Unadopted Estates and Roads

Chris McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Again, he will be a powerful champion for his residents at the hard edge of the challenges with unadopted estates in his constituency. The example he highlights is powerful, because it is testament to the fact that more and more families living on unadopted estates are simply not getting the services that the rest of us who live on historically adopted estates take for granted from our local authorities.

The fleecehold stealth tax is at the heart of some of the inequity that this growing challenge creates. Right across the country, more and more families are on the hook to private management companies, paying fees of typically £350 or more a year for services that every other homeowner pays for through their council tax.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for showing leadership on this issue and supporting not only his constituents but mine in Stockton North. I have seen high service charges in my constituency at Willow Sage Court and Wynyard, and unadopted roads on the Queensgate estate were left for four years before my intervention. Does he agree that homeowners deserve, when they buy a new property, to have an agreement with the developer on when those roads will be made up and adopted, and to have a reasonable expectation that this will happen?

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. The certainty and fairness my hon. Friend calls for is the bare minimum we should expect for our constituents and the bare minimum that families should have when moving into a new property, often one they have saved up for over a long time to take that big, exciting step. I know his constituents will be all the better for the work he has done to champion that, but it should not fall to him and other hon. Members to fight for this. It should be a matter of course for new developments.

That inequity I was talking about is a real challenge. Not only is it unfair that lots of our constituents are having to pay hundreds of pounds—and often much more than that—each year for services that others receive as standard, but the very nature of fleecehold is designed to structurally inflate some of those costs. Those management companies are very rarely accountable to the actual residents of these new estates that they in theory provide services for. As a result, there is no incentive for them to keep costs low; I have had examples of people having to pay more than £250 per household just to fix a single lightbulb on the estate. Constituents are individually on the hook for thousands of pounds across the estate as a result of road challenges, and there are many more examples of no real pressure or accountability for the costs residents have to pay.

Alongside that, the complicated legal nature of those structures, the professional fees involved, and the fact that certain estates can be subdivided into tiny blocks or pockets of five homes—each of which has to have its own management company and therefore has to pay for all those professional services over and over again—mean that a large chunk of those fees often does not go towards any service at all. It simply covers professional fees, auditing costs, and wider costs associated with a structure that is by its very essence deeply inefficient and not set up to provide a service to the residents who rely on it.