Public Open Space - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group
|
Started - July 2012
|
Last activity - May
Public Open Space
Has anybody got a strategy for public open space management, where the term sustainable actual focuses on the ability to pay for the up keep in the longer term? All the focus up to now has been about whether it's in the right place and whether the quality is such that people actually want to use and also get genuine benefits from it. Like may other areas of council business, the CSR will place the budget for public open space maintenance under the microscope. This is likely to see those in the grass cutting dept berating those in the house building dept for requiring even more POS on new developments, when they can't even afford to look after the stuff they've already got! Does anybody know how to deliver POS that looks after itself?
It is possible to factor in a maintenance cost into any contributions that are made. This is normally linked to an SPD relating to Planning Obligations or Open Space. In determining the appropriate maintenance cost there is a need to work with the appropriate departments to ascertain how much it costs them to carry out their work. Clearly the costs can vary depending on what is being maintained therefore this is an issue that needs to be given consideration. In addition, maintenance costs will change due to inflation or deflation therefore this can impact on any costs quoted. In addition the developer may wish manage the open space themselves in which case it is appropriate to consider a management agreement. In our case the open space calculations (and the maintenance costs that can be associated with this) are developed in detail in an Open Space Provision SPD which is linked back to a Local Plan policy.
I am aware of the whole commuted sum regime, but this seems less than satisfactory when it comes to the very long term sustainability of these sites. Most of the sums are worked out using some mystical formular that nobody really knows the origin of. Then, after the time/money runs out, the council desperately look at ways of reducing the maintenance cost to taxpayer. This is done by either removing most of the extensive fast growing planting, initally put in by the developer to make the site attractive to prospective buyers, or by not replacing/upgrading any play equipment that was provided. My fear is, that as the reality of the CSR kicks in, we are going to see POS policies changed to avoid the provision in the first place, along with ongoing neglect of what we already have. If things like CIL ever really become a standard, I think there is a case for ensuring that it is focussed on the basics such as long term POS maintenance, before we start identifying new things to do with it.