Core Strategy Preferred Policies

[estimated] Ended on the 1 February 2010
If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.

4. Spatial strategy

4.1 The spatial strategy is central to the Core Strategy. It will provide a guide to how the spatial vision and strategic objectives will be achieved in practical terms. The role of the spatial strategy is to set out how much development there will be, broadly where it will go, when it will take place and who will deliver it.

4.2 This chapter deals with the broad location of new development over the plan period (2006 – 2026). It initially focuses on the key land uses of housing, employment and retail and examines the realistic choices (the spatial options) for the scale of change proposed. Then, based on a comprehensive appraisal of these spatial options, it sets out the preferred policies for these land uses. These preferred policies are then expanded to include the implications for each of the main towns and larger villages in the district.

CP1 PREFERRED SPATIAL STRATEGY POLICY

The Council’s preferred approach to the spatial strategy is to provide development in the most accessible and sustainable locations to maintain the vitality and viability of existing communities. The Council will:

  • Locate development predominantly in or near settlements with a good range of services and facilities, and access to alternative modes of transport to the car;
  • Provide housing, including affordable housing, of a scale appropriate to the settlement;
  • Provide appropriate economic development of a scale appropriate to the settlement;
  • Provide and retain public open space and green infrastructure;
  • Locate development so as to minimise risk of damage to areas of high nature conservation and/or landscape value;
  • Locate development so as to protect and enhance the character and quality of the local area;
  • Locate development so as to minimise the amount of development and people at risk from flooding;
  • Support rural transport initiatives that improve accessibility;
  • Support the retention of local services and facilities.

The Preferred Policy is to include a settlement hierarchy based upon the accessibility of settlements and availability of a broad range of facilities. The majority of development will be focused in the most sustainable towns and larger villages where it retains and enhances their character. The proposed hierarchy is:

Settlements Position in Hierarchy
Alton, Petersfield (see separate chapter on Whitehill/Bordon) Market Towns
Liphook, Horndean Large Local Service Centres
Clanfield, Four Marks/South Medstead, Grayshott, Liss, Rowlands Castle Small Local Service Centres
Central Area
Buriton, East Meon, Greatham, High Cross, Hill Brow, Liss Forest, Sheet, Steep, Stroud, West Liss
South Area
Blendworth, Catherington, Lovedean
North West Area
Beech, Bentley, Bentley Station, Bentworth, Blackmoor, Binsted, Bucks Horn Oak, Chawton, East Worldham, Holt Pound, Holybourne, Kingsley, Lower Farringdon, Medstead village, Ropley, Ropley Dean, Selborne, Upper Farringdon, Upper Froyle
North East Area
Arford, Bramshott, Griggs Green, Headley, Headley Down, Lindford, Passfield
Common Settlements with a settlement policy boundary where limited local development may be appropriate
All other settlements Small rural villages/hamlets without a settlement policy boundary

The preferred policy for the location of future development in the Central Hampshire part of the district is to focus development mainly at Alton and Petersfield (market towns) and Liphook (large local service centre). Four Marks/South Medstead, Liss and Grayshott (the small local service centres) will receive some development, but the quantity and type will reflect their respective roles, distinct character and development constraints. Development in the other defined villages will be limited to minor infilling and redevelopment, or that necessary to meet specific local needs.

The preferred policy for the location of future development in the South Hampshire part of the district is to focus the majority of development at Horndean, the large local service centre. Clanfield and Rowlands Castle, the small local service centres, will receive some development, but the quantity and type of future development will reflect their respective roles, distinct character, the level of housing land already released to maintain a 5 year supply of housing land, and development constraints.

A sequential approach to development will be adopted. If development requirements are not met by sites with existing planning permission, the requirements should be provided firstly through previously developed land and buildings, followed by greenfield land. (See separate chapter on Whitehill/Bordon)

Policy conformity

PPGs / PPSs /Circulars PPS1, PPS3, PPG4, PPS7, PPG13
South East Plan Policies H1, H2, SH1, SH5, RE1, RE2, RE3, RE4, BE4, BE5.
Sustainable Community Strategy Priority Outcomes:
3.1 (1) Provide housing with the aim of meeting the specific needs of each community and complementing the existing character, with appropriate infrastructure and services.
4.1 (1). Encourage business to stay and invest in the district by:
  • Improving the infrastructure and local services for businesses and their employees living in the district.
  • Increasing the availability and choice of modern business premises.
(2). Encourage the growth of new businesses to replace those in decline, such as agriculture, manufacturing, defence and lower value financial/business services activities.
(3). Build high quality successful communities for the benefit of businesses, residents, workers and visitors in:
  1. Whitehill and Bordon - taking advantage of the MOD pulling out (see Area Priorities below):
    • Manage the potential down-turn up to 2011, as the population declines.
    • Maximise the up-turn from 2011 onwards as the population grows.
    • Ensure the Green Town Vision to develop the town is achieved.
  2. Small rural towns, ie Petersfield, Alton and Horndean.
  3. Smaller villages - increase support for rural village businesses and community services to stem their decline.
(4). Reduce the number of people commuting to work outside the district by:
  • Increasing the level of skills in the local work force.
  • Increasing investment by companies that provide higher paid jobs in the area.
  • Increase number of qualified people and provide routes into work - especially for young people, women and disadvantaged (eg through more placement opportunities).
Council Strategy 1. Intensify our protection of the built and natural environment:
  • Using planning more effectively to promote our quality of life
  • Caring for our natural environment
2. Safer and more vibrant communities:
  • Developing better facilities in our towns and villages
3. Improve our focus on special community groups:
  • Provide more affordable homes
  • Helping our children and young people to improve their quality of life
Core Strategy Objectives (All Core Strategy Objectives are relevant to the spatial strategy. Only the key ones are listed) CSOH1 To meet out strategic housing requirements, 5,200 homes should be built in the District in the period 2006-2026 (4,000 in Central Hampshire and 1,200 in South Hampshire). In addition 5,500 should be built at Whitehill/Bordon subject to further studies.
CSOH3 To ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent, sustainably constructed and affordable home, which is capable of being adapted to changing personal needs
CSOH4 To meet affordable housing needs as far as practicable
CSOH5 To promote safe, sustainable communities by ensuring an appropriate housing mix, taking account of the needs of identified groups in various settlements, and utilising good quality urban design.
CSOE1 To make best use of land in settlements to minimise the impact of development upon the countryside;
CSOT1 To reduce the need to travel through careful planning of development/location of services.
CSOT2 To improve accessibility to all services, particularly for those who may need them most, but are least able to access them;
CSOEM1 To maintain a buoyant local economy, whilst respecting the environment and the quality of life in East Hampshire.
CSOEM2 To help provide jobs in East Hampshire for its residents.
Policy Indicator Local Indicators:
Number of housing completions and amount of new employment and retail floorspace within defined settlements in the settlement hierarchy
Delivery Bodies EHDC, development industry

Settlement hierarchy

4.3 Sustainability is a key theme of the Council’s sustainable community strategy as well as national and regional planning policy guidance. Development needs to be distributed in a sustainable way and an effective tool for measuring this is via a settlement hierarchy. A settlement hierarchy is essentially classifying a list of towns, villages and hamlets using some form of criteria – in the case of East Hampshire District Council, it is availability of and ease of access to facilities and services while being aware of population. An analysis of the facilities and accessibility of towns and villages in the district is set out in the background paper for settlement hierarchy.

Market towns

4.4 The analysis clearly shows that Alton (pop. 17,264) and Petersfield (pop. 14,299) remain the most sustainable settlements in East Hampshire. They are easily recognisable as market towns set in a rural landscape and have attractive historic centres. Both have a wide range of shops and also include schools, jobs and community facilities with good transport links to London. They also provide commercial and community uses for the surrounding rural areas.

4.5 Whitehill/Bordon (pop. 13,922) is currently a largely self-contained military town with a range of services although these are generally spread throughout the town. The future release of MoD land for development will provide the opportunity to consolidate and enhance the town’s role.

Large local service centres

4.6 Horndean (pop. 12,393) has a market town population, but it lacks a country town identity being a significant urban area adjoining Waterlooville. Horndean Village provides a focus but the large supermarket, Morrisons, and several other retailers are away from the village centre. It has no mainline railway station, although there is a good bus service to Portsmouth and Waterlooville and other bus services into Havant and Petersfield.

4.7 Liphook (pop. 8,399) is a large, self-contained village which has all the key services and facilities. Retail facilities are split between the The Square and Station Road. Its retail base is in decline. The mainline railway station provides access to London, Guildford and Portsmouth.

Small local service centres

4.8 Clanfield (pop. 4,421) is a large village with a good range of services and facilities and is close to the A3. It lacks a mainline railway station and secondary school.

4.9 Four Marks (pop. 3,941) is a large village and lies on either side of the A31 with a good bus service to Alton and Winchester. The village has a good range of services and facilities. There is a significant amount of local employment in the area of South Medstead which lies immediately to the north of the railway line.

4.10 Grayshott (pop. 2,292) is a large village on the district border. It has a good range of services and facilities including most key services.

4.11 Liss (pop. 6,228) includes the satellite settlements of West Liss and Liss Forest. It has a declining retail base but still retains most of the key services. A mainline railway station connects to London, Guildford and Portsmouth.

4.12 Rowlands Castle (pop. 2,705) is a well-defined large village with an attractive centre. It has a good range of local services and facilities including a mainline railway station.

4.13 Because of the access to local services and facilities such as shops, schools, places of work, railway stations and so on, the settlements listed above are the most sustainable for most new development.

The smaller villages

4.14 The district contains a large number of smaller rural villages, which lack a range of services and facilities and look towards the towns and larger villages for additional services. Some of these villages may benefit from further small-scale housing or employment development to meet local needs or help to retain vulnerable services, and this may take place on sites not specifically earmarked for development, for example infilling or converting rural buildings.

4.15 It is recognised that development in the villages needs to be sustainable. The strategy should direct development opportunities to the more sustainable parts of East Hampshire where residents have access to a range of facilities either locally or nearby that can be reached easily by walking, cycling or public transport.

4.16 The settlement hierarchy background paper identifies the services and facilities available in the towns and villages of East Hampshire. This provides a guide to determining which of these should have a settlement policy boundary (SPB) within which development will be permitted subject to satisfying the usual policies, for example access, traffic generation, design, impact on neighbouring properties, overlooking and so on.

4.17 PPS3 states that priority should be given to the re-use of previously developed land and buildings rather than turning to greenfield sites. Vacant, derelict and under-used previously developed land should be used more efficiently provided that this creates or maintains a good living environment. Additional housing on such land within the villages with a SPB would be beneficial if it can support local services, such as schools or shops. New business development can also help to maintain sustainability in these villages.

4.18 SPBs, as well as defining sustainable development locations, also define where the countryside starts and therefore where countryside planning policies become relevant.

4.19 Appendix 1 of the settlement hierarchy paper identifies the range of facilities available in settlements in the district. The overall scoring results are shown in Appendix 2. In the analysis the higher the score the more facilities are available.

4.20 It is a matter of judgement where the cut off point should be for the selection of SPBs. It is considered that settlements that have fewer than four facilities and where none of them are likely to be used on a daily basis should generally be considered unsustainable.

4.21 However, some of the smaller villages which have four or fewer of their own facilities and services are satellites of larger settlements which provide a wide range of facilities and services. These villages should have a SPB. They include:

Blendworth
Lovedean
Bentley Station
Bucks Horn Oak
Arford
Bramshott
Griggs Green

4.22 There are some remote villages, however, with more than four facilities but which are accessible only by rural lanes. These villages should not have a SPB as they are not suitable for further housing development including infilling. These villages are:

Hawkley
West Tisted
East Tisted
Lasham
Lower Froyle
Shalden
Upper Wield

4.23 Settlements not named in the hierarchy are considered to be within the wider countryside. In this area development will be limited to that which has an essential need to be located in the countryside. This may include development which is necessary for agricultural, horticultural or forestry purposes, and certain types of open recreational uses which require a countryside location.

Options considered

4.24 The settlement hierarchy identifies the most sustainable towns and villages for future development. Settlements are characterised into four different levels based on a range of criteria, including access to public transport, and service provision. This includes not only shopping facilities but also health, education, other community uses and employment opportunities.

4.25 A strategy based around the settlement hierarchy will also ensure that where possible key services, including post offices, convenience stores and primary schools, will be retained by ensuring that there is a resident population to support them. This will help to ensure that the vitality of the smaller communities is maintained.

4.26 The alternative approach of using a hierarchy based only on population was rejected as it fails to consider sustainability. Locating development where there are few facilities and services will increase the need to travel, increase travel by car and increase contributions to climate change. A hierarchy based on access to facilities and accessibility provides a framework for focusing future development and levels of development. The hierarchy can group together similar settlements. It does not follow that all the settlements in each group will accommodate the same levels of development - that will depend on constraints to development and appropriate sites being available – but it is a key guide.

Where will new development go?

4.27 The Issues and Options paper proposed three possible ways of distributing development in both the Central Hampshire and South Hampshire parts of the district.

4.28 All options would try to meet development requirements firstly through previously developed land within the main towns and villages.

4.29 Each of the options for locating development in the Central Hampshire part of the district, assume that the scale of new development at Whitehill/Bordon will be sufficient to create a sustainable community. Options for the Whitehill/Bordon area are set out separately.

4.30 In Central Hampshire these were:

Development at Whitehill/Bordon to create a sustainable community, plus:

CH1 Focus new development at the larger towns of Alton and Petersfield

CH2 Focus new development at Alton and Petersfield with modest amounts at other places (Liphook, Liss and Four Marks) to take advantage of existing services and facilities or to meet identified local needs

CH3 Spread new development throughout the Central Hampshire area of the district to meet identifiable local needs

4.31 In South Hampshire these were:

SH1 Focus new development at Horndean

SH2 Focus new development at Horndean with a modest amount at Clanfield

SH3 Distribute new development throughout the South Hampshire part of the District to meet identifiable local needs

4.32 In selecting the preferred options, each option has been assessed against the following criteria:

1. National and regional guidance
2. Protective designations
3. Infrastructure considerations
4. Flood risk
5. Transport and the findings of the accessibility analysis
6. The outcome of the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation responses
7. The findings of the Sustainability Appraisal
8. The nature of development opportunities (see under Housing – preferred spatial option)

National and regional guidance

4.33 National guidance refers to the need for development to be sustainable and, in particular, advises that it should be focused in towns to maximise accessibility to facilities and services by means other than the car. In the more rural areas, the advice states that most new development should be focused in or near local service centres, with some limited development in other rural settlements to meet local business and community needs and to maintain the viability of these communities.

4.34 Policy BE4 of the South East Plan encourages the strengthening of the viability of small rural towns. It recognises their importance as local hubs for employment, retail and community facilities and services that serve the wider rural areas. Housing development should meet identified local needs, especially for affordable housing, to reinforce the role of the town. Public transport networks should be developed to meet the needs of both the town and the surrounding rural area. This should be achieved whilst protecting and enhancing the character and appearance of the town.

4.35 Policy BE4 of the South East Plan states that the local needs of rural communities for small scale affordable housing, business and service development should as far as possible be met. Development in villages should relate to their function, accessibility, and the need to protect or extend key local services.

Protective designations

Landscape

4.36 Respecting the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the designated National Park in particular and avoiding significant harmful impact on the landscape in general is fundamental to the Core Strategy. Major new development would not be in line with protecting the special landscape qualities.

Protecting the character and quality of life

4.37 There is growing concern about the impact that higher density residential development (including development of gardens) is having on the character of parts of towns and villages and the quality of life within them. It is not assumed that development in the towns and villages will continue at recent rates, but the spatial options (choices being considered) include, as an alternative, an approach based on protecting their character.

Nature conservation

4.38 Large parts of the area lie within or close to sites subject to statutory international, national and local nature conservation designations. These areas need to be protected from harmful development.

4.39 Habitats Regulations Assessment looks at the extent to which a plan or policy is likely to have a significant effect on European nature conservation interests. A pre-screening report for the Core Strategy in accordance with the Habitats Regulations has been prepared and it is likely that a full assessment will be required with the findings fed into the next stages of the Core Strategy.

4.40 Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA (Special Protection Area) in the north east of the district is a particularly important heathland with rare species of bird. The area is already under pressure from recreational use. The location of the SPA may affect how much further development, particularly housing, can be built in the surrounding area, including at Whitehill/Bordon, Liphook, Liss, Headley and Grayshott. The Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons SPA also lies immediately to the north east of the district.

4.41 South East Plan Policy NRM5 sets out the need for buffer zones around these sites and provide alternative recreational land and access management measures. This will be undertaken in close liaison with Natural England. Consideration will also need to be given to the potential impact of development in the south of the district on the coastal ‘Natura 2000’ sites in close liaison with Natural England and the Environment Agency.

Gaps between settlements

4.42 There are several local gaps in East Hampshire that have been protected under previous Local Plans. They remain important to maintaining the identity of the settlements and in considering the location of new development.

Infrastructure considerations

4.43 The Water Cycle Study shows that water supply is adequate to serve current and future needs.

4.44 Waste water is dealt with by Thames Water and Southern Water. The treatment works are understood to be adequate to serve current and future needs.

Flood risk

4.45 The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment shows that the low lying parts of river valleys and some areas adjacent to streams are subject to flood risk. There is also groundwater flooding in some parts of the district. With climate change and increased storminess, the risk of flash flooding from sudden increases in surface water run-off is likely to be an issue in these areas. New development needs to be located outside areas at risk of flooding, and where it does not increase risk of flooding elsewhere. The implications of fluvial flooding and the risks of flash flooding and groundwater flooding need to be taken into account in settlements adjoining rivers and streams.

Transport and the findings of the accessibility analysis

4.46 A transport assessment has been undertaken by consultants for the Core Strategy to help assess the most suitable locations for new development. Potential sites for new housing are considered against such criteria as congestion, accessibility and sustainability.

4.47 The study has forecast the potential impact of new development on the strategic highway network. A significant level of housing development at Alton and Four Marks/Medstead could potentially have an impact on the A31 Alton Bypass which it is forecast could be over capacity in the morning rush hour by 2026. However, the proposed strategy for the Central Hampshire area limits the scale of new housing in the Alton and Four Marks area to existing commitments. At Whitehill/Bordon the study identifies impacts on the A325. This has been the subject of a separate study. Elsewhere the proposed levels of development will have negligible effect on road capacity.

4.48 The broad areas with development potential were assessed with regard transport policy. The objectives were derived from the Hampshire Local Transport Plan. The objectives are:

  • To increase accessibility to services
  • To reduce impact and effect on congestion
  • To widen travel choice to essential services by means other than the car
  • To improve public transport.

4.49 In terms of transport objectives, the market towns of Alton and Petersfield are seen as highly suitable for residential development. Both have a range of facilities, railway stations and comparatively good bus services. Both towns however suffer from some congestion.

4.50 At Whitehill/Bordon the planned new development is seen as providing the opportunity to enhance the town’s role as a large local service centre. The additional facilities and services together with highway and public transport improvements are seen as contributing towards a more sustainable settlement.

4.51 The range of local facilities at the other large local service centres at Liphook and Horndean is recognised. Liphook has a railway station but lacks significant other public transport provision. In contrast the Horndean area generally has good bus access to the south but has only bus links to railway stations.

4.52 The study recognises the range of facilities at the small local service centres and the railway stations at Liss and Rowlands Castle. The relatively good access to other centres by public transport is also acknowledged. The Four Marks/Medstead area and Clanfield are seen as having some potential for improvements to local bus services. The congestion in the Headley/Grayshott area is recognised; this will be significantly relieved by the Hindhead improvements.

The outcome of the Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation responses

4.53 Of the respondents, 56% agreed with the strengths, weaknesses and constraints identified in the Issues and Options paper. However several respondents queried the classification of the range of services and facilities in certain towns and villages.

4.54 The smaller villages that were mentioned as having local needs which could be met by new development included:

  • Medstead (mentioned most often)
  • Greatham, Headley Down and Selborne
  • Beech, Lasham and Liss

4.55 The majority (72%) of respondents could not identify any smaller villages with an existing range of services and facilities, employment and public transport provision that would benefit from further development to strengthen their role as a local services centre for the surrounding area. Those villages that were mentioned included:

  • Liss
  • Liphook and Medstead

4.56 The main factors seen as determining where new housing should be built were seen as:

  • An existing good range of shops, employment, schools and other facilities (52% rating this as essential, 27% important)
  • Access to good bus services (40% essential, 48% important)
  • Avoiding areas of nature conservation importance (46% essential, 33% important).

4.57 A total of 78% of respondents thought that other factors should influence where new homes should go. Key themes coming from these responses are as follows:

  • The need to have infrastructure/service provision in place
  • The preference of building on brownfield land as opposed to greenfield/countryside/gap land
  • To avoid development on areas at risk of flooding

4.58 The factors seen as most important in determining where new employment development should go included:

  • Avoiding the gap areas (60% rating this as essential, 19% important)
  • Not harming the distinctiveness of the historic heritage (56% essential, 21% important)
  • Avoiding areas of nature conservation importance (51% essential, 18% important)
  • Access to good bus services (50% essential, 33% important).

