Archived decisions

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

1. Summary

1.1 A public inquiry into the draft South East Plan took place last winter. That inquiry - called an Examination-in-Public - was conducted by a panel of three planning inspectors whose report has now been published. The inspectors recommend only minor changes to many of the policies in the draft Plan but their more significant proposals include higher rates of housebuilding across the region. In Hampshire, they recommend more housebuilding than in the draft Plan at Andover, Basingstoke, Whitehill/Bordon and Winchester. The Panel recognises the need for infrastructure improvements and calls for increased Government spending thereon, but it also recommends deletion of the draft Plan's proposal that new development should be conditional on infrastructure provision. Later this year or in early 2008, the Government will publish, for public comment, its proposed changes to the draft Plan taking account of the Panel's recommendations. The Cabinet now has an opportunity to review the outline of the Examination-in-Public and decide where to focus its activities in preparation for the next stage of the Plan process.

2. Recommendation

That the Cabinet consider the outcome of the South East Plan Examination-in-Public for Hampshire, and identify key areas of the Panel's recommendations on which the County Council should focus its activities in the run up to the Government's finalisation of Proposed Changes to the South East Plan, which will in turn be published for further consultation later in 2007/08.

3. Background

3.1 The South East Plan covers the whole region from Kent to Hampshire and north to Oxfordshire and Milton Keynes. Although the media has concentrated on the housebuilding proposals, the Plan covers the full spectrum of planning issues - including the economy, infrastructure, landscape and countryside, biodiversity and the implications of climate change - in order to provide the strategic planning framework for district councils to undertake local planning.

3.2 Essentially the draft plan has two parts: a strategy and policies for the whole region and, secondly, more detailed sub-regional strategies and policies for selected areas. The sub-regional strategies usually deal with just the economy, housing and infrastructure.

3.3 The Government appointed an independent Panel of three planning inspectors to explore the key issues arising from the objections/representations, through a type of public inquiry called an Examination-in-Public (EiP). This took place between November 2006 and March 2007, during which around 350 organisations participated in a series of roundtable discussions of the key issues. Hampshire County Council was invited to participate in several of the debates on region-wide issues and in all the sub-regional debates relating to Hampshire. The County Council also contributed to the South East County Leaders involvement in the EiP.

3.4 The Panel has submitted its report to the Government and it was published on 29 August 2007. The 500 page report summarises the key points raised in the debates and contains 300 recommendations on how the Plan should be re-drafted. The full report can be seen at: http://www.gos.gov.uk/gose/planning/regionalPlanning/southEastPlan/

3.5 There is no formal opportunity to make comments on the report. There will be a 12 week period of public consultation when the Government publishes its Proposed Changes to the draft Plan later this year or in early 2008. Those Proposed Changes must take account of the Panel's recommendations, although they are not statutorily bound to follow them in the way that local planning authorities are with Inspector's reports. The Proposed Changes will also address those parts of the draft Plan and the related objections/representations which were not covered by the EiP.

3.6 After considering the comments made on the Proposed Changes, the Government will then finalise the Plan.

4. Overall Strategy of the South East Plan

4.1 The draft Plan focuses most development in the areas defined as sub-regions. These contain the main agglomerations of urban areas. Two sub-regions cover parts of Hampshire: the South Hampshire Sub-region and the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-region which includes north Hampshire. The areas outside the sub-regions are called 'Rest of County' areas in the draft Plan. Here in Hampshire, the 'Rest of Hampshire' is referred to as 'Central Hampshire and New Forest'.

4.2 The Panel concludes that the overall spatial strategy is appropriate but that the document should be more locationally specific in its guidance on where new development should be planned.

4.3 The Panel believes that the South East Plan does not fully recognise the importance of the Region to the national economy, and that within the South East the strategy underplays the importance of the areas to the west and south of London (the London Fringe Sub-region [Surrey], the Central Oxfordshire Sub-region, and the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-region). The Panel concludes that the draft Plan's housebuilding proposals in these areas are insufficient in comparison to the predicted job growth. Its assessment is that constraining economic growth in these areas will not divert investment to regeneration areas elsewhere in the South East, but will result in jobs being lost to other parts of the UK or overseas. Consequently, it concludes that the amount of housebuilding in these areas should be increased.

