Agenda item

To receive the conclusions and draft recommendations of the Task Group, these will be circulated prior to the meeting.

The Chair of the Task Group submitted a draft report setting out the conclusions and draft recommendations arising from the review of Land Management Companies.

The following points were made during discussion on this item:-

·            Elements of the sample performance specification received from the Greenbelt management company had been used throughout the recommendations contained in the report;

·            The Council had used a performance specification for approximately 15 years.  This contained a range of standards that reflected British Standards for Grounds Maintenance, (which included the maintenance of pathways).  These Standards could be adapted to suit available funding and included tests by which it could be assessed if the Standards were being met;

·            The Council normally did not provide development briefs for development sites unless they were owned by the Council.  However, it was recognised that some form of technical guidance was needed, to ensure that developers were aware of the standards to which the Council encouraged land to be managed;

·            Land management companies worked to specifications agreed by developers on a site by site basis;

·            It was hoped that agreements that worked in perpetuity could be reached between land management companies and residents.  If they were correctly drawn up, any such agreements should be valid in perpetuity, which was the ideal situation.  However, if they failed, it could be useful to have provision made in Section 106 Agreements to ensure that land management was carried out to required standards, although it was recognised that such provisions could only be enforced for the time span set out in the Section 106 Agreement;

·            It would be difficult to use a common specification for land management under Section 106 Agreements.  Instead, it would be preferable to use a model set of conditions, or impose a condition within each Agreement that the respective developer was required to submit details of the land management regime.  The first alternative would be easier to manage, as under the second the proposals for each Agreement would have to be examined separately;

·            The Team Leader (Planning Management and Delivery) tabled proposed standard conditions for inclusion in Section 106 Agreements, which would enable the Council to have greater control of land management arrangements.  A copy of these is attached at the end of these minutes for information.  It was noted that the implementation of these could be measured against performance standards used by the Parks and open Spaces service;

·            Consideration needed to be given to how long a condition within a Section 106 Agreement regarding land management could be imposed.  Officers’ professional view was that it should be in perpetuity, but it was recognised that the Planning Inspectorate often time limited conditions to five years.  It therefore was suggested that 10 years could be a good compromise;

·            Design and Access statements were a requirement for most planning applications, but these were not suitable for land management requirements.  The existence of a Design and Access statement would not supersede the need for a Section 106 Agreement;

·            It was important that land management companies held regular consultation meetings with residents.  If they were held too frequently, they could lose their effectiveness, as there would be very little to discuss at each meeting.  Six-monthly meetings therefore seemed appropriate; and

·            Reference needed to be made in the final report of this review to Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS).  No standard currently existed for SUDS, requirements for them being made by local water authorities.  However, it was possible that, in the foreseeable future, councils would be required to take over responsibility for their adoption.

AGREED:-

1)         that the Members Support Officer be requested to add the following to the final report and recommendations arising from this review:-

a)         recommendations that a performance specification be drafted, based on standards acceptable to Leicester City Council, and that land management standards for each development be assessed against this;

b)         a condition be added that:-

“If not to be adopted by the City Council for maintenance, the details of the management arrangements shall be the subject of a Section 106 Agreement, covering the arrangements for financing, consultation with occupiers and transfer of responsibility in the event of any land management company withdrawing or failing to meet the contractual requirements.”

c)          the following be added to recommendation 2.1(e), (additional wording shown in italics):-

“… An identified local contact should be named by the contractor and specific consultation meetings take place at least every six months to address issues raised by residents in the area.”; and

d)         a recommendation that land management companies be required to establish and maintain Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes to standards adoptable by the relevant authority;

2)         that, once the amendments agreed above have been made, the Planning Team Leaders be requested to review the recommendations arising from this review to ensure that they are feasible in planning terms; and

3)         that, once points 1) and 2) above have been completed, the final report and recommendations arising from this review be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board for consideration.