4.59 The other factors mentioned that should influence where new employment development should go included;

  • Where there is adequate infrastructure
  • If it maintains the viability of villages
  • Avoiding harm to country lanes.

4.60 Option CH2 was the preferred option for the Central Hampshire area with 61%. Both CH1 and CH3 were preferred by 19% of respondents.

4.61 The majority (69%) of respondents did not think there were other options for the distribution of development in Central Hampshire. Among alternative options were locating development away from the south east while some questioned the role of Whitehill/Bordon in meeting the housing requirements.

4.62 Opinions were far more evenly divided in the South Hampshire area with 38% choosing option SH3, 33% preferring SH2 and 29% SH1.The majority (71%) of respondents thought no other options could be considered.

4.63 A summary of the reasons given for respondents’ selection of a preferred option are set out below.

Central Hampshire

CH1

  • Homes are where people can access facilities, jobs and shops.
  • Employment is where there are existing opportunities.
  • Little impact on the greenfield sites around rural villages.
  • Development can be concentrated in areas where it can be properly controlled with minimum impact upon the local community.

CH2

  • The best opportunity to create a truly sustainable pattern of development.
  • Results in more sustainable patterns of development by concentrating new housing in areas already benefiting from existing facilities and services.
  • Provides modern employment sites in good locations served by public transport.
  • Emphasis can be on "modest" and identified local needs.
  • Supports the larger villages and avoids over-heating of the towns.
  • Allows development in smaller villages where need is proven.

CH3

  • Rural areas need alternative local employment due to decline of traditional rural industries.
  • Common sense that businesses self-select the most suitable place for their individual needs.
  • More choice of housing and work.
  • Allows the needs of all the town and villages to be met.
  • Supports existing facilities and services to enable new ones to be provided.

South Hampshire

SH1

  • Least impact on the district’s protected landscapes.
  • Area with the greatest need for affordable homes.
  • Existing infrastructure, including links to South Hampshire towns.

SH2

  • Would lead to a more sustainable form of development of a scale relative to the size of the existing settlements.
  • Adds vitality to more settlements.

SH3

  • Protects the landscape north of the A27.
  • Appropriate to include as Rowlands Castle has railway station, good basic services and a good cycle link into Havant.

4.64 The workshop on the long-term distribution of new housing produced a range of comments. The general view, acknowledged by the Local Plan inspector, was that the starting point for the location of development should be the settlement hierarchy and accessibility to services, facilities and jobs. This would involve concentrating development in the towns and larger villages and then the more sustainable smaller settlements. Options CH2 and SH2 were strongly favoured. The ranking in the settlement hierarchy background paper can be used to identify suitable smaller settlements for new development including affordable housing, for example Bentley, Medstead, Headley and Ropley.

4.65 Hampshire County Council prefers CH2 as it should mean a reduction in travel because of the availability of services and goods locally. Alton, Petersfield and some of the other places have good access to public transport. Small scale development in the smaller towns and villages may be a boost to existing local services. Also allows flexibility; settlement edge sensitivity to development would be important evidence base to compile. For South Hampshire, HCC prefers option SH2 as it has the most sustainable and appropriate locations for anticipated levels of growth.

4.66 The Home Builders Federation’s prime concern is that the debate over where development takes place shouldn’t obscure the fact that development needs to be delivered somewhere in the district.

The findings of the initial sustainability appraisal

Central Hampshire

4.67 The initial sustainability appraisal, undertaken at the Issues and Options stage, agreed that Alton and Petersfield would benefit most from a significant share of additional development (Option CH1). The settlement hierarchy suggests Liphook should also be included in this category. This option focuses on the larger places with the most potential for having homes close to jobs, shops, facilities and services. This would reduce car travel especially as the three settlements have railway stations. Development would also be focused on the places with the highest need for affordable housing. The main economic bases in this part of the district would also be reinforced.

4.68 This option therefore supports the plan objectives in seeking to concentrate the majority of development in the most sustainable locations. The main question therefore is over the role to be played by the other towns and villages.

4.69 Locating smaller levels of development at Four Marks, Liss, (Option CH2) and Grayshott has little impact on overall sustainability as these settlements also have a range of facilities and services. There would be local benefits by providing opportunities for young people, improving the village centres and addressing affordable housing needs and social exclusion. There would also be less environmental impact on the historic market towns. This option, utilising a variety of locations, also ensures a continuous supply of land for housing and employment.

4.70 The option found to be least sustainable was CH3 where development is dispersed, with a lesser focus on the main centres of Alton and Petersfield. Locating development in places with few facilities, services and infrastructure and dispersing development is likely to increase car travel and contribute to climate change. It does however have the advantage of allowing a small amount of development in the rural area in the most sustainable locations to contribute to meeting rural needs. However, the other options can allow for the provision of affordable housing in rural areas through rural exception sites. In addition, minor infilling and redevelopment within the villages can assist in promoting stronger rural communities.

South Hampshire

4.71 The level of housing and employment development required means that greenfield sites will be needed.

4.72 The initial sustainability appraisal indicates that most benefit will be felt by locating a significant share of the additional development at and around Horndean, the large local service centre. This option (SH1) focuses on the town with the most potential for having homes close to jobs, shops, facilities and services. This would reduce car travel. Development would also be focused on the place with the highest need for affordable housing and the main economic base. The main question therefore is over the role to be played by the other key settlements.

4.73 Both Clanfield and Rowlands Castle are categorised as small local service centres in the settlement hierarchy as they both have a reasonable range of facilities and services. Smaller levels of development at these villages would have little impact on overall sustainability. There would be local benefits by providing opportunities for young people, improving the village centres and addressing affordable housing needs. The sustainability appraisal therefore suggests that an amended version of Option SH3 is the best option for the South Hampshire area of the district. This option also provides more certainty in ensuring a continuous supply of land for housing and employment as a variety of locations would be provided.

The preferred spatial option

Central Hampshire

4.74 The sustainability appraisal indicates that an amended version of Option CH2 is the best option for the Central Hampshire area of the district. This option also aligns more closely with the findings of the settlement hierarchy work outlined above. It also achieves a pattern of development that fits best with the Core Strategy vision and objectives. The majority of development is focused at Alton and Petersfield. Liphook, the large local service centre, and Four Marks, Liss, and Grayshott, the small local service centres, receive some development, with the quantity and type to reflect their respective roles and development constraints. Development in the other villages will be limited to minor infilling and redevelopment, or that is necessary to meet local needs.

4.75 Option CH2 was also seen as being the preferred option during the consultation on Issues and Options.

4.76 The underlying theme of this strategy is to develop a sustainable pattern of development growth in the Central Hampshire part of the district that supports its rural character. Development is governed by the hierarchy and focused in and around the main towns and villages. A wide choice of development locations means the provision of a continuous supply of land for housing and employment is ensured.

