Closed consultation

Reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements

Published 18 December 2025

Applies to England

Scope of this consultation

The consultation focuses on tackling the growing issue of unadopted amenities on privately managed housing estates in England, where roads, drainage systems, green spaces, and other communal infrastructure are maintained by private estate management companies rather than public authorities. This trend has led to unfair charges, poor transparency, and limited homeowner rights, creating significant consumer detriment.

Topic of this consultation

The government recognises the importance of new housing supply to meet national demand, and we must deliver reform in parallel with our wider housing ambitions, including building a record number of desperately needed new homes, while making sure that public services are sustainable.

The government aims to:

• reduce reliance on private estate management and increase adoption of amenities by public authorities
• implement common standards for adoptable amenities to improve quality and consistency
• explore mandatory adoption for certain public amenities, while considering exceptions for premium or exclusive features
• remove perverse incentives that make non-adoption attractive to developers
• improve data transparency, homeowner protections, and dispute resolution mechanisms
• consider prohibiting embedded management arrangements and promoting resident-controlled management
• assess financial sustainability of estate management charges and introduce affordability safeguards
• seek evidence on impacts for homeowners, developers, local authorities, and management companies

Geographical scope

The proposals relate to England, but we are inviting perspectives from across the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). Following consultation, we intend to work closely with the devolved administrations as future policy develops, in case there are opportunities for a joined-up approach.

Impact Assessment

The UK government is mindful of its responsibilities, including those under the Public Sector Equality Duty to have due regard to the potential impact of their proposals on people with protected characteristics, and their responsibilities to consider environmental principles in any proposals, including, in relation to England, as set out in the Environment Act 2021. We welcome evidence and views on the impact of this policy as part of this consultation. All regulations bought forward as a result of this consultation will be subject to appropriate assessment.

Body responsible for the consultation

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

Duration

This consultation will last for 12 weeks from 18 December 2025 to 12 March 2026.

Enquiries

For any enquiries about the consultation please contact reducingprevalence@communities.gov.uk

How to respond

You may respond by visting CitizenSpace. The consultation contains a mixture of open and closed questions with options to provide further information. Many questions are technical in nature, and you do not have to answer every question if they do not apply to your particular circumstances or you do not hold a view. Alternatively, you can email your response to the questions in this consultation to reducingprevalence@communities.gov.uk

When you respond it would be very useful if you confirm whether you are responding as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation, and if so, include the name of the organisation and your position.

Ministerial Foreword

For too many homeowners, the experience of living on a newly developed housing estate has been tainted by the hidden and enduring consequences of unadopted infrastructure. Roads, sewers, drains, green spaces, and other amenities that historically would have been maintained by the local authority or utility companies, are instead now routinely left to be managed by private estate management companies, often with little transparency or accountability.

In many cases, the quality of the amenities on such freehold estates is inferior to those adopted by the relevant public authority and falls far short of what people have a right to expect. Residential freeholders across the country frequently report open spaces not fit for purpose, roads left unsurfaced; and drainage systems which are often little more than open ditches. These issues blight people’s lives and with few of the rights to redress found in other markets and no ability to control the management of the estates on which they live, residents feel like they are treated as second-class homeowners. 

This government believes that homeowners living on freehold estates deserve a fair deal. That is why we pledged in our manifesto to act to bring the injustice of ‘fleecehold’ private housing estates and unfair maintenance costs to an end.

Alongside acting to provide those who currently live on privately managed estates with greater rights and protections so that the fees they pay are fair, transparent, and robustly justified, we are determined to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements, which are the root cause of the problems experienced by many residential freeholders.

Building on the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority 2024 Housebuilding Market Study, this consultation aims to better understand the root causes and incentives that have led to the rise of unadopted amenities and what credible options for reform exist. It explores a wide range of issues including: 

• Removing barriers to adoption and improving processes
• Mandatory adoption for certain public amenities 
• Removing perverse incentives driving non-adoption 
• Improving Data and Transparency  
• Assessment of financial sustainability and impact on consumers 
• Prohibiting “Embedded” management company arrangements and Mandating Resident-Controlled management 
• Dispute resolution for amenity quality and adoption processes 

The options for reform we are exploring through this consultation are far-reaching and have implications for housing supply and local authority budgets, so it is vital that future policy decisions are informed by robust evidence and insight. We therefore invite homeowners, local authorities, developers, estate management companies and everyone with a stake in creating fair and sustainable communities to share their views.

Matthew Pennycook MP
Minister of State for Housing and Planning

About you questions

Question 1

Where are you based?

• England
• Wales
• Scotland
• Northern Ireland

Question 2

What is your name?

Add name

Question 3

What is your email address?

Add email address

Question 4

Are you responding on behalf of an organisation?

• Yes
• No

If ‘Yes’ what is the name of the organisation?

[Free text]

Question 5

If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, which of the following best describes your organisation.

• I am responding as a housing developer
• I am responding as a public authority (local government, highways authority, planning authority)
• I am responding as a utility company
• I am responding as a resident–controlled management company
• I am responding as a private management company
• I am responding as a property managing agent organisation (private)
• I am responding as a Registered Provider of Social Housing
• other (please specify) [Free text]

Please complete Part 1 and Part 2 of this consultation if you are a developer, public authority management company or managing agent.

Question 6

If you are responding as an individual, are you a:

• freeholder of private housing
• leaseholder of private housing
• homeowner
• resident of social housing
• private renter
• landlord
• registered provider of social housing
• legal representative
• other (please specify) [Free text]

Please complete Part 1 and Part 2 of this consultation if you are a homeowner or resident who is living or has lived on a privately managed estate.

Introduction

What are unadopted privately managed estates

In this document, when we discuss ‘privately managed estates’^{[footnote 1]} or ‘unadopted estates’, we are referring to housing developments where communal amenities are managed and funded privately by homeowners and residents, which can include but are not limited to shared areas on the estates such as roads, sewers, pumping stations and drains, play areas and open spaces.

