Spinney Hill Notes - Spinney Hill Residents Hub

Maintenance Obligations

Sect 106 Agreement

Land ownership

Landscape Management Plan

Directors Update July 2026

CA Sect 281

Last updated 26 JulyIf you have any questions you can contact the author at <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="mailto:spinneyhillnotes@gmail.com">spinneyhillnotes@gmail.com</a>The Directors have advised that an Extraordinary General Meeting will be held in September, for the Membership to vote on the acquisition or otherwise of the title to the Maintained Areas. These pages are intended to provide important information to assist you in casting an informed vote.That information is given in good faith and with honest intent but, nonetheless, you should take nothing for granted and question everything!BUT FIRST you should read my response to the Directors' recent 'Update-July 2026', which does not give an objective account of the reasons for calling a September GM.<a target="" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="/directors-update-july-2026">Link to Update-2026</a>To correct a false impressions you may have, the Maintained Areas are NOT not now open to the public. However, on transfer of the land the general public WILL have access. That will have significant consequences on the new owner's ability to control the public's access and behaviour.There are three possible options, where the transfer of the title to the Maintained Areas is concerned. First, the SHMC accepts the title and with it all liabilities that are entailed; second, JW retains ownership, as they do with the 'allotment area' and retains all liabilities; and third, the land is transferred to a third party, as provided for in your transfer deed. The third option is very unlikely, since the land has no investment, commercial, or development potential. The other options are discussed later.<a target="" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="/land-ownership#article-1">Link to Land Ownership</a>

Spinney Hill (Oakham) Management Co. Ltd

We were in one of the slums in Kathmandu. Kids, there are still deprived of access to the technology. We are there to break that barrier and give new opportunities.

@DisasterHack

<h4>Here's what the SHMC promises to do for you, extracted from your Transfer Deed.</h4><h4>Note: the 'Manager' is the SHMC (not the Agent).</h4><h4>The Transfer Deed is a legal contract. The SHMC is responsible for carrying out the maintenance duties specified in the Schedule copied below; exactly those duties, no less and no more.</h4><h4>Also note that there is no mention of the stream or 'trees'.</h4><h4>12.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; THE MANAGER COVENANTS</h4><h4>12.4.1&nbsp; with the Transferor and as a separate covenant with the Transferee for the benefit of Maintained Areas and every part of them (subject to payment by the Transferee of the Owners Proportion) to perform the obligations on the part of the Manager set out in the Schedule by its employees servants agents or other delegated independent contractors [‘Manager’ is the SHMC]</h4><h4>12.8.17 It is the express intention that the Transferor or Manager shall recover through the Maintenance Expenses the entire costs and expenses incurred in connection with the maintenance and administration of the Maintained Areas.</h4><h4>"Maintenance Expenses": means the monies actually expended or reserved for periodical expenditure by or on behalf of the Manager or the Transferor in carrying out its obligations specified in the Schedule (including those incurred in the performance of the obligations set out in Part I of the Schedule and the sums referred to in Part 2 of the Schedule)</h4><h4>THE SCHEDULE</h4><h4>Maintenance Obligations Expenses and Administration of the Maintained Areas</h4><h4>PART I</h4><h4>Maintained Areas</h4><h4>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Keeping the Maintained Areas properly repaired maintained and surfaced to building standards current at the time the work is undertaken and (where appropriate) lighted. (Author's note: there is no such Building Standard. There is 'Grounds Maintenance recommendations, BS 7370, parts 3 &amp; 4).</h4><h4>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Keeping any landscape areas within the Maintained Areas in a neat and tidy condition tending any flower beds and shrubs in accordance with good horticultural practice and maintaining repairing and where necessary reinstating any boundary wall hedge or fence enveloping the landscape areas &nbsp;[do we have any such?]</h4><h4>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Keeping in good order and repair any Service Installations within the Maintained Areas ("Service Installations": all conducting media and apparatus for foul and surface water drainage gas light water oil electricity telephone electronic transmissions and similar services).</h4><h4>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Effecting insurance against the liability of the Manager and the Communal Landowner to third parties and against such risks and in such amount as the Manager shall think fit having regard to the use of the Maintained Areas by both the Owners and the public at large</h4><h4>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Repairing maintaining inspecting and as necessary reinstating or renewing the entrance gates structures and any electronic devices incidental thereto</h4><h4>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Keeping in good order and repair and to replace renew as necessary any play equipment provided by the Transferor in the play areas</h4><h4>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The cost of provision of electricity for any apparatus consuming electricity (such as communal lighting or any pumps) within the Maintained Areas</h4><h4>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Repairing maintaining inspecting and as necessary reinstating or renewing all apparatus equipment plant and machinery not specifically mentioned but which serves the Maintained Areas [could this include litter/dog bins? The LMP says dog bins will be provided and serviced].</h4><h4>9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Maintaining any bat boxes or roosts existing on the Estate at the date of this Transfer and those that are provided on any common structure by the Transferor as part of any planning requirement for the Estate</h4><h4>PART 2</h4><h4>Section 1.&nbsp; The Manager's expenses, outgoings, other heads of expenditure and administration.&nbsp; This Section refers only to financial considerations.</h4><h4>Section 2</h4><h4>Costs applicable to any or all of the previous parts of this Schedule.</h4><h4>The below is the only practical maintenance function mentioned.</h4><h4>6.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in and about the maintenance and proper and convenient management and running of the Maintained Areas including in particular but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing any expenses incurred in rectifying or making good any inherent structural defect in any part of the Maintained Areas (except in so far as the cost thereof is recoverable under any insurance policy for the time being in force or from a third party who is or who may be liable therefore)</h4><a target="" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="/land-ownership">Return to Land Ownership</a>

