Lauren Mills examines Hampshire council’s new land use policy in the aftermath of one of the country’s biggest planning controversies of recent times.
“I want people to see that Hampshire is open for business,” declares Mike Hancock, leader of the county council. But, in the aftermath of one of the country’s biggest planning controversies of recent times, he has a large task ahead of him.
Two and a half years ago, before Hancock was at the helm, the county council unveiled its new vision for Hampshire in its structure plan. The emphasis was on restricting growth (especially commercial property development) underprovision of housing; and extensive conservation.
Vail Williams’ John Vail explains the council’s reasoning: “In 1988-89, the county council was paranoid about overheating in Hampshire’s economy – the structure plan was a knee-jerk reaction.”
The commercial development policies effectively froze allocation for the next 10 years: the existing pipeline stock was to be the entire supply for the decade to 2001. At the time the plan was formulated, in the years running up to 1991, it looked as if this amount would suffice. But it soon became apparent that many of the proposals, put together in the boom years, were in substandard locations and would probably never be developed.
Provision for housing, at well below SERPLAN’s regional guidance, meant that the county was relying on more people moving out than moving in. As for conservation, Hampshire’s planners proposed a blanket green belt for much of the south of the county: coastal development was largely out of the question.
As John Hancock now admits, these policies tightened the stranglehold on Hampshire’s potential for economic growth. “I am frustrated that opportunities have been lost during the past decade. To all intents and purposes, the shutters were down and companies were dissuaded from coming here. There was a perception that they were not welcome.”
Unsurprisingly, the county’s policies caused a local outcry. Companies enticed to Hampshire in the boom years were faced with the prospect that their businesses would be prevented from expanding. As a result, some abandoned what they perceived to be a sinking ship. One example is Warner-Lambert, which deserted Eastleigh in favour of a new site in south Wales. “They needed room to expand – and cheap land,” says Vail.
As a result of the controversy, the DOE appointed a three-man panel, led by barrister Duncan Ouseley, to investigate the structure plan policies. The panel rejected the county’s vision, and recommended that there should be a complete about-turn of its three main policy platforms.
Modifying the original proposals has been a slow process. But Environment Secretary John Gummer finally approved the revised structure plan last month. Greater freedom to the district councils has replaced the rigid approach to commercial development; housing targets have been topped up to 66,700 by 2001; and the county’s greenbelt policies have been rejected as too restrictive.
Vail speaks for many when he praises the modified plan: “It is a great step forward,” he says. But Hampshire has learnt its lesson the hard way, and Hancock is left with the task of dispersing the cloud of commercial uncertainty that hovers over the county as a direct result of its structure plan confusion.
“I want to try to put 10 years of despair behind us,” he says. In an effort to find a middle way between the two opposing camps, he has begun by arguing that up to 60% of new development could be achieved on brownfield sites.”
Brownfield sites, however, are often poorly located, and contaminated. But Vail, for one, has faith in the idea. He says: “Within reason, this is probably the right approach.”
While HGP Planning Consultancy’s Jonathan Kamm believes that urban regeneration is an essential plank for economic development, he warns: “In a climate where there is very little public assistance to provide infrastructure and make sites attractive to the market-place, the chances of achieving this are very slim. It depends how fast brown sites can be brought forward in relation to economic growth.”
But Hancock is undeterred. He points out that at Segensworth in south Hampshire, for instance, the county is prepared to pump-prime a site so that it is attractive to the market. “We will spend £2m to £3m putting in infrastructure,” he promises.
But he recognises that many sites will not get off the ground without considerable co-operation between the public and private sectors. In a bid to get things moving, he calls for greater partnership between the county council, the districts, the MOD, the DTI and the business community.
“In the past six months enormous strides have been made to cross these bridges,” he insists. He cites the South Coast Metropole, the Portsmouth Partnership and the Hampshire Business Liaison Community as but a handful of recent initiatives.
While Vail is largely complimentary about these efforts, he would like to see the creation of a single, independent body, charged with the task of promoting the county as a whole. “There is a strong case for a central umbrella to which all the smaller bodies subscribe,” he says.
Hancock responds by confirming his commitment to the setting up of a focused economic development unit. But, in the meantime, the revised structure plan is itself under review by the county council. Alan Lloyd, chairman of the county’s planning and transportation committee, promises that, in carrying out this work, “the lessons learned during the discussions and debates of the past four years will provide an invaluable background”.
But, until details of the revised plan are known, there is a lingering uncertainty in the Hampshire camp. Hancock is keen to stress, at this point, that “no structure plan is a tablet of stone”. And he adds: “There must be realism and flexibility – to cope with the county’s main needs.”
These, he perceives, are as follows: first, to protect existing businesses by giving them scope to expand; second – in a bid to lure back inward investment – to create development opportunities.
As for the green belt, Hancock says: “We have to recognise that rural developments cannot be ignored. We have to be flexible to change of use of former agricultural buildings.”
This attitude is unlikely to appease the ranks of NIMBYs, still keen to cling on to open space.
Hancock has his reasons: “There has been pressure from the rural community to find alternative uses.” His impression is that those communities are crying out for change.
Vail is largely in agreement. “The green belt is somewhat of a sacred cow – it all needs to be reassessed. The policies should be relaxed, provided there is strong control on development.”
Basingstoke council’s chief executive, Katrine Sporle, warns that there could be problems. She says: “Greenfield development is very difficult.”
She explains her main concern: “Hampshire does not have any keen sense of its asset base to know where to direct business. A lot of inward investors do not want greenfield sites. They want to be closer to town centres, on sites that give them prominence.”
On this point, Vail agrees: “Hampshire badly needs a detailed audit of its industrial base, together with an audit of land available.”
Despite this, he firmly believes that the increased flexibility embodied by the modified plan, coupled with Hancock’s enthusiasm for the county, bodes well for Hampshire’s future. “Hancock has reversed the tide that was running the wrong way,” he says.
