Parish Council

About The Village

Directory

Planning Planning Committee Meeting Agenda Planning Committee Meeting Report

Planning

	Planning Committee Meetings for 2008
	The South East Plan
	Parish Council Response to South East Plan

Planning Committee Meetings for 2008

Janaury 22nd
February 26th
March 25th
April 22nd
May 27th
June 24th
July 22nd
August 26th
September 23rd
October 28th
Novemver 25th
December - No Meeting

back to index

The South East Plan

The South East Plan - Information from your Parish Council

Background:

The South East Plan is a new way of planning for the future of our region. It will define a clear vision for the South East to guide development to 2026. It sets the framework within which councils prepare local development plans for their areas. Consultation started 24 January and ends 15 April.
The Plan will be about: - Homes and jobs - Transport - Green space and countryside - Water - Energy - Waste - Education - Health - Climate change.
The South East region is an administrative concoction and includes the county and unitary councils in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East and West Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire and Surrey. [8 million people live here].
The South East England Regional Assembly [SEERA] is responsible for preparing the Plan for submission to the Government; the Deputy Prime Minister will decide what the Plan finally says.
The Assembly has 111 members, including elected councillors nominated by all 74 of the region's local authorities. There are also regional representatives chosen by the voluntary sector, environmental groups, faith communities, business and economic partnerships, education and cultural networks, and town and parish councils.

The Plan:

An immense set of documents - very few people will read it. See SEERA website is:- http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/southeastplan/. There is a Questionnaire which will also be delivered through your letter box [with loaded questions!].
Predicates 3% economic growth rate for SE - assumed to be matched by population growth of 900,000 by 2027. Offers three house-building options. Hampshire County Council has issued a note summarising and explaining how these affect Hampshire - see pages 3 and 4 of this leaflet.
The Plan defines 9 'sub-regional areas' - St Mary Bourne is in 'the rest of Hampshire' after removing the 'Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley' sub-region and the 'South Hampshire' sub-region focused around Southampton and Portsmouth.
The Borough Council administration originally wanted Basingstoke to go for 'additional growth', meaning a substantial increase in existing house-building targets and even higher pressure to build at higher densities, but in December 2004 changed its official stance significantly.

The amended motion supports a lower range of targets:

"This [Borough] Council believes the South East Plan must represent the best interests of the residents and businesses of Basingstoke & Deane. This can only be achieved if the Plan:-

(a) guarantees investment and improvements to infrastructure, such as transport links, sewage treatment, water supplies, meeting existing and future needs;

(b) recognises the existing housing pressures and the need for affordable housing and the clearly stated policy of the Council to defend the integrity of our rural areas and villages;

(c) ensures the sustainable future economic viability of Basingstoke & Deane with job creation and business development; and

(d) recognises that this Council also supports the revised housing allocation limits requested by SEERA, the scale of which is 25,500, 28,000 and 32,000 houses."

Comments:

25,500 is equivalent to the present local plan, ie no increase. The earlier SEERA proposals started from a higher base and went to a higher upper limit; even the new upper limit would mean a significant acceleration in house building.
J Prescott and officials [including administration at Basingstoke & Deane] want higher rates and are fighting a rearguard action to force through the higher numbers.
Officers are driven by the need to get good ratings from Government, which means enthusiastically supporting the Whitehall line, Whitehall being the source of the earlier, higher targets.
The plan calls for infrastructure investment to precede house building [previously the assumption has been that 'if you want infrastructure investment, build more houses']; commentators aver that the Treasury will not provide the kinds of funding needed.

The eventual result will depend on three main factors:

1. the outcome of the public consultation on the South East Plan

2. the extent to which the Deputy Prime Minister is then able to override that outcome

3. the extent to which B&DBC tries and succeeds to get a higher proportion whatever emerges as the target.

