Landscape Management Plan
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.
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 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). 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. 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.
The origin of the LMP
Appeal Decision 24th August 2011
Appeal Ref: APP/A2470/A/2143475
Schedule of Conditions.
11) 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. 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 Ltd
Introduction.
1.1 This LMP outlines the long-term landscape management . . . . prepared to satisfy Condition 11 of the Appeal Decision.
1.6 The Plan is based on a five-year management period. (MN note: the RCC believes the Plan continues in perpetuity).
1.7 The Plan promotes the management aims etc . . . . To provide a ‘working’ document for those involved with the management of the Site’s landscape;
1.10 At the beginning of the five-year management period a Steering Group will be established comprising Jeakins Weir Ltd and Rutland County Council
1.11 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
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) ‘Monitoring and removal of diseased trees will be carried out by Jeakins Weir Ltd . . .’
Who is responsible for operation of the LMP?
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.
Sect. 106 Agreement.
Part 3. The Owners’ Planning Obligations . . . .
3.2.6 The owner shall submit the On-Site Open Space Area Maintenance Scheme to the RCC.
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.
You can find the plan on the Google Drive maintained by the Directors.