Agenda item

6.1

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director, Place, on the Building Better Parks Strategy, which was intended to be used as a framework for decision-making to assist with maximising the benefits derived from the Council’s Land and Property Portfolio, and which had been approved by the Cabinet, at its meeting held on 21^st November 2018.  A further paper setting out the Building Better Parks principles was circulated at the meeting.

6.2

In attendance for this item were Councillor Mary Lea (Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure) and James Barnes (Parks and Countryside Service).

6.3

Members of the Committee raised questions, and the following responses were provided:-

·             The Council would not be selling off any of its park land, but would be either providing a licence, concession or leasing the land and facilities to businesses or other groups or organisations who would operate them on behalf of the Council.  This was current policy, and was seen as “business as usual”. Any such businesses or groups would be asked to submit their proposals, and decisions would be made based on the assessment criteria, set out in the report now submitted.  It was deemed important for amenities, such as cafes and play equipment, to continue operating in parks as it would help to attract more people to visit the parks, which would not only benefit from a public health point of view, but would also help to improve community cohesion and make the areas safer for people to visit.  There have been several examples where leasing land or facilities in the City’s parks to external organisations had proved very successful, such as the three FA Hub sites at Westfield, Graves Leisure Centre and Thorncliffe, which had not only brought in around £15 million investment into the City, but had also provided additional income and quality footballing facilities in the City.

·             The estimated figure of £1 million additional revenue which would be generated over the next five years had been based on the current £1.8 million revenue income that the Parks and Countryside Service generated annually from a combination of sponsorship, leases, car parking income and fees and charges.  The Council would be able to provide a clearer estimate as and when interested parties started submitting their business plans.  Other Core Cities, including Leeds and Birmingham, had operated successfully, using this model, for a number of years, and had generated well in excess of £1 million additional revenue annually.

·             There were no set limits in terms of the number of events held in parks, but assessments would be made, based on the agreed criteria, as regards the suitability of such events.  This could involve looking at drainage capacity in respect of larger events, or whether such events would cause noise nuisance or any other problems for residents living within the vicinity of the parks.  A common-sense approach would be adopted when deciding what events could be held in parks, with larger-scale events requiring approval from either the Cabinet or the relevant Cabinet Member.

·             The term ‘open space’ in the Strategy included a wide range of areas, including small parks, woodland, including ancient woodland, allotments, paths in open spaces and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS).  It was not just a case of cafes within parks being leased and operated by external bodies.

·             Under the Council’s decision-making process, any decisions made by the Cabinet Member or the Cabinet would be subject to scrutiny call-in, although it was considered that the majority of schemes would be small-scale, therefore would be unlikely to prompt this course of action.

·             In terms of the distinction between parks and green spaces, it was confirmed that the Strategy would cover everything under the Parks and Countryside Service, but did not include incidental small spaces.

·             The Council would ask the NHS to make a contribution, as it would any savings in terms of health benefits, but it was not expected that there would be a positive response. 

·             The figure of £1.2 billion (based on the contribution of parks to the asset value of residential property) had been determined as part of a capital accounting evaluation study undertaken by Vivid Economic in 2016, and was considered a reasonable estimate.

·             It was hoped that the leasing proposals as part of the Strategy would help to bring in approximately £1 million additional revenue.  If this figure was not realised, further consideration would have to be given to the Strategy, going forward.

·             There were potentially 5 or 6 destination parks in the City. 

·             It was hoped that, by working with Friends groups and other local groups and organisations, sites such as Abbeyfield Park could be developed further. 

·             It was clearly set out in the assessment criteria that, in those cases where there was a charitable interest in the parks or land, of which there were approximately 25 such sites in the City, consultation with the Charity Commission would be required. 

·             Allotments were a statutory provision. There were no plans for the disposal of any Council-owned allotments in the City.

·             As part of the Council’s Green Open Space Strategy, regular audits were undertaken of small open green spaces, including pocket parks.  If sufficient income was generated through the proposals in the Building Better Parks Strategy, this could be used to develop, or maintain such open green spaces.

·             The Parks and Countryside Service was currently dedicating sites (or parts of sites) with a War Memorial tree as Centenary Fields in Trust (FIT) in order to protect the trees in perpetuity, in commemorating the end of World War 1, in 2018. In addition, a request from Stocksbridge Town Council to dedicate the Clock Tower Memorial Garden has been granted, and this would be a centenary FIT. Granting a site FIT status protected the site, and ensured it must be used for recreation and leisure purposes in perpetuity. Anyone wishing to make changes to the site must seek authorisation from FIT, which was similar to the protection offered when sites were charitable. The site was not managed or leased to FIT, and remained in the ownership of the Council.

·             The option of transferring the whole parks estate to FIT status had been explored in detail, and dismissed in 2016 as not being  in the best interests of the City’s green and open spaces. It had been stressed on many occasions by Councillor Mary Lea that the Council was the most appropriate custodian of the green estate. There were no plans to have this debate at a future meeting of this Scrutiny Committee.

·             Councillor Mary Lea gave a clear commitment that there were no plans for the Parks and Countryside Service to sell any parkland. 

6.4

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the information now reported and the responses to the questions raised; and

(b)      thanks Councillor Mary Lea and James Barnes for attending the meeting, and responding to the questions raised.