THE SECTION 106 AGREEMENT,.THE FIRST SCHEDULE, TRANSFER OF OPEN SPACE AREA/S&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; GENERALThe following provisions shall apply to all transfers of On Site Open Space Areas pursuant to this Agreement.(Sects. 1.1 TO 1.7 are procedural, not copied - below are the covenants that must be observed).1.8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An indemnity from the transferee to observe and perform the covenants affecting the title to the land as at the date of the Transfer will be included in the Transfer1.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The following restrictive covenants will be included in the Transfer for the benefit of the Owners retained landa)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; restriction preventing use for any purpose other than public open spaceb)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not to be used för a trade or businessc)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not to be used for residential purposesd)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to keep land in good repair and conditione)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not to obstruct public highwayf)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to keep and properly maintain the boundaries in good repair and conditiong)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to properly keep and maintain any landscapingh)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to keep and maintain the land in a clean and tidy conditioni)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not to cause or permit any nuisance on the landj)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; on any transfer of the land or any part thereof to procure that any transferee shall simultaneously enter into a direct covenant with the owner/developer or the whole or relevant parts of the retained land to observe and perform these covenantsk) not to erect any buildings or other erections except equipment ancillary to the purpose for which the land is transferred.Note: Section 1.6 would apply to any such covenant or clause in the Transfer Deed.The Directors have said they would not consider acquiring the land until the roads have been adopted by the RCC – good, otherwise we might be liable under Sect/1.7 d!&nbsp;&nbsp;

Key conditions in the  transfer of land from Jeakins Weir Ltd.

Our starting point is to establish exactly what maintenance the SHMC is obliged to carry out now. That is specified in our Transfer Deed. Having established that we then need to determine what obligations/ liabilities/benefits are entailed in owning the land, which we would take on should we accept title to the land. In our deliberations the balance between the benefits and liabilities will be the key.<a target="" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="/maintenance-obligations">Link to the SHMC's present maintenance obligations</a>It may seem commonsense that we should own the land that we are obliged to maintain.&nbsp; However, as your solicitor did in the purchase of your home, it is an essential practice to carry out searches into the status of the land, to ensure there are no hidden problems.In Spinney Hill there are two immediate concerns;1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The maintenance of the Gwash stream, which is a common law liability of the LAND OWNER, and2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Section 106 Agreement covenant that, on transfer of the land from the developer to ANY new owner, the general public has right of access to and use of the Open Spaces.There are other possible liabilities that are entailed in land ownership but these two are the most problematic.<h4>Gwash stream.</h4>The Environment Agency did carry out an inspection of the stream in 2020 and again more recently and found it was adequate for purpose.&nbsp; However, the EA said that that obstruction of flow in ‘our’ area would cause flooding north of Brooke Road. Should we insure against such a risk? Would the insurer require regular checks and cleaning of the stream?&nbsp; Land owners on the north bank share responsibility for watercourse maintenance; how would that be managed?The other concern related to the Gwash is the condition of its trees.&nbsp; A pre-development survey in 2010 gave the Gwash trees a life expectancy of ten years.&nbsp; In 2022 one of the largest trees fell, for no obvious reason.&nbsp; In the event of a major storm many of the trees could fall and the cleanup would be an expensive operation.&nbsp; Can and should we insure against such risks?&nbsp; What conditions would the insurer impose?In this author’s opinion, Jeakins Weir, as owner of the land, currently bears the liabilities described above.&nbsp; On transfer of the land those liabilities would pass on to the new owner.<h4>The Section 106 Agreement.</h4>The 2013 agreement between JW and the RCC has in its First Schedule, ‘Transfer of Open Spaces’, Sect. 1.9, restrictive covenants that come into effect when the land is transferred.&nbsp; Covenant 1.9a is a ‘restriction preventing use for any other purpose than public open space.’&nbsp; The RCC Planning Dept has stated that this covenant permits the general public to access and use our communal areas, so that Spinney Hill could not be considered a ‘closed community’.&nbsp;To propose that giving the general public access to our communal spaces would prevent Spinney Hill being regarded as a closed community is not realistic; even if the areas remained private, the RCC will adopt the development roads which will then become public highways, which the public can traverse at will.&nbsp;And there is no stipulation that the allotments (if they ever appear) will be reserved solely for Spinney Hill owners.However, the prime concern is that covenant 1.9a has effectively made a nomansland of our communal areas.Irrespective of to whom JW transfers the areas, the SHMC cannot prevent the public from entering our communal spaces, nor can we regulate their behaviour.&nbsp; It may well be that extreme circumstances (say travellers setting up camp) will not arise and that any nuisances are minor. However, in such a case, since there would seem to be a legal right to enter on the land, with no restrictions or qualifications, the landowner would have no remedy, save in the case of criminal offences or activities that would warrant a civil action.The current RCC Antisocial Behaviour policy is a cumulative process and does not provide any immediate resolution. Since the areas are private property, the RCC has no powers to regulate.In negotiating the transfer of the land to the SHMC we should require that that this particular covenant be rescinded.&nbsp;There is legal precedence*. Our leverage is that we could refuse to take ownership – it would not be in JW’s interests to continue as landowner. While the RCC have stated that, should JW seek further (retaliatory?) development on the communal spaces, they would consider an application 'on its own merits'. To grant further development would conflict with the existing Planning Permission and the spirit of covenant 1.9b ,which prohibits the use of the areas for trade or business.<a target="" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="/sect-106-agreement#article-1">Link to more detailed Sect 106</a>It is doubted that JW could transfer the land to third party; the land has no commercial, investment or development value - and retains certain liabilities.OTHER POSSIBLE LAND OWNER'S LIABILITIES (in addition to the Gwash problem):Erosion, subsidence,Diseased and/or fallen treesDrainage and Subsoil structuresProtection of dangerous placesResponsibilities, liabilities, under the Landscape Management PlanLiabilities under the Sect 106 Agreement.Fly tippingAbandoned vehicles<h4>The Land Management Plan.</h4>The LMP is a 2013 agreement between JW and the RCC which sets out in great detail how the Maintained Areas should be developed and maintained. The plan was a condition of the Planning Permission granted after appeal and, it is mooted, lasts in perpetuity subject to review and revision every five years.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Given that the plan can be revised, the conditions in the agreement can be viewed as at least flexible.&nbsp; However, neither JW nor the RCC have carried out some clear responsibilities, by neglect rather than design perhaps.&nbsp; The plan itself is written in Alice-in-Wonderland terms that were never likely to be realised.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This author’s conclusion is that the SHMC does not have any liabilities under the plan, even if it adopts the land.&nbsp;That would be subject to a legal opinion, of course. A factor that may limit the effect of the LMP is that our Transfer Deeds permit the Company to alter the 'scope' of maintenance. It can also add appropriate maintenance where needed.<a target="" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="/landscape-management-plan">Link to more detailed LMP.</a>Public Liability Insurance.Under the Transfer Deed, the SHMC has to provide ‘insurance against the liability of the Manager and the Communal Landowner to third parties and against such risks and in such amount as the Manager shall think fit having regard to the use of the Maintained Areas by both the Owners and the public at large’. Given that the land is, and may continue to be, owned by JW it seems inappropriate that we should pay for the consequences of JW’s neglect, e.g. if a diseased tree fell on someone. This provision needs clarification.*The arbitrary imposition of public access to our communal areas, in this author's opinion, is a invalid planning obligation. There are Supreme Court decisions overturning such planning obligations.The RCC was challenged on this point and predictably they rejected the proposition. In February, after an unsuccessful challenge via the RCC's complaint process, I submitted the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, which will arbitrate challenges to Sect 106. It is yet to be allocated! Given their workload a judgement will be some distance away.If any Member would like to see the argument I submitted to the Ombudsman I will provide a PDF copy.

