Stratford set to launch inquiry into green space management fees
THE controversial practice of making home owners pay private companies for the upkeep of public open spaces is facing an imminent in-depth probe by Stratford District Council.
On Monday (7th July) the council’s ruling cabinet is being recommended to back a cross-party proposal for an urgent three-month investigation into the issue.
As previously reported by the Herald, complaints have flared up in various parts of the district – notably at Wellesbourne and Shipston – about developers using private management companies to operate and maintain public assets “while levying uncontrolled and increasing charges” on residents.
A motion put forward at a meeting of the district council in April by Cllr Daren Pemberton (Cons, Bidford East), the opposition leader on the council, and seconded by Cllr Susan Juned (Lib Dem, Alcester East), the council leader, said the charges had “not delivered good outcomes for residents in terms of high-quality public amenities”.
And the motion declared: “At the same time increasing charges have reached the point of unaffordability for many people.”
Cllr Pemberton also called on the council to appoint an investigating group of councillors to look into the practice and report back to the authority within three months.
At Monday’s meeting the cabinet will be advised by John Careford, the council’s head of development, to support Cllr Pemberton’s proposal and get the inquiry under way.
In a paper being presented to the cabinet Mr Careford says: “Concerns about private management companies managing public open spaces within the district are longstanding, perhaps coming to attention in more recent years owing to the increase in housing provision across the district.”
Mr Careford tells councillors that the supply of public open space and estate roads is typically secured via Section 106 legal agreements, where developers create these amenities in return for being granted planning consent.
But he says that ownership of such land is not a planning issue per se. “From a planning perspective, the concern is simply that (a) the open space and roads are provided and (b) that they are maintained in perpetuity moving forwards for the benefit of residents,” he says.
“The council is aware of concerns from residents of a number of sites across the district where the quality of open space provision is unsatisfactory and the council has recently provided additional budgetary resources for dedicated staff to investigate and help address these issues.”
Mr Careford adds: “Planning issues aside, there is a moral question about whether residents of new estates should be paying additional fees to maintain public open space when residents of older estates do not and that ‘their’ open spaces are maintained through the public purse via council tax.
“Having said that, it could be argued that this is a case of ‘buyer beware’ and that new residents are, or should be, alert to additional fees and obligations as part of their house purchase and conveyancing – and having instructed their own independent advisers at the time.
“However, there remain genuine concerns about the quality of maintenance of the open space, the significant cost of the management company fees and the seemingly poor value for money for residents.”
The council’s lawyers are looking into the legal position, but Mr Careford points out that the council has no authority to ban management companies or go back and try to unpick Section 106 agreements that may have allowed for such companies in the past.
“This means that existing management companies can operate as they currently do under their existing arrangements,” says Mr Careford. “Ideally we need the government to legislate on this issue to make certain requirements compulsory.”
