Set of terms in Deeds for new build, can anyone help?

davidmcn

princeofpounds said:

Personally I think it's pretty scandalous that councils have got away for so long with refusing to adopt roads and common areas that they themselves have approved. It creates a two-tier society, as it's effectively just a higher council tax for the new developments.

Higher by how much? What proportion of your council tax do you think goes towards maintaining the bit of road outside your house?

OldMusicGuy

princeofpounds said:

Personally I think it's pretty scandalous that councils have got away for so long with refusing to adopt roads and common areas that they themselves have approved. It creates a two-tier society, as it's effectively just a higher council tax for the new developments. That's on top of all the arbitrary Section 106 bungs they have doubtless received to give the go-ahead. 

Except not all do. So it's one of the things to look out for when buying a new build property.

princeofpounds

davidmcn said:

princeofpounds said:

Personally I think it's pretty scandalous that councils have got away for so long with refusing to adopt roads and common areas that they themselves have approved. It creates a two-tier society, as it's effectively just a higher council tax for the new developments.

Higher by how much? What proportion of your council tax do you think goes towards maintaining the bit of road outside your house?

To be clear, I’m not saying that it is literally extra council tax. It’s just that it’s a service that is provided to almost all residents, except for new purchasers on these estates. Imagine moving in and being told that you can’t use the local state school. Or you have to fund your own fire service as they won’t respond to calls from your road.

I understand why it happens, but it isn’t right.

Of course not that much goes into maintaining the road outside your own specific house. But quite a high proportion of local budgets go into roads generally. People on those estates are paying for almost everyone else’s roads as well as their own. That’s after the state has taken its full council tax, its Section 106 money, AND its social housing obligations from the estate.

eidand

princeofpounds said:

Personally I think it's pretty scandalous that councils have got away for so long with refusing to adopt roads and common areas that they themselves have approved. It creates a two-tier society, as it's effectively just a higher council tax for the new developments. That's on top of all the arbitrary Section 106 bungs they have doubtless received to give the go-ahead. 

Absolutely, those people have to pay full council tax and management fees on top of that, while those who do not live on new build estates get a lot for their council tax. People need to wake up to this and stop buying these properties, only then will councils and builders do something about it.

Councils keep saying they don't have the funds for this,but they were happy to sell the land and approve the developments, are happy to take full council tax while shying away from any responsibility. The best part is that all these special places that new build owners pay extra fees for, are also part of the public domain and literally anyone can use them.

It boggles the mind!

davidmcn

princeofpounds said:

davidmcn said:

princeofpounds said:

Personally I think it's pretty scandalous that councils have got away for so long with refusing to adopt roads and common areas that they themselves have approved. It creates a two-tier society, as it's effectively just a higher council tax for the new developments.

Higher by how much? What proportion of your council tax do you think goes towards maintaining the bit of road outside your house?

Of course not that much goes into maintaining the road outside your own specific house. But quite a high proportion of local budgets go into roads generally. People on those estates are paying for almost everyone else’s roads as well as their own.

But they are also mostly using roads other than the one they happen to live on. Residential side roads don't really need much expenditure, it's the higher traffic ones which incur more costs with resurfacing, gritting, signals, etc.

buel10

OldMusicGuy said:

buel10 said:

Quick one - Thank you so much!! We pulled out of a previous purchase because they had a management company and the 'green area' was to be maintained and repaired by the estate - for me, a huge 'no no', hence me specifically asking these developers if there is a management company and they are adamant there is not?

You need to make sure you understand the difference between a residents management company and a third party management company. The developer may say there is not a "management company" when they mean there is not a residents management company. However, they might not include a third party management company in this definition, because they are simply appointed as an agent of the freeholder of the common areas. The developer will want to hide as much as possible about the situation before you get emotionally invested in the property.

You need to find out who owns the freehold of any common areas, and who is responsible for maintaining them. Can you answer those questions now? If not, you need to find out.

Thank you for all of this. I am now more informed than I was, that's for sure.
I have just gone over some notes I made from earlier chats with the Developer (a somewhat small local business) and, essentially, these are what I think are the pertinent details:

• Whilst we will own our driveway, the small bit of road in front of 'our' house and the house next door is shared in that we both have 'right of way' to drive on but can't park there.
• I asked the Developer who owns the drive that leads in to our cul de sac and whether it is to be adopted and he said that the owner of the land they bought it from is retaining it so the local council will not be adopting it. He explained the cost of maintaining the road would be split between 5 houses. He did not specifically use the term 'residents management company' but this was his specific explanation as to why they don't need a third party management company. However, he did say that they are going to use a third party management company for another estate they are building in a nearby area.
• He explained that any repair of the new road would likely be in 10-15 years, in his conservative opinion, and that even then it would only be a resurfacing that would be needed. This sounds believable to me (a layperson if ever there was one) and we aim to sell in 5 years' time anyway so it may work for us?