South Hampshire

4.77 The sustainability appraisal suggests that an amended version of Option SH3 is the best option for the South Hampshire area of the district. The majority of development will be focused at Horndean, the large local service centre. Clanfield and Rowlands Castle, the small local service centres, will receive some development. The quantity and type of future development will reflect their respective roles, the level of housing land already released to maintain a five-year supply of housing land, and development constraints.

4.78 This preferred strategy is also informed by a full sustainability appraisal, which recognises that the approach outlined above will make services and facilities available in the most accessible locations and where affordable housing needs are greatest. There is concern that those living in rural areas without access to a car will be disadvantaged if bus services and community transport are not adequate. The need to avoid areas of flood risk and to minimise impact on the national park is also recognised. The location of some development in small local service centres and rural villages is seen as likely to help to meet local needs and safeguard the rural economy.

4.79 This is the Council’s current preference regarding its preferred spatial option. However, the Council will consider all comments made and can revise its vision in drawing up a Core Strategy document to formally submit to Government.

Housing – preferred spatial policy

CP2 PREFERRED SPATIAL POLICY FOR HOUSING

The Preferred Policy for housing provision and distribution in the District is to meet the requirement for 4,000 new dwellings in Central Hampshire and 1,200 new dwellings in South Hampshire 2006-2026 by means of:

  1. completion of existing permissions and allocations,
  2. development within the defined towns and villages where it is consistent with maintaining and enhancing their character and quality of life,
  3. greenfield sites in the most sustainable settlements to be identified through the ‘Development Allocations’ DPD.

In addition, possible provision will be made on sites that provide an exceptional contribution towards addressing identified local affordable housing needs.(See separate chapter on Whitehill/Bordon)

The proposed distribution of the new dwellings 2006-2026 is as follows:

Central Hampshire

There is no need for additional dwellings to be found on new housing allocations to meet the strategic requirement. There have been 1,251 completions, which together with an existing commitment of 1,744 dwellings, 835 dwellings on the outstanding Local Plan reserve housing sites, 505 dwellings on SHLAA sites within SPB’s and a windfall figure of 500 dwellings gives a total of 4,835 dwellings. However there is a need for additional housing in Grayshott to maintain its role as a local service centre. The proposed distribution of these dwellings is as follows:

Settlement No. of completions No. of dwellings on existing sites (commitments) No. of dwellings on Local Plan reserve sites SHLAAsiteswithin SPB’s Small site windfalls2021-2026 No. of dwellings on new greenfield sites Total
Petersfield 257 129 565 101 1052
Alton 140 555* 0 221 916
Liphook 136 429** 155** 11 731
Liss 29 48 25 5 107
Four Marks / South Medstead 96 254 90 16 456
Grayshott 11 15 0 50 76
Rest of Central Hampshire Area 582 314 0 151 1047
Small site windfalls (location unknown) 500 500
Total 1,251 1,744 835 505 500 50 4,885
* Includes 150 dwellings on the Lord Mayor Treloar Hospital Baseline site
** Silent Garden reserve site is included as a site commitment.

South Hampshire

There have been 155 completions, which together with an existing commitment of 114 dwellings, 627 dwellings on the outstanding Local Plan reserve housing sites, 97 dwellings on SHLAA sites within SPB’s and a windfall figure of 50 dwellings provides a total of 1,043 dwellings. There is a requirement for around 200 additional dwellings to be found on new allocations. The proposed distribution of these dwellings is as follows:

Settlement No. of completions No. of dwellings on existing sites (commitments) No. of dwellings on Local Plan reserve sites SHLAAsiteswithin SPB’s Small site windfalls2021-2026 2021-2026 Additional dwellings to be provided on new allocations Total
Horndean 102 86 305* 81 200 774
Clanfield 45 14 275 16 350
Rowlands Castle 8 14 47 69
Small site windfalls (location unknown) 50 50
Total 155 114 627 97 50 200 1,243
* Includes housing figure for Keydell Nursery site.

Policy conformity

PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’, PPS1 ‘Sustainable Development’
South East Plan Policies H1, H2, SH5
Sustainable Community Strategy 3.1 (1) Provide housing with the aim of meeting the specific needs of each community and complementing the existing character, with appropriate infrastructure and services.
Council Strategy 1. Intensify our protection of the built and natural environment.
  • Using planning more effectively to promote our quality of life
2. Improve our focus on special community groups
  • Provide more affordable homes
Core Strategy Objective CSOH1 To meet out strategic housing requirements, 5,200 homes should be built in the District in the period 2006-2026 (4,000 in Central Hampshire and 1,200 in South Hampshire). In addition 5,500 should be built at Whitehill/Bordon subject to further studies.
CSOH2 To make the most efficient use of land and the existing housing stock
CSOH3 To ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent, sustainably constructed and affordable home, which is capable of being adapted to changing personal needs
CSOH4 To meet affordable housing needs as far as practicable
Policy Indicators

Core Output Indicator:

H1 Plan period and housing targets
H2(a) Net additional dwellings in previous years
H2(b) Net additional dwellings – for the reporting year
H2(c) Net additional dwellings – in future years
H2(d) Managed delivery target
H3 new and converted dwellings – on previously developed land
Delivery Bodies EHDC, development industry, RSL’s

Housing requirement

4.80 The Council’s preferred policy is to provide sufficient development up to 2026 to meet both strategic requirements and local needs. The South East Plan requires 5,200 additional homes to be provided for future needs in the district between 2006 and 2026. In addition a new strategic development area at Whitehill/Bordon will include provision for about 5,500 homes.

4.81 A five-year supply of land for housing needs to be provided. Planned provision must be made for a period of at least 15 years from the adoption of the Core Strategy. Specific sites need to be identified for the first five years and where possible for years 6-10 and 11-15.

4.82 A Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) has been prepared and has informed the housing delivery in this preferred strategy.

4.83 The housing figures set out in the table below include completions and an allowance is made for existing commitments on large and small sites. Reserve sites from the adopted Local Plan have been included as part of the land supply.

4.84 Planning guidance indicates that generally, unidentified sites (or windfalls) should not be counted towards housing provision for the first 10 years of the Plan. The Council has therefore, only included a windfall allowance for the period from 2021 to 2026. The windfall allowance is based on the average annual net number of homes permitted on small windfall sites (9 homes or less) between 2001 and 2008. The average annual figures, after discounting, are 10 for the South Hampshire area and 100 for the Central Hampshire area.

Housing figures

Central Hampshire (part) No. of dwellings
South East Plan Requirement 2006 - 2026 4,000
Housing Completions 2006/7 – 2008/9 -1,251
Sites with planning permission and baseline sites without planning permission (commitments) -1,744
Reserve sites without planning permission -835
Small site windfalls (2021-2026) -500
SHLAA sites (within SPB’s) -505
Plan Requirement -835
South Hampshire (part) No. of dwellings
South East Plan Requirement 2006 - 2026 1,200
Housing Completions 2006/7 – 2008/9 -155
Sites with planning permission (commitments) -114
Reserve sites without planning permission -627
Small site windfalls (2021-2026) -50
SHLAA sites (within SPB’s) -97
Plan Requirement 157

4.85 In satisfying the housing requirement priority should be given to the use of previously developed land and land should be used efficiently where development takes place.