The wider public may be able to access some of those communal amenities. Historically, in most cases these communal amenities were adopted by a public authority, (for example, local authority, highways authority or wastewater company). However, we are aware of an increased prevalence of private management which has become the norm for most new developments, meaning that shared areas and amenities are likely to be unadopted and managed and maintained by a private estate management company (EMC).

There may be as many as 1.75 million homes on privately managed estates in England, although not all may pay charges. Freehold homeowners on these estates currently have limited rights over the cost, extent and quality of services provided, which has given rise to many injustices for those homeowners and residents. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found a growing trend by developers to build estates which end up with privately managed public amenities – with 80% of new homes sold by the eleven biggest builders in 2021 to 2022 subject to estate management charges. These charges can be high and unclear to homeowners, who have few protections.

The CMA also found that estate management arrangements are causing significant detriment to consumers, and a root cause of that detriment is the reduction in levels of public amenity adoption by public authorities.

The government wants high-quality developments that drive up the quality of local areas to better meet people’s needs and has committed to reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements used to manage unadopted amenities. The government is also committed to ending the injustices with ‘fleecehold’ housing estates and is consulting separately on measures which start to tackle these issues.

This consultation considers how to reduce the underlying causes of consumer detriment for new estates. Part 1 of this consultation explores options for reforming this system to reduce the need for estate management arrangements and increase amenity adoption, improve the quality of amenities and provide greater certainty to all stakeholders. It also seeks views on the potential impact on various stakeholders of the options. Part 2 of the consultation seeks further evidence from various stakeholders to inform our evidence base in order to further develop policy.

Part 1: Reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements and increasing amenity adoption

Background

New housing developments require a range of amenities to support homeowners and residents and, in many cases, the wider public. These amenities include essential infrastructure such as roads, sewers, drainage systems, and open spaces. Historically, public authorities, such as highways authorities, local councils, and water companies, would adopt these amenities after construction. Adoption often involved a financial contribution from developers, enabling the amenities to be maintained at public expense. Once adopted, ongoing maintenance costs were shared among taxpayers or water customers, ensuring a fair distribution of responsibility.

Over the past 15 years, economic pressures have significantly reduced the willingness of local authorities to adopt public amenities. The 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent Covid-19 pandemic placed unprecedented strain on public budgets. Statutory obligations, including social care and homelessness services, have taken priority, leaving little capacity for discretionary spending. As a result, many authorities are reluctant to assume long-term maintenance liabilities unless developers provide substantial payments to offset future costs, and in some cases, they may be unwilling to adopt amenities at all.

At the same time, developers are expected to deliver more and increasingly complex estate amenities and features within developments, such as sustainable drainage systems, access to high-quality open spaces and biodiversity enhancements, which often require specialist management. This has been against a backdrop of rising construction and compliance costs. This dynamic may have incentivised developers to seek cost reductions elsewhere, creating tension between quality, viability, and long-term sustainability.

Consequently, amenity adoption has seen a marked decline across the country as most new housing estates now rely on EMC arrangements to maintain common amenities, leaving homeowners and residents responsible for ongoing maintenance costs and liabilities.

The adoption of amenities is also a discretionary process that requires commitment from both developers and local authorities - this can lead to pitfalls. Where these amenities are also accessible to the wider public, it can create additional challenges for homeowners and residents who fund their upkeep. When adoption does not occur for public amenities and privately funded public spaces - such as playgrounds or car parks, it can create tensions within communities- homeowners and residents may feel aggrieved when they pay for facilities that are freely used by non-contributors. In some cases, this dissatisfaction has led residents to restrict access, risking enforcement action from local authorities. Furthermore, liability insurance adds another layer of cost, as homeowners must protect themselves against third-party claims for injury or property damage.

In too many cases the quality of these unadopted amenities can also fall below what residents are promised and expect. We have seen examples of unfinished roads, unsafe playgrounds taped off to prevent access, and open spaces unsuitable for local recreation. While these issues are not unique to privately managed estates, when public authorities have agreements in place to adopt amenities, they are invested in ensuring both its quality and timely delivery through processes which are lacking for unadopted estates.

In February 2023, the CMA launched a market study into housebuilding, which explored issues that included public amenity adoption. Its November 2023 working paper and February 2024 final report highlighted significant consumer detriment arising from private management of unadopted amenities. Key issues identified included high and opaque charges, poor quality of amenities and management services, disproportionate sanctions for unpaid charges, and the considerable effort required by households to resolve disputes. The CMA warned that, without intervention, these problems are likely to worsen. It concluded that the root cause lies in reduced adoption, which forces households to fund amenities that serve the wider public. EMCs often hold significant market power with limited competitive constraints, exacerbating these challenges.

On 22 October 2024, the government agreed to some of the CMA’s recommendations and acknowledged that further work is needed in several key areas, including recommendations to establish common adoptable standards and considering mandatory adoption (Recommendations 1.1 and 1.2); and prohibiting new embedded management arrangements (Recommendation 1.4). Other recommendations included enhancing consumer rights (Recommendation 1.3) and issuing guidance for directors of residents’ management companies (Recommendation 1.5), which the government accepted in principle. The government recognises the complexity of the legal, social, and policy issues surrounding unadopted amenities and EMCs and is committed to ending entirely the injustices associated with this model, and we are starting to tackle these issues through separate consultation on measures to strengthen consumer protections for homeowners and residents on existing estates.

Remove barriers to adoption and improve processes

Public amenities are shared infrastructure and facilities provided within housing developments that are intended for public use and maintenance. In the CMA’s work, this primarily refers to adoptable amenities such as highways, sewers, pumping stations, sustainable drainage systems, public open spaces, green infrastructure, and similar features (e.g., playgrounds or car parks). These amenities are typically built by developers and then transferred to public authorities for long-term upkeep, subject to meeting agreed standards.