Although our main interest is in what happens in our rural areas and villages, we also have an interest in what happens in the wider B&DBC area and in the 'Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley sub-region'. This encompasses much of the B&DBC area and has recently been extended to include part of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Whatever is said about protecting villages and rural areas, the higher the overall target for the sub-region the greater the pressure on rural areas and villages.
The focus for the planning authority [B&DBC] will be the sub-region; Hampshire County Council will provide focus for the 'rest of Hampshire', with input from B&DBC.
B&DBC approach has been to:-
- Support higher housing targets
- Bid for B&DBC to take a high share of whatever targets are going [which would reinforce pressure on the planning authority to a) say yes to applications and b) encourage high density developments)
- Seek to extend the 'Western Corridor' boundaries
Whatever line is taken, B&DBC's general [sub-region] area (Basingstoke > Newbury > Reading > Slough) is shown on all the maps as having the highest number of new houses.
For many local people SEERA and its South East Plan may be a distant and uninteresting mystery. However, it is quite possible that a strong public response supporting lower rather than higher targets may bring about a change of heart on the part of the B&DBC administration, which might be good for the parishes, the borough and the county.

Documents:

The full South East Plan documentation weighs 1.4 kg. One set is available from the Parish Clerk.

Don't attempt to download and print (you'd need a ream of paper!). To buy it costs £30.

The Executive Summary is free.

MW/2005-02-22

back to index

Parish Council Response to South East Plan

To the Chairman
South East England Regional Assembly

14^th April 2005

PARISH COUNCIL RESPONSE
TO THE SOUTH EAST PLAN FOR BASINGSTOKE AREA

1. House building figures

We fully support the views expressed by Mr Paul Turner, Chairman of the Basingstoke District Association of Parish and Town Councils, that those agitating about the figures in the South East Plan seem to have forgotten that the current Regional Planning Guidance target for new house builds in the borough of Basingstoke is around 1,000 each year. If unchanged, this figure alone would alter Basingstoke quite dramatically, from having 65,000 homes now to 85,000 in 20 years time.

2. The Borough response

Any decision by the Borough Council in their response for the above figure to be raised to 1,200 or 1,300 per annum would mean an additional 4,000 to 6,000 homes built by 2026. That is an increase of 20% or 30% on the current building targets, the end result being some 90,000 homes by 2026.

3. Our response

St Mary Bourne Parish Council believes that the current build rate of 1,000 houses for Basingstoke is sufficient for the area and which we calculate is below the proposed allocation limit for the Region of 25,500 houses per annum.

4. Our additional concerns are:

a. Consultation period

Lack of time for formulating a response to the Plan

b. Infrastructure

Traffic, water supply and sewerage disposal are already creating problems in the Borough; future infrastructure improvements seem to rely on vague assurances

c. Affordable housing

Linking the number of 'affordable' homes to be built with those constructed on a speculative basis is illogical

d. Economic growth

This does not necessarily incur a related increase in the labour force. What happened to greater productivity?

e. The democratic process

We are not confident of an impartial decision when the case is to be presented by an unelected body (SEERA) with the Deputy Prime Minister having the final say.

f. The Village Design Statement (VDS)

We are both annoyed and concerned that just when the VDS is likely to be required, the new Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 prevents our VDS [nearing completion] being adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance [SPG]. Thus, on the one hand we have been urged to create a VDS and given public money for this, whilst on the other the new act prevents this. So much for grass roots involvement in the planning process!

5. We also fully support the views expressed by the Leader of Hampshire County Council, Ken Thornber, that

a. Funding

Any growth will have to be accompanied by adequate funding from the Government in infrastructure such as roads, rail, water supply and sewerage, as well as in schools and hospitals

b. Affordable housing

Any growth must be accompanied by funding to resolve our desperate need for affordable housing

c. Government support for infrastructure

Additional housing must not go ahead without a firm government commitment to invest in the necessary infrastructure

d. Grassroots involvement

The Government must demonstrate commitment to listening to the people when deciding the actual number of houses to be built

Alan Marsden
Chairman, St Mary Bourne Parish Council

back to index

top of page

This page was last edited on 23 Jan 2008