4.86 Because the Council is advised (PPS3) not to estimate the contribution of windfall sites to the strategic requirement in the first 10 years of land supply it considers it has taken a very cautious approach towards redevelopments and windfall sites. Inevitably during the period 2009 to 2021, sites will come forward for housing within the towns and villages that are not included in this estimate and it is very likely that actual completions will be higher than set out above.

4.87 In addition to the housing provision set out above, provision will also be made on sites that provide an exceptional contribution towards addressing identified local affordable housing needs. Their contribution will help meet any deficit if some housing sites do not come forward as anticipated. In addition, as sites will only be allocated if development there is certain, there should be no need to over-allocate sites to provide houses above what is required.

4.88 Sites will be allocated to meet the South East Plan housing requirements for the South Hampshire sub-region. Mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that should a site not come forward as phased, a site phased for a later period would take its place. The pace of this site release will be adjusted according to monitoring to ensure a rolling five-year housing land supply. Any review of the phasing of the release of sites will be determined through the annual monitoring report.

4.89 The detail of the mechanics of phasing sites is not dealt with in the Core Strategy but instead through other development documents based upon evidence of suitability, achievability, availability and other relevant information.

4.90 Small windfall sites, which are mainly brownfield, are not included in the housing land supply for the first 10 years. During this period the Council will have to carefully adjust the phasing of allocated greenfield sites to allow for windfall sites in the future. Getting the balance right is very important if the Council is to achieve the Government’s target of 60% of development on brownfield land.

The Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation revealed:

4.91 The following options for the delivery of housing were considered:

Option A1 - Allocate more land than is necessary by East Hampshire to meet the housing requirement in the South East Plan.

Option A2 - Use a reserve housing mechanism.

Option A3 - Introduce a policy to replace allocated sites that have not been built on.

Option A4 - Compulsory Purchase of allocated sites.

Option A5 - Increase the density of new housing development.

Housing event workshop:

The scale of support differed for each option, although over-allocation was generally favoured. Replacing allocated sites which have not been built on was less favoured because of the uncertainty it would create. In considering the idea of having reserve sites it must be taken into account that it is often landowners, rather than developers, who stop sites coming forward as they continue to sit on sites to get the best price.

Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation questionnaire response:

Using a reserve housing mechanism was the most favoured. From letters received from the development industry there appeared to be some consensus around support for allocating more land than is necessary. There was also some support for increasing density, but this was tempered by the need for flexibility to allow for surroundings and other factors such as accessibility and public transport.

Community forums:

Providing the right infrastructure for new housing was raised as an issue by three of the four forums.

Distribution of housing

Central Hampshire

4.92 The need for the reserve housing sites in Petersfield, Liphook, Liss and Four Marks to be considered as part of the supply of housing has followed the preferred strategy for Central Hampshire (amended version of option CH2). There are also sites already earmarked for housing in Alton yet to be built on. The availability of these sites means that other greenfield sites are not essential in the Central Hampshire area to meet the Council’s requirement.

4.93 However, some new development in Grayshott, including housing, is appropriate in the future to maintain its role as a local centre providing services and facilities for the surrounding area. This need is highlighted by there currently being 32 households in Grayshott in need of an affordable home (as identified on the joint housing register).

4.94 Over the past twenty years in Grayshott the only housing to come forward has been on small scale windfall sites. There are few remaining potential windfall sites that will provide environmentally acceptable opportunities for new housing. An allocation for about 50 new homes in the area, that are compatible with the area, is therefore appropriate.

4.95 Given the topography, with steep valleys to the north and south and extensive woodlands, there are few opportunities for new development within or near Grayshott. The area to the west of the village along Headley Road has the most potential for new housing. Any new housing should not adversely impact on the Wealden Heaths SPA.

South Hampshire

4.96 The release of the Local Plan reserve housing sites in the South Hampshire area would add up to 305 homes in Horndean (including Keydell Nursery), 275 homes in Clanfield and 47 homes in Rowlands Castle. This follows the preferred strategy for South Hampshire (amended version of option SH3).

4.97 The level of housing development does mean that other greenfield sites will be needed in the South Hampshire area. The preferred strategy states that the majority of development should be focused on Horndean, the large local service centre. Clanfield and Rowlands Castle, the small local service centres, will receive some development. The scale of the existing housing commitments in these places is taken into account in the future allocation of land for new development in the area. Clanfield already has a high level of housing commitments for its role as a small local service centre.

4.98 Profiles are being drawn up to assess the overall potential for development in the various towns and villages in the district. The District Council has completed a strategic housing land availability assessment (SHLAA), as required by PPS3: Housing, in order to identify where development can potentially take place over the plan period.

4.99 The most sustainable settlements have been identified in the work on the settlement hierarchy so alternative plans at less sustainable locations are unlikely to meet the Plan objectives. Ongoing assessments and the work on the SHLAA have therefore been used to gain a broad understanding of how much housing could potentially be met in each of the towns and villages. The results will also determine the balance of development to take place on brownfield and greenfield sites in accordance with the approach set out above.

4.100 It is appropriate to consider the outstanding housing commitments in the settlements before new allocations are made.

4.101 In view of there being no need to find new sites for housing in the Central Hampshire area, only the nature of development opportunities for the South Hampshire area is set out below.

The nature of development opportunities for housing in South Hampshire

Horndean

4.102 Horndean lies on the northern edge of suburban housing which has grown along the old A3 from Portsmouth 16 miles to the south. It is one of the most sustainable settlements in the district in terms of accessibility. There is a recently improved bus service to Portsmouth via Waterlooville.

4.103 On the eastern edge of Horndean the national park includes land to the east of the A3(M) and the village centre. To the west the boundary will lie close to the western edge of Catherington. The Local Plan identifies a local gap to the north of Horndean separating it from Clanfield and Catherington and another gap to the east separating it from Blendworth.

4.104 Lovedean lies in an undulating landscape on the western edge of Horndean. Lovedean Lane runs north/south through the valley. A reserve housing site to the north of James Copse Close, off Lovedean Lane, has been released for development. This site is relatively close to facilities including shops and schools, and minimises impact on the landscape by not extending far up the valley side. Further north up Lovedean Lane the absence of a convenient bus service, and the distance to a food store and employment, means that most journeys would be made by car. The lane also becomes more distinctly rural in character. The area has a pleasing quality reinforced by the presence of thatched cottages and vernacular buildings. New development would also be more prominent in the landscape as the valley side provides an attractive backcloth to the frontage development.

4.105 The Council is also aware of a strategic site at Woodcroft Farm which is emerging in the Havant Core Strategy. While the bulk of the development is in Havant Borough, it could be extended into East Hampshire and Winchester District. The Council will monitor this carefully.

4.106 Further to the east the countryside off Frogmore Lane is a fair way from Horndean’s facilities. It is also accessed off narrow rural lanes. Development here would encroach into the countryside without any natural boundaries to contain it.

