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.  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. 

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).  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 24^th 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 11 of Annex B of the Appeal Decision;  ‘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.  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.’  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)  ‘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.   

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.  The LMP has no doubt on either matter:

1.5     [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  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.  This is at odds with the mandatory LMP and the following management plan, both of which the RCC says apply in perpetuity.  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.  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.  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.’  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 Information

The Managing Agent will hold at least an annual consultation with the residents via an online or face to face meeting.  A web portal or dedicated email shall be available for residents to raise issues. This enables any views or concerns to be discussed. 

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. 

Minutes, or a report, with actions will be issued after any meeting

There 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 Area

Formal 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 Furniture

All Street furniture will be cleaned of any graffiti and dirt Quarterly. [MN note: Street lamps? They would belong to the owner of the roads, i.e. the RCC?].

Grounds Maintenance

The site will be litter picked on every visit. 

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. 

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.

Pathway

The 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 Shrubs

Hedge 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 site

Weed killer Chemicals used:

-Depitox selective weedkiller

-Round up, Total weed killer for Paths, roads, courtyards

-MMC Pro weedkiller

Grass Cutting height to a 4 in out of season and to a 3 in growing season

Ditch 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 dept

Trees 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&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.

*** This is not compliant with the opening statement nor with the LMP.