4.4 Within these areas, the Panel feels it is logical for the additional development to be in locations which are designated in the draft Plan as 'Regional Hubs' together with the towns which have been designated by the Government as 'Growth Points'. In Hampshire, Basingstoke is in both categories, so the Panel proposes increased housebuilding there (further details below).

4.5 Reflecting its desire for greater locational specificity, the Panel recommends that the final Plan should designate four new Strategic Development Areas (SDAs) to complement the two already proposed in South Hampshire. None of the four new SDAs is in Hampshire, but the one proposed on the western edge of Reading could have implications for Hampshire, not least in terms of significantly increased traffic on routes leading into Berkshire.

5. The Economy

5.1 The Panel is critical of the draft Plan's economic policies on several counts. It believes they are inadequate to facilitate sustained economic growth across the region, that too much reliance is placed on 'smart growth' (improvements in productivity, more intensive use of existing business floorspace, etc), and that insufficient weight is attached to facilitating growth in the economically buoyant parts of the region.

5.2 In the Panel's view, it is a serious deficiency that the Plan does not quantify employment land provision in most sub-regions. (Hampshire is an exception to this due to the County Council's work in north Hampshire and through the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) in respect of South Hampshire.)

5.3 To address some of these concerns, the Panel proposes increased housebuilding (see below) and some detailed changes to the draft economy policies. However, it does not feel it has sufficient information to remedy all the document's shortcomings in this regard, so proposes an early partial review of the Plan in respect of the economy.

5.4 The Panel encourages local authorities to work together on joint employment land reviews to inform the partial review of the South East Plan as well as district council Local Development Documents. It recommends that the latter should safeguard key sites for marine industries, notably along the Solent coastline, but rejects calls made at the EiP for the South East Plan to include a policy about port development at Dibden Bay.

6. Housing

6.1 The draft Plan proposed that provision be made for the building of 28,900 new homes per year, with most of these being in the areas defined as sub-regions. A total of 6,100 per year would be in Hampshire: 4,000 in South Hampshire; 1,300 in north Hampshire; 800 in Central Hampshire and New Forest.

6.2 The Panel recommends that the regional total should be increased by 11% to 32,000 per year. In order to support economic growth - as explained in paragraph 4.3 above - it proposes that most of the additional housing should be in Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Surrey. Hampshire's figure would rise by 5% to 6,415 per year: all these extra homes would be in Basingstoke and the central Hampshire parts of East Hampshire, Winchester and Test Valley Districts. The figures for the city boroughs and districts in Hampshire are set out in the attached appendix and are explained in sections 9 to 11 below.

6.3 Calls from developers and Government representatives at the EiP for even higher figures - the highest of these being 42,500 region-wide - have been resisted by the inspectors. They also rejected the notion that housing could be made more affordable by increasing the rate of housebuilding. This recognises the evidence presented to the EiP by the South East County Leaders that new homes represent only a small part of the number of properties on sale at any time, and thus building more new homes would have little effect on house prices.

6.4 The Panel concludes that the best way to enable more people to have a home of their own is to increase the supply of affordable housing¹. It endorses the draft Plan's target that 35% of all new homes across the region should be affordable housing, and backs the call made by local authorities for increased Government funding to enable this target to be achieved.

7. Transport and Other Infrastructure

7.1 A Regional Transport Strategy was approved by the Government in 2004 following a mini EiP and the draft South East Plan only proposes selective changes to that strategy. The Panel endorses many of the proposals, but believes that stronger encouragement should be given to local authorities to test new charging initiatives as a part of overall demand management. However, it calls on the Government to show greater leadership on road user charging. (Transport schemes are covered in the sub-regional sections below.)

7.2 The draft Plan contains a separate chapter on Implementation, while the South East England Regional Assembly has also produced a separate 'Implementation Plan' which sets out the transport and other infrastructure improvements which are needed. The Panel welcomes this emphasis on implementation mechanisms and endorses the need for infrastructure provision to be coordinated with new development.

7.3 It acknowledges the difficulties which result from the utility regulators' short-time horizons for investment and the constraints on local authorities' capital and revenue funding. It calls for a longer term Government commitment to public sector funding. However, it rejects the draft Plan's proposal that new development should be conditional on infrastructure investment, seeing this as unrealistic and impractical.

7.4 The Panel supports the creation of a Regional Infrastructure Fund, which has been strongly championed by SEERA and the South East England Development Agency. The inspectors recognise that other infrastructure is at least as important as transport and in that regard advocate that a new policy on green infrastructure should be added to the Plan.

