Consultation on the Southeast Plan - TrustNews Feb 05
Copies of a document describing proposals for a new South East Regional Plan for the period from 2006 - 2026 have been going out to every household in the region, asking for the views of over 8 million people. The area covers 9 counties and 7 district councils, excluding Greater London. There have been Regional Plans before, but this time it is different in that the document has been prepared at regional level instead of being built upwards from the Structure Plans of the individual counties.
This top down approach is itself a cause for concern. The South East England Regional Assembly ('SEERN) does have 74 county and district councillors - just two thirds of its total membership - but nominated by their own authorities rather than being directly elected. The other 37 mainly represent vested and invested interests with no accountability to the electorate. In practice, it is already clear that SEERA is very much under the control of the Government Office of the South East, based in Guildford, and that reluctance to follow the lines laid down by central Government are likely to lead to it simply being overruled.
Turning to the draft Plan itself, the main attention and controversy concerns the proposals for house building. Three options are being put forward for comment: construction of 510,000 homes or 560,000 or 640,000, over 20 years. The Government has already made it quite clear that it is angry at SEERNs decision not to include options for more than 640,000. This is in effect appreciably below the increase to 720,000 for which John Prescott has been arguing.
As well as variations in the total, there are alternative strategies for how the numbers should be distributed across the region within sub-regions, with inevitable emphasis on land in Hampshire as the numbers increase above the minimum. In general the need for more housing is argued on the grounds not so much of growth of the total population, but of migration into the region, and the continuing decline in household size, so that even the same number of people require more separate households.
This of course raises the question to what extent we should project past trends into the future. Taking household size, from about 2.4 people per dwelling, the ratio is expected to fall to under 2 by 2026. But, at this pace, there would be less than one person per household by 2066 and, as this seems highly improbable, it might be wise to plan for some slowing down to occur.
I am reminded of a note I passed to the County Planning Officer, at the end of the examination in public of the then South Hampshire Structure Plan, almost 20 years ago:
A trend is a trend is a trend
So why should it alter or bend?
But the wise planner knows
That the further it goes,
The nearer it is to its end.
Apart from the number and distribution of housing, there are two main concerns: firstly whether proper financial arrangements will be made to ensure that the requirements of the so-called 'affordable' sector of the market will be effectively met; and secondly whether the target of 60% of new build can be accommodated on brownfield or previously used land, instead of new greenfield sites.
The 60% figure will of course be harder to hit, according to the total numbers of the various options: 60% of 520,000 is 312,000 but the same proportion of 720,000 is 432,000. At the intended rate of 30 dwellings per hectare, 432,000 would occupy about 14,000 hectares - or, with allowance for necessary infrastructure, an area of about 14 miles square.
A third important concern is that proper and comprehensive infrastructure should be provided for new housing development - roads, schools, hospitals, water supplies and recreation. These must come in advance of the homes, or together with them. Understandable concentration on the house-building aspects of the draft Plan runs the danger of detracting attention from many other important elements in it. It is to be hoped that a series of opinion surveys will ensure that these issues are not neglected.
Surprisingly, although the plan is to run for 20 years, housing needs are expressed as a fixed number in each year of that period. Perhaps it would make more sense for the government to set provisional targets for each decade and then review these periodically in the light of actual housing needs.
It would be useful and interesting if all members of the Trust could keep a copy of their replies to the draft Plan and send them to the Heritage Centre. A summary and analysis of these views would make a valuable contribution to the debate.