Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Julia Berry and Roy Lees.

To consider and confirm the enclosed minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group – Adoption of Estates meeting held on 28 November 2012.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group – Adoption of Estates meeting held on 28 November 2012 be confirmed as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

No declarations of interest were received.

Resident representatives have been invited to the meeting to talk about their experiences of adoption from the following estates:

·         Buckshaw Village

·         Fairview Farm

·         Gillibrand

Residents from each of the estates identified in the review were invited to attend the meeting to talk about the issues that they had experienced during the adoption of their housing estate.

A resident of the Buckshaw Village Estate attended the meeting to give his representations.

Issues and suggestions raised:

·         Most residents had received standard general advice from their solicitor/conveyance when purchasing the property which had contained very little or no advice about adoptions.

·         Concerns started to arise when routine maintenance and services didn’t appear to be happening.

·         There seems to be some confusion about which authority is responsible for doing what and initially on the Buckshaw Estate, bin collections could be by different councils within the same street because of the boundaries.

·         Buckshaw Village has the added complication of having a Management Company to which all residents pay a fee. They have some general maintenance responsibilities and hold meetings to facilitate this, but there has still been some confusion about roles.

·         Residents also pay their full Council Tax contributions on top of this but don’t feel that they are getting a full service for their money.

·         Many of the residents feel that there should be some kind of Watchdog /Ombudsman role by the Government to oversee the process of adoption and could be contactable by residents who are seeking advice and recourse.

·         Another idea was to have a rating system placed on streets, similar to the Food Hygiene standards that would be available up front (on the Council’s website) so that people knew what the adopted status of the area was before buying.

·         There is very little information available on what is actually adopted on the estate and by whom.

·         There seems to be no overall responsibility for general maintenance issues such as street lighting issues, road signs and gritting, this make it difficult to know who to contact.

·         Local ward Councillors have been the best people to contact about issues in the village, they have been able to signpost people to the right place or have helped to get issues dealt with more efficiently.

·         They don’t tend to see any officers form Lancashire County Council but have had lots of dealings, advice and support from County Councillor Mark Perks.

·         There is a contact telephone line available to the developers but this is mainly for issues around warranties and not for reporting general maintenance issues like grass cutting.

·         The residents of Buckshaw Village feel that it is important to establish clear relationships with the various partners and improve on the level of information available. Effective communications would also help so that residents gain a better understanding of the issues and in turn manage expectations.

Residents of the Gillibrand Estate, Chorley attended the meeting to talk about their experiences.

Issues and suggestions raised:

·         First time buyers are given the impression that the estates would be adopted in due course but no real timescales given.

·         Inconsistent information given dependant on your conveyance.

·         Next purchaser of a property given very  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

To consider the enclosed schedule of actions and suggested recommendations to date.

The Group were provided with a list of all the recommendations so far that had been proposed throughout the review and each one was discussed in turn.

The Group also looked through the recommendations that had been suggested in the Northamptonshire scrutiny review as the Members acknowledged that many of the issues raised were the same as the authority were experiencing now.

It was AGREED that the following recommendations be included in the Final Report of this review for the reasons stated:

Recommendation:

That the Executive Cabinet agrees to make representations to the National House-Building Council (NHBC) urging it to encourage developers to recognise the potential benefits to them of the introduction of a mandatory requirement relating to Section 38 agreements.

Reason:

It is recognised that the NHBC represents a powerful voice in the industry as they act as a bondsman for many developers entering Section 38 agreements. The NHBC, rather than the developer, is therefore directly affected if the County Council is required to call in a bond because work required to complete a road to adoptable standard has not been carried out.

Recommendation:

That the Executive Cabinet request Lancashire County Council to consider adopting a more flexible approach to the setting of bonds with developers, that are required before a Section 38 agreement is made to enable the level of bond to be set on a site-by-site basis that reflects the actual cost of completing the road concerned to the standard required of adoption.

Reason:

At present the usual practice for County Councils is to set a bond on a nominal cross section on a per linear metre basis representing 100 per cent of the theoretical cost of constructing the road(s) in question to an adoptable standard. When Chris Bond, Northamptonshire County Council had visited the Group he explained that he had been given delegated authority to set the bonds to reflect more closely the likely cost for construction in the actual case concerned, based on the constructional details that had been approved. This was an approach already being used by other highways authorities and was proving a success. It would also address cases where higher quality materials are used, such as in public realm areas, which would cost the Council more to complete if the developer defaults and the bond had to be called in. The value of the bonds could be reduced when key milestones were reached, such as when roads are put on maintenance. It is important that the level of bonds are not reduced too far, or too soon, to a level where completing Section 38 agreements in order to clear bonds seems unimportant. This step is seen as an incentive to developers and would also support the County Council to be more active in calling-in bonds when a developer has defaulted.

Recommendation:

That the Executive Cabinet agrees to build on existing work with local planning authorities to put in place arrangements to ensure that consideration of road adoption issues commences  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

To finalise the arrangements for the consultation meeting with developers.

A suggested letter of invitation and list of suitable questions will be circulated at the meeting.

Members agreed to invite representatives from the following developers that have built in the borough to the next meeting:

·         Arley Homes

·         Redrow

·         Taylor Wimpey

·         Wainhomes

RESOLVED – That a letter of invitation that included a list of suitable questions agreed by the Group be sent to the developers in advance.