Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member, Economy, Environment and Transport

The Select Committee had previously received details of the Countryside Estate Review at its meeting of 18 December 2014 and 4 September 2015. A small group of members had also visited a number of sites across the County with members of the Ranger Service, and had reported their findings to the Select Committee.

At its 4 September meeting the Select Committee had considered and made recommendations on the ten potential options identified for managing the estate as part of an initial engagement process with critical stakeholders. The results of the initial engagement process and of a benchmarking exercise had now been analysed and a number of options discounted.

Four options remained:

Members heard that these options were not mutually exclusive and a combination of options could be considered where appropriate.

At their 4 September meeting the Select Committee had indicated they could support options 2, 8 and 9, and option 5 with an amendment to the wording.   The four options now proposed included option C “to establish a multi agency partnership of landowners to actively manage all green space sites in a specific area.” This correlated with option 6 from the previously considered 10 options and Members asked the Cabinet Member, Economy, Environment and Transport, what his rationale had been for including this option when the Select Committee had indicated they were unable to support it. The Cabinet Member indicated that whilst he had sought Select Committee’s views on the options the decision was his to make based on what he felt offered best management of sites. Members asked that, in light of this, the sentence at point 9 in the report saying “These options are in line with the Select Committee’s recommendations on 4 September” should be removed as it was incorrect.

Members noted that since their 4 September meeting three sites had been excluded from the review and asked the reason for this. The Cabinet Member indicated that these three sites, Broad Lane, Essington, Fair Oak, Essington and Branston, had no public access and did not fit into the Countryside Estate Review. They had therefore been removed from the Review and would be considered by the Penda Property Partnership.

The Select Committee suggested that to enable effective consultation there needed to be greater clarity on the four options being considered. After some debate it was agreed that examples could be given to illustrate the options. Members emphasised the need for those taking part in the consultation to understand the options being presented and what these could look like in practice.

No figures had been included in the report showing savings that could be made dependent on the options chosen and Members asked whether an estimated saving had been identified. The service currently cost £1 ½ m to maintain and the Cabinet Member wanted to ensure Staffordshire residents were getting the best offer they could, however no saving figure had been identified.

RESOLVED – That:

a)    the following sentence at point 9 of the report be removed: “These options are in line with the Select Committee’s recommendations on 4 September”;

b)    greater clarity be given to the 4 options prior to the formal consultation process, to include illustration of how each option could work; and

c)    a further report be brought to the Select Committee with the consultation results prior to April 2016 Cabinet decision on this issue.  n a specific area within a specific area.