Ownership of the Maintained Areas.

Introduction.The argument made here is that The Landscape Management Plan (LMP) is no longer relevant to today’s circumstances. Since the LMP and Sect 106 Agreement were contracts between the RCC and JW it must be that any residual obligations of the LMP are those of JW’s and not those of the SHMC, until it accepts a transfer of land. This interpretation is subject to a legal opinion.The LMP of 2013 has an impractical and wildly optimistic view of how the Maintained Areas would be created and managed. The plan has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Viewed from 2026 the plan has an Alice-in-Wonderland feel.It requires balance between biodiversity and recreational use; and dog bins, ‘interpretation boards’, ‘passive recreation’, and that all houses will be provided with guidance on how private gardens should be developed. None of which has been put in place. It requires ‘specific habitat opportunities for badgers, water vole, which are [were?] present.&nbsp; A wildlife camera has been placed in various places in and near the stream from 2021 and, while muntjac deer have been constant visitors to the grassed areas, no other significant wildlife has been seen.&nbsp;The LMP says, ‘a landscape buffer up to 15m in width is proposed along the River Gwash corridor forming the northern site boundary enhancing existing wildlife linkages to the east and west.’ [this ‘buffer’ can only apply to the southern bank of the stream].The north bank of the stream is owned variously by dwellings in Vale Close, Bowling Green Close, and by Tennis and Bowling Clubs (since 2013). The tennis courts, and associated car parking area, are used throughout days and flood-lit evenings continually through the year, and are within a few feet of the stream.The wooded part of the Maintained Area along the stream’s southern bank cannot be realistically considered either a ‘nature reserve’ or ‘wildlife corridor’, because it is subject to year-round lighting, movement, and sound generated by the tennis club and its carpark. Children have been known to cross the stream and play on the southern bank.Nor is a ‘nature reserve’ compatible with the maintenance specifications in the Transfer Deed and the Maintained Areas Sect 106 covenants (which apply only to the south bank).&nbsp; They require the Area to be accessible to the public, to be kept in good repair and tidy condition, and its boundaries being maintained in in good repair and condition.Since 2013 the actual geography of the area has changed, such that the LMP has little relevance to the situation in 2026. &nbsp;East of the boundary fence at the north-east of the Maintained Area there is a small ‘panhandle’ of open rough land and streambank, which has been retained by the developer, and extends to the busy Uppingham Road. At the west end of the boundary there is land intended (but not yet cleared) for allotments, also retained by the developer. Beyond the allotment area there is the Brooke Road housing development. The stream, which is then little more than a ditch, turns north and is sandwiched between Bowling Green Close houses and the Brook Road development, and then passes under the busy Brook Road.None of these areas are subject to the Spinney Hill LMP or S106. The S106 for the Brooke Road development has no similar provisions.<h4>The origin of the LMP</h4>Appeal Decision 24th August 2011Appeal Ref: APP/A2470/A/2143475Schedule of Conditions.11)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned Domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the occupations of the of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use.&nbsp; The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved. [MN note: The RCC issued a Practical Completion Certificate but did not carry out a survey – they say it is for any new owner to ensure that the Areas were compliant with the Planning Permissions.Landscape Management Plan (extracts).Prepared by FPRC Environment and Design Ltd. 27 March 2013, for Jeakins Weir LtdIntroduction.1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This LMP outlines the long-term landscape management&nbsp; . . . . prepared to satisfy Condition 11 of the Appeal Decision.1.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Plan is based on a five-year management period. (MN note: the RCC believes the Plan continues in perpetuity).1.7 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Plan promotes the management aims etc&nbsp; . . . . To provide a ‘working’ document for those involved with the management of the Site’s landscape;1.10&nbsp;&nbsp; At the beginning of the five-year management period a Steering Group will be established comprising Jeakins Weir Ltd and Rutland County Council1.11&nbsp;&nbsp; It is intended that Jeakins Weir Ltd. will maintain ownership of the open space areas associated with the development and that the bulk of the work will be carried out by Jeakins Weir in liaison with Rutland County Council. The final details of the management arrangements are the subject of further discussions.The plan was made in compliance with Condition 11 of Annex B of the Appeal Decision;&nbsp; ‘A landscape management plan . . . . shall be carried out as approved’ and ‘to provide a ‘working’ document for those involved with the management of the Site’s landscape . . . and a point of reference for the relevant stakeholders and local community’.Since the Planning Permission was conditional on the LMP being implemented, it would seem that the LMP was intended to remain relevant with the passing of time.