Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
Nathan_A_RF
Member
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:53
Location: East Sussex/Southampton
Contact:

Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by Nathan_A_RF »

I wonder what everyone's take is on this recent debacle. Southampton City Council is set to spend £250,000 repairing an unadopted residential cul-de-sac, after which the road will be adopted. Is this really a precedent for any council to set - if you don't maintain your private road then the council will just fix it?

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/197031 ... d-council/
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/197056 ... uthampton/
Bendo
Member
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 02:52
Location: Liverpool

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by Bendo »

Don't see the issue. Seems it was an oversight on the first place for it to not be adopted. Other than needing repairs, it's no different from new build estates being adopted and then the council having to fund subsequent repairs. Had the paperwork been done in the first place it wouldn't be an issue.

It's also not a first, Liverpool City Council spent about £6 million on resurfacing previously unadopted roads around Sefton park a few years back
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by jervi »

IMO, if feasible the residents should pay for the resurfacing of the road to bring it to standard, at which point the road could be adopted.
If the cost per household is extortionate, then the council could part pay for the resurfacing, however since this appears like a usual residential road (not a 1km lane with 10 houses on it for example) so the costs should be reasonable for the residents of the road.

Maybe if the road is part of the larger network for buses or cycling, then council/bus operator should part-fund the works, but since this is a cul-de-sac that is simply not the case.

When buying a property, things like estate fees or being on a private road where you are expected to pay for its upkeep are important factors that effect the value of the property, so having this liability waivered completely is a bit of a **** take for those who pay more to live on a public road. I wonder if someone who lives on that road have some sort of connection those making decisions like this in the council?
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by KeithW »

jervi wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 19:23 IMO, if feasible the residents should pay for the resurfacing of the road to bring it to standard, at which point the road could be adopted.
If the cost per household is extortionate, then the council could part pay for the resurfacing, however since this appears like a usual residential road (not a 1km lane with 10 houses on it for example) so the costs should be reasonable for the residents of the road.

Maybe if the road is part of the larger network for buses or cycling, then council/bus operator should part-fund the works, but since this is a cul-de-sac that is simply not the case.

When buying a property, things like estate fees or being on a private road where you are expected to pay for its upkeep are important factors that effect the value of the property, so having this liability waivered completely is a bit of a **** take for those who pay more to live on a public road. I wonder if someone who lives on that road have some sort of connection those making decisions like this in the council?
The reality is that the costs to the householders would be high and since the road was completed just after WW2 the council has simply been remiss in taking so long to progress the adoption of the road which was apparently built to the standards required at the time. They have after all been paying rates/council tax for all this time. Apparently the residents have been trying to get the council to adopt the road since the 1960's
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by trickstat »

It looks like this is a cul-de-sac that was part of the same development as the road that it comes off of. I suspect there was a clerical error by the developer or the Local Authority at completion.
Last edited by trickstat on Thu Nov 11, 2021 09:14, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by KeithW »

I had some friends in Littlestone On Sea who had exactly the same problem in the rarly 1980's. The houses had been built just before WW2 but with all the issues of the war the roads had never been adopted. They tried several times but each time they got close there was another local government reorganisation and it all started again. In 1982 Folkestone and Hythe Council offered to adopt the road but they wanted the residents to pay £25,000 each to repair the road and put in lighting. This would have also meant a substantial rate increase. This was rightly seen as exorbitant and in the end the people who lived there formed a residents association and brought in a private contractor who replaced the gravel road at a fraction of the cost the council demanded so it remains unadopted to this day.

I rented one of these houses and the absence of street lights was very welcome as I could sit in the garden on clear nights and so some star gazing.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.98312 ... 8192?hl=en
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by Chris5156 »

jervi wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 19:23IMO, if feasible the residents should pay for the resurfacing of the road to bring it to standard, at which point the road could be adopted.
If the cost per household is extortionate, then the council could part pay for the resurfacing, however since this appears like a usual residential road (not a 1km lane with 10 houses on it for example) so the costs should be reasonable for the residents of the road.
I now live on an unadopted road, and back in the 1970s the residents of the road attempted to get the local authority to take it over. The council said they would do so if the road was brought up to a specific standard at the residents' expense first, which was quoted (circa 1978) at about £15,000 per dwelling. Given that the road is a gravel track with no drainage, footways or lighting, that would presumably have amounted to a complete reconstruction of the road to provide surfacing, kerblines, drainage, underground services, new manhole covers and ducts, electricity supplies for lighting columns, etc etc etc.

