Document Print/Save as PDF
Last updated: 30-09-2024. From web page: Homes summary.

Southampton City Vision Local Plan Chapter 3 - Economy

Office Development

Office Development Policy Options

Theme: Economy
Policy Name: Office Development
Policy Number: EC1(S)
Options Y/N: Y

Office Development Policy Options Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – the office target
Option 1a – 61,000m2 – this is the aspirational need identified by the PfSH Statement of Common Ground and Economic, Employment and Commercial Needs Study (2021). 7 9
Option 1b – 78,000m2 – this higher aspirational target reflects a ‘cities first’ approach. The PfSH needs study for offices was based on a labour demand approach, which resulted in Eastleigh having a higher need identified than Southampton. This option seeks a ‘cities first’ policy steer by setting a slightly higher aspirational target for Southampton. This may be considered a realistic uplift to support city centre growth. The policy contains sufficient flexibility to ensure sites are not needlessly safeguarded for office use. 8 7
Option 1c – should a target lower than 61,000m2 be considered? This could reflect ongoing changes in the office market following the Covid-19 pandemic. However, it would not align with the PfSH Statement of Common Ground, the aspirations for growth as forecast over the medium and longer term, or the ‘cities first’ approach. If the higher targets in options 1a or 1b were selected, the policy contains sufficient flexibility to ensure sites are not needlessly safeguarded for office use. The sites identified in Table 3 can accommodate either of these targets. 10 8
Key Option 2 – The level of requirement for office development on individual sites
Option 2a – support office development at the Central Station hub without requiring office development – this creates the maximum flexibility to support overall development but risks not delivering office development if the commercial market prioritises other uses. 13 3
Option 2b – require that “50%” or “a significant proportion” of development at the Central Station hub is for office use – this may ensure that office development is delivered on this key site but risks an inflexible approach to supporting overall development if office development is not viable. However, this approach could include flexibility on a case-by-case basis, as set out in the “Further Considerations” section below. 7 9

Summary of responses (30 received)

There was a mixed response to this policy. Whilst some supported the proposed approach, others questioned the need for additional office space, particularly given increased levels of home working following the Covid-19 pandemic, and perceptions of high vacancy levels within existing offices. Consequently, there was a general desire to see more research and analysis undertaken to justify the proposed levels of office space. There was however a recognition that levels of required office space are to a certain extent dependent on demand within the market. Therefore, some suggested that new office buildings should be developed with a degree of flexibility to better transition between office and residential or other uses depending on need and market demand. Some even suggested using the preparation of the City Vision as an opportunity to identify office space that is no longer fit for purpose and allocating that for conversion to alternative uses such as residential.

With regards to new offices some expressed a want for more affordable space and spaces of different sizes to help meet the needs of small and startup companies. Some also suggested ensuring new offices include facilities that would benefit employees such as affordable eateries. Business groups requested the allocation of new Grade A office space and a conference and events centre as well as greater protections for existing office space from conversion under permited development. Some responses requested that policy be used to help deliver specific accommodation for high-tech industries such as the life sciences sector.

There was a mixed opinion regarding where new offices should be located with some supporting the suggested locations in the City Centre and particularly around Central Station. However, others suggested a more distributed pattern across smaller centres and near public transport interchanges in other parts of the city to reduce the need to travel to the City Centre.

Some responses made suggestions as to how existing areas with offices could be made more attractive including improving the quality of street lighting. Others suggested finding greater efficiencies for office use amongst public sector bodies by exploring opportunities for shared office spaces.

