CPRE South East: Western Corridor Sub-group report
Hugh Sheppard, Hart & Rushmoor District Group Co-Chairman, Western Corridor Sub-group

The Sub-group was set up in late 2004 to co-ordinate a response to the draft South East Plan on behalf of CPRE Hampshire and four other county branches. The substance of our concern was, and is, the impact of co-ordinated policies on the proposed 'Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-region'; a development area centred on Reading that stretches from Slough to the Wiltshire border.

Hart & Rushmoor and North Hampshire District Groups were to the fore last year in a successful sub-group campaign to have the Regional Assembly exclude some 50 square miles and 20 Hampshire villages from the sub-region. This was co-ordinated with Surrey to help remove Farnham and nearby villages at the same time.

In March 2006, the 'South East Regional Spatial Strategy', began a consultation period prior to Examination in Public (EIP) at the end of the year. The Sub-group re-convened and, while pressing for the exclusion of more rural areas, also expressed concern that the Blackwater Valley was still tied into the policy framework, even though a large part, including Farnham, was no longer within the sub-region.

The sub-group advocated re-naming the sub-region as 'The Western Corridor', with a special policy designation for the Blackwater Valley if needs be. Or, with ex-military lands available, some redevelopment as a new unitary authority could be appropriate, despite local development being compromised by 'Special Protection Areas' (SPAs); the designation given to rare bird habitats on the surrounding Thames Basin Heaths.

Development within 5 km. of an SPA needs alternative countryside as mitigation land where people can take dogs, or walk or ride instead. However, it is one thing to have alternative countryside nearby, but another to establish if it has equal recreational value to the SPA. This subject could take up a lot of time and energy at the EIP.

CPRE's wider position has consistently supported the Regional Assembly's proposed figures for development. These broadly maintain established trends for the next 20 years, seeking to protect the countryside and rural priorities by concentrating development on special areas and the sub-regions. CPRE policies emphasise the role of brownfield land for housing and not greenfield, and the need to have infrastructure in place first.

Government, however, wants more housing development; perhaps half as much again, so as to grow the economy by expanding the workforce. The sub-group prefers the approach of Lord Turner and others who believe the nation's workforce will expand of itself due to various factors, particularly the equalisation of later retirement dates for men and women, the collapse of occupational pension schemes, the failure of many people to make alternative provision for their old age and greater longevity.

If, in 20 years time, everyone works for three years longer on average, that would equate to a 7.5% larger workforce; with most members staying in the same home. With 3.2 million people in work in the South East today, and many in single households, the implication would be that perhaps 25% of the Regional Assembly's proposal for 578,000 new homes will be surplus to the underlying requirement.

Yet Government wants still more!

Whether this point of view will be heard at EIP will first depend on receiving an invitation!

November 2006