to this policy is proposed. Moreover the Strategy is not a document that is allocating sites for development. Accordingly these responses are better dealt with at the site selection stage.

3.4 The main area of concern is the question of `general conformity' with the Regional Spatial Strategy, in this case both Regional Planning Guidance 9 (RPG9) on minerals and waste (issued June 2006) and the emerging South East Plan. The Strategy is required to be in `general conformity' and the South East of England Regional Assembly (SEERA) initially indicated that whilst the majority of the Strategy is in conformity, the approach to London's waste in Policy S3 is not.

3.5 However at a recent meeting with the County and City Councils, SEERA officers have broadly accepted the view promoted in the Strategy and are likely to withdraw the objection, subject to the argument being strengthened in the text and acknowledgement of some flexibility in the period after 2016 in the event `excess' capacity in north-east Hampshire is proposed. SEERA requested that the situation be reconsidered in future reviews (not the version currently being prepared and for which community consultations are being carried out) on the Plan. In the light of this SEERA is now unlikely to seek revisions to the relevant policy (S3) in the Strategy.

3.6 Comments were also received, particularly from the minerals industry, about the Strategy's approach to land-won sand and gravel production, in particular:

(i) the proposal for a `Strategic Reserve' covering the period 2017-2020, for which sites would not initially be identified;

(ii) the failure to provide a seven-year landbank at the end of 2020;

(iii) the emphasis of the Strategy on production rather than supply - in short, their argument is that enough sites should be provided to supply land-won sand and gravel at a rate of 2.63 million tonnes a year, whereas it is argued that the Strategy identifies a total provision for the plan-period but does not secure that exact rate of supply.

3.7 It should be noted that it is in the mineral industries' interests to make these arguments because they would wish to secure as many minerals options/ sites as possible to be included within the following Hampshire Minerals Plan.

3.8 Comments have also been received about the Strategy's approach of restricting oil and gas development in the New Forest National Park, whilst not restricting it in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposed South Downs National Park. It is argued on the one hand that this is inconsistent with the Strategy's approach elsewhere (eg for land-won sand and gravel) and on the other that it is inconsistent with national policy and should be allowed in `exceptional circumstances'.

4. Way Forward

4.1 Advice from the Planning Inspectorate is to avoid making significant changes prior to the Strategy, ahead of the examination, as these may undermine its soundness and lead to rejection of the Strategy by the Inspector.

4.2 The issues raised in the consultation are not considered to be serious enough to threaten the overall soundness of the Strategy and place it at risk of rejection; however this is not to say the Inspector may not make some changes following the Public Examination.

4.3 Given this, it is proposed that the best way forward, at this and all future stages, is to defend the Strategy's current position and only to suggest minor textual changes where these will improve the Strategy's clarity, coherence and soundness, and where they will not alter its direction or intent.

4.4 As the Strategy has been approved by all the Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities in Hampshire the appropriate Authority for any individual issue will take the lead during the Public Examination.

5. Next Steps

5.1 Detailed Topic Papers will be produced to robustly defend the Strategy's positions on accepting waste from London - taking into account SEERA's likely revised position - and land-won sand and gravel supply.

5.2 A Topic Paper outlining, in greater detail, the role of public consultation and sustainability appraisal in the development of the Strategy, will also be produced.

5.3 A schedule will also be produced to outline responses to the various consultees comments, and in some cases suggest minor textual amendments, to aid clarity and coherence, where this would not change the direction or intent of the Strategy.

5.4 All these papers need to be completed and forwarded to the Planning Inspector prior to the Pre-Examination Meeting.

5.5 Following the Pre-Examination Meeting both the consultees and the Planning Authorities will have the chance to make further written submissions on a number of Matters and Issues which will be tested at the Examination.

5.6 Although these Matters and Issues are not yet known it is likely they will include the acceptance of London's waste and land-won sand and gravel production. Subject to unforeseen circumstances, it is proposed that the same approach as outlined above will be adopted in drafting the documents at this stage.

5.7 The Public Examination hearings are scheduled to take place for two to three weeks starting on 23 January 2007.

6. Impact Assessments

6.1 This decision will not have any equalities impacts.

Recommendations

1. That the County Council will, during the Public Examination into the Hampshire Mineral and Waste Development Framework `Core' Strategy, defend it as approved by the partner planning authorities and, in particular, will demonstrate the `soundness' of its approach to not providing for London's waste and the proposed supply of gravel.

2. That in preparing and presenting the case for the Public Examination the Director of Environment be authorised to make minor textual changes to the Strategy to improve its clarity and coherence or which satisfy points of objection, without altering its intent and direction.

3. That the Director of Environment be authorised to carry out appropriate steps to comply with statutory requirements in respect of the establishment of the Public Examination.

1031Rpt/JS