Archived decisions

Contact: Antony Payne, ext 6766 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Eastleigh Borough Council is currently consulting on the South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone and the Eastleigh Town Centre Area Action Plans (AAPs). This report forms the basis of the County Council's proposed response to the South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone AAP consultation for the Issues and Options stage. The consultation commenced on 15 May 2007 and runs until 26 June 2007.

1.2 The recommendations put forward in this report will help promote the regeneration of one of the county's significant towns and help the prosperity of the county, significantly contributing to the aspirations for economic growth as set out in the Draft South East Plan.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the County Council responds to the South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone Area Action Plan - Issues and Options consultation by:

(i) supporting the long-term vision and strategy that the Area Action Plan proposes for its area;

(ii) supporting an employment led strategy for the Employment Zone as set out in Option 1, though accepting the likely need for `enabling' uses within the proposals, as set out in Options 2 and 3 in order to expedite progress;

(iii) supporting a level of ambition and appropriate balance in the economic sectors and types of employment to be sought within the Zone to support the sub-regional strategy;

(iv) supporting joint working for the delivery of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road and the South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone;

(v) supporting the raft of transport objectives contained in the Strategic Employment Zone Area Action Plan;

(vi) opposing Options 4 and 5 (which propose retail development within the Zone);

(vii) opposing Option 6 (which excludes the Chickenhall Lane Link Road);

(viii) requesting that the Borough Council include provision for strategic waste management facilities within its preferred option; and

(ix) supporting a regeneration strategy for the sub-regionally important South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone, with provision with ambitious high tech and advanced manufacturing development, and a delivery strategy which maximises opportunities to secure funding to bring forward infrastructure provision and development.

3. Introduction

3.1 Two Area Action Plans are identified in the Eastleigh Borough Local Development Scheme. They are for:

(i) South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone (SHSEZ); and

(ii) Eastleigh Town Centre.

3.2 The AAPs will develop the Policies of the Eastleigh Local Plan Review (2006), to provide a greater level of detail and, once adopted, will become statutory spatial plans. This report focuses on the AAP for the Strategic Employment Zone, which adjoins the Town Centre AAP area, and which is the focus for significant development and change.

4. South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone

4.1 The SHSEZ Action Plan covers the area of the former railway works, the airport, existing business parks and industrial areas serviced by Chickenhall Lane and land to the north of Bishopstoke Road. It also includes some small housing areas. The Issues and Options consultation recognises the Zone as a major employment area on a regional level and as such, highlights key issues which need to be taken into account prior to selecting a preferred way forward up to 2026 to meet objectives and achieve the vision.

4.2 The AAP proposes that a high proportion of land should be allocated for employment purposes and has put forward six options for comment:

Option 1 Employment led;

Option 2 Mixed uses - employment led;

Option 3 Mixed uses - with housing;

Option 4 Mixed uses - with retail;

Option 5 Mixed use - with retail/leisure; and

Option 6 Regeneration without Chickenhall Lane Link Road.

4.3 Much of the Zone is effectively land-locked and requires investment in new roads infrastructure to make it capable of development and regeneration.

Planning Commentary

4.4 The SHSEZ is a vital component of the sub-regional strategy for South Hampshire, recognised in the Draft South East Plan. It is capable of accommodating significant amounts of employment floorspace, but its success in doing so is dependent upon obtaining the maximum employment use from the site. Support is accordingly justified for the option that would provide this, in this case Option 1. However, there is a considerable risk to the local and sub-regional economies if the Zone fails to deliver the anticipated land for employment, or is delayed in any way. The principal risk is that the land value uplift would be insufficient to support the level of infrastructure needed to open up the whole area for development and regeneration, and/or that development will not come forward without the infrastructure, and the infrastructure is dependent on development funding.

4.5 This risk would be reduced if some higher value uses such as housing were permitted for parts of the area, as enabling mechanisms that are proposed in Options 2 and 3. However, the loss of employment land would add to the already expected shortfall in the sub-region and would result in the need to identify and allocate additional employment land elsewhere.

4.6 The significance of the type of employment and economic activity to be provided for within the Zone is also a key consideration. The ambitions for the Zone should not be diluted to attract any type of employment which can be attracted, and it is important that the Zone features the key sectors identified in the South Hampshire Economic Development technical work. However the Zone should not be identified for significant low intensity, low value uses such as warehousing and distribution, as these will undermine the ability of the area to generate sufficient land value uplift to deliver the necessary infrastructure. The strategic location of the Zone in transport terms does not in itself justify a focus on warehousing and distribution. The Zone is a key driver for the sub-regional economy as a whole, and the level of ambition for its regeneration must match that, with a strong representation from the high tech, advanced manufacturing and knowledge based sectors in the future development pattern.

