We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Redrow won’t submit a Section 38 to the council, so they can continue charging maintenance fees
Comments
-
Yes we have a plan showing the highways to be adopted.
The only parts not adopted on our particular estate are the shared driveways serving 5 or less dwellings. But it is quite clearly stated in the transfer plan which those are.
1 -
What exactly needs explaining?
It’s really quite simple.
Redrow own the land — not FirstPort. FirstPort is merely a third‑party contractor hired to carry out the maintenance.
While I can’t rule it out entirely, I find it hard to believe that any housebuilder in this country is generously handing over their land to private maintenance firms so those firms can pocket the money while the developer earns nothing.
But hey, I suppose anything’s possible.
0 -
Yeah, that’s a great point. Even if you’re lucky enough to be paying no more than £150 a year, sooner or later major work will need doing — and that could easily run into tens of thousands of pounds at the very least.
0 -
The housebuilder isn't handing the land to FirstPort. They are actually handing it to you and the other house owners on the estate. You can use the land to get to your home, and you can use any playgrounds on the estate. And, that's all free. For nothing! Nada! You just have to pay for the maintenance.
I can't rule out any possibility that FirstPort pays a commission to Redrow, but I think you need some evidence before bandying accusations like that around.
No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?1 -
There's An estate I used to live that was completed 15 years ago, started 25 years ago. Roads are still not adopted.
0 -
Well then, I’ve decided — I’m starting my own maintenance company. I’ll ring up Redrow, let them know I’ve got a pair of rusty shears, a spade, and a knee that clicks like a metronome. I’m sure they’ll offer me a royalty‑free contract — no profit‑sharing, no questions asked — before I’ve even finished the sentence.
And if they say no, I’ll tell them some random bloke on the internet assured me they were the most generous housebuilder in Britain. That should do it.
The snag is, even if Redrow did hand out deals like that — which I’m fairly certain they’ve never done in the history of their existence — I still couldn’t bring myself to fleece homeowners for glorified grass‑cutting services.
Bad, bad Redrow. You pamper the third‑party maintenance firms, but the homeowner gets left out in the cold.
0 -
Well then, I’ve decided — I’m starting my own maintenance company. I’ll ring up Redrow, let them know I’ve got a pair of rusty shears, a spade, and a knee that clicks like a metronome. I’m sure they’ll offer me a royalty‑free contract — no profit‑sharing, no questions asked — before I’ve even finished the sentence.
And if they say no, I’ll tell them some random bloke on the internet assured me they were the most generous housebuilder in Britain. That should do it.
The snag is, even if Redrow
didhand out deals like that — which I’m fairly certain they’ve never done in the history of their existence — I still couldn’t bring myself to fleece homeowners for glorified grass‑cutting services.Bad, bad Redrow. You pamper the third‑party maintenance firms, but the homeowner gets left out in the cold.
I think you've misunderstood the different companies' roles and business models.
- Redrow make their money by buying land, building houses and selling the houses. That's where there expertise is.
- But having sold the houses on an estate, Redrow don't want the hassle of managing the estate - so they appoint an agent (like FirstPort) to do it for them.
- FirstPort make their money by managing estates. That's where their expertise is.
Redrow probably wouldn't appoint you as their managing agent - because it sounds like you have no expertise and experience in managing large estates.
If the managing agent that Redrow appoints messes up, then Redrow is probably legally responsible for the mess. Plus Redrow might suffer reputational damage. So Redrow would be fussy about who they appoint.
So FirstPort will have passed Redrow's 'tests' to show they are a suitable company to manage an estate, but based on what you say, I suspect you wouldn't pass those tests.
2 -
You should perhaps aim your frustration at the local authorities who now refuse to adopt parks and green spaces on new estates yet insist on them being included in the site layouts to gain planning.
The developers almost have their hands tied on that aspect, they have to provide the green space and play areas but then have to provide a way for those to be maintained and managed.
1 -
Usually green spaces are required to compensate for the developers reducing the size of gardens to the bare minimum they think they can get away with, coupled with the future occupants - regardess of covenants - removing every living thing in the garden and replacing it with paving, decking, and plastic grass.
There is some logic to providing shared green space/play areas in that a communal provision can occupy less total space than similar levels of provision on a per dwelling basis. But maintaining these areas is expensive (especially if play equipment is provided) and there is a good argument that the people getting the most benefit from it should pay directly for it, because many other areas in the council area will be paying the same council tax but won't have the benefit of conveniently located communal spaces.
Some of the 'green space' is there for drainage purposes - either directly as swales, or indirectly by reducing the total area of hard surfaces. Given the regular moans about flooding or building on flood plains, LA planning insistence on minimum amounts of green space has to be a good thing?
If councils adopt then they want an up front financial incentive for doing so - e.g. via S106 payments. So by avoiding adoption (it is not just about LA refusal) the developer can reduce the amount of cash paid to the council, which in turn means their houses can be slightly less overpriced. Adoption would mean the houses cost more to buy. The first owner (who might not be there for long) probably gets a better deal by having a discount on the purchase price for the cost of a 'small' annual maintenance charge instead.
1 -
Any green space used for surface water storage is usually adopted. In the case of swales used for draining highways it would the the highway authority who adopt and maintain those. In the case of detention basins it is usually the water authority that adopt and maintain those. Flood management areas for larger schemes the LLFA take ownership of those.
We have just moved from a 7 year old house on a development with lots of green spaces and parks. Unusually the local authority adopted all of them and there were no management fees. The house we have moved to is 8 years old, 2 miles down the road from the previous house but under another authority. The roads and drainage are to be adopted. although they have not been just yet, but the green spaces are under a management company. It is a small annual fee, in fact it went down last year by a few quid but the green spaces are very well maintained and much better kept than the LA ones on the previous estate.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards