New development and private woodland for residents!

neilio

I bought my new-build house nearly 2 ½ years ago, the development contains 500 homes. The development contains a private wood that is supposed to be for the private use of residents only. The wood itself is old. I don’t know the wood’s history; it is a quite large triangular shape bound by a railway line and station on one side, a road on another side, and a farmer’s field on the other. The road separates the wood from the estate, so it’s not as if it is overlooked by the properties. The wood is maintained and managed as part of the estate service charge for any common areas (including the resident’s gym, play areas and garden; the development is a mix of freehold houses, leasehold flats, shared-ownership houses and flats, and social-rental flats) – suffice to say, while I think it is a nice community, it’s not so salubrious that we need our own private woodland!

The wood’s planning consent determines the layout of the footpaths and specifies that the gates will be locked for private access only. There are two entry gates from the road which are supposed to have keypad access rather than lock and key. Despite this, various members of the wider community who aren’t resident on the new development publicly commented on the planning application that they were excited to be able to use the wood while others are aware that it’s a private asset and expressed concern that it’s not public.

My belief is that we should turn the wood over the public ownership and relinquish any private interest in it so that everyone can use it, but that’s an argument for another time. Meanwhile, it is a private asset, and my concerns are as follows:

Last spring, the wood “unofficially” opened as the once-padlocked gates were open and the paths inside appeared to be nearing completion. There were no signs prohibiting admittance and all members of the public could enter the wood. Residents of the development who pay for the wood were not informed that it was officially open, but open it was. By the autumn, the local village newsletter ran a story about the wood casually describing the amenities inside and seemed oblivious to the fact that it is private as it didn’t mention that fact at all. Before Christmas, the developer sent its own newsletter to residents saying that the wood was complete and open for people to use. However, not a single Private Property sign as been erected nor have any locks been installed on the gates. Many members of the wider community use the wood.

I’ve raised this concern to the estate management company many times but they don’t seem bothered, and in fact don’t seem to take my concerns seriously. They tell me that they are looking into Private Property signs, locks for the gates, and suitable new fences, but the costs seem to be very high. Shouldn’t the developer had installed these before handing over to the estate management company? If the wood is not compliant with the planning consent (due to lack of locks) then is it even insured? If someone trespasses and hurts themselves then who is liable? As the weeks and months go by, the general public is becoming more and more accustomed to the wood being open for them to use and a sudden securing of the wood is going to bring us into conflict with them. The estate management company ignores me when I ask these questions. I’m concerned that I’ll receive my service charge statement and it will contain costs for managing the wood which we shouldn’t have to pay for right now seeing as it is not secure and there is no advice to the public that it is private property.

Are the developer and estate management company in the wrong by doing nothing? It is nearly a year since the wood has been accessible to everyone.

bris

You will never keep people out.
Tell the non residents you are going to build a big wall round it and make them pay for it, that will work.

neilio

You’re such a comedian. I’m not naive enough to think non-residents will be stopped. I’m more concerned about liabilities and insurance while it is not secured and how I can challenge this with the developer and/or management agent. Is it right that they can open it without everything in place to secure it?

Money_Grabber13579

Presumably there must already be public liability insurance in place? Must be a question for the management company, but that’s normally the case and would no doubt be required, even if it was only open for residents.

getmore4less

Report the breach of planning to the council.

Fire_Fox

On what basis are you legally liable for maintenance costs? Are all the properties on a long lease?

What other documents do you have from the purchase stating that there will be fences, locked gates and so on? How are you raising the issue with the estate management company?

Ozzuk

Are you just one voice or can you get a residents committee together, 'they' might take you more seriously. Maybe highlight the security risks, fire, drugs, dogging, overly familiar squirrels.

EachPenny

neilio wrote: »

The wood is maintained and managed as part of the estate service charge for any common areas (including the resident’s gym, play areas and garden; the development is a mix of freehold houses, leasehold flats, shared-ownership houses and flats, and social-rental flats)

Do you have any documentation which specifies the wood will be managed any differently to the other common areas, or does it appear that the wood is just an amenity like any of the other things?

neilio wrote: »

The wood’s planning consent determines the layout of the footpaths and specifies that the gates will be locked for private access only.

Was there a specific planning consent for the wood? The laying out of paths and possibly fencing the area might be works which required planning consent, but I don't see how the wood itself would need consent. More likely that consent for the development required certain works to be carried out to protect the wood and ensure ongoing maintenance. It would help if you could clarify this point.

neilio wrote: »

My belief is that we should turn the wood over the public ownership and relinquish any private interest in it so that everyone can use it, but that’s an argument for another time.

No chance. The developer almost certainly tried that, possibly offering the council considerable amounts of money to do so, but councils these days try to avoid taking on additional liabilities - which is why those other outdoor amenities you have are managed at your direct expense, rather than being adopted by the council. If the wood is of special interest then it is more likely an organisation like the Woodland Trust might be interested in taking ownership, but possibly not without having some financial reward for doing so.

neilio wrote: »

If the wood is not compliant with the planning consent (due to lack of locks) then is it even insured? If someone trespasses and hurts themselves then who is liable?

The planning consent point isn't really relevant to the insurance point. Whether or not the wood is securely locked might affect the insurance if this was a condition under which the policy was taken out.