Two questions that I would like to ask here is
1, In these scenarios (of a road that will not be adopted) are there only two choices - a RMC or third party management company (even if it is sometimes a sub-branch of the Developer's business)?
2. How important is it to 'get the ball rolling' to start a RMC? 

OldMusicGuy

 buel10 said:

• I asked the Developer who owns the drive that leads in to our cul de sac and whether it is to be adopted and he said that the owner of the land they bought it from is retaining it so the local council will not be adopting it. He explained the cost of maintaining the road would be split between 5 houses. He did not specifically use the term 'residents management company' but this was his specific explanation as to why they don't need a third party management company. However, he did say that they are going to use a third party management company for another estate they are building in a nearby area.

You need to look at the TP1 and see what rights the freeholder has over this land, and what restrictive covenants are being put in place - will there be any form of "rentcharge" to make you pay for maintenance of the road? You need to get your solicitor to clarify this, because there are bound to be some obligations on you. I would imagine the freeholder is going to put something in place to make sure you are liable to pay maintenance. 

Regarding maintenance costs, you need to see if there is anything that addresses this, for example there may be a statement that says all costs will be shared equally between the 5 houses. Or there may be nothing, which means it will be up to the residents to agree how to share costs.

I was in a similar situation recently. We were going to buy a house on a 3 property development built by a small local builder. When I asked if he was going to set up a residents management committee, he said no, it would be left up to the three properties to work out how to pay the maintenance costs between them. But we pulled out of the purchase before we got to see the TP1.

You do not need to set up a residents management committee in this circumstance. You can just agree with the other property owners how and when to pay any costs. However, that may leave you open to all sorts of "discussions" if nothing is set in stone. You might say that costs should be shared equally, but the people at the front of the cul-de-sac might say they should pay less, because they don't use most of the road (thus the people at the end of the road should pay more). You could set up a formal RMC to formalise everything, which is not easy (you have to set up a limited company with all the complexities that involves - our developer has done all of this for us). You could just set up an informal residents association but this would have little legal standing in your situation so would be open to all the kind of "discussions" above. 

So you need to get your solicitor to clarify what obligations the freeholder of the road is placing on you and what, if any, financial obligations there are. If there is no formal arrangement for sharing maintenance costs then it will be up to you to "agree" these with your neighbours when they are needed.

Finally, I lived on a development of 13 properties with an unadopted cul-de-sac for 20 years. The road needed very little maintenance over that time. There were some small potholes at the very end of the road, which the council filled in (even though it wasn't their responsibility!). However, if you did get some serious issues, they will not be cheap to repair, so insurance would be in order. FYI the insurance premium was £1,300 for the whole road last year.  
EDIT: Actually you can't set up a formal RMC in this case, because I forgot you don;t own the freehold of the road. So that route isn't open to you anyway. If there's nothing specified in the TP1, then it will be up to you to agree with your neighbours how to pay for this informally.
 
 

daveyjp

princeofpounds said:

Personally I think it's pretty scandalous that councils have got away for so long with refusing to adopt roads and common areas that they themselves have approved. It creates a two-tier society, as it's effectively just a higher council tax for the new developments. That's on top of all the arbitrary Section 106 bungs they have doubtless received to give the go-ahead. 

Council's don't 'refuse to adopt roads'.  Developers choose to develop estates with roads which aren't built to adoptable standards.  It is also the case that not all roads can be built to adoptable standards.

Maintaining common areas on housing developments isn't a statutory local authority function.

S106 payments on housing developments are now largely a thing of the past.

getmore4less

The problem with a new site is you can do all the research and still walk into problems.
It is when you come to sell that you find out if you got a good, OK or bad one that no one will touch.

buel10

OldMusicGuy said:

 buel10 said:

• I asked the Developer who owns the drive that leads in to our cul de sac and whether it is to be adopted and he said that the owner of the land they bought it from is retaining it so the local council will not be adopting it. He explained the cost of maintaining the road would be split between 5 houses. He did not specifically use the term 'residents management company' but this was his specific explanation as to why they don't need a third party management company. However, he did say that they are going to use a third party management company for another estate they are building in a nearby area.

You need to look at the TP1 and see what rights the freeholder has over this land, and what restrictive covenants are being put in place - will there be any form of "rentcharge" to make you pay for maintenance of the road? You need to get your solicitor to clarify this, because there are bound to be some obligations on you. I would imagine the freeholder is going to put something in place to make sure you are liable to pay maintenance. 