Needless to say the road remained unadopted and there is no desire from anyone in the street to get the council involved now.

However, the road I live on was created as a lane leading to a single house in about 1905 and developed from there as more houses were built one by one. A street built by a developer in the 1930s, in the expectation that it would be adopted, and where the legal process was interrupted by the war and never followed up, is arguably slightly different.
User avatar
Barkstar
Member
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 16:32

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by Barkstar »

As has been said it looks like an expensive clerical error. Today new estates aren't always adopted by councils and in some cases the developer doesn't request adoption - it is now being seen by some as a way round the toxicity of building leasehold properties. So it's a win win. The developer sells the ownership to a maintenance company who then charge substantial annual fees for road repairs, street lighting, verges being cut etc. You don't get a discount on your council tax and said council aren't responsible for the estate. There are plans to give freeholders on private estates better protection and the opportunity to challenge the fees or proposed rises but no discount.
There are stories all over the web of how badly this can go - they are sometimes referred to as Fleecehold estates.
Last edited by Barkstar on Thu Nov 11, 2021 12:11, edited 1 time in total.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9707
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by WHBM »

Those houses look distinctly out of the 1947 Housing Handbook for social housing. I wonder if they were onetime council or other social (railway; mining etc) houses, which would put a different view on this. Possibly they were sold off in the council house sale of the 1980s-90s.
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9861
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by owen b »

Barkstar wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:43 Today new estates aren't always adopted by councils and in some cases the developer doesn't request adoption - it is now being seen by some as a way round the toxicity of building leasehold properties. So it's a win win. The developer sells the ownership to a maintenance company who then charge substantial annual fees for road repairs, street lighting, verges being cut etc. You don't get a discount on your council tax and said council aren't responsible for the estate. There are plans to give freeholders on private estates better protection and the opportunity to challenge the fees or proposed rises but no discount.
There are stories all over the web of how badly this can go - they are sometimes referred to as Fleecehold estates.
The first place I bought was leasehold. It was legally a maisonette ie. a leasehold house. It was on a 99 year leasehold, and I had the property from when it was about ten years old for eight years. I paid a peppercorn ground rent and maintenance charges. The gardens were communal. I had no problems, but I was glad to sell up when I did while there was still over 80 years on the leasehold and there were no significant issues with the maintenance.
Owen
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by Phil »

owen b wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 18:45
Barkstar wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:43 Today new estates aren't always adopted by councils and in some cases the developer doesn't request adoption - it is now being seen by some as a way round the toxicity of building leasehold properties. So it's a win win. The developer sells the ownership to a maintenance company who then charge substantial annual fees for road repairs, street lighting, verges being cut etc. You don't get a discount on your council tax and said council aren't responsible for the estate. There are plans to give freeholders on private estates better protection and the opportunity to challenge the fees or proposed rises but no discount.
There are stories all over the web of how badly this can go - they are sometimes referred to as Fleecehold estates.
The first place I bought was leasehold. It was legally a maisonette ie. a leasehold house. It was on a 99 year leasehold, and I had the property from when it was about ten years old for eight years. I paid a peppercorn ground rent and maintenance charges. The gardens were communal. I had no problems, but I was glad to sell up when I did while there was still over 80 years on the leasehold and there were no significant issues with the maintenance.
It depends on who owns the leasehold!

The recent cases which have caused so much negative press and led to moves to ban the practice is where Developers have sold the leaseholds to seemingly uncontactable Venture Capitalists based in Tax Havens who have slapped massive leasehold fee increases on residents year after year, out of all proportion to the actual liabilities or cost increases as a money making exercise!

Developers benefit because this massive profiteering was effectively sold (on a nod wink basis) as a future benefit of buying the leasehold meaning the developer would be able to sell off the leasehold for a higher price than if increases were seen to be capped in some way.