8. Other Topics

8.1 Generally, the Panel endorses the draft Plan's approach on other topics subject to minor changes. The latter include this County Council's proposed amendments to the draft policies for National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Panel endorses the concept of Strategic Gaps, but says the detailed boundaries of the Gaps should be regularly reviewed.

8.2 The Panel puts forward a process for apportioning London's waste amongst the South East counties which would not treat the Green Belt as a constraint on the selection of waste disposal sites.

8.3 The draft Plan proposes that SEERA's agreement should be sought for Ministry of Defence and local authorities land disposal strategies. The Panel proposes that there should only be a requirement to consult SEERA, not seek its agreement, which reflects an objection made by this County Council.

9. South Hampshire

9.1 Few changes are proposed to the South Hampshire sub-regional strategy which the Panel says is "based on commendably thorough research". It regards the PUSH economic growth target as "aspirational" and "very ambitious" but supports it nonetheless. The Panel rejects the County Council's calls for a more modest target and to hold some development land in reserve until there is more certainty that the PUSH growth target will be achieved.

9.2 The Panel endorses the housebuilding figures for all the authorities, or parts thereof, which are within South Hampshire and also endorse the location and size of the two proposed SDAs. The Panel agrees that the pace of building in each SDA should be coordinated with the rate of infrastructure provision, but (as explained in paragraph 7.3 above) rejects making the new development conditional on infrastructure provision. Whilst acknowledging the case for Strategic Gaps in South Hampshire, it says these should be designated in District Council Local Development Documents using the criteria in the South East Plan's region-wide policy. The Panel therefore proposes deletion of the policy which names the Strategic Gaps in South Hampshire.

9.3 The Panel commends the coordination achieved by PUSH in shaping the strategy for South Hampshire and says it is impressed by the achievements of Solent Transport. The inspectors concur that the Midlands-Southampton rail freight upgrade is of regional, let alone sub-regional, importance and should be given priority by the South East Plan. They propose that the Chickenhall Lane Link Road and improved interchange facilities at Southampton Airport should be added to the list of sub-regional transport schemes.

10. North Hampshire

10.1 The Panel concludes that SEERA was right to merge the previously separate Western Corridor sub-region and Blackwater Valley sub-region and that the unified sub-region's boundaries, which include north Hampshire, are right. It criticises the sub-regional strategy for not containing a clear statement of core strategy and reiterates for this area, their criticisms of the draft Plan's overall treatment of economic matters (see paragraph 5.1 above). The Panel regards the proposal for 40-60 hectares of new employment land in north Hampshire as anomalous, given the absence of equivalent figures for other parts of the sub-region, but as it reflects the approach the Panel would like to see across the whole region, it says it is loathe to propose its deletion. It suggests the figure could be refined by the county and borough/district councils before the South East Plan is finalised.

10.2 To better match future housing and job growth, the Panel recommend 19% more housebuilding in the sub-region than proposed in the draft Plan. Most of this extra housing would be in Berkshire, including a Strategic Development Area of 7,500 new homes to the west of Reading north of the M4 motorway, 2,500 on the southern edge of Reading, and 1,000 more at Wokingham. The only increase in north Hampshire is at Basingstoke town where housebuilding would be 9% higher than proposed in the draft Plan (865 per year instead of 795). This means 1,400 additional dwellings at Basingstoke over the whole Plan period which represents the Government's calculation of what the town's Growth Point designation means over and above the draft South East Plan. The Panel confirms that the figures for Basingstoke should continue to be conditional on resolution of waste water treatment issues.

10.3 It endorses the draft Plan's housebuilding figures for Hart District and Rushmoor Borough due to environmental constraints and because substantial development around smaller towns and villages would not meet sustainability objectives. As with South Hampshire and the region generally, the Panel proposes deletion of the sub-regional policy which would have made development conditional on infrastructure provision.

10.4 The Panel proposes a pruning of the list of infrastructure schemes for this sub-region; not because they are not appropriate, but because they are not all of sub-regional significance. Schemes to remain include Airtrack, the upgrading of Farnborough Station, the Basingstoke Station by-pass, new railway stations on the Basingstoke-Reading line and Basingstoke waste water treatment.

