Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Roy Lees.

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.

There were no declarations of any interests.

Councillor Julia Berry took the Chair at the start of the meeting as Councillor Matthew Crow was delayed.

Representatives from the following developers have been invited to the meeting:

·         Arley Homes

·         Redrow

·         Taylor Wimpey

·         Wainhomes

A copy of the questions issued is enclosed for your information.

Representatives from the developers of the case studies attended the meeting to talk about their role and answer questions of the Group.

Taylor Wimpey Homes

Stewart Gower – Adoptions Co-ordinator

Mr Gower stated that a lot of work had been done recently to improve on relations in many areas in order to progress the adoption of estates more effectively. Better dialogue now existed between other developers on site and officers of the relevant agencies, although restructures in Lancashire County Council had hindered recent progress.

It was admitted that historically, the company had concentrated mainly on the construction and selling of the houses, rather than the infrastructure needed to support the development. However, lessons had been learnt and they had recognised that more needed to be done on the processes needed to ensure speedier adoption rates. Mr Gower explained that it was his specific role to co-ordinate these processes efficiently for the company.

Mr Gower was the main contact, not only for officers from the relevant agencies but for the residents on the estate. In the past a high turnover of staff in their company structures had been problematic and it was recognised that there needed to be a greater amount of stability in key areas going forward. Members commented that this had been a key issue for the residents on the Gillibrand estate, when they had been consulted recently, and it was agreed that the new contact details and an updated position on the current issues would be provided to the local groups in the area.

Mr Gower suggested that on developments that were proving more problematic, he felt that all the relevant agencies needed to work better together to improve on communication all round. This had been done recently on the Gillibrand Estate to remedy issues there and was proving to be more effective.

The company felt that there needed to be a more pragmatic way of dealing with the process of adoption going forward. Mr Gower said that the first 12 months after the build would show if structures including roads and pavements were structurally sound and that an additional 12 months maintenance/waiting period was not necessary and was one factor as to why the process was hindered. Some authorities go through the process exactly to the letter; some are more flexible in their approach and are using their common sense to address the issues concerned.

Cheshire East Council was singled out for best practice; they exercise flexibility within the processes and sometimes did not insist on entering into formal agreements if the work had been done to an adequate standard.

Another big issue was the amount at which of the bonds were set. This caused great delays in the process as they were extremely high and meant made turnover difficult and slow. It was also not ideal when agreements were had not been put in place although it was considered that this was partly the fault of the developer. Once land was purchased, the emphasis was on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.TG.4