&nbsp; Section 1.6 states:‘The plan is based on a five-year management period’ and Section 3.4 ‘The Plan . . . being reviewed on a five yearly basis.’&nbsp; It is not clear when the five years begins; 2.3 refers to ‘ a period of 5 years from the date development begins.’ but only with reference to the replacement of diseased trees.The LMP created a Steering Group comprising Jeakins Weir and the RCC and suggests it will have an on-going monitoring role e.g. Section 6.2, ‘The Steering Group will oversee the use of the allotments’ and (2.19)&nbsp; ‘Monitoring and removal of diseased trees will be carried out by Jeakins Weir Ltd . . .’Who is responsible for operation of the LMP?The LMP sets out management aims and objectives that are not in the maintenance obligations specified in the Transfer Deed. The LMP is an agreement between JW and the RCC, and seems to obligate JW.In April 2024, in reply to a query about the LMP, the RCC said, ‘elements of the landscape management plan are still in effect and are an ongoing requirement for those responsible for the land . . . This confirms the understanding that JW, not the SHMC, is responsible for LMP liabilities. Of course, if the SHMC accepts ownership of the Areas it will take on those obligations.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Public Open Space.Recent comment on the Section 106 Agreement (S106) concentrated on two significant matters; the ownership of the Maintained Areas, and that the general public will have access to those areas.&nbsp; The LMP has no doubt on either matter:1.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [The]. . . development’s green infrastructure [will contain]‘New public open space’ . . . ‘New equipped Children’s Play areas . . .The Plan will promote . . . ‘publically accessible areas of open space for informal recreation and equipped play areas . . .’The LMP severally expects the provision of ‘public open space'. However, the plan contains no provision, as in the S106, that successors in title are bound to it. And the S106 provides that the Areas will be accessible to the public only after the developer transfers the land to a new owner.Sect. 106 Agreement.Part 3. The Owners’ Planning Obligations . . . .3.2.6&nbsp; The owner shall submit the On-Site Open Space Area Maintenance Scheme to the RCC. [Note: the Transfer Deed permits the ‘scope’ of the maintenance to be varied.&nbsp; This is at odds with the mandatory LMP and the following management plan, both of which the RCC says apply in perpetuity.&nbsp; The LMP is mandatory for JW but the flexibility in the TD would appear to confirm that the SHMC does not share any LMP responsibilities.&nbsp; Elsewhere the LMP says it will be a ‘point of reference’ for future stakeholders, i.e. is not mandatory on them].An On-Site Open Space Area Maintenance Scheme (alias Open Space Management Plan, copied below), was Prepared by FirstPort Property Management Co (then Managing Agent) on behalf of JW and was approved by the RCC. Its references to a Managing Agent arise from JW’s appointment of FirstPort as agent.&nbsp; This plan appears to take on responsibilities not specified in the TD – but it was created by FirstPort whose local representative openly stated that FirstPort worked for JW (i.e. NOT for the SHMC, and behaved that way!).OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN – SPINNEY HILL, OAKHAM(Compiled by FirstPort for JW and approved by he Plan does not comply with the liabilities under the Transfer Deed - it shifts maintenance duties properly those of JW to the SHMC. This plan requires that the ‘Ditch and brook maintenance, to be strimmed and weed killed twice a year* as and when necessary.’&nbsp; We have no ditches and the Gwash stream is the only ‘brook’ we have. This treatment is clearly antithetical to that area being a wildlife corridor.The Open Space Management Plan applies to all landscaped areas of Spinney Hill, all perimeter hedges and all trees. It does not apply to any roads, surfaced footpaths or gardens or drives owned by residents. The boundary line on the North side bounding the river Gwash extends to the centre of this river. The area from the centre of the river to the boundary fence** is a nature reserve and it is intended to remain in a natural state for wildlife.Managing Agent InformationThe Managing Agent will hold at least an annual consultation with the residents via an online or face to face meeting.&nbsp; A web portal or dedicated email shall be available for residents to raise issues. This enables any views or concerns to be discussed.