Public authorities can adopt amenities, but current practices are often complex, costly, and inconsistent. In England, adoption is discretionary: some authorities refuse outright, while others impose rigid policies that make adoption unviable. Neither adopting authorities nor developers can compel the other to agree. Adoption requires both parties to enter into a realistic, affordable agreement, and amenities must meet relevant quality standards. Homeowners and residents, who ultimately pay for these amenities, have almost no rights to force developers to seek adoption or authorities to accept it. In practice, many local planning authorities and developers agree that EMCs will manage some or all amenities.

Too often, unadopted amenities fall short of acceptable standards, leaving residents to fund costly repairs or live with substandard facilities. By contrast, when authorities adopt amenities, they typically enforce quality standards during construction—an assurance largely absent for unadopted estates. The government is clear: all homebuyers deserve high-quality estates. To address this, the government aims to establish clear, consistent standards where they do not already exist, so all stakeholders know what quality is required.

The government wants all new estates built to high standards of quality and workmanship, regardless of maintenance arrangements. Homebuyers should receive what was promised, and private management must not lead to lower-quality homes or amenities.

The CMA’s Housebuilding Market Study highlighted concerns about unadopted amenities being built to poor standards. In some cases, residents have had to fund major repairs, such as roads, soon after moving in, especially where developers have exited the development and liabilities have passed to EMCs without adequate guarantees. The government believes this is unacceptable.

To address these issues, the CMA recommended that the UK, Scottish, and Welsh governments implement common adoptable standards for public amenities on new estates (Recommendation 1.1) and require housebuilders to meet those standards. This would reduce inconsistency between authorities and remove a key barrier to adoption. While common standards alone will not solve all problems, they would improve quality and create a level playing field.

The CMA proposed standards for:

• highways
• sewers, pumping stations, and drains
• Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) (where not already in place)

For public open spaces, a more flexible approach may be appropriate, allowing local authorities to set standards tailored to local needs or apply planning-led solutions.

The House Builders Federation (HBF), on behalf of developers supports these recommendations, noting that inconsistent standards, rising costs of performance bonds and commuted sums, and lengthy adoption processes create uncertainty for developers, particularly small and medium sized developers (SMEs), making housing delivery harder.

Existing Standards and Guidance

A range of standards and guidance documents already exist to govern the design and maintenance of public amenities within residential developments. However, these frameworks vary in scope, enforceability, and application across different sectors and areas. The following examples illustrate the current landscape and highlight areas where consistency and compliance remain a challenge.

SuDS

In December 2024 the government updated the National Planning Policy Framework to require developments of all sizes to incorporate SuDS if the development could have drainage impacts. In June 2025, the government published the new National Standards for SuDS, to improve the quality and quantity of SuDS built in England. The new standards are a framework for common (and adoptable) standards for SuDS and can support planning decisions.

Highways

The Manual for Streets offers design guidance but is not mandatory, and authorities set their own standards.

Water Infrastructure

Water UK provides Design and Construction Guidance for foul and surface water sewers.

Other amenities

British Standards apply to features like playgrounds, ensuring minimum safety and quality.

The government continues to work on improving the delivery of SuDS outcomes in England. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has also established an Advisory Group which will consider the next steps.

The government is consulting on a new requirement for SuDS schemes to be designed in accordance with the new National Standards for SuDS as part of our wider consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Review of the highway’s adoption process

The government recognises that the current road adoption process under the Highways Act 1980 has become increasingly complex, with each Highways Authority applying different approaches and requirements. This inconsistency is a key factor behind declining road adoption rates, as developers may choose to leave roads private rather than engage in a lengthy, uncertain process, or standards agreed by a planning authority are not acceptable standards for a highways authority covering the same geographical area.

To help address this, the Department for Transport has commissioned IPSOS MORI to research the barriers to adoption and identify improvements. This work will inform future reforms and is complementary to this consultation.

The government supports greater clarity and consistency through common standards, which would improve certainty around quality and increase adoption rates. At present developers are forced to navigate different rules of different authorities often negotiating on individual elements of a development. This adds unnecessary costs and can slow the pace of development.

However, this must also be balanced against the appropriate level of local discretion. It is long established that ensuring new developments fit in with the local area in both design and aesthetic is an important part of planning decisions. This influences both public acceptance and new a development’s ability to build cohesive communities with a sense of place. This means some variation in, for example, the materials used, and aspects of design is appropriately addressed at a local level.

We also do not want to impede or discourage the ability of developers to go beyond any required standards. People are willing to pay more for homes and areas which offer them additional benefits.

However, reforms must strike the right balance between allowing local discretion to provide flexibility for innovation so developers and authorities being able and confident to exceed minimum standard where appropriate, and having common standards which are enforceable and justified, that do not undermine long-term maintenance viability.

In this section we explore questions about the role and implementation of common standards for amenities. The questions ask why amenities often lack consistent standards, whether such standards should be mandatory, and if public authorities should publish clear standards for specific types of amenities (e.g., highways, drainage, green spaces). They also cover situations where common standards may not be suitable, when flexibility should be allowed, and how to ensure consistency across authorities. Further questions address who should develop and enforce standards, the balance between quality and cost, potential impacts on adoption timescales, estate design, and the natural environment, as well as any exceptions or additional considerations. We also ask what else the government can do to streamline adoption processes.

Question 7

Do common standards exist for the following amenities?

• highways [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
• sewers, pumping stations and drains [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
• public open spaces and green infrastructure [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
• other, such as playgrounds or car parks (if applicable) [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please explain your answers [Free text]

Question 8

Where standards exist, why are amenities often not delivered to these standards? (tick all that apply)

• cost constraints – Meeting standards is too expensive
• viability issues – Standards reduce profitability
• lack of enforcement – Authorities do not consistently or monitor standards
• ambiguity in standards – Standards are unclear or open to interpretation
• lack of clarity – It is unclear what the standards are
• conflicting requirements – Different authorities or agencies apply inconsistent standards
• design flexibility – Design is prioritised over standards
• time pressure – Meeting standards slows down development
• negotiation during planning – Standards are diluted through negotiation
• local discretion – Permission to depart from standards for site specific reasons
• innovation or bespoke solutions – Alternative approaches are used or encouraged that are not covered by standards
• other (please specify) [Free Text]

Question 9

At what level should standards be set for the following amenities?

