Document Future Council Meadow Management Policy

Following a question from Members of this Committee in January 2024, Officers within Open Space Development were asked to consider options for a future Meadow Policy for the borough.

Within Runnymede, there were two main ways in which the meadows were managed: traditional hay cutting and the cut and collect method using flail attachments to tractors.  Both of which were currently carried out using external contractors.  This was due to the fact that this was a substantial piece of work which required expensive specialist equipment, and it only took place a few weeks a year.

There were currently 14 designated meadow sites in the borough of varying size and location type.   Hay cutting was only practical where the site was large enough.  There were only two meadows in Runnymede which were currently practical:  Chertsey Meads and Runnymede Meadows, although others could be added.

Currently, the majority of sites were in poor ecological condition due to inappropriate maintenance and were largely dominated by undesirable ruderal weeds including nettles, thistles and docks.  Chertsey Meads, Hare Hill, Homewood Park and Thorpe Green were in better condition and had greater restoration potential.

The Committee was advised that when discussing opportunities with Natural England, it had been identified that the Council could apply for funding from the Countryside Stewardship scheme.  This funding was paid to landowners who undertook environmentally beneficial approaches to management of their land.   These discussions had resulted in an indicative £60,000 that could be realised by the Council to support delivery of a Meadow Management Policy. 

Officers had identified five sites that would be considered appropriate for stewardship; Chertsey Meads, Homewood Park, Thorpe Green, Hare Hill and Bourne Meadows.

Entering into a Countryside Stewardship or Sustainable Farming Incentive agreement would secure funding for an initial five-year period, but it was implied that funding would continue beyond this initial period (subject to central government policy).

The Committee was given four options to consider:

Option 1 – Do nothing and turn all meadows (non-hay cut) to amenity grassland

Option 2 – Bring all grassland management in-house

Option 3 – Contract out all meadow cutting operations

Option 4 – Bring cut and collect operation in-house but contract out hay operation

The Committee was advised that Officers considered either Option 3 or Option 4 was the most viable way forward for the Council, with Option 3 being the preferred choice. 

Some members were keen for Officers to pursue Option 4 now, but this wasn’t fully supported by all of the Committee.  It was noted that the option to bring all operations in house (as in Option 4) could be reviewed towards the end of year 2 of the contract.  This would enable Officers to collect information as to how the process worked and likely costs.

Officers recommended to the Committee an initial direction via an external contractor which in turn would provide Officers the time and opportunity to consider future in-house management options.

The Committee was pleased to receive the report and welcomed the boost to biodiversity the policy would bring.

Resolved that:

Members note the proposed direction for a future corporate Meadow Management Policy as detailed subject to approval by the Community Services Committee; and

The procurement of an external contractor for an initial term of three years with an option for extension for a further 2 years be approved; and

If the value of the tender returns exceeds the budgetary provision a report will

be brought back to Members of this Committee