Regarding maintenance costs, you need to see if there is anything that addresses this, for example there may be a statement that says all costs will be shared equally between the 5 houses. Or there may be nothing, which means it will be up to the residents to agree how to share costs.

I was in a similar situation recently. We were going to buy a house on a 3 property development built by a small local builder. When I asked if he was going to set up a residents management committee, he said no, it would be left up to the three properties to work out how to pay the maintenance costs between them. But we pulled out of the purchase before we got to see the TP1.

You do not need to set up a residents management committee in this circumstance. You can just agree with the other property owners how and when to pay any costs. However, that may leave you open to all sorts of "discussions" if nothing is set in stone. You might say that costs should be shared equally, but the people at the front of the cul-de-sac might say they should pay less, because they don't use most of the road (thus the people at the end of the road should pay more). You could set up a formal RMC to formalise everything, which is not easy (you have to set up a limited company with all the complexities that involves - our developer has done all of this for us). You could just set up an informal residents association but this would have little legal standing in your situation so would be open to all the kind of "discussions" above. 

So you need to get your solicitor to clarify what obligations the freeholder of the road is placing on you and what, if any, financial obligations there are. If there is no formal arrangement for sharing maintenance costs then it will be up to you to "agree" these with your neighbours when they are needed.

Finally, I lived on a development of 13 properties with an unadopted cul-de-sac for 20 years. The road needed very little maintenance over that time. There were some small potholes at the very end of the road, which the council filled in (even though it wasn't their responsibility!). However, if you did get some serious issues, they will not be cheap to repair, so insurance would be in order. FYI the insurance premium was £1,300 for the whole road last year.  
EDIT: Actually you can't set up a formal RMC in this case, because I forgot you don;t own the freehold of the road. So that route isn't open to you anyway. If there's nothing specified in the TP1, then it will be up to you to agree with your neighbours how to pay for this informally.
 
 

This was all, once again, fascinating and I thank you, and all, for helping educate me. I believe I am getting there.
At the risk of boring everyone, I will now post some more of the deeds that may be relevant to the specifics that this has brought up (I didn't want to originally post all of the deeds that I am concerned about as it would have been too much and likely have not any replies, I think):

12.2.1.2 over the Private Road shown coloured yellow on Plan 2 for

the purpose of access to and egress from the Property and subject to payment to the owner of that part of the Private Road one sixth of the cost of cleaning maintaining repairing and whenever necessary renewing that part of the Private

Road;

This will be the one sixth split, then. I need to find out what arrangement the current owners have - worth driving past and asking the would-be neighbours?

12.2.1.3 over the drive forming part of plot 31 shown coloured blue on

Plan 1 for the purpose of access to and egress from the Property and subject to payment to the owner of the said drive one half of the cost of cleaning maintaining repairing

and whenever necessary renewing the same;

This will be what I mentioned about sharing the driveway with the neighbour, then?

12.2.2 Services: the right so far as the same serve the Property of

taking, passage and running (as appropriate) of Services through the Service Apparatus and the Estate Sewers (in the latter case until such time as the Estate Sewers are adopted) which are now or in the future laid in, on, over or under the Estate SUBJECT in the case of the Service Apparatus to the

Transferee paying a fair proportion of the cost of cleaning, maintaining, repairing and whenever necessary renewing the

same;

'until such time as the Estate Sewers are adopted' - again, should we be concerned that they have yet to be adopted?

' Service Apparatus', is this what is directly under our land?

12.2.3 Projections: the right to maintain, enjoy and use over, on or

under the adjoining land comprised in the Estate the Projections incidental to the user of the buildings on the

Property which overhang, stand on or protrude beneath the

adjoining land comprised in the Estate;

12.2.4 Access: the right to enter after the giving of reasonable

notice and at all reasonable times (or in the case of emergency at any time without notice) upon the adjoining land comprised in the Estate other than any land covered by a building so far as may be necessary for the purposes of inspecting, cleaning, maintaining, repairing and renewing the buildings, walls, hedges, fences and other boundary structures on the Property, the Service Apparatus and the Projections, causing as little damage as possible and making good to the reasonable satisfaction of the registered proprietors from time to time of the adjoining land any

damage caused; 

12.2.5 Support: the right of subjacent and lateral support and

protection for walls and buildings and boundary structures erected or to be erected on the Property by and from the adjoining part of the Estate and any walls and buildings now erected or to be erected on it and to keep and use on the adjoining parts of the Estate and Projections from the Property as constructed by the Transferor

Am I correct to be concerned at the 'service apparatus' term again?