• highways [Nationally/ Locally /No Standard Required]
• sewers, pumping stations and drains [Nationally/ Locally /No Standard Required]
• public open spaces and green infrastructure [Nationally/ Locally /No Standard Required]
• other, such as playgrounds or car parks (if applicable) [Nationally/ Locally /No Standard Required]

Please explain your answers [Free Text]

Question 10

Would the following amenity types benefit from common standards?

• highways [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
• sewers, pumping stations and drains [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
• sustainable drainage systems [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
• public open spaces and green infrastructure [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
• other, such as playgrounds or car parks (if applicable) [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please provide further information if you want to [Free Text]

Question 11

What do you see as the main benefits of using common standards in these areas (tick all that apply)?

• consistency and predictability – Ensuring uniform quality across developments
• improved safety and reliability – Standards help maintain essential safety requirements
• efficiency in planning and approval – reduces delays and simplifies decision-making.
• cost certainty - provides more certainty when estimating costs
• Lower maintenance and repair costs – lower cost to maintain and/or repair
• can be adoptable standards – provides better consistency for public amenity adoption
• supports interoperability – ensures compatibility between different systems and infrastructure
• enhances consumer confidence – better trust in development built to recognised standards
• reduces disputes – minimises disagreements between developers and authorities
• promotes sustainability – encourages environmentally responsible design
• efficient maintenance and repair – efficiencies in cost of management and cost
• design consistency – consistent design
• anything else [Free text]

Question 12

Would you generally be in favour of common standards serving as adoptable standards for amenities where appropriate amenities are subsequently maintained at public expense? [Yes/No/Don’t know]

Please explain your answer [Free Text]

Question 13

What are the risks of implementing mandatory common adoptable standards for amenities? (tick all that apply)

• increased development costs – Higher upfront costs for developers.
• increased maintenance costs – higher ongoing costs for public authorities
• reduced flexibility – Limits ability to adapt designs to local context or innovate.
• slower delivery of housing and infrastructure – Adds complexity and delays to projects.
• viability challenges – Makes some schemes financially unfeasible.
• lower quality outcomes – Standards may encourage compliance over creativity.
• one-size-fits-all approach – May not suit diverse local conditions or site constraints.
• administrative burden – More paperwork and approvals for developers and authorities.
• potential for disputes – Increased risk of disagreements over interpretation or enforcement.
• discourages innovation – Developers may avoid new techniques or sustainable solutions.
• Flat Design – lack of opportunity for original or unique design
• other (please specify) – [Free text]

Question 14

When should wider discretion be allowed to depart from common standards - for example, to promote innovation, protect local flexibility, or allow higher standards?

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 15

How can public authorities ensure consistent use of common standards across the same areas (e.g., planning and highways authorities), and who should be responsible for enforcing compliance with these standards?

Please explain how enforcement should work in practice[Free Text]

Question 16

How else can the government streamline adoption processes, including for existing estates?

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 17

Any other information you wish to provide in relation to common standards?

Provide details [Free Text]

Mandatory adoption for certain public amenities

The CMA was clear that common standards^{[footnote 2]} alone would not address the root cause of the detriment faced by residents paying estate management charges. In addition, the CMA also recommended the mandatory adoption (Recommendation 1.2) of public amenities on new housing estates (outside of minor, well defined exceptions).

In their summary document the CMA stated that:

The root cause of detriment for such households is the reduction in levels of adoption, meaning that households end up paying for amenities which are used by the public. This has resulted in a proliferation of private management arrangements in which estate management companies may possess significant market power and face limited competitive constraints to deliver services at a reasonable price or to an acceptable level of quality.

Multiple management arrangements create inefficiency, confusion, and higher costs. A single point of responsibility ensures consistency, economies of scale, and better coordination. It is less consistent and cohesive because communication is between multiple bodies and managing agents, causing confusion for homeowners when they want to resolve issues.

If the prevalence of EMC arrangements does not reduce, the reliance on EMC risks fragmented public services and a two-tier housing system where newer estates bear extra costs.

Local authorities sometimes transfer existing amenities to EMCs to reduce costs. While reducing EMC prevalence would address many concerns identified by the CMA, it could significantly impact local authority finances at a time when budgets are already stretched.

The government is committed to reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements and lowering costs for homeowners and residents. Achieving this requires increasing amenity adoption. However, adoption shifts long-term maintenance liabilities from residents to adopting authorities, developers, or taxpayers, potentially creating trade-offs with other government priorities.

The current model, where residents bear the full cost of unadopted amenities, is often unfair. At the same time, we do not want to compromise high standards or remove local discretion. Any approach to adoption and management will have far-reaching implications for homeowners and residents, housing supply, developer costs, EMCs, taxpayers, estate design, and local authority budgets. Policy decisions must therefore be based on robust evidence and broad stakeholder input.

We are aware that fragmented ownership structures including private management may impede the development of robust local plans undermining local authorities’ abilities to meet their legal duties or deliver for their residents.

The government recognises that there are situations where mandatory adoption may not be appropriate. For example, some developments may exceed adoptable standards or include certain ‘luxury’ amenities (for example, those with exemplary design features) or include areas intended for exclusive private use, such as spaces accessible only to residents and their guests. In these cases, it may be unreasonable for an adopting authority to assume responsibility for maintenance.

We also want to understand where the lifecycle cost of maintaining certain features would be disproportionately high. For instance, housebuilders may include design elements such as water fountains or bespoke street lighting that go beyond functional requirements.

