Resident representatives have been invited to the meeting to talk about their experiences of adoption from the following estates:
· Buckshaw Village
· Fairview Farm
· Gillibrand
Minutes:
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 little information about adoption.
· Evidence of sales falling through because of the lack of adoption on the estate, more around falling standards, lack of maintenance schedules now having an impact on the neighbourhood.
· Constant change of contactable personnel within the building companies makes it difficult to get issues dealt with in a timely fashion.
· Many residents very unhappy with the after sales care of the developers on the estate.
· A feeling amongst the residents that they are not getting the full services for their Council Tax because they are not adopted.
· There are often inconsistencies on the estate in relation to grass cutting standards, as different developers implement different maintenance schedules and different pieces of land, sometime neighbouring each other, are cut at different times of the year.
· Officers at Chorley Council have been extremely helpful in sign posting and helping to get issues addressed.
· Frustrated with Lancashire County Council officers and the procedures around the adoption processes that they are involved with.
· Long standing issues on the site in relation to surface water and overflow issues that is mainly the responsibility of United Utilities.
· There are a number of general maintenance issues that need to be addressed around the estate including barbed wire, drainage issues, broken fencing, boggy playing fields and lighting issues.
· Residents are disappointed that the developers are allowed to carry on building in the Borough before the problems on existing developments have been sorted.
A resident of Fairview, Adlington sent in written representation to the meeting.
· A letter was provided stating that in January 2007, Persimmon Homes were actively pursuing the adoption of the estate by the Council, this has still to happen.
· The main developer, Westbury (later acquired by Persimmon) and Bett Homes, have the main responsibility for the sewers and highways etc., although they finished building in 2005, the sewers/drainage system was not adopted until October 2010.
· Cruden finished building the 37 affordable houses on the remaining land early in 2012.
· There are some issues over the standard of the construction and condition of the roads on the estate as they are not considered to be of a good enough quality to enable adoption.
· The residents have now been waiting seven years for adoption of the estate
· There have been issues around land drainage and the culverting of a stream