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 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 the 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.

1.2 The following decision was made:

Agreed that a submission be made to the Government before its proposals for the South East Plan are published detailing the Cabinet's:

(a) support for affordable housing whilst urging the Government to intervene in terms of adequate direct funding

(b) commitment to a plan, manage and monitor approach to development

(c) concerns about the Panel's recommendation for a major new development area on the western edge of Reading and how traffic would impact within Hampshire's borders

(d) strongly held view that infrastructure should precede, not follow housing development; and

(e) that the submission be copied to all Hampshire MPs

2. Reason

2.1 By influencing the evolution of the South East Plan, the County Council can ensure that the required new homes and jobs are provided, in the right place and with the necessary investment in infrastructure.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 To not react to the Examination-in-Public Panel's recommendations.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member Consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - None.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - None.

Approved by: ..................................... Date: ...................................

Councillor T K Thornber CBE - Chairman

1466Decn/SR