4.107 To the south east of Horndean is countryside close to a range of facilities and services provided at the village centre, including a shopping precinct. A superstore and lower schools are also nearby. Immediately south of the centre is a reserve housing site off Havant Road. This site has been released for development together with the adjacent Keydell Nursery site. Further to the south and south-east are Pyle Farm and Hazelton Farm. These areas are also reasonably close to the village centre and those facilities located to the west of the A3(M). The national park boundary comes close to the eastern edge of the village. This will be an important consideration if large development is to be proposed in the south east of the village. In this locality the landscape is more open with good views to the east. Given this, development briefs for any significant development will need to ensure that reference is made to enhancing the landscape.

4.108 To the west of the A3(M) is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), part of which is allocated as an informal open space.

4.109 The northern part of Horndean lies mainly between the A3(M) and Southdown Road. To the west is rising ground on which new development would be very conspicuous. Further south is an area of open space at Catherington Lith, also a SINC.

4.110 An area at risk of flooding follows the line of the valley floor through Horndean. It extends south from Green Lane in Clanfield, along Southdown Road, under the A3(M), through the village centre and along Havant Road. Another area extends from Old Clanfield along Downhouse Road and Lovedean Lane.

4.111 The area to the south east of Horndean in the vicinity of Hazleton Farm and the area to the south west near Woodcroft Farm provide the most potential for new development. It is considered that in the period up to 2026 Horndean should provide an additional 200 dwellings beyond existing commitments.

Clanfield

4.112 Clanfield has a reasonable variety of amenities that are sufficient for most day to day needs. They include a supermarket, a surgery, chemist, post office and newsagent. There is little employment. There is a relatively frequent bus service to Waterlooville and Portsmouth. It is hoped that the existing bus services on the A3 corridor will be extended into Clanfield.

4.113 The landscape is characteristically open, rolling chalk downlands with little natural tree cover. Fields are open and large. Dominating the area is Windmill Hill with its windmill, the only one in East Hampshire. The landform generally is characterised by a number of ridges and valleys.

4.114 The boundary of the national park follows the western and northern edge of Old Clanfield, along Chalton Lane and then along the eastern boundary of the A3. It is also important to maintain the gap between Old Clanfield and Clanfield. To the south of development on Drift Road is the Clanfield/Catherington gap.

4.115 Localised flooding occurs along Green Lane, due to intensive run-off during heavy storms from the countryside to the north, and along South Lane in Old Clanfield.

4.116 The only option for significant development in Clanfield that avoids the main constraints mentioned above is on land to the east of Green Lane. This land is a reserve site (275 dwellings) in the Local Plan and has been released for development. It is close to the main facilities and the size of the site allows for additional community facilities and open space. This allocation will complete the northern suburban expansion along the A3. Any further development in this direction will be constrained by the quality of the landscape.

4.117 Clanfield is not considered appropriate for further housing development, other than infill, in the period up to 2026.

Rowlands Castle

4.118 Rowlands Castle is a relatively well-contained village with a primary school, shops, employment and a range of community facilities. The railway station is on the Portsmouth to London line. There is a limited bus service to Havant.

4.119 Located on the edge of the southern dip slopes of the South Downs and the coastal plain, the village lies on the county boundary and between two substantial forests, Stansted Forest to the east and The Holt and Havant Thicket to the west. Given the presence of these woodlands and other treed areas, together with the particular landform, the village has a hidden, pleasing quality set within an intimate landscape.

4.120 The national park boundary follows the eastern and northern edge of Rowlands Castle and the area to the west of the golf course up to the B2149. These areas provide its countryside setting. There is currently a gap identified between the southern edge of the village and Havant.

4.121 The Green is the historic centre of the village; this attractive open space is the centre of the conservation area. There is also a scheduled ancient monument (Motte and Bailey Castle) to the south of The Green. Any development in this area would need to take particular care to respect the character and appearance of the area.

4.122 The area to the south east of the village is the least constrained but it is surrounded by a SINC. A reserve housing site off Redhill Road has been released for development. The remainder of this area is attractive parkland and further development here could seriously harm the countryside and the rural setting of the village.

4.123 Areas of flood risk have been identified in the vicinity of The Green, and along Finchdean Road and Woodberry Lane. Groundwater flooding also occurs in the vicinity of Redhill Road, Castle Road and The Drift.

4.124 In view of the constraints mentioned above, Rowlands Castle is not considered appropriate for further housing development, other than infill, in the period up to 2026.

Economic Development – Preferred Spatial Policy

Employment

CP3 PREFERRED SPATIAL POLICY FOR EMPLOYMENT

The Preferred Policy for employment provision and distribution in the District is to make provision for a small amount of new employment floorspace in the main settlements in the District as follows:

  • Up to 2ha of land in Alton for industrial and business use, preferably including the provision of managed workspace (enterprise centre)
  • Up to 2ha of land in Petersfield for industrial and business use, preferably including the provision of managed workspace (enterprise centre)
  • Up to 1.5ha of land in Horndean for industrial (B2) and business use (B1)

Policy conformity

PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS1, PPG4
South East Plan Policies RE1, RE2, RE3, RE5, SH3
Sustainable Community Strategy The local economy
Priority outcomes:
1. Encourage business to stay and invest in the district by:
  • Improving the infrastructure and local services for businesses and their employees living in the district.
  • Increasing the availability and choice of modern business premises.
2. Encourage the growth of new businesses to replace those in decline, such as agriculture, manufacturing, defence and lower value financial/business services activities.
3. Build high quality successful communities for the benefit of businesses, residents, workers and visitors in:ii. Small rural towns, ie Petersfield, Alton and Horndean.
4. Reduce the number of people commuting to work outside the district by:
  • Increasing the level of skills in the local work force.
  • Increasing investment by companies that provide higher paid jobs in the area.
  • Increase number of qualified people and provide routes into work - especially for young people, women and disadvantaged (eg through more placement opportunities).
Council Strategy 1. Intensify our protection of the built and natural environment.
  • Using planning more effectively to promote our quality of life
2. Safer and more vibrant communities
  • Developing better facilities in our towns and villages
3. Improve our focus on special community groups
  • Helping our children and young people to improve their quality of life
Core Strategy Objective To maintain a buoyant local economy, whilst respecting the environment and the quality of life in East Hampshire.To help provide jobs in East Hampshire for its residents.
Policy Indicators Core Indicator:
BD1 Total amount of additional employment floorspace - by type
BD2 total amount of employment floorspace on previously developed land – by type.
BD3 Employment land available- by type
Local Indicator:
amount of land developed for employment, by type, which is in development areas defined in the Local Plan.
Delivery Bodies EHDC, development industry, SEEDA.

4.125 The South East Plan does not set out specific targets for employment land provision for Hampshire, other than for the South Hampshire sub region. The Council has commissioned an assessment of employment needs and floorspace requirement. The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) has published a report apportioning the South East Plans requirements for the South Hampshire Sub Region.

4.126 The employment needs study included a survey of existing allocated sites. It noted that the majority of these were either completed or under phased construction.

4.127 It made specific recommendations with respect to the following sites:

  • Former Lord Mayor Treloar Hospital site, Alton: the site should be de- allocated
  • Builders Merchants site, Rowlands Castle: the site should be de- allocated
  • Former Ordnance Supply Unit site: the site should be re-designated as a mixed use scheme containing an element of employment space. (The site now has planning permission for residential use, nursing home and a small amount of business use).

4.128 The district employment needs study forecast future requirements for employment floorspace through to 2026 and identified little more floorspace would be required. For offices the position would be broadly in balance (+545sq.m). For industry and warehousing it was estimated that there would be an oversupply of floorspace (+50,920sq.m).

4.129 However, if large scale development takes place at Whitehill/Bordon, the study forecast that additional office floorspace (around 10,000sq.m high quality office space) was required to meet this growth. It concluded that logically much of this would be ideally located in the Whitehill/Bordon growth area, where Council policy is to make a sustainable community.

4.130 Although little requirement for additional floorspace was identified, the study recognised that these forecasts refer to net change and there will still be a need for gross new completions to meet the modern needs of business. Some parts of the district may experience positive net change in industrial stock, or there may be specific requirements which may need to be met. The provision of additional land would also promote choice and flexibility (South East Plan paragraph 6.16)

4.131 The employment study recommended carrying forward some of the existing Local Plan allocations. Of those, only Buckmore Farm, Petersfield has not been granted planning permission. In addition the employment study concluded that there was a case for identifying new sites of up to two hectares (approximately 7,000sq.m of floorspace) in Alton and Petersfield that could be brought forward for future employment use.

4.132 The employment requirements will therefore be met mainly in Petersfield and Alton. This follows the preferred spatial strategy for Central Hampshire.

Note: all figures are square metres of floorspace a. Employment provision completions2006 - 2008 b. Commitments(sites with planning permission and allocated sites without pp) Existing provision2006 - 2026(a + b) Additional provision to be found to 2026
B1 Offices 523 17,378 17,901
B2 Manufacturing 865 2,773 3,638
B8 Warehousing 4,560 3,659 8,219
Mixed 17,405 23,684 41,089 14,000
Total 23,353 47,494 70,847

4.133 The study also identified a likely increased demand for small enterprise centres as there was a noticeable lack of such facilities in the district. It was considered preferable that such centres be developed on well located, existing employment sites. It would seem logical, therefore, to concentrate resources for these in the larger employment centres at Petersfield and Alton.

4.134 In addition to the above requirements the Council will have to find sites to accommodate South Hampshire’s floorspace requirements in order to satisfy the requirements of the South East Plan.

4.135 It is considered that the employment requirements should be met mainly in Horndean. This follows the preferred spatial strategy for South Hampshire.

These are set out in the table below:

South Hampshire requirement 2006 - 2026 Employment provision completions 2006 - 2008 Commitments (sites with planning permission and allocated sites without pp) Remaining provision to be found
B1 Offices 4,000 -250 -510 3,240
B2 Manufacturing 1,000 0 0 1,000
B8 Warehousing 500 0 -2,870 0
Total 5,500 -250 -3,380 4,240

The Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation revealed:

4.136 Meetings with the business community identified the need for the provision of new employment sites, although the employment floorspace study did not identify any overall requirement. There was considered to be a need for high quality sites and for high quality business park development, particularly in Alton and Petersfield. There was also support for the upgrading of existing industrial areas and buildings. The provision of infrastructure and other facilities to support commerce in the district was also identified as an important requirement.

4.137 The points made above by the business community were generally echoed at the community forums.

Retail

CP4 PREFERRED SPATIAL POLICY FOR RETAIL

The Preferred Policy for retail provision and distribution in the District is to provide for a limited amount of additional retail (comparison) floorspace in the town centres of Alton and Petersfield and allow for small scale retail development opportunities in the other centres.

Policy conformity

PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS1, PPS6
South East Plan Policies TC1, TC2, TC3
Sustainable Community Strategy The local economy.
Priority Outcomes:
3. Build high quality successful communities for the benefit of businesses, residents, workers and visitors in:
  1. Small rural towns, ie Petersfield, Alton and Horndean.
  2. Smaller villages - increase support for rural village businesses and community services to stem their decline.
Council Strategy 1. Intensify our protection of the built and natural environment.· Using planning more effectively to promote our quality of life
2. Safer and more vibrant communities· Developing better facilities in our towns and villages
Core Strategy Objective To ensure that communities are happy with their town and village centres.
Policy Indicator Core Indicator
BD4 Total amount of floorspace for ‘town centre use’
Local Indicator:
Amount of completed retail, office and leisure development.
Local Indicator:
Percentage of completed retail, office and leisure development in town centres
Local Indicator;
Vacant shop premises.
Delivery Bodies EHDC, development industry.

4.138 The Town Centres, Retail and Leisure Study (2007) analysed the potential for new retail development in the District.

4.139 It indicated limited potential for convenience goods sales floorspace within the district up to 2016. Expenditure available in the district at 2016 could support about 1,200 sq m net (1,700 sq m gross) of new foodstore floorspace.

4.140 A significant amount of money spent on comparison goods (clothes, shoes etc) is spent outside the district. Capacity projections suggest there is scope in the district for development of about 7,100 sq m gross of these types of shop up to 2016.

4.141 Alton and Petersfield have a reasonable range and quality of comparison shopping.

4.142 In Alton, the study identified a need for 1,200 sq m gross of convenience space (an Aldi store has since been granted planning permission), 2,100 sq m comparison and 1,300 sq m gross of other commercial uses by 2016 (4,600 sq m total gross).

4.143 In Petersfield, the study identified a need for 900 sq m gross convenience, 3,800 sq m comparison and 1,900 sq m gross of other commercial uses by 2016 (6,600 sq m total gross).

4.144 If major new retail development takes place in Whitehill/Bordon then the floorspace projections for Alton and Petersfield and other centres will reduce slightly.

4.145 It is considered that more comparison shops are required in Alton and Petersfield town centres, the amount of floorspace required will however depend on the proposals for Whitehill/Bordon.

The Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation revealed:

4.146 The business community agreed that the provision of infrastructure and other facilities to support commerce is an important requirement.

4.147 The community forum for the central area identified the loss of shops and number of vacant premises in Liss as giving particular concern for its future. The forum for the south area identified a lack of retail and commercial leisure facilities as a concern in Horndean.

Other facilities

4.148 Appropriate health, education, leisure, cultural, recreational, and other facilities to support the needs of the local population over the period to 2026 are considered under the various settlements.

4.149 With the quantity and type of development established, the real questions relate to where it will go and when it will be provided.

When will development take place?

4.150 The development requirements of the Core Strategy will be met in a coordinated way while encouraging excellence to ensure the high-quality environmental character of East Hampshire is conserved and enhanced.

Who will deliver it?

4.151 It will be delivered by the public and private sector with a range of partnerships, funding and collaborative working. Planning tools, including the use of tariffs, will be considered in ensuring development is delivered on time. The Core Strategy will be monitored to ensure that development takes place in accordance with the overall strategy. See section on Infrastructure, Implementation and Monitoring elsewhere in this document.

Key Diagram
If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.
back to top back to top