A classic case of Capitalism gone wrong and where the main aim of those in charge is to trouser as much money for themselves and screw their consumers....

It wouldn't surprise me that having had this big revenue stream turned off, developers and greedy financiers are looking at estate roads as the next money making venture to continue the cash rolling in.
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by jnty »

owen b wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 18:45
Barkstar wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:43 Today new estates aren't always adopted by councils and in some cases the developer doesn't request adoption - it is now being seen by some as a way round the toxicity of building leasehold properties. So it's a win win. The developer sells the ownership to a maintenance company who then charge substantial annual fees for road repairs, street lighting, verges being cut etc. You don't get a discount on your council tax and said council aren't responsible for the estate. There are plans to give freeholders on private estates better protection and the opportunity to challenge the fees or proposed rises but no discount.
There are stories all over the web of how badly this can go - they are sometimes referred to as Fleecehold estates.
The first place I bought was leasehold. It was legally a maisonette ie. a leasehold house. It was on a 99 year leasehold, and I had the property from when it was about ten years old for eight years. I paid a peppercorn ground rent and maintenance charges. The gardens were communal. I had no problems, but I was glad to sell up when I did while there was still over 80 years on the leasehold and there were no significant issues with the maintenance.
As someone who lives in Scotland, where freehold is the norm, I'm always a bit mystified about how leasehold is "sold" to the homeowner? I realise that you weren't the original buyer but there must have been some communication about the terms and perhaps a bit of explanation from your solicitor. What happens if instead of 90 years, there's only 50 years left? That something which could actually affect you if you're relatively young and it's your 'forever home' or compromise a future sale. Is the assumption that the value will decay over the 99 years, that the building's design life will have expired by then anyway, or that the leaseholder will be reasonable and renew the lease at a sensible rate when the end is nigh?
User avatar
owen b
Member
Posts: 9861
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:22
Location: Luton

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by owen b »

jnty wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 14:04
owen b wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 18:45
Barkstar wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:43 Today new estates aren't always adopted by councils and in some cases the developer doesn't request adoption - it is now being seen by some as a way round the toxicity of building leasehold properties. So it's a win win. The developer sells the ownership to a maintenance company who then charge substantial annual fees for road repairs, street lighting, verges being cut etc. You don't get a discount on your council tax and said council aren't responsible for the estate. There are plans to give freeholders on private estates better protection and the opportunity to challenge the fees or proposed rises but no discount.
There are stories all over the web of how badly this can go - they are sometimes referred to as Fleecehold estates.
The first place I bought was leasehold. It was legally a maisonette ie. a leasehold house. It was on a 99 year leasehold, and I had the property from when it was about ten years old for eight years. I paid a peppercorn ground rent and maintenance charges. The gardens were communal. I had no problems, but I was glad to sell up when I did while there was still over 80 years on the leasehold and there were no significant issues with the maintenance.
As someone who lives in Scotland, where freehold is the norm, I'm always a bit mystified about how leasehold is "sold" to the homeowner? I realise that you weren't the original buyer but there must have been some communication about the terms and perhaps a bit of explanation from your solicitor. What happens if instead of 90 years, there's only 50 years left? That something which could actually affect you if you're relatively young and it's your 'forever home' or compromise a future sale. Is the assumption that the value will decay over the 99 years, that the building's design life will have expired by then anyway, or that the leaseholder will be reasonable and renew the lease at a sensible rate when the end is nigh?
I was well aware that it was leasehold when I bought and I was happy to sell when the lease still had over 80 years on it and it wasn't a major factor in the sale price I received. Presumably the assumption is that the lease would be bought out or renewed at a reasonable price at some point before the end of the lease, but I was happy not to wait to find out.