&nbsp;There will also be at least a quarterly walk round and inspection of the site. Residents will be notified of this via email and are invited to walk the site with all parties.&nbsp;Minutes, or a report, with actions will be issued after any meetingThere will be an email address for the residents to contact the management company for more urgent matters. The management company will communicate with residents by post and email.Play AreaFormal quarterly inspections will be undertaken of all equipment, surfacing, fencing, furniture and gates including all associated fittings. The play equipment will be thoroughly inspected, and any damage rectified and replaced. Faulty equipment will be cordoned off until the unit can be rectified. A less detailed inspection will be carried out by the gardening staff whenever they attend the site to identify obvious damage. This will be reported to the managing agent.An annual risk assessment will be undertaken by a ROSPA accredited company. Quarterly operational inspections will be recorded by the designated representative of the management company, with ROSPA certificate made available upon request.Street FurnitureAll Street furniture will be cleaned of any graffiti and dirt Quarterly.&nbsp;[MN note: Street lamps? They would belong to the owner of the roads, i.e. the RCC?].Grounds MaintenanceThe site will be litter picked on every visit.&nbsp;Trees to all areas will be monitored on every visit and any works to the trees will be undertaken by a tree surgeon appointed by the managing agent. Any branches which pose a risk will be removed and if any are laying in a dangerous position these will also be removed. [MN note: It is argued above that the trees are JW’s responsibilities]An inspection will be undertaken every third year by an accredited third party employed by the management company to monitor and record the condition of all trees to enable preventative maintenance to be undertaken. Any trees which fail, will be replaced with a like for like species.&nbsp;Gates and fences which are separate from the play areas will be monitored and maintained on every visit. The adjacent stream area up to the centre of the stream is managed by the managing agent. The opposite side of the stream is maintained by others and not part of this plan.Grass areas will be kept to a height of 4 out of season and cut to a 3 in the growing season. This normally requires a weekly cut during the growing season. Grass edges adjacent to the footpath and other borders will be trimmed.This Plan will be reviewed annually, Insurances will be held by the managing agent and made available upon request.PathwayThe central pathway through Spinney Hill is of gravel construction. The edges of this path are to be trimmed back as required to stop grass growth. If necessary, spraying with an approved weedkiller is to be carried out to achieve this. Any weeds growing on the path are to be removed.Hedges and ShrubsHedge and Shrub pruning and shaping is to be undertaken during the year as necessary and appropriate to the variety of shrub. Some large bushes/trees contained within hedges may need extensive pruning/cutting back to prevent inundations of recently planted trees.The South and West sides of the development have a fenced area to form a natural barrier on these sides. Access is difficult. These areas are to be monitored to prevent excessive undergrowth and weed growth. Any dead plants should be removed and reported to the managing company so that they may be replaced.Additional Comments for this siteWeed killer Chemicals used:-Depitox selective weedkiller-Round up, Total weed killer for Paths, roads, courtyards-MMC Pro weedkillerGrass Cutting height to a 4 in out of season and to a 3 in growing seasonDitch and brook maintenance, to be strimmed and weed killed twice a year as and when necessary***Play area checks fortnightly, all bolts, gates, rides and flooring (Matting), dangerous plants and shrubs, yearly ROSPA check by managing agent.Fence and Gates are monitored on every visit and fixed, if necessary, by our maintenance deptTrees are monitored on visits, all work carried out by management company Tree Surgeon, all branches are removed if a danger or broken and laying in a dangerous position (H&amp;S)Bin emptying on every visit. [MN note:The LMP requires dog bins but none are in place].Notes.* The current provider of services, Leicester Gardening Services, seems to have a different plan – see ‘Schedule of Works’ Google Drive.** There is no such boundary fence. A fence was erected along the south edge of the wooded area – that fence is well within the Maintained Area but was not required by the planning permission. The development plan (see above) shows the north boundary being the south edge of the Gwash stream. Common law requires the landowner to maintain the watercourse. The property owners on the north bank share that obligation, so the centre of the stream is the dividing line.&nbsp;*** This is not compliant with the opening statement nor with the LMP.&nbsp;

