Agenda item

Report of the Executive Manager - Communities

The Strategic Sites Delivery Officer, (SSD Officer) delivered a presentation that provided the Group with the updated position and information on the future of public open space on housing developments. At its meeting in July 2020 the Group asked officers to identify and investigate what is happening on housing developments across the Borough.

The SSD Officer explained the need for open spaces and the requirement by Policy on small, medium and large scale residential developments. Under the Local Plan the Council has identified 6 strategic sites within the Core strategy and 25 additional sites under the Local Plan Part 2, these developments range from 45 to 4000 dwellings in size.

In respect of the current position within the Borough, the SSD Officer reminded the Group that pre-2000 the Council adopted and maintained the open spaces which became costly, therefore, between 2000 - 2011 the Council collected commuted sums from the developer to help towards the cost of maintaining the open spaces. These commuted sums were in themselves difficult to obtain from the developer so from 2012 open spaces were required and the responibiity to manage and maintain open spaces fell upon the developer, most of whom collect a service charge as follows:

·       The housing developer(s) are responsible for payments towards the maintenance of open space on Strategic Sites, Local Plan Part 2 sites and major windfall sites

·       The developer(s) pass that cost/responsibility on to residents through a management company as a monthly charge

·       That service charge is then payable for the entire time that each property on the development is occupied

However, the SSD Officer explained that the current model has shown up a number of issues, which residents living on these developments have reported, these are highlighted as follows:

·       On the Strategic Allocations and some Local Plan Part 2 sites large community areas/parks to mitigate harm from the development are available for use by all, but are funded by the few residents living on the new development(s)

·       Residents are experiencing issues with Management Companies – requesting extra charges for services above what is already collected in the monthly fees

·       Residents have questioned the parity of cost paid which can vary across the different developments

Following the Scrutiny meeting in July 2020, the SSD Officer provided a summary advising the Group that support of Members and Developers was sought, 15 sites have been identified and from these, a small sample size of 9 responses were received. The average cost per household is £201 per year with most sites paying less than average. It was noted, that many of the issues identified could not be addressed through planning, the Council is doing what the majority of other local authorities are doing and any long term implications are unknown at this time.

In concluding, the SSD Officer provided an example from Warwick District Council of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which the Council may wish to consider, to set Rushcliffe standards and provide consistency for developers.

Members asked specific questions in relation to the management fees currently being charged, were residents in affordable houses charged the same or do fees vary according to the size/type of property and what would happen if a management company ceased trading, members were also concerned that the fees being charged  were not capped. 

The Service Manager – Communities advised that residents in affordable housing sometimes pay a reduced fee and that should a management company ceased trading it would depend on who owned the land as to who would be liable. In respect of fee capping this would be down to market forces and management companies would need compete for the work.

The Ward Councillor for East Leake raised her concerns in respect of ownership of the open spaces once the developer has passed the management of these open spaces to the Management Company, adding that resident associations created an extra burden for residents and were often overlooked by the Management Company. The Ward Councillor provided examples of residents being charged extra costs on top of the agreed management fees, for items such as fly tipping, which was out of their control. 

The Chairman agreed that the Council’s planning process does need to have more input at a future stage and welcomed the officer’s recommendation to develop a draft Supplementary Planning Document (SDP) that would address some of the issues raised by members.

It was RESOLVED that:

a)    Cabinet be requested to support the inclusion of guidance within a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to provide consistency to future Open Space schemes

b)    Officers investigate the legalities to influence the management agreement to apply some controls that would provide extra protection for residents

c)     The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Planning writes a letter to the Secretary of State highlighting the issues raised and bring forward guidance to address these issues.