The government wishes to encourage well-designed amenities that take into account durability and fitness for purpose. We do not wish to exclude more expensive design specifications but need to assess the impact mandatory adoption could have on the provision of well-designed amenities. Just as people choose to pay more for a home they like, we would not wish to prevent them paying more for a better-quality local environment. In many cases, public spaces are subject to significant underinvestment compared to the value they bring in terms of wellbeing and amenity. This is particularly evident when we look at what people are willing to pay on areas for their own exclusive use.

While adoption can help reduce reliance on private management, public management and maintenance is not a panacea for issues such as poor quality, lack of investment, weak consumer control, or ineffective management. We do not want to see costs offset through weaker design and high-quality placemaking, for example by reducing the number of trees, or requiring only the most basic easy-to-maintain amenities -potentially affecting consumer wellbeing. Furthermore, local authorities must have the capacity both for the adoption process, to avoid slowing delivery of new homes, and for the continued maintenance of these facilities. It would be in no one’s interest for local authorities to take on maintenance yet then themselves fail to deliver the services residents have a right to expect.

Any move toward mandatory adoption will have significant implications for a wide range of stakeholders, including homeowners and residents, developers, management companies, local authorities, water companies, and taxpayers. The government has not yet reached a preferred solution and does not currently hold a view on mandatory adoption. If mandatory adoption is taken forward, it must be based on evidence, fair, justified, and workable for all stakeholders.

In this section, we explore issues around the adoption of certain amenities. The questions ask why adoption rates have declined, whether adoption should apply only to amenities accessible to the wider public, and which types of amenities should be considered for adoption. They also cover who should adopt each type of amenity, the potential impacts of mandatory adoption on stakeholders, and how government could support or allow flexibility. Further questions examine exemptions, design implications, cost impacts, unintended consequences, and alternative options where mandatory adoption may not be suitable.

Question 18

Why do you think fewer amenities are adopted now compared to the past?

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 19

Should amenities which are not generally for the benefit of the wider public be subject to mandatory adoption? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please explain your answer [Free Text]

Question 20

Should the government define different categories withing certain types of amenities to establish those which are subject to mandatory adoption and those are not (please indicate in your responses the sorts of subcategories within each amenity type which should be subject to mandatory adoption)?

• highways [Yes/No/Don’t Know] [Free Text]
• sewers, pumping stations and drains [Yes/No/Don’t Know] [Free Text]
• sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) [Yes/No/Don’t Know] [Free Text]
• public open spaces and green infrastructure [Yes/No/Don’t Know] [Free Text]
• other public amenities, such as playgrounds or car parks [Yes/No/Don’t Know] [Free Text]

Question 21

In what circumstances should mandatory adoption not apply? (tick all that apply) [Free Text]

• exclusive or Private Use - Amenities intended solely for residents and guests (e.g., gated gardens, private leisure facilities).
• luxury or Bespoke Features - High-cost or ornamental amenities (e.g., water fountains, custom street lighting, decorative landscaping).
• non-Standard or Specialist Design - Features requiring specialist maintenance or non-standard materials (e.g., heritage paving, bespoke drainage systems).
• disproportionate Lifecycle or Maintenance Costs - Amenities with maintenance costs significantly above normal public budgets.
• small-Scale or Minor Amenities - Very small developments or features with negligible public benefit.
• pilot or Innovative Schemes - Experimental designs or innovation projects where flexibility is needed.
• environmental or Heritage Constraints - Protected habitats, listed structures, or biodiversity features requiring specialist stewardship.
• integrated Private Management Models - Where residents have agreed to manage amenities collectively (e.g., commonhold or trust-based arrangements).
• Local Authority Capacity Limitations - Situations where adoption would compromise statutory obligations or service delivery.
• Other (please specify) Free Text

Question 22

Which public authority could adopt each type of amenity?

• highways (we assume this would be the highways authority but welcome alternative views) [Drop down: local authority, water company, highways authority, Other [Free Text] Please explain your answer [Free Text]
• sewers, pumping stations and drains [Drop down: local authority, water company, highways authority, Other [Free Text] Please explain your answer [Free Text]
• sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) [Drop down: local authority, water company, highways authority, Other [Free Text] Please explain your answer [Free Text]
• public open spaces and Biodiversity Net Gain [Drop down: local authority, water company, highways authority, Other [Free Text] Please explain your answer [Free Text]
• other public amenities, such as playgrounds or car parks. Please explain your answer [Free Text]

Question 23

How could government support the introduction of mandatory adoption of amenities?

Provide details[Free Text]

Question 24

Should there be a process for agreeing exceptions to adoption on a case-by-case basis? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

If yes, who should decide and how should this be managed? [Free text]

Question 25

Are there any unintended consequences that the government should be aware of in relation to mandatory adoption? Provide details[Free Text]

Question 26

What impact, if any, would mandatory adoption have on the following:

• long-term maintenance of amenities [Free Text]
• improved design and placemaking outcomes [Free Text]
• management [Free Text]
• housing supply [Free Text]
• viability of new development [Free Text]
• price of new homes [Free Text]
• cost of land [Free Text]
• developers [Free Text]
• public authorities [Free Text]
• management companies [Free Text]
• consumers/homebuyers/Residents [Free Text]
• bespoke amenities [Free Text]
• use of materials [Free Text]
• other (please specify) [Free Text]

Question 27

How can the goal of mandatory adoption support well-designed development and still allow innovation? Provide details [Free text]

Question 28

Is there anything else that you want to tell us in relation to mandatory adoption? Provide details [Free text]

Remove perverse incentives driving non-adoption

Current frameworks make non-adoption financially and operationally attractive for developers and public authorities. Adoption processes are complex, costly and inconsistent, while non-adoption allows developers to avoid obligations and reduce risk and uncertainty. This imbalance creates strong incentives to opt for private estate management arrangements, transferring long-term liabilities to homeowners and residents.

