Consideration was given to the report of the
Assistant Director – Strategic Projects to consider the draft
South Holland District Council Derelict and Untidy Sites
Policy.
The Assistant Director – Strategic
Projects introduced the report by thanking Councillor Redgate and Councillor Booth for their support with
the policy and stated that the Strategic Property Manager would be
responsible for the delivery of the policy.
The Assistant Director – Strategic
Projects highlighted the main points of the policy, which
included:
- a definition and background of the
policy - the policy was wider than enforcement alone;
- the impact of problem sites on
communities;
- the link to the Council’s
Corporate Plan;
- the history of the Pride in South
Holland programme;
- the process for reporting derelict
and untidy sites;
- information management including
partnership working, for example working with the police;
- options for addressing dereliction -
the process had not changed but the pathway was clearly set out in
the policy;
- the three-step intervention options;
and
- commitments;
Members considered the policy and made the
following comments:
- Members welcomed the policy and
thanked the Assistant Director – Strategic Projects,
Councillor Booth and Councillor Redgate
for their work on the policy.
- Members acknowledged that the new
policy had taken sustained effort and time which was deemed
necessary due to the breadth of the subject, and in order to fulfil
expectations of both the public and members.
- Members stated that the policy
demonstrated progress and allowed the Council to work with
landowners and building owners to shape problem sites into
long-term sustainable sites for the district.
- Members were hopeful that the policy
would be incorporated throughout the S&ELCP and enable progress
to be made throughout partnership authorities.
- Members asked whether the
Council’s stance on using its powers of ‘compulsory
purchase’, as stated in the policy, was a strong enough
deterrent for the emergence of problem sites.
- The Assistant Director –
Strategic Projects stated the levels of intervention the Council
was able to take and what it would take, would be assessed on a
case-by-case basis. The three-step intervention process included
the powers of compulsory purchase which could and would be pursued
where appropriate. The policy wording would be reviewed to ensure
that the message regarding this point was clear.
- Members asked whether a proposed
timeline of actions had been discussed in order to avoid protracted
periods between interventions.
- The Assistant Director –
Strategic Projects responded that:
- set timelines would be challenging
as each site had its own specific issues: some sites were tidied
only to become untidy again whilst engagement with some site owners
had been difficult. Nonetheless, the Assistant Director –
Strategic Projects would consider whether a timeline would be
beneficial /could be included.
- Targets would be set to conduct the
initial survey, after which time the case would fall within the
three-step process; and
- the Strategic Property Manager was
due to conduct enquires/surveys over the next six weeks to bring
the Council’s information up to date.
- Members referred to an untidy
general refuse area and queried the volume of untidiness which
would trigger the policy to take effect.
- The Assistant Director –
Strategic Projects stated that:
- whilst all concerns should be
reported, any that were not covered by the policy would be referred
to the relevant service. In this case, general refuse issues would
be referred to the Neighbourhoods Team.
- It had been proposed that the
Strategic Property Manager had access to all reported concerns so
that the team had an overview of any related issues coming into the
Council.
- Members asked whether a common
reason had been ascertained for the existence of untidy sites; and
could ‘prevention’ discussions be instigated where
issues were anticipated.
- The Assistant Director –
Strategic Projects responded that:
- the Council was aware of problem
sites around the district;
- the identification of
responsibility/ownership could be challenging; engagement was not
always forthcoming; and
- early invention was key and the
Strategic Property Manager would be reviewing initial concerns
including monitoring changes of ownership and liaising with the
Planning team.
- Members queried whether the Council
registered a charge against a property where costly action to
secure the site had been necessary.
- The Assistant Director –
Strategic Projects confirmed that:
- the default position was the
recovery of costs;
- enforcement regulations allowed
charges to be made against properties; and
- the Council could enforce a
sale.
- The Panel agreed that the new policy
be reviewed by the Panel 12 months after adoption.
AGREED:
a)
That the draft policy be amended to reflect comments made by the
Panel prior to its submission to Cabinet in September 2022;
b)
With comments of the Panel noted, that the policy be adopted by
Cabinet; and
c)
That the SHDC Derelict and
Untidy Sites Policy be reviewed by the Policy Development Panel 12
months after adoption.