EDIT : to add to my earlier comments, there was a lengthy lease contract which detailed the ground rent and service charges and all the T's and C's. The solicitor I paid had a look at it, so did I. The ground rent was (from memory) £10 a year in the first decade, increasing each decade (from what I remember I paid £20 annually). Even in the later decades of the lease I don't think the ground rent was horrendous. The service charges were clear and reasonable and everything was well managed from what I recall. It was the first property I bought and I took the view that I wouldn't be there long term as it was very small and I was reasonably confident I'd be able to afford to trade up. In the event I had that house for eight years, although for two of those years I rented it out. Despite my relatively good experience I would not purchase another property on a leasehold as I'd prefer to avoid any anxiety about the resale value being affected by the lease, and about the potential cost and property management issues with the service charges.
Last edited by owen b on Mon Nov 15, 2021 21:10, edited 1 time in total.
Owen
User avatar
Barkstar
Member
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 16:32

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by Barkstar »

jnty wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 14:04 As someone who lives in Scotland, where freehold is the norm, I'm always a bit mystified about how leasehold is "sold" to the homeowner? I realise that you weren't the original buyer but there must have been some communication about the terms and perhaps a bit of explanation from your solicitor. What happens if instead of 90 years, there's only 50 years left? That something which could actually affect you if you're relatively young and it's your 'forever home' or compromise a future sale. Is the assumption that the value will decay over the 99 years, that the building's design life will have expired by then anyway, or that the leaseholder will be reasonable and renew the lease at a sensible rate when the end is nigh?
With hindsight you do have to wonder how this idea of buying the house but not the land it stands on ever came about. Quite apart from the opportunity for landlords to increase rents for no other reason than greed the biggest issue is mortgage companies won't lend on any property with less than 70 years on the lease, and it's often 80 years. This would be on what was originally a 99 year lease. And renewing a lease can be very costly, often running into many thousands because the landlord has you by the short and curlies.

Leasehold also throws up interesting problems:
My partner's annual ground rent on her 150 year old terrace is a fixed £1 but you can't pay several years at once. A cynic might suppose that affords the landlord the opportunity to add costs and fees on when reminding owners they've overlook sending their pound.

Friends who had a small fishermen cottage on the coast had quite a job selling. Their cottage was part of a jumble of properties with a shared yard it was charming but as soon as buyers got solicitors involved interest wained. All these cottages were leasehold and on 999 year leases with centuries to run but the mortgage companies got in a dither because the leasehold couldn't be found and no ground rent was being sought by anyone. It was the same for all the residents and over decades a lot of attempts were made to resolve the issue. They sold to a buyer with a 50% deposit, which eased the bank's concerns.

And friend ended up thousands out of pocket on a buy to rent property. The leaseholders are notorious and have been mentioned in parliament in ground rent discussions. They are clearly in with a legal company and when she forgot to pay the annual fees they claimed all sorts of reminders had been sent to the property - her tenant said not so. The only letter that did arrive at hers landed on a Friday and informed her of a court case on the Monday where she was being sued for several thousand pounds. Hurried legal consultations suggested it would be cheapest to settle for about half the money being sought. There was a good chance she'd have won her case but it would have cost more to defend than settle and costs are rarely awarded. Which of course the leaseholders know full well - the barrister she got a brief consultation with said chatter in chambers was that most of the time the leaseholders are so confident the defendant will fold they don't even bother booking their legal reps.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9707
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by WHBM »

Contact is a financial senior at Westminster Abbey. They have built up over hundreds of years substantial land ownerships in London, many of which were initially just farmland. The long term policy has been to sell ONLY on 99 year leases, and by careful control over many generations to have one or a few of these come up each year for renewal in turn - they normally renew with about 20 years left, when the value of the building on it starts to reduce significantly. They only sell land on 99 year leases, so if you don't like it you can't have it. People building on it normally design with that sort of building life in mind. It's one of the main drivers of redevelopments in Central London. The Shard is on one such plot.

As he said to me "Nobody buying a 99-year lease will be here in 99 years time, so it doesn't really impact on the price. But The Abbey will still be here in 100 years, so that's their future income, at future values.
User avatar
Barkstar
Member
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 16:32

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by Barkstar »

WHBM wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 16:47 Contact is a financial senior at Westminster Abbey. They have built up over hundreds of years substantial land ownerships in London, many of which were initially just farmland. The long term policy has been to sell ONLY on 99 year leases, and by careful control over many generations to have one or a few of these come up each year for renewal in turn - they normally renew with about 20 years left, when the value of the building on it starts to reduce significantly. They only sell land on 99 year leases, so if you don't like it you can't have it. People building on it normally design with that sort of building life in mind. It's one of the main drivers of redevelopments in Central London. The Shard is on one such plot.