10.5 The Panel describes the fragmentation of planning responsibilities in the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley sub-region as a "huge challenge" and suggests re-modelling these along the same lines as PUSH. At a more local level, it proposes a Greater Reading Development Partnership to ensure joined-up planning of the major development which it proposes there and which would span several local authorities' areas. It also encourages the Blackwater Valley authorities to cooperate on the production of their Local Development Frameworks. The existing Berkshire strategic transport group ought to be expanded, the Panel says, to include Buckinghamshire, Hampshire and Surrey County Councils.

11. Central Hampshire and New Forest

11.1 The only proposals specific to this area in the draft Plan are housebuilding figures. The Panel agrees with SEERA that the draft Plan's region-wide policies provide sufficient guidance on other topics to enable the preparation of Local Development Frameworks.

11.2 The inspectors conclude that the housebuilding already proposed in the rural parts of this area is appropriate, but they propose additional housing in three towns. A total of 600 homes are recommended for Andover over and above those proposed in the draft Plan and an extra 1,800 at Winchester. The Hampshire Structure Plan allows a higher building rate than the South East Plan, the Panel argues, so unless the latter's figure is increased, growth in later years would be stifled. No substantive evidence was presented at the EiP of overriding environmental constraints at Winchester, the Panel says, while the existence of a reserve Major Development Area indicates the potential for more building. Some 2,500 new homes are proposed by the Panel at Whitehill/Bordon in response to the potential for town expansion outlined at the EiP by the Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity Steering Group led by East Hampshire District Council. This figure should not be an impediment to a higher one if that was shown to be sustainable, the Panel adds.

11.3 A case was put to the EiP by developers for the incorporation in the Plan of a 12,500 home new town at Micheldever Station. This proposal was opposed by the County Council. The Panel's report comprehensively rejects this proposal.

12. Commentary

12.1 The Panel's support for the draft Plan focussing development at existing urban areas is welcome as is its rejection of freestanding new towns, notably at Micheldever Station.

12.2 Its proposal for increased housebuilding is disappointing, albeit that it resisted pressure for even more. The latter is particularly noteworthy because for debate on this issue only, the regular Government Office for the South East officials were sidelined by senior figures from Whitehall. However, this may not be the end of the matter. The subsequent publication of the Housing Green Paper and its increased national target for housebuilding could see the Panel's figures increased even further in the Government's Proposed Changes to the Plan. Alternatively, the Government may decide to endorse the Panel's recommendations as interim figures and then initiate an immediate review of the Plan.

12.3 Of potentially greater concern, is the Panel's recommendation to remove the conditionality of new development on the provision of infrastructure. This is compounded by the absence of any Government assurances that sufficient funding will be made available for the new infrastructure required to serve the housebuilding proposed in the draft Plan, let alone any higher figures. The Panel's calls for increased infrastructure investment and longer term Government commitments on funding are welcome, but may yield no greater success than the lobbying already undertaken by the local authorities.

12.4 The Panel's proposed changes are recommendations which are not binding on the Secretary of State; the real debate will commence when the Government publishes its Proposed Changes. In anticipation of that, it is suggested that the County Council will want to explore the reactions of the affected borough/district councils to the Panel's recommendations, including through the established Member forums for north Hampshire and for Central Hampshire and New Forest.

12.5 Looking more widely, the major new development recommended by the Panel on the edges of Reading, and to a lesser extent at Wokingham, could have major implications for Hampshire, not least in transportation terms. For that reason it would be appropriate for the County Council to be involved in any Greater Reading Development Partnership, if that or any similar body were to be established. Similarly, the County Council should positively respond to any expansion of the Berkshire strategic transport group to encompass the adjoining county councils, as recommended by the Panel.

13. Impact Assessments

13.1 There are no implications for equalities arising from this report.

14. Conclusion

14.1 The Panel's report has been published for information only and there is no formal consultation until the Government publishes its Proposed Changes to the Plan later this year or early in 2008. Nonetheless, the Cabinet will clearly wish to consider the implications of the Panel report, and use its best endeavours to influence the Government's thinking in the finalisation of the Proposed Changes to the Plan, as well as preparing the ground for responding to the consultation on proposed changes later in the year. This will require some focus to ensure that activities and resources are effectively targeted on key areas such as, in particular, the importance of infrastructure provision for new development and the need for assurances over increased infrastructure funding. These have been a cornerstone of the 'Holding out for Hampshire' campaign and are needed more than ever in the light of the Panel's recommendations for increased housebuilding.

1466Rpt/SR

APPENDIX

EiP Panel's Recommended Housing Provision by Hampshire Authority