Regional pressures on rural Hampshire -
wait for the South East Plan

Edward Dawson, Regional Director CPRE South East

Hampshire is a lovely county, so often admired by those passing through. But its peace and tranquillity is fragile, and its proximity to the inner South East means it is constantly under pressure. No village can be entirely insulated from surrounding pressures, and after all, times change and we all need to move on. The biggest factor on the regional agenda is now the forthcoming examination of the South East Plan. What will be the implications of the public examination on rural Hampshire? Will housing numbers will be increased, and how can people get involved in such a complex and technical process?

The stack of submissions is over seven foot high, and the list of reference documents extends to 40 pages. How can anyone cope with such a tonnage of literature? Whose brain is big enough to assess all the data? Is it time to vote off the weakest link?

Why are we examining?
On 7th September a preliminary meeting was held for the examination-in-public, in Reading Town Hall. Present was the chairman of the examination panel, Corinne Swain, supported by two members of the Planning Inspectorate. The chairman is not an inspector herself, and has a background in commercial consultancy. There is a third inspector who will assess the issues surrounding the Special Protection Area for wild birds in the Thames Basin Heaths. This is very relevant to north Hampshire.

The examination starts in earnest in November at the HG Wells Centre in Woking. Each session will have about 20 table participants, with some hot desks. The purpose will be to take a probing discussion of topics, based on the matters selected for discussion. The draft list of matters can be viewed on www.eipsoutheast.co.uk.

There are six main documents in the South East Plan suite of papers. These range from the core strategy to the implementation plan. There have already been a number of mini reviews of regional planning policy. These have included Energy and Tourism, Regional Transport Strategy, Waste & Minerals, as well as area-based examinations of Ashford in Kent and Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale. Another is due on Gypsy and Traveller Sites.

The aim is to focus on changes rather than revisit any of these policy areas. Testing the 'soundness' of the Plan is the priority. The procedure for arriving at the Plan is also vital. The sequence of processes is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 11, Regional Planning. Failing to live up to these standards could leave parties open to legal challenge. How good was the stakeholder involvement, especially at sub regional level? While most of the key regional players, such as CPRE and the South East Forum for Sustainability have played an integral part in the development of the Plan, many of the sub regions have been dominated by the local authorities. In these cases it will be necessary to probe the internal consistency of the Plan, and avoid any notions of advocacy or self promotion of sub regional agendas.

The Focus of Comments
In all, there were over 7,000 responses to the Plan. Of these, 6,000 came from the public at large, with 12 from MPs and MEPs. 1,000 came from organisations, which were equally divided between voluntary sector, developers, parish councils and GOSE and other government agencies. Half of all responses came from Wokingham and Bracknell Forest. 15% were from Dover and Folkestone, and the Lydd and Romney Marsh area. Some 12% came from Basingstoke and Frimley, and from the south Hampshire area.

The Panel has sought to set out all the main issues of 'regional significance'. They are especially concerned with potential conflicts with national and other regional policy. The examination discussion must be 'evidence-based' and net repeat agreed positions. The aim will be the 'right level of guidance' which can go into the local plan-making process. There are some uplifts in government policy that need to be reflected, such as on aviation and road charging.

Housing to make your eyes water
What role will housing numbers play? The panel has declared that it will only listen to arguments about a higher number of houses, not lower. This is because they believe all the evidence suggests that higher housing figures should be tested. The panel also believes that the Plan has adopted a 'cautionary approach' to growth at 28,900 houses per year, in the longer term. What is meant by the concept of 'reasonableness', and how can the Plan expect to meet the reasonable needs of the region?

Lessons from the East of England

The East of England is slightly ahead of the South East in its regional working. They held a public examination in the spring, and already have a panel report. The report recommends removing many of the sub regions and redistributing the housing over the whole region. They also recommended uplifting the housing numbers, to meet the projections of household growth. The East of England panel also decided that many more details should be left to the local level. A similar approach will be adopted for the South East. This means that the EIP cannot be used as a forum for lobbying for specific sites.

A key issue will be the alignment of housing and jobs. This is relevant to the notion of 3% growth in GVA (Gross Value Added) to 2016, and the number of houses being proposed. SEEDA (South East England Development Agency) has dropped its stated aim of 36,000 houses per year from its Regional Economic Strategy. However, SEEDA still believes the numbers should go higher, and no doubt will press for this at the housing sessions. It will be interesting to see how the concept of Smart Growth is interpreted by the panel. This applies especially in the London Fringe and Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley sub regions. There is a projected labour supply shortfall, and there will be issues about the role of international migration in making adjustments to the labour market situation.

Overarching or underscoring the issues
Beyond the sphere of spatial planning, there lurk a series of pitfalls for the panel. These are what to do about climate change and resource consumption? What can the region do to reduce carbon emissions and control the ecological footprint? To what extent are we relying on behavioural change? The Plan has an aim of reducing the ecological footprint by 2026, having stabilised it by 2016. It is just an abstract concept or does everyone know what it means? The panel accepts that the Environment Agency models show a deficit of water supply around much of the region by 2025. They want to know how an approach based on demand management will work. This is to be combined with more water efficiency and greater investment. There is also a detailed Sustainability Appraisal, prepared independently and in parallel with the Plan. Has it informed the process and improved the Plan itself? Has it fully set out the options on water resource issues, as well as flood risk assessment? Other social factors, such as the needs of an ageing population, need to have a proper influence on regional strategy.

A busy time in store
According to the panel, the participants were chosen specifically because they demonstrated a good 'understanding of strategic issues'. All parts of the region and all types of groups were chosen. Local authorities were invited only where they held a contrary view or had something specific to contribute. The South East County Leaders are there because they have commissioned research into the infrastructure needs of the region. CPRE is pleased to be well represented and some county branches, such as Kent and Surrey are invited in their own right. By next spring it will all be over.

With such a mixed bag of groups, will there be any kind of emerging consensus? Will the result be a more sustainable region, and will it mean the pressures for growth are contained or deflected? Will everyone sleep better in their beds in rural Hampshire?

Edward Dawson
Regional Director, CPRE South East;
Vice Chairman, Rural Affairs Forum;
Member, Regional Assembly South East Plan Sounding Board.

This article first appeared in the CPRE Hampshire Newsletter, Autumn 2006.