<h3>The ‘Residents’ Update – July 2026’</h3>The Directors' Update, in respect of the proposed transfer of the ownership of the Maintained Areas from Jeakins Weir to our management company, contains an inaccurate account of a resident’s ‘opposition’ to ‘the plan’.&nbsp; That resident is me and I want to correct the unfair presentation of my position.I am in favour of the transfer of the land to our company, if it is in the best interests of us all.&nbsp; That is not entirely clear and my website ‘Spinney Hill Notes’ suggests aspects of the transfer that we should consider before a vote.&nbsp; Where we vote is key.The differences I have with the Directors arises from their continued opposition to conducting company business at AGMs. The Companies Act very clearly requires that, for our Company, a GM is the only place where decisions requiring a vote can be made. No other options are permissible, e.g. &nbsp;‘Owners’ Meetings’ are not a lawful venue.I haven’t been able to persuade the Directors to change their approach to GMs. In the interests of complete transparency, and as a last resort, I recently gave the Directors a draft of the request I could make to the Land Registrar, should there be an application to register a transfer of ownership.&nbsp; I would ask that the transfer should be permitted only after it had been approved by the Membership at a GM.&nbsp;It feels to me that the situation now is very much like that of Spring 2023, when I had put pressure on FirstPort, JW’s managing agent, to call the Company’s First GM – they responded stating that a GM would happen AFTER the land had been transferred to the Company, i.e. effectively the homeowners would have no say. It was known long before 2023 that the transfer of land was problematic.Then, after several weeks of dispute with FirstPort, of research and widely seeking advice, I challenged them with essentially the same request that I now might put to the Land Registrar. In October Fairfield, the then Company Secretary capitulated, agreed to call a GM and recognised that the transfer of land was a matter solely for the homeowners to decide.Having provided the Directors with a draft of the argument supporting the request I might make to the Land Registrar I also proposed we meet to discuss our differences and perhaps find solutions – which is exactly what the Registrar requires, should an objection be filed. The Directors’ answer was the Update.You may wonder why, after the months of briefing against holding an AGM, having obtained expensive legal advice, the Directors now propose to hold a GM. What was that expensive legal advice? However, they have not totally abandoned 'Owners Meetings'.&nbsp;They say the purpose of the GM is to ask the Membership to ‘ratify’ the vote made at the Owners Meeting in 2025.&nbsp;That implies there will be no debate, that you will be only asked to approve an unlawful vote that was cast on misleading information. I hope the Membership will not allow that.I’ll leave you to consider the circularity of the proposition that it would cost thousands to reverse the sole restriction I would ask for, i.e. calling a GM, which is what they are now going to do!&nbsp; At the Land Registry, would they actually argue that the Membership should not be allowed to vote at a GM? Anyway, the potential costs are exaggerated, and irrelevant, as is my proposed appeal to the Registrar – we are having a GM!In place of a ‘written objection’, I will ask the Directors to circulate my website ‘Spinney Hill Notes’. I trust Members will find it useful in asking questions and casting that informed vote.&nbsp; I will answer any questions or counter-arguments, via the email link provided.The Directors have also failed to respond to possible legal impediments to any vote about the land transfer.&nbsp;In my readings of the Articles and the Companies Act, the Company has no power to acquire land. The Membership could amend the Articles to allow it but there are certain prerequisites which, in my opinion, must necessarily be addressed before any vote takes place. Those matters were detailed in my proposed objection to the Land Registrar.I am not the villain in this.&nbsp; If advice had been heeded and the rules complied with this matter would have been decided long ago.Mike Nason31st July 2026<a target="" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="/">Return to Home page</a>