Industrial Sites

Industrial Sites Policy Options

Theme: Economy
Policy Name: Industrial Sites
Policy Number: EC2(S)
Options Y/N: Y

Industrial Sites Policy Options Agree Disagree
Option 1a – continue to safeguard all the currently designated industrial sites. This would protect the most industrial areas / existing jobs within the city. However, it may mean that opportunities to deliver regeneration or amenity benefits are lost. 6 6
Option 1b - release some or all of the industrial sites with regeneration potential. These could be redeveloped to form high quality higher density residential and mixed-use development in the central and waterfront areas of the city, including the city centre and Itchen Riverside Quarter. This would help to maximise new development and deliver more homes, bringing wider benefits in terms of economic investment, regenerating key areas, and locating development relatively close to jobs, services and public transport. However, it would also mean the loss of industrial areas and jobs. 9 3
Option 1c – release some or all of the smaller industrial sites in residential areas. These could be redeveloped for residential uses. This could enhance the amenity of the surrounding residential areas and deliver more homes. However, it would mean the loss of some smaller industrial areas which may currently offer cheaper business accommodation, and jobs. 4 8
Option 1d – release some or all of the industrial sites with regeneration potential and the smaller industrial sites in residential areas. This would do most to realise the benefits outlined in options 1b and 1c. However, it would mean the loss of the most industrial areas and jobs. 1 10

Summary of responses (23 received)

There was general support for the overall principle of the policy to safeguard industrial sites so they continue to provide employment opportunities within the city. There were however mixed opinions with regards to how much employment land should be released for regeneration and potential redevelopment to other uses. Some saw opportunities to improve public access to the waterfront whilst others cautioned that releasing too much industrial land would be detrimental to aims to grow the working population of the city.

Some expressed a desire to see any change of use retain the existing building and convert it to preserve the industrial heritage of the city.

Amongst those who made specific comments on the proposed options, the most popular was Option 1b which would see the release of some or all of the sites with regeneration potential. This echoes the general sentiment in comments that some sites should be released for alternative uses but recognising the need to still retain some sites to ensure a continued employment base. Some comments made suggestions as to which sites should be prioritised for release. This included smaller sites, those that are hemmed in by existing residential development and those that are less accessible and reliant on car travel by employees. Some highlighted the need to have a comprehensive approach to releasing industrial sites to avoid repeating the piecemeal redevelopment that has happened in the past.

A mixed range of responses were received from developers, mainly supporting the proposed approach where their site was proposed for release and disagreeing with the policy where this was not the case.

Suggested amendments to the policy included making greater cross reference to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan and making a specific reference that flood defence infrastructure would be acceptable development within safeguarded sites. There were also suggestions that improvements should be made to existing industrial sites with regards to lighting and their accessibility by bus. Opportunities to bring new industries into the city should be explored, particularly those related to the green economy or that could make good use of Southampton's waterfront location.

Marine Sites

Summary of responses (9 received)

Theme: Economy
Policy Name: Marine Sites
Policy Number: EC3(S)
Options Y/N: N

There are no clear objections to the policy, but a number of mixed responses. Whilst there is recognition that sites should be protected for marine use, more flexibility is sought, perhaps with other uses or attractions being considered. Again, the desire for more access to the waterfront and public transport to connect to it came though in the comments. There was concern from one respondent that there was a slight inconsistency with the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan and the safeguarding of a site. Another concern was in regard to sustainability and the need to encourage the green economy

The Port

The Port Policy Options

Theme: Economy
Policy Name: The Port
Policy Number: EC4(S)
Options Y/N: Y

The Port Policy Options Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – the balance between the Port and the city
Option 1a – Prioritise the needs of the Port over the city – this recognises the national importance of the Port but risks undermining the needs of the city, its residents and other businesses. 0 15
Option 1b – Enable the strength of positive benefit to the locally / regionally important city to outweigh the strength of negative effect to the nationally important Port – this reflects existing policy and enables a balanced approach to be taken where for example there are major benefits to the city and minor disbenefits to the Port. 16 1

Summary of responses (29 received)

There was a mixed response to this policy with some supporting the growth of the port and the potential economic benefits whilst others believed the port is being unduly prioritised over the needs of residents. Some suggested that the nature of the proposed growth at the port needs to be beter defined within policy. There were repeated calls for the environmental impacts of the port to be addressed and for a greater level of openness from the port's operators as to how it is run and how it is delivering benefits for the city's residents. Consequently, of those who made comments on the proposed options the majority supported Option 1b which reflects existing policy allowing development that would have major benefit for the city even when it would have minor disbenefits to the port.

