[Mr Colin Parr (Head of Business Services) will give a PowerPoint Presentation on the mechanisms to control vacant sites].  

The Head of Business Services gave a presentation on the mechanisms to control vacant sites.  He stated that vacant sites could fall into different categories.  Orphaned land which were plots of land with no identified owner, was the first of these categories. The most recent survey had identified approximately 350 of these sites across the City.  These ranged from significant plots of land to small slithers.  Orphaned land could attract fly tipping and anti-social behaviour and were problematic to the Council, due to there being no named owner of the land.  There was a duty on the Council to control pests within their area.  This had amounted in the past to generally clearing the orphaned land sites, where there were infestations.  Due to challenging budgets, there had been discussions of only having pest control in those areas and not clearing the site in the future. 

The Head of Business Services described the second category of site as being where the Council could identify the owner.  These sites were often property speculation sites. 

The Head of Business Services commented that it could sometimes take years to resolve the problems with vacant sites.  The Council did have some enforcement powers, such as serving Community Protection Warnings.  This was where the Council could request a landowner to take action.  If the Community Protection Warning was not complied with, the Council could serve a formal notice requiring the landowner to take action.   He considered a better solution to be working with the community, where it was possible. 

The Head of Business Service said there was incredible value with working closely with other departments in the Council such as the Planning Team.  This would help prevent them suggesting remedial action to landowners which was in breach of the Council’s Planning Policy.  They could work with the Planning Team on a strategic level, as the ideal scenario was for the vacant sites to be developed such as for housing or for general benefit to the community.  They often found that the landowners of vacant sites had unrealistic development expectations that would have a very low chance of receiving planning permission. 

A Member of the Panel asked if the Council had explored the idea of allowing members of the public to extend their gardens into unused alleyways, thus removing the problem of a problematic vacant site.  He suggested a small amount of funding from the Council would be required to help extend the gardens such as for the removal of fencing. 

A Member of the Panel gave an example of an Old Victorian building which had been considered for demolition but was brought back into use as an important example of sustaining the City’s heritage. 

A Member of the Panel stated it was important to manage expectations for vacant sites as there was not the funding available to implement solutions in all areas to a desired outcome.  

The Head of Business Services stated they could look at all the suggestions by Members for dealing with vacant sites.  His priority was to enforce areas where there was a clear risk to life.  Budget challenges made it increasingly difficult to respond to concerns about non-life threatening vacant sites. 

The Service Lead for Residential, Susan White presented two case studies and described the action the Council had taken on the sites.  The first case study was for the Orchard, Church Lane, Bushbury North.  The second was for Lesley Road/Powell Street in Heath Town. 

Cllr Brackenridge suggested a long-term solution to the problems at Lesley Road/Powell Street was to allow the residents to extend their gardens into the alleyway.  He also suggested some changes to the access points. 

There was a discussion about the pros and cons of the use of signs and CCTV to reduce tipping. 

Meeting closed at 7:50pm.