<h3>Companies Act, Part 13: Resolutions and Meetings</h3>Sect 281(1) A resolution of the members (or of a class of members) of a private company must be passed—(a) as a written resolution in accordance with Chapter 2, or(b) at a meeting of the members &nbsp;. . .&nbsp;Explanatory Note 521.. . . . the current law (CA 1985) is drafted on the basis that the main way in which shareholder decisions are taken is in general meetings.The new provisions proceed on the basis that in future this will not be the case for many private companies. Private companies will not be required in future to hold general meetings; instead provision is made for new procedures for decisions to be taken by written resolution.Explanatory Note 523.This section provides that members’ resolutions can only be passed in accordance with the provisions of this Part. . . . . Subsection (1) allows a private company to pass a resolution either as a written resolution or at a meeting of the members.<a target="" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="/directors-update-july-2026">Return to July- 2026 Update</a>

PELELIU, Palau (Sept. 29, 2025) - Lt. Cmdr. Mari Moffitt, educates locals about the importance of proper nutrition during Pacific Partnership 2025, in Peleliu, Palau in support of Pacific Partnership 2025, Sept. 29. Now in its 21st iteration, the Pacific Partnership series is the largest annual multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster management preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Partnership works collaboratively with host and partner nations to enhance regional interoperability and disaster response capabilities, increased security and stability in the region, and foster new and enduring friendships in the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seamen Elijah Webb)