Agenda item

To consider a report which confirms progress made and actions taken to secure the effective long-term management arrangements for land at Mayfield Grove York as per a Section 106 agreement dated 2 June 1997.

The report also contains an assessment of bids, submitted in accordance with the process agreed at the Decision Session held on 8 March 2012, and sets out the management options available to the Cabinet Member for consideration.

RESOLVED:       (i)      That the report be noted.

                             (ii)      That the comments raised by the public,

Councillors and interested organisations be noted.

(iii)     That the decision on securing future management arrangements for the land at Mayfield Grove be deferred.

REASON:                     In order for further discussions to take place with the two bidding parties to clarify  levels of community involvement and management plans.   

The Cabinet Member considered a report which asked him to confirm the progress made and actions taken on Open Space Land at Mayfield Grove following a decision made at the Cabinet Member Decision Session held on 8 March 2012 where the matter was considered previously.

David Munley spoke on behalf of the Mayfield Community Trust, who rejected the Officer’s recommendation to approve Option 1, to hand over responsibility of the long term management of the land to York Natural Environment Trust (YNET). He felt that the track record of YNET was not credible given that they had failed to secure ownership and maintain the land in the past, when they had the responsibility to do this. He also added that he felt that YNET had little public support.

Louise Cresser, the secretary of the Chase Residents Association (CRA) spoke about how the organisation did not know that YNET had been previously managing the land. She also stated that the Officer’s report did not mention the Mayfield Community Trust, which would be taking over the management, if the CRA bid was successful. She also felt that the successful bidder should be handed responsibility in perpetuity. This would then seek to avoid the successful applicant from ceding their responsibilities to the site.

Bob Dick, from YNET spoke about YNET’s involvement in the site over many years and felt that they had the advantage of being an established trust with a track record in relation to the Mayfield Community Trust, which had been established recently. He informed the Cabinet Member although YNET had reported difficulties with a group of residents over the past couple of years, that he felt that this was not insurmountable and should not be used to portray YNET as not being engaged with the community.

Gordon Campbell Thomas, a representative of the John Lally Foundation, who wished for the management of the land to be given over to the CRA, spoke. He reported that he had been the Chair of YNET in the 1990s, and outlined some history of their involvement in the site during that decade. He felt that as the CRA and Mayfield Community Trust had greater links to the local community that they should be entrusted with the site.

Councillor Reid spoke about how she felt that the CRA should manage the site. She felt that as the open space had principally been set aside for development that the residents should be managing the land. She added that YNET had not shown plans of how they would manage the land, and that their bid wanted to restrict access on to the land. Additionally, she commented that YNET had not shown their plans for the site with all interested groups. Finally, she suggested that if the Cabinet Member did not decide on Option 2 that he should postpone making a decision to a later date.

Officers told the Cabinet Member that a significant amount of time had been put in by both organisations in the preparation of their two bids.

Further points were made by Officers on the scoring of the bids which included;

·        That the MCT bid was stronger than YNET on the levels of community engagement, in particular that YNET had only suggested  two community meetings a year.

·        That on management proposals YNET had achieved a higher score, as it was very clear on how they would manage the site.

·        The MCT bid said that they had a 10 year restoration plan, but their management plan did not outline how they would carry this out.

·        That the final scores between the bids were less than 10% apart.

The Cabinet Member stated that he felt that both organisations were appointable to manage the land at Mayfield Grove, but that he had concerns in regards to YNET’s levels of community engagement. He also added in relation to the MCT bid, that uncertainties in their management plan had left him unsatisfied. He felt that further discussions needed to take place with both groups in order to address these concerns.

He said it was preferable if both organisations could make a deal, as both could bring different expertise to the land management.

The Cabinet Member decided to defer making a decision and urged to all those who were involved to allow for the space to be kept special.

RESOLVED:       (i)      That the report be noted.

                             (ii)      That the comments raised by the public,

Councillors and interested organisations be noted.

(iii)     That the decision on securing future management arrangements for the land at Mayfield Grove be deferred.

REASON:                     In order for further discussions to take place with the two bidding parties to clarify levels of community involvement and management plans.