More importantly, woodland needs management and trees need regular inspection to make sure they are healthy and not at risk of falling. I would be more concerned whether the organisation doing the management have the right skills/knowledge to do this effectively. A large tree falling onto either the railway or the road could generate liabilities running into the millions... that is a risk which should absolutely be insured against, and you need to know from your own point of view what liability (if any) you might face if the arrangements haven't been put in place correctly.

neilio wrote: »

I’m concerned that I’ll receive my service charge statement and it will contain costs for managing the wood which we shouldn’t have to pay for right now seeing as it is not secure and there is no advice to the public that it is private property.

On the legal point alone, unless there is something which says payment is only due if the area is kept secure then it is unlikely you can escape paying what you are asked to, simply because the gates are not locked.

Out of interest, are the children's play areas also locked, and do they have signs saying they are only for the use of residents? (and are there any disclaimers of liability?)

Doozergirl

getmore4less wrote: »

Report the breach of planning to the council.

What breach of planning? To keep the public out? That's hardly the top of anyone at the LA's list unless it's the new place for dogging. Either the owners enforce or they don't.

neilio

EachPenny wrote: »

Do you have any documentation which specifies the wood will be managed any differently to the other common areas, or does it appear that the wood is just an amenity like any of the other things?

My Land Registry Title contains the following:

The woodland is listed under the Communal Areas and Facilities as being “all the areas and facilities forming part of the Estate (but not exclusively) which do not form part of the individual Dwellings and which are intended to remain in private ownership and which are used in common by the occupants of the Units including (as the case may be) but not limited to…” and then various things are listed such as the parks, gardens, footpaths, visitor parking bays, in addition to the woodland, etc.

Under the Rights Granted for the benefit of the Property it says, “The rights for the Transferee and all persons authorised by it (in common with all other having a similar right)… of pedestrian access to the Woodland and to use of the same (in common with all other persons having a like right) as amenity land for the reasonable purpose intended.”

EachPenny wrote: »

Was there a specific planning consent for the wood? The laying out of paths and possibly fencing the area might be works which required planning consent, but I don't see how the wood itself would need consent. More likely that consent for the development required certain works to be carried out to protect the wood and ensure ongoing maintenance. It would help if you could clarify this point.

The consent is for hard and soft landscaping works including the formation and construction of paths and gated pedestrian entrance points. The details of the application specify the types of locks for the gates.

EachPenny wrote: »

No chance. The developer almost certainly tried that, possibly offering the council considerable amounts of money to do so, but councils these days try to avoid taking on additional liabilities - which is why those other outdoor amenities you have are managed at your direct expense, rather than being adopted by the council. If the wood is of special interest then it is more likely an organisation like the Woodland Trust might be interested in taking ownership, but possibly not without having some financial reward for doing so.

No, I didn’t think so. But as I said, that’s another issue. Whether it can be handed over or not is a discussion for another time, and probably pointless. I was just mentioning that, in an ideal world, we could relinquish it entirely.

EachPenny wrote: »

The planning consent point isn't really relevant to the insurance point. Whether or not the wood is securely locked might affect the insurance if this was a condition under which the policy was taken out.

More importantly, woodland needs management and trees need regular inspection to make sure they are healthy and not at risk of falling. I would be more concerned whether the organisation doing the management have the right skills/knowledge to do this effectively. A large tree falling onto either the railway or the road could generate liabilities running into the millions... that is a risk which should absolutely be insured against, and you need to know from your own point of view what liability (if any) you might face if the arrangements haven't been put in place correctly.

Thanks, I’ll query this.

EachPenny wrote: »

On the legal point alone, unless there is something which says payment is only due if the area is kept secure then it is unlikely you can escape paying what you are asked to, simply because the gates are not locked.

I have it in writing from the estate management company when I first raised it last year, they said that the wood appears open because works were ongoing and that residents’ service charges would not be paying for it until it is completed. I asked this in the context of the planning application (see my comments above) which was still pending at the time. They said the gates would be locked when the wood is completed. Months passed with no updates, no locks, and the continued assumption by the public that it’s supposed to be open to the public, with no word of an update as to when the wood would be completed. Then, as per my original post, the developer announced the wood is completed but no locks have been installed on the gates. Hence my confusion and why I came to this forum.

EachPenny wrote: »

Out of interest, are the children's play areas also locked, and do they have signs saying they are only for the use of residents? (and are there any disclaimers of liability?)

No, the play areas have porous boundaries and anyone can use them. I don’t believe there are any signs up. I’m less concerned about play areas because, in the spirit of community, I am not opposed to people using them. The wood, on the other hand, being located remotely from the development, being large in area, and by its very nature containing many hazards, I feel there is more risk of trespassing, vandalism, injury and dare I say, drugs and outdoor sex.

EachPenny

neilio wrote: »

No, the play areas have porous boundaries and anyone can use them. I don’t believe there are any signs up. I’m less concerned about play areas because, in the spirit of community, I am not opposed to people using them. The wood, on the other hand, being located remotely from the development, being large in area, and by its very nature containing many hazards, I feel there is more risk of trespassing, vandalism, injury and dare I say, drugs and outdoor sex.

Unfortunately people's perceptions of risk of injury (and the mitigation required) will alter when the first child falls of a climbing frame, or has their skull cracked by someone on a swing. As for drugs and outdoor sex (and vandalism) a children's play area is probably just as attractive for teenagers for that kind of thing than a bit of woodland.