National park authority 'seeks clarity' over Forest-wide Solent Freeport boundary

THE national park authority is demanding answers from the government about the Solent Freeport after boundary maps were published encompassing the entire New Forest.

When the designation was announced last year by the then Chancellor Rishi Sunak, expectations were that the scheme would apply to specific locations for tax and customs relief.

Local sites are at Marchwood port, ABP’s strategic land reserve at Dibden Bay, parts of Fawley oil refinery, and Fawley Waterside – site of the former power station.

But concerns have been sparked by an official map showing the wider freeport covering the whole Forest, including the national park, as well as neighbouring authorities, plus the M3 up to Winchester.

Steve Avery, executive director for strategy and planning at the NPA, said it has requested an explanation from the government over the boundary issue.

He told the A&T: “Together with Dartmoor and the North York Moors national park authorities we are currently seeking clarity from the government over how the proposed extended permitted development rights for freeports will operate.

“In the meantime, we are pushing the Solent Freeport to positively deliver environmental benefits in its zone of influence, as well as through the focus on green skills and jobs and a process of decarbonising the economy.”

Hampshire County Council said its “understanding” was that any “planning flexibilities” would be limited to core areas.

The government’s freeport webpage explains how they will provide a “supportive planning environment” for tax and customs sites through “locally led measures” such as local development orders (LDOs).

The Local Government Association defines LDOs as a way of providing permitted development rights for specified types of “appropriate” schemes in defined locations.

It said: “They can play an important role in incentivising development by simplifying the planning process and making investment more attractive.”

New Forest District Council said the boundary showed where “innovation measures” could be deployed, but added: “The proposed Solent Freeport includes no proposals intended to weaken planning controls and environmental protections within the outer boundary.

“As is currently the case, planning applications within these areas will be submitted to the local planning authority for consideration – which will include consideration of planning controls and environmental protections.”

Supporters claim the scheme will generate regionally 52,000 jobs plus £2bn of investment – which can be directed anywhere within the freeport boundary.

Critics have raised fears about a “free-for-all” impact on local decision-making, infrastructure and protected habitats, such as Dibden Bay.

Cllr Mark Clark, part of the opposition Liberal Democrat group on NFDC, said the boundary issue was a “major area of concern”.

He told the A&T: “We would like to see concrete evidence that the outer boundary does not mean negative impacts on the New Forest National Park and that it represents an area where financial benefits can be deployed from the freeport concept for New Forest residents rather than any planning free-for-all for business.

“Our concerns about the concept remain the same in that it gives the green light to the development of Dibden Bay.”

He added: “We’re also awaiting answers from the Conservatives as to why did a Conservative PM cancel the old freeport licenses in 2012 if they’re now being promoted by a potential Conservative PM as a rip-roaring success 10 years later?”

Asked by the A&T what the boundary signified, a spokesperson for the Solent Freeport said it was still working with the government to agree a business case.

They confirmed customs and tax benefits would be limited to specific sites, adding: “Our proposed approach is to establish a Retained Rates Investment Committee which will consist of all the local rating authorities.

“This will advise the Solent Freeport board to inform their decisions on where funding is directed.”

A spokesperson for HCC said: “Our understanding is that the existing local planning authorities would still oversee development in the wider boundary areas with any planning flexibilities associated with freeports being limited to the identified core areas and specific activities.”

They said the outer boundary of the freeport zone was “designed to ensure that freeports create economic activity near shipping ports or airports”.

They added HCC was “keen to confirm that the appropriate infrastructure is secured to ensure that these opportunities are fully realised, and that local communities benefit from them, rather than facing additional pressure on overstretched transport, utilities and communications infrastructure”.

They also said: “The freeport proposals very much recognise the importance and significance of the natural environment and are designed to support the careful management and improvement of these assets.”