Developers face fewer requirements when amenities remain unadopted. They are not obliged to build to common or adoptable standards, nor to provide performance bonds or undergo rigorous compliance checks. This reduces upfront costs and removes accountability for quality, even though homeowners and residents ultimately bear the cost of repairs or upgrades when infrastructure fails.

Non-adoption may also enable developers to avoid financial contributions for long-term maintenance. Adoption typically requires commuted sums or other payments to adopting authorities to cover future upkeep. These contributions can be substantial and unpredictable, so bypassing them creates a strong financial incentive to keep amenities private.

Developers pursuing adoption often encounter high inspection fees and administrative burdens incentivising non-adoption. These fees are not standardised and vary widely between authorities, adding cost and uncertainty. Combined with lengthy approval processes, this makes adoption appear cumbersome and unattractive compared to private management arrangements.

There is an inconsistent approach to commuted sums across local authorities. Calculations differ significantly, with no clear national formula or guidance. This unpredictability creates risk for developers and further reinforces the perception that EMC arrangements are simpler and less costly.

Local authorities report that commuted sums, inspections, and compliance with standards often deter developers from entering adoption agreements or lead to renegotiation later. This is unfair: homeowners and residents should not be left responsible for amenities that public authorities refuse to adopt. The government believes unadopted estates should not have lower standards and wants to explore whether all amenities should meet common standards.

The current framework is a patchwork of complex arrangements, and the government will work with developers, local authorities, and water companies through the Future Homes Hub (FHH) to improve adoption processes and raise quality standards.

FHH will lead a project focusing on 2 themes:

• adoption processes – reducing complexity and uncertainty
• quality – ensuring consistent standards across all developments

This section focuses on improving adoption processes and addressing financial incentives. The questions explore how adoption could be made simpler, less costly, and more consistent for developers and authorities. They ask whether standardising commuted sums and inspection fees would reduce uncertainty, and what measures could remove the financial advantage of non-adoption. Other questions consider whether fees should be set nationally or regionally, how to discourage private estate management, and whether all amenities should follow a common framework for contributions and guarantees. Finally, they look at alternative funding models to ensure fair and sustainable long-term maintenance.

We also want to consider other options to reduce the burden on residents. This could include alternative funding models, such as endowments or trusts (for example, Parks Trust in Milton Keynes, Land Trust), which reduce or remove resident fees.

Question 29

What changes would encourage adoption and discourage non-adoption? (tick all that apply)

• mandatory requirement for all amenities to meet adoptable standards, regardless of whether they are adopted or not
• performance bonds or guarantees for all developments, even if adoption is not pursued
• apply commuted sums or equivalent contributions to private estate management arrangement, so developers, cannot avoid contributing to long-term maintenance costs
• penalties or levies for non-adoption, creating a financial disincentive for opting for private management where adoption is more appropriate
• require transparent disclosure of long-term costs to homeowners for private management arrangements, reducing developer advantage through consumer awareness
• create alternative funding models (e.g., endowments or trusts) that reduce reliance on resident fees and make adoption more sustainable
• nationally standardised framework for adoption processes, including clear timelines, documentation requirements, and compliance checks [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
• fixed or capped inspection fees and commuted sums or other contributions set at a national or regional level [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
• clearer guidance on adoptable standards to eliminate ambiguity and reduce redesign costs [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
• any other suggestions (please specify) [Free Text]

Question 30

Should inspection fees and commuted sums be set nationally, regionally or locally?

• nationally set
• regionally set
• locally set
• don’t Know

Please explain your answer. [Free text]

Question 31

What other steps could government take to discourage developers and public authorities from opting for private estate management arrangements where adoption is appropriate?

Provide details[Free text]

Question 32

What other funding models or approaches could help ensure fair and sustainable long-term maintenance of amenities?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 33

What other incentives drive non-adoption and how can government remove them? Provide details [Free Text]

Question 34

What impact would proposals to reduce perverse incentives have on stakeholders (e.g., consumers, developers, public authorities, management companies)? [Free text]

Improving Data and Transparency

A desktop exercise undertaken by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government found that around 38% of councils’ websites do not publish clear policies on the adoption of estate amenities such as highways, drainage systems, and public open spaces. This lack of transparency creates uncertainty for developers and homeowners. Developers often face unclear requirements and inconsistent practices across local authorities, which can lead to delays, renegotiations, and increased costs. For homeowners, the absence of published policies means limited visibility on whether amenities will be adopted or remain under private management, which affects long-term liabilities and consumer choice.

Publishing adoption policies and data, such as the proportion of homes subject to estate management charges, could improve accountability and consumer awareness. It would provide clarity for developers during planning and design stages, reduce uncertainty in negotiations, help future policy development and help prospective homeowners understand the implications of buying a property on an estate with unadopted amenities. Furthermore, consistent standards, including common or national standards for processes would remove repetition from local authorities from setting local standards, balancing the potential additional capacity needed to monitor data.

However, requiring authorities to publish this information may have planning and resource implications. Local authorities would need to maintain accurate records, update policies regularly, and ensure data is accessible and understandable. These changes could require additional capacity and investment in systems and processes.

The government is seeking views on whether greater transparency through published adoption policies and data would help address current challenges and improve fairness for homeowners.

Question 35

Should public authorities be required to publish clear policies on the adoption of estate amenities (e.g., highways, SuDS, open spaces, other)? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please explain your answer. [Free Text]

Question 36

Should authorities also publish data on the proportion of homes or new homes subject to estate management charges within their area? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please explain your answer. [Free Text]

Question 37

What information should be included in published adoption policies? (tick all that apply)

• types of amenities covered, and permissible exclusions
• adoption standards, including design and construction standards
• inspection processes and compliance requirements including inspection fees
• adoption fees, commuted sums
• timeframes for adoption decisions and approvals
• anything else

Please specify [Free Text]

Question 38

How frequently should data be collected (please choose one)?

• monthly
• quarterly
• annually
• something else Please specify [Free Text]

Question 39

What benefits would publishing adoption policies and data bring for developers, consumers, and local authorities?

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 40

Should the government provide guidance or a standard template for adoption policies to ensure consistency across authorities? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please explain your answer. [Free Text]

Question 41

What impact would this proposal have (e.g., on consumers, developers, public authorities, management companies)?

[Free text]

Assessment of financial sustainability and impact on consumers

Estate management charges for the upkeep of shared amenities can pose significant long-term financial risks for homeowners. These charges are often unpredictable, lack transparency, and may escalate sharply if infrastructure requires major repairs or upgrades. Homebuyers typically have limited visibility of these future costs at the point of purchase, leaving them exposed to affordability issues and potential mortgage risks.

To address these concerns, the government is considering the merits of introducing a financial sustainability and affordability test. This test could apply at the planning stage and potentially at the point of sale, ensuring that estate management charges are reasonable, sustainable, and clearly communicated to consumers. The aim would be to provide better information to homebuyers from the outset, protect them from escalating costs, and reduce the risk of financial distress or mortgage lending issues in the future.

Such a test could entail consideration of the following questions:

• Predictability of Costs: What the mechanisms are to limit annual increases in charges;
• Lifecycle Cost Assessment: Does the development include a long-term maintenance plan for shared amenities, with realistic cost projections and a plan for renewal;
• Affordability Thresholds: Do projected charges remain within a reasonable percentage of average household income or mortgage affordability criteria for the local area;
• Risk Mitigation: Are contingency funds or sinking funds established for major repairs or upgrades. Is it reasonable for homeowners to be responsible for the risks associated with the assets;
• Governance and Accountability: Is there a clear structure for homeowner representation and dispute resolution regarding charges; and
• Impact on Mortgage Lending: Does the test align with lender requirements to avoid mortgage offer withdrawals

Where requirements aren’t met we are keen to explore what could help make sure unacceptable or unaffordable costs are reduced or removed- these could include:  developers and local authorities being required to reconsider arrangements to reduce costs to consumers to an acceptable level or remove them altogether; notifications to lenders so the lending market has a role to play in the long-term management and maintenance of amenities; or planning consent could be withheld.

Implementing a test would require a new framework and enforcement mechanism, potentially adding complexity to planning processes and resource demands for local authorities. There is also a risk that developments failing the test could face delays or sales challenges, including lenders withdrawing mortgage offers. However, these risks mirror existing long-term concerns: if estate management charges rise sharply, or infrastructure requires costly upgrades, homeowners and lenders may already face affordability and security issues.

The government seeks views on whether a sustainability and affordability test would improve consumer protection and market confidence, and how it could be designed to balance these benefits with practical implementation challenges.

Question 42

Should a financial sustainability and affordability test apply:

• at the planning stage
• the point of sale
• both

Please explain your answer [Free Text]

Question 43

If a financial suitability and affordability test were to apply, what consequences could there be if an assessment fails?

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 44

What factors should the test consider to ensure charges remain fair and predictable? (tick all that apply)

• Predictability of Costs: What the mechanisms are to limit annual increases in charges;
• Lifecycle Cost Assessment: Does the development include a long-term maintenance plan for shared amenities, with realistic cost projections and a plan for renewal;
• Affordability Thresholds: Do projected charges remain within a reasonable percentage of average household income or mortgage affordability criteria for the local area;
• Risk Mitigation: Are contingency funds or sinking funds established for major repairs or upgrades. Is it reasonable for homeowners to be responsible for the risks associated with the assets;
• Governance and Accountability: Is there a clear structure for homeowner representation and dispute resolution regarding charges; and
• Impact on Mortgage Lending: Does the test align with lender requirements to avoid mortgage offer withdrawals
• Other Please specify [Free Text]

Question 45

How should long-term maintenance costs for shared amenities be assessed and communicated to homebuyers?

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 46

Should developers and management companies be required to establish contingency or sinking funds for major repairs? [Yes/No/Don’t know]

Please explain your answer [Free Text]

Question 47

What governance arrangements would give homeowners confidence in the fairness of charges? (tick all that apply)

• independent validation of arrangements,
• ability to challenge unfair chargers,
• dispute resolution/ Homeowner representation,
• involvement in ongoing charges/ regulation,
• licensing of management companies
• other (Please specify) [Free Text]

Question 48

Could this test affect housing supply or development viability [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

If so, how could these risks be mitigated?

[Free Text]

Question 49

What impact do you think the introduction of this test will have on mortgage lender confidence?

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 50

What unintended consequences should government anticipate if this test is implemented?

Provide details [Free Text]

Prohibiting ‘embedded’ management company arrangements and mandating resident-controlled management

Prohibiting embedded management arrangements

The CMA’s Housebuilding Market Study found that homeowners have virtually no ability to switch management companies where an embedded management company is specified in property deeds. These companies are appointed at the outset, and in many cases, the deed provisions do not allow switching to another company, even when the company fails to deliver contracted services. Where switching is permitted, homeowners often face restrictive conditions that make change impractical.

The CMA recommends prohibiting the establishment of new embedded management arrangements (Recommendation 1.4).

Their report states:

There is very limited scope for meaningful negotiation after the initial appointment as the management company is specified in the deed, and provisions may not allow for switching. This causes, or has the potential to cause, significant detriment to households. Prohibiting embedded management arrangements prevents this situation from arising in future and provides households with a greater degree of control over the management of public amenities, including the ability to switch provider.

The government agrees that embedded management companies are unwarranted and supports the CMA’s recommendation. We have asked the  Law Commission, as part of its 14th Programme of Law Reform, to look at housing estates and make recommendations on whether the right to manage (RTM) regime that benefits leaseholders in blocks of flats could be adopted to apply to housing estates; and whether any additional or alternative solutions to the problems of estate management might be required. However, while this work progresses, we want to explore whether there are any legitimate reasons why such arrangements might still be necessary.

Question 51

Should the government prohibit the establishment of new embedded management arrangements (where the management company is specified in property deeds)? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please explain your answer. [Free Text]

Question 52

Do embedded management arrangements limit homeowner choice and create consumer detriment? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please explain your answer. [Free Text]

Question 53

Are there any legitimate reasons why embedded management arrangements might still be necessary?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 54

If embedded arrangements are prohibited, what transitional measures should apply to developments already planned or under construction?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 55

What enforcement mechanisms would be needed to ensure compliance with a prohibition on embedded management arrangements?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 56

What impact would prohibiting embedded arrangements have on consumers, developers, homeowners, and management companies?

Provide details [Free text]

Resident-controlled management from the outset

Where EMCs are in place, resident-controlled management places decision-making power directly in the hands of those most affected by the quality and cost of estate services - the homeowners themselves. Under current arrangements, many estates are managed by companies appointed by developers, often embedded in property deeds, leaving residents with little or no ability to influence service standards, costs, or accountability. This lack of control can lead to poor service delivery, escalating charges, and limited transparency.

Making resident-controlled management the default would ensure that homeowners have a meaningful say in how their amenities are maintained and funded. It promotes accountability, as management decisions would be made by those who bear the financial consequences. It also encourages responsiveness to local needs, as residents can set priorities for maintenance, improvements, and cost management.

Resident-led arrangements can strengthen community trust and reduce consumer harm by removing the imbalance of power between developers, management companies, and homeowners. While professional support may still be needed for technical aspects of maintenance, governance should rest with residents to guarantee fairness and transparency.

The government is considering whether resident-controlled management should become the standard model for new developments, and what safeguards or support might be needed to make this approach practical and effective.

The government is also keen to explore exemplary models of resident-controlled management companies as part of this consultation. We are particularly interested in understanding whether structures such as commonhold arrangements or trust-based models could provide effective and sustainable frameworks for resident governance. Feedback is sought on the suitability, benefits, and potential challenges of these approaches, as well as any alternative models that promote transparency, accountability, and long-term stewardship.

Question 57

Should resident-controlled management be the default model for new housing developments? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please explain your answer. [Free Text]

Question 58

Should resident-controlled buildings (such as a Resident Management Company) be not-for-profit management companies? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please explain your answer [Free Text]

Question 59

What benefits do you think resident-controlled management would bring for homeowners and communities? [Free Text] (tick all that apply)

• promotes accountability
• responsiveness to local needs
• better cost management
• strengthen community-trust
• reduce consumer harm
• other (Please specify) [Free Text]

Question 60

What challenges or risks could arise from making resident-controlled management the default (e.g., governance capacity, disputes, need for professional support)?

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 61

What support or safeguards should be provided to help residents manage amenities effectively (e.g., training, access to professional advice, regulatory oversight)?

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 62

What impact would this proposal have (e.g., on consumers, developers, public authorities, management companies)?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 63

Are there any alternatives to resident-controlled companies that you think would be beneficial? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

If so, please describe [Free Text]

Question 64

Are there any circumstances where resident-controlled management should not apply?

[Free Text]

Guidance for resident-controlled management companies

The CMA recommended that the government should provide guidance to members and directors of RMCs to support and enable them in effectively managing the amenities on their housing estates.

The government has accepted the CMA’s recommendation in principle (Recommendation 1.5) and has already committed to ensuring that those subject to estate management charges can receive free advice and information, but we are keen to explore what should be included in any such guidance.

Question 65

Do you agree that the government should provide guidance to resident-controlled management companies? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

If so, what should be included in such guidance?

[Free Text]

Question 66

What additional support would help residents manage amenities effectively (e.g., access to professional advice, regulatory oversight, helplines)?

[Free Text]

Dispute resolution for poor quality amenities and adoption issues

The government is committed to improving consumer protection in new housing developments by ensuring homeowners have clear routes to resolve disputes. While new and existing measures may address issues with individual homes or with a managing agent, there is currently no mechanism for complaints from residents about the quality of new shared amenities.

Homeowners on new estates often face problems when communal amenities, are poorly built, problems with adoption of amenities (even where an agreement may be in place to adopt), issues with maintenance or when management companies fail to deliver agreed services.  At present, residents often lack an accessible and effective way to seek redress for some of these issues, leaving them exposed to poor quality of standards of work, poor service quality, escalating costs and limited accountability. This can be compounded by lack of appropriate dispute resolution without needing to resort to the courts or tribunal which may be expensive. This can often leave homeowners feeling powerless to resolve the issues they are experiencing.

The government also understands that there are few mechanisms to resolve disputes between management companies, developers and public authorities when it comes to adherence to adoption processes. The government has heard from developers that there is no avenue to challenge final decisions of public authorities concerning amenity adoption outcomes, and that more flexibility and independent oversight may help circumstances where decisions not to adopt are marginal or based on rigid criteria. Management companies may also find difficulties when attempting to complete adoption processes with developers and/or public authorities.

We want to explore whether a new complaints mechanism is required for homeowners and residents regarding new shared amenities (recognising that estate management companies may be making complaints on residents’ behalf). We also want to explore whether a new dispute resolution process is required to resolve disputes between developers, public authorities and management companies, to resolve disputes about adoption. This would seek to provide stakeholders with a fair and efficient means of resolving complaints, improving confidence in new development and reduce consumer harm.

Currently, managing agents of leasehold properties are currently required to belong to a government approved redress scheme. We will also require freeholders who do not employ a managing agent, as well as estate managers on freehold estates, to become a member of the redress scheme which will be brought forward under part 6 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. In addition, the government has also accepted the CMA’s recommendations to introduce a statutory New Homes Ombudsman scheme and a single mandatory consumer code for housebuilders. Once implemented, developers of new build homes will be required to become and remain members of the scheme, and it will address disputes related to the new home purchases, The government is also consulting separately [Link] on new and improved rights and protections for existing estate homeowners and residents through Part 5 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024,

Any new