4.7 Options 4 and 5 propose that part of the Zone be developed for retail uses as an alternative to enable the whole development to proceed. The strategy for South Hampshire is based on employment growth from key sectors such as finance, business service and general industry including advanced manufacturing, all of which could be accommodated within the Zone. There will clearly be a need for further retail development in South Hampshire. Applying the sequential test would mean that Southampton, Portsmouth and the main town centres (including Eastleigh) should be the preferred locations for this form of development. The County Council has consistently supported a policy approach to maintain and enhance town centres. Therefore these options should not be supported.

4.8 The final Option 6 proposes regeneration without the Chickenhall Lane Link Road (CLLR). This is undesirable as it will not allow for the delivery of the levels of economic activity the Zone can potentially provide. As a result, alternative (possibly greenfield) land would need to be identified elsewhere in South Hampshire. Therefore it is proposed that this option should not be supported.

Transport Commentary

4.9 The SHSEZ forms part of an International Gateway in the Regional Transport Strategy as part of the Draft South East Plan. The CLLR forms the basis for the development of the Employment Zone, but also provides the potential for a major transport interchange by linking together Southampton International Airport, the two railway stations, Eastleigh Bus Station and the strategic Motorway network. The financing and construction of the CLLR is fundamental to the development of the SHSEZ. Close attention must be given to the prospects for timely funding and implementation, including the possibility of phased construction, to establish a realistic delivery mechanism for the scheme. This is in line with the County Council's existing policy for the CLLR project and engagement with partners on the delivery of the Strategic Employment Zone.

4.10 To this end a significant amount of joint working is taking place between the Borough and County Council to ensure that the road scheme and SHSEZ progress in tandem. This joint working aims to secure the progression of design work for the link road to a programme that meets the deadlines of the AAP and should be supported.

4.11 The other transport objectives contained in the AAP should also be supported. These include:

(i) ensuring that the overall transport improvements provide environmental and air quality benefits;

(ii) improving accessibility through the provision of direct links for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists; and

(iii) allowing for the future provision of the Eastleigh Rail Chord, which provides a strategic rail corridor improvement linking the Portsmouth to Eastleigh railway main line to the Southampton to London line.

4.12 The development of land south of the Eastleigh-Fareham railway line cannot take place without the construction of the CLLR, and it is debateable whether significant development north of the line could demonstrate an acceptable traffic impact on the existing network without the addition of the link road. Option 6 is therefore not supported in transport terms as it will not meet the objectives as stated above.

4.13 The delivery of the link road, even on a phased basis, must precede or at least accompany any significant development within the Zone to provide the necessary access. The funding for the provision of the road must come in large part from development, since the road scheme's primary objective is to open up land for development. The classic regeneration conundrum therefore applies in respect of securing "up front" funding for infrastructure from development, where the development will not come forward without the infrastructure. This is an area in which the County Council should continue to explore all options to deliver the road scheme through our close partnership working with the Borough Council, national Government and its agencies and appropriate regional bodies.

Other Issues

4.14 All of the options fail to take account of the existing Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (1998) and emerging Core Strategy (which is due to be formally adopted by this Council in July having been judged to be "sound" by the Planning Inspector following the recent public examination). In particular the need for waste infrastructure to be co-located with `new' built development has not been addressed in the AAP. Sustainable Waste Management (including recycling) and environmental technologies could be a key sector for the future development of the SHSEZ. It is therefore recommended that facilities for significant waste management infrastructure, possibly including a replacement household waste recycling centre, should be identified. This could also contribute to the funding of the CLLR, or as part of the `enabling' strategy for the Zone.

4.15 It will also be necessary to safeguard the Rail Aggregates Depot on the site from inappropriate development since alternative sites for this use would be very difficult to find.

5. Impact Assessments

5.1 Assessment of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act has been considered in this response but no adverse impact has been identified in terms of race, creed or gender.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone is a vital element in meeting the economic growth targets for South Hampshire set out in the Draft South East Plan and its status as a diamond for growth in the Regional Economic Strategy. Its size and location make it a rare site, capable of providing a significant amount of employment floorspace adjacent to excellent road, rail and air services, and Eastleigh town centre. As a largely brownfield site its development will also help reduce the need for greenfield land releases to support the growth strategy for South Hampshire. It is vital to the whole South Hampshire strategy that the most is made from the Zone with optimum delivery of required floorspace, with the right mix of employment types and economic sectors. In particular it is important that the level of ambition for the SHSEZ does not undermine its ability to attract high tech, advanced manufacturing and knowledge based employment, and the level of development value needed to support the necessary infrastructure funding needed. For that reason, the County Council should support the most efficient employment led strategy for the SHSEZ site, supported through the provision of the vital CLLR, in conjunction with complementary regeneration of Eastleigh town centre.

1371Rpt/AP