Minutes for Regeneration and Transport Task Group meeting, Dec 8 2010, 5.30PM official page

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the meeting of the Land Management Companies theme of the Regeneration and Transport Task Group, as previously circulated, were agreed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment: -

Minute 12 – Introduction and Gathering of Information

Page 4, 6^th paragraph amend as follows: -

“Alison Bowen stated that future Policy could be looked at with a view to it being strengthened.”

Jerry Connolly gave a brief introduction and outlined the links between residents, developers and the City Council Planning Department.

Bob Mullins  gave an overview to how the Green Space Strategy had been implemented. A hierarchy of Parks had been drawn up and investments maximised. The Strategy looked at the Council’s landholding and all of the green spaces across the City and looked at accessibility issues.

Nick Logan  A Strategic Planning Document (SPD) for new residential developments was proposed and it would then be possible to consider existing open space provision in the Ward and calculate the requirements. SPG would set the mechanism to achieve this, should the requirement be so small as to not be sustainable then it would set out how the provision could be achieved. The SPG also made reference to committed sums through Section 106 agreements.

Dave Cotton  stated that, in response to a question about the timeframe for Land Management Companies (LMCs) holding responsibility for the management of green spaces, the normal requirement was for a Planning Condition to specify the provision and maintenance of open space for 10 years. However Planning Conditions did not specify that at the end of the 10 year period the open space in question reverts to the City Council to maintain. Under normal circumstances the open space would have been offered to the Council before the end of the 10 year period.

Councillor Hunt  stated that, having read the document circulated it seemed that it set out aspirations rather than methods of enforcing requirements.

Nick Logan  stated that caveats had to be in place as starting points for opening negotiations with developers. The document set out much more clearly how the Council would negotiate commuted sums.

Councillor Newcombe  stated that he understood that within the soon to be published Localism Bill there would be some changes to the Planning and the Section 106 process.

Dave Cotton/Alison Bowen  stated that the Bill had not yet been published and that there were likely to be changes.

Dave Cotton  stated that, in response to a question regarding enforcement procedures following the 10-year period, there could not be a longstanding open-ended enforcement regime. Under the present regime it was not possible to enforce beyond 10 years.

Bob Mullins  stated that it would be unusual for a developer to come to the Council late on regarding the transfer of land, but rather at a stage prior to them exiting the development.

Councillor Hunt  felt that there was a need to give consideration to ongoing maintenance to the required standard during the 10 year period, where often a third-party was given this work. There was also a need to consider ongoing maintenance beyond the 10 year period and also ongoing residents contributions.

Nick Logan  stated that planning powers were about provision and it was not reasonable for the Planning Authority to specify who did the maintenance work but rather to ensure that it was carried out to the required standard.

Councillor Newcombe questioned whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

It was suggested that a further meeting be arranged in January 2011 and that officers look to get representatives from ‘Greenbelt’, the Land Management Company covering Hamilton, to the meeting as the next stage in the evidence gathering exercise for the Task Group.

The Chair declared the meeting closed at 6.35 pm.