As he said to me "Nobody buying a 99-year lease will be here in 99 years time, so it doesn't really impact on the price. But The Abbey will still be here in 100 years, so that's their future income, at future values.
The Church of England have been very canny about being landlords, though I think this story took a few people by surprise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26373756
it certainly didn't come across as being very christian
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by KeithW »

There is a major reform of leasehold being put forward in parliament to curb some of the worst abuses of leasehold in recent years where development companies bought land freehold but sold the house on a leasehold basis, often with exorbitant ground rents.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... /cbp-9236/
User avatar
M4Simon
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 10121
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2002 22:35
Location: WGC, Herts
Contact:

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by M4Simon »

WHBM wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 16:47As he said to me "Nobody buying a 99-year lease will be here in 99 years time, so it doesn't really impact on the price. But The Abbey will still be here in 100 years, so that's their future income, at future values.
The house my parents bought in 1966 was on a 99 year lease. While they are now well into their 80s, that house is now 55 years old. Had they not bought the freehold and subsequently sold the property, it is conceivable that my sister and I (who would then be well into our 90s) would need to deal with the issue if we wanted to retain the property, or if as is more likely, our children would need to deal with it. 99 years is long enough to see out the original purchaser but could prove to be costly for their children or grandchildren.

My present home is leasehold, but I've got over 940 years before it becomes a problem to my descendants. I've looked into buying the freehold. It's relatively cheap but it is not high on my spending priority list at the moment.

Simon
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

Please contact me if you want to know more
avtur
Member
Posts: 4902
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 16:51
Location: Haywards Heath

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by avtur »

Where I work the access road is un-adopted, and some sections of the road are in dreadful state of repair, the road is probably close to half a miles long.

Beyond the premises where I work the road provides access to a water company treatment plant and maintenance depot and beyond that the final destination of the road is the local authority recycling depot.

Not with standing that the road's ultimate destination is a local authority facility the local authority refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for maintaining the road. It is farcical.

We have thought of erecting a toll booth outside our premises and demanding a 'toll fee' for anyone who requires access to the local authority recycling depot, that would surely bring the matter to the council's attention.

The local council have contracts placed with waste collection contractors which require a significant number of the contractor's trucks to use this road everyday, yet the council deny any responsibility for maintaining the road that is used by the public delivering their waste to the facility and the contractor's vehicles that have to use this road to remove the waste from the site.
User avatar
Barkstar
Member
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 16:32

Re: Council spending £250,000 repairing unadopted road

Post by Barkstar »

avtur wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 20:15 Where I work the access road is un-adopted, and some sections of the road are in dreadful state of repair, the road is probably close to half a miles long.

Beyond the premises where I work the road provides access to a water company treatment plant and maintenance depot and beyond that the final destination of the road is the local authority recycling depot.

Not with standing that the road's ultimate destination is a local authority facility the local authority refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for maintaining the road. It is farcical.

We have thought of erecting a toll booth outside our premises and demanding a 'toll fee' for anyone who requires access to the local authority recycling depot, that would surely bring the matter to the council's attention.

The local council have contracts placed with waste collection contractors which require a significant number of the contractor's trucks to use this road everyday, yet the council deny any responsibility for maintaining the road that is used by the public delivering their waste to the facility and the contractor's vehicles that have to use this road to remove the waste from the site.
Quite a lot of industrial estates and the like are unadopted. One I worked on was in an atrocious condition. It provided access to a small retail park, any number of companies who deal direct with the public and is a useful through route. When I reported the surface of the road resembled the aftermath of a mortar attack my local council took great pleasure in informing me it was up to the land owner, 'Not our problem Guv'.
My local tip is also approached by a private road which has a couple of ferocious speed humps that have no road markings, so are practically invisible. I suspect that your recycling centre will be like ours and is only 'council' in that it is contracted to them. Both the road, site and staff are all private. And if you did put up a toll booth at yours I'm sure that the council wouldn't care and the landlord would care a very great deal, but only about the money.
Post Reply