New Developments: Unadopted Roads and Public Amenities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member on bringing this debate forward. What he is explaining happens round my way regularly. It is a scandal when hard-working people put all their life savings into a new-build home and then find that the estate’s roads are not even completed. The Department for Infrastructure back home is unwilling to take over the work, so the only way forward is through maintenance fees, and they rise every year. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government and the Minister, who is always very responsive to our requests, should bring forward clear guidance, for all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that maintenance fees must be kept to the bare minimum?

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. The situation that the hon. Member highlights is far too common across every part of the United Kingdom. It is really important that the Government drive forward an ambitious solution that tackles all the issues that he has set out.

Homeowners on average pay £350 in maintenance fees. That is a significant sum of money, on top of their council tax bill, and fees often run to much more than that. I have had correspondence from residents who have been paying close to £1,000 in fees. That is exacerbated by the fact that the relationship with the management companies is often structured in a way that inflates the costs that have to be paid. We have heard examples of constituents having to pay up to £200 simply to have a lightbulb fixed on a street lamp, and some estates have been subdivided to the point where the biggest part of their bill each year is simply for having the accounts audited of a management company to which they do not want to be on the hook. They are being hit in the wallet, week in, week out, by fees that simply cannot be justified by the quality of the service that they are receiving. That is making them poorer not just in their wallet, but in their pride of place. This lack of accountability is not just inflating costs but leading to very poor service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would refer the hon. Gentleman in the first instance to that CMA house building report, which says very clearly that a twin-track approach is needed. We need common adoptable standards. Only at the point that we have common standards can we force local authorities to adopt. I understand, as I know many hon. Members do, the dilemma that local authorities can face when they have substandard amenities and are asked to adopt them and incur all the costs of bringing them up to the necessary standard, as well as the cost of their ongoing maintenance.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister probably know what my question is going to be before I have even asked it: will he share his ideas and his conclusions on the way forward with the relevant Minister back home? If the Minister has a way of doing it better, we need to know it as well.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily direct my counterpart in Northern Ireland to the Government’s response when we publish it in due course, having analysed those two consultations.

Where private arrangements exist, they must be transparent and properly regulated. If residents are expected to pay for services, they must be able to see and scrutinise what they are paying for and to access effective routes to redress. We must, of course, ensure that any reforms taken forward work in practise across different types of development and support effective long-term stewardship. But we also have to avoid unintended consequences—for example, implementing measures that would reduce overall housing delivery or that simply shift costs in ways that do not ultimately benefit homeowners.

Alongside the consultations I have referenced, we are bringing forward measures to help those on existing unadopted housing estates, including the removal of draconian enforcement practices that can cause real anxiety for homeowners. Through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which was published in draft in January and is obviously mentioned in substantive terms in the King’s Speech today, we intend to repeal sections 121 and 122 of the Law of Property Act 1925— a 100-year-old law—in order to bring arrears collection into the modern era.

The Bill also strengthens safeguards around enforcement, including requiring notice before enforcement action can commence. We are acting to ensure that enforcement mechanisms are fair and proportionate, and that people are not faced with undue threats or escalating penalties in relation to their home. In addition, we are sponsoring a Law Commission project to consider longer-term legal frameworks so that residents could be given greater control over the management of their estates. I really do think—alongside the consumer protections that are the short-term answer to some of those unfair charges being levelled, and looking at how, in the long term, we end the prevalence of these arrangements—that control is the vital third leg of that stool, giving residents in such situations control. I know that is what the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin seeks to address.

We are also considering what further steps we can take to strengthen the regulation of property agents because the quality and conduct of the managing agent can make a profound difference to residents’ experience, particularly in respect of communication, responsiveness and the handling of disputes.

This issue also engages the responsibilities of other Departments, including the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Residents do not experience these matters in departmental silos. A road that is not adopted affects safety and accessibility; poorly managed drainage affects flood risk and local environmental quality; and under-maintained public spaces affect community wellbeing and pride in place.

Concerning roads specifically, alongside our consultation, the Department for Transport has commissioned independent research by Ipsos UK into the barriers to road adoption. This will help to ensure that we have a clearer evidence base about what is preventing adoption in practice, whether it be issues of technical standards, inspection and certification processes, funding and commuted sums, long-term liability, or the interaction between planning consents and highways agreements.

That work will help inform my Department’s thinking about next steps, including how we can support local highways authorities and ensure that the system encourages timely adoption where that is the appropriate outcome. In parallel, a Future Homes Hub project is under way that is helping my Department to engage with industry, local government and others on quality, standards and delivery. Ensuring that new estates come with well-designed, durable and maintainable infrastructure is an integral part of building the high-quality places that communities expect.

Before I conclude, I want to briefly mention transparency. It is important to recognise that this debate is not one only about one type of amenity; it is about the whole public realm on new estates—as has been mentioned, the play areas, open spaces, water features, attenuation ponds, sustainable drainage, street lighting, verges, footpaths and the smaller pieces of infrastructure that, taken together, determine whether a development feels like a coherent community. When those amenities are not properly completed, or when their long-term upkeep is not clearly and fairly arranged, residents can feel that the place they were promised has not been delivered. That is why transparency at the point of sale matters so much.

People are making the biggest financial commitment of their lives in most cases. They should be able to understand in plain terms what is intended to be adopted, what will remain private, what services will be provided, how charges will be set, what protections exist if standards slip and what happens if the original developer is no longer on the scene. Certainty and predictability are not luxuries—they are essential.

We know some that private management arrangements can work well, particularly where there is a clear resident-focused governance model and robust oversight, but where such arrangements are used, it is vital that residents are not left exposed to opaque fees, poor service or enforcement measures that feel disproportionate. That is precisely why our reform programme spans both the prevention of poor outcomes, by reducing the creation of problematic unadopted estates, and the strengthening of protections and accountability where those arrangements remain.

In conclusion, the Government recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, and the very real impact that current practice is having on homeowners. We are acting through the two consultations that concluded in March, the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, the implementation of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, our sponsorship of the Law Commission’s project, which I just mentioned, and our ongoing efforts to strengthen the regulation of property agents. I look forward to continuing to engage with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members from across the House as this work progresses, so that we can deliver a system that is clearer for consumers, fairer in practice, and better at ensuring that the places we build come with the adopted, well maintained amenities that residents rightly expect.

Question put and agreed to.