Whilst some expressed support for the expansion of the port into areas outside of the city at Dibden Bay, others queried the deliverability of this expansion. They suggested the City Vision should not be overly reliant on this expansion and should set out alternative approaches for supporting economic growth at the port.

There were a number of points raised about how the port interacts with surrounding land uses. Some wanted uses within the port to be intensified to avoid the need for any further expansion of the port's boundaries within the city. Residential development near the port was not supported due to perceived pollution issues. There was a desire for new amenities and atractions to be delivered as part of opening up access to the waterfront. Port related heritage was seen as a benefit and its retention was supported to help increase the atractiveness of the waterfront.

Several responses raised concerns regarding the implementation of the proposed Freeport. Some responses also requested a review of permited development rights at the port, including those of the Freeport, to beter enable the proposed approach to this policy.

Social Value and Economic Inclusion

Social Value and Economic Inclusion Policy Options

Theme: Economy
Policy Name: Social Value and Economic Inclusion
Policy Number: EC5
Options Y/N: Y

Social Value and Economic Inclusion Policy Options Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – Social Value Statements
Option 1a – not to require Social Value Statements – this could mean that opportunities are missed for developments to add economic and social value. 1 13
Option 1b – to require Social Value Statements as set out in the policy – the requirement is to prepare the Statement. The policy provides the flexibility to enable developers, the Council, communities and partners to work together to identify enhanced economic and social benefits which are of mutual benefit. 13 2
Option 1c – to require specific outcomes from a Social Value Statement – this may strengthen the policy but arguably goes against the underlying aim, which is for developers, the Council, communities and other partners to work together to identify measures of mutual benefit at an early stage, which are tailor made and relevant to the specific development. 5 5

Summary of responses (21 received)

The comments indicate general support for considering social value in planning applications. However, some comments did raise queries about how proposed actions set out in Social Value Statements would be monitored and enforced. It was suggested these actions should be required to meet specific outcomes and that progress against them should be made publicly available.

There was some concern that the approaches to growth suggested in the City Vision may not deliver social value and that previous approaches, with an emphasis on securing investment from large and multi-national corporations, has not led to money being retained within the local economy and has displaced local businesses.

Several comments supported using the policy as a means of upskilling the local workforce and ensuring the creation of meaningful work and high skilled jobs. There were suggestions of specific themes that should be addressed through this policy including the environment, culture and health. The role of the VCSE sector was highlighted in how it can help support the implementation of a social value approach.

Meanwhile Uses

Meanwhile Uses Policy Options

Theme: Economy
Policy Name: Meanwhile Uses
Policy Number: EC6
Options Y/N: Y

Meanwhile Uses Policy Options Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – Policy requirement
Option 1a – omit Policy EC6 from the Local Plan as the introduction of further legislation allows greater flexibility within and between Use Classes and this approach is no longer necessary. This would avoid prescribing an approach for meanwhile uses that is already addressed through legislation but would limit the Council’s ability to guide and control the use of meanwhile uses, in particular those that may not be covered by legislation. 2 6
Option 1b – retain Policy EC6 to guide meanwhile uses for completeness and clarity. This would give the Council a greater ability to guide the development of meanwhile uses so they reflect local circumstances but could reduce the level of flexibility that Government changes sought to achieve. 9 1
Key Option 2 – Sequential Test
Option 2a – introduce a sequential test criterion to ensure temporary uses occur in suitable locations. This would help ensure that temporary uses would be supporting the vibrancy of designated centres in the first instance but could prevent such uses benefitting temporarily vacant sites or units in other locations. 6 3
Option 2b – do not introduce a sequential test criterion in the recognition of the temporary nature of meanwhile uses. This would ensure flexibility to allow any appropriate sites or units in the city to still be productive where they are temporarily vacant however this could undermine the vibrancy of designated centres whilst the temporary use is in operation. 3 4

Summary of responses (11 received)

There was support for the approach by this policy with suggestions around ensuring meanwhile uses are flexible, made available for meaningful periods of time, are prioritised for local businesses and can support the VCSE sector. Several comments emphasised the importance of engaging with neighbouring communities on proposals before making a decision as to whether they should be permitted.