Archived decisions

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

1. Summary

1.1 Currently, the policies in the Hampshire Structure Plan cease to have any effect in September 2007. However, the successor plan - the South East Plan - is not expected to be adopted until early 2008. This means a potential gap in strategic policy between September 2007 and early 2008. The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) has therefore asked the County Council to consult with the District Councils and to provide advice on whether any Structure Plan policies should be extended beyond September 2007. This report concludes that some of the policies on housing should be `saved' in this way, together with the policies on the West of Waterlooville Major Development Area, Strategic Gaps, South West Hampshire Green Belt, Dibden Bay, creation of new accesses onto the highway network, safeguarding of transport schemes, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, archaeology, the built environment, and infrastructure provision being a pre-condition for development. These are Policies H1-4, G1-3, MDA2, EC6, T5-6, T11, T14-21, E7, E14-17 and IMP1-2.

2. Recommendation

That the South East England Regional Assembly be advised that:

(i) Hampshire County Council considers there is a strong case for `saving' Hampshire Structure Plan policies H1-4, G1-3, MDA2, EC6, T5-6, T11, T14-21, E7, E14-17 and IMP1-2; and

(ii) in addition, Hart District Council has requested that the following policies be saved: G3, TC1, T1-2, H10, R1-2, R5, C1-2, E4-6 and E10.

3. Introduction

3.1 One of the changes to the planning system introduced by the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act was the replacement of Structure Plans by Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS). However, the Act prolonged the life of Structure Plan policies by `saving' them for a finite period; in Hampshire's case until no later than September 2007. The Act provides for the Government, on the advice of the relevant regional assembly, to `save' Structure Plan policies for a longer period.

3.2 As most of the RSS for this Region - South East Plan - will not have been adopted by September 2007, SEERA has asked the Hampshire Principal Authorities (Hampshire County Council, New Forest National Park Authority, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council) to advise on policies in the Hampshire Structure Plan which ought to be `saved` beyond September 2007. SEERA has asked the Principal Authorities to consult with the District Councils before submitting their advice. The recommendations from county areas across the South East will be considered by the Regional Planning Committee in March, after which SEERA will submit its advice to Government by 1 April 2007.

3.3 SEERA suggested to the Government that it would save time and effort if the policies in the Region's Structure Plans were `saved' en bloc for the period until the South East Plan is adopted; however Department for Communities and Local Government officials advised that this was not possible for various legal and administrative reasons. One of these is their concern that it could result in some policies being saved indefinitely. They believe this could occur where there is no equivalent policy in the South East Plan to supersede and thus replace a saved Structure Plan policy.

3.4 SEERA asked for the advice from the Hampshire Principal Authorities by 21 February 2007. A request was made for an extension of the deadline until this meeting, but SEERA officers were unable to accede to this because of their own deadlines for preparing documentation for the Regional Planning Committee. They have however agreed to accept final advice from the County Council on 27 February, provided they were given a copy of this report as soon as it was published.

3.5 SEERA's request was only received in late January. The short timescale for response has precluded the holding of any joint Member meetings with the other Hampshire authorities and has also limited the time for officer dialogue, as explained in paragraph 6.5 below.

4. Criteria

4.1 In assessing whether each Hampshire Structure Plan policy ought to be saved, the following principles/considerations are relevant:

(i) many of the Hampshire Structure Plan policies are guidance to Local Plan preparation which, given that there is now an adopted Local Plan for every Hampshire District, should be regarded as having run their course;

(ii) the thrust of some policies is now covered by Planning Policy Statements (PPS), the content of which has the status of (national) policy, whereas the predecessor Policy Planning Guidance notes (PPG) which existed when the Structure Plan was drawn up only had the status of guidance. So if the subject matter of a Structure Plan policy is covered by a PPS, there is no justification to request the Government Office for the South East to save the Structure Plan policy;

(iii) some Hampshire Structure Plan policies have been superseded by already adopted parts of the RSS - the Regional Transport Strategy, Regional Minerals and Waste Strategy, Regional Tourism Strategy, etc;

(iv) the purpose of saving a Structure Plan policy is to avoid a gap in strategic policy between the Structure Plan disappearing in September 2007 and the South East Plan being adopted in 2008. Therefore, if there is a successor policy in the draft South East Plan, eg on Strategic Gaps, or if the Hampshire authorities are pressing for one to be added to that Plan, eg on safeguarding of transport schemes, then there is a logic in maintaining continuity of policy coverage by saving the relevant Structure Plan policy. This will ensure a continuity of strategic policy support for local plans; and

(v) policies which are to be saved are required to be consistent with, and not duplicate, national planning policies, to be consistent with the emerging regional spatial strategy and to address what would otherwise be a strategic policy deficit.

5. Policies to be `Saved'

5.1 Assessment of the Hampshire Structure Plan policies in relation to the above criteria has led to the recommendation that the following policies should be commended to SEERA to be `saved':

(i) Policies H1-4, which quantify provision for housebuilding, should be `saved' in order to continue to provide strategic backing for the total housing provision in each District, especially Fareham Borough whose Local Plan has a time horizon of 2006 and thus has no statutorily approved housing policy target other than the figure in the Structure Plan;

(ii) Policies G1-2, which identify the location of Strategic Gaps in North East and South Hampshire, should be `saved' in order to provide strategic support for those Gaps which are designated in Local Plans;

(iii) Policy G3 should be saved because it defines the general location and extent of the South West Hampshire Green Belt, otherwise there will be no strategic basis for a Green Belt in this area until the South East Plan is adopted;

(iv) Policy MDA2, which sets out the scale, composition and broad location of the Major Development Area at West of Waterlooville, should be saved. It provides strategic policy which is not repeated in the Havant Local Plan and which Havant Borough Council advises will be important in determining a planning application which is expected soon for the remainder of the MDA;

(v) Policy EC6, which sets out criteria to guide decisions on any proposals for port development at Dibden Bay, should be saved for the reasons set out in paragraph 5.2 below;

(vi) Policies T5-6 should be saved as they set out the transportation requirements in relation to new development and the circumstances in which new accesses to the Strategic Road Network. These policies are much used by County and District Council officers in dealing with planning applications. This in turn would require the saving of Policy T7 which defines the routes which comprise the Strategic Road Network;

(vii) Policies T11 and T14-21, which safeguard future transport schemes, should be `saved'. In its statement to the Examination-in-Public (EiP) of the South East Plan, the County Council has raised the question of whether these schemes should be included in the South East Plan in order to continue this safeguarding at strategic level;

(viii) Policy E7, which governs development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, should be saved - this will avoid a strategic policy gap/deficit during the period until the successor policy in the draft South East Plan is adopted;

(ix) Policies E14-17 which conserve and protect features of archaeological importance and the built environment more generally, should be saved, as there is only national guidance on archaeology and the built environment (PPG16) which does not have the status of policy;

(x) Policies IMP1-2, which make development conditional on the provision of infrastructure, should be `saved' to ensure that development is accompanied by the necessary infrastructure.

5.2 It could be argued that Policy EC6 has run its course having been instrumental in the public inquiry into port development proposals at Dibden Bay and the Secretary of State's rejection of those proposals. However, it is considered that without the Policy, and in the absence of a national ports strategy, there would be a gap in policy guidance. In that regard, the continued existence of the Policy provides a framework for determining any future port development proposals at Dibden Bay and therefore SEERA should be advised to save the Policy.

6. District Councils' Views

6.1 The only requests to save additional policies are from Hart District Council which wishes the following policies to be saved:

(i) G3 which provides guidance to Local Plans on the identification of Local Gaps;

(ii) TC1 which sets out criteria to guide proposals for telecommunications development;

(iii) T1-2 which call for the preparation of, and set out the matters to be covered by, transportation strategies;

(iv) H10 which sets out criteria for determining proposals for development outside built-up areas;

(v) R1 which guides the development of recreation, sport and tourism and R2 which lists the recreational and play facilities to be provided in association with housing development;

(vi) R5 which promotes informal countryside recreation and sport in the Blackwater Valley;

(vii) C1-2 relating to Rural Hampshire;

(viii) E4-6 and E10 which cover the location, siting and design of new development in order to maximise energy efficiency, criteria for helping decision-making on renewable energy proposals, the maintenance of landscape character, the protection of nature conservation sites of international and national importance.

6.2 County Council officers have not been able to fully discuss with Hart District Council (nor with the other Principal Authorities and other District Councils officers) the extent to which there is a case for saving these policies in relation to the criteria in paragraph 4.1 above. This dialogue is continuing and it is intended to report any update verbally at the meeting.

7. Impact Assessments

6.1 There are no implications for disabilities, race or equality arising from this report.

7. Conclusion

7.1 A case can be made for saving a number of Hampshire Structure Plan policies until the South East Plan is adopted, in order to avoid a strategic policy deficit during the interregnum. Proposing to save the remaining policies cannot be justified because either they:

(i) fail to satisfy the criteria set by the Government; or

(ii) have run their course; or

(iii) are adequately covered by national policy statements; or

(iv) are superseded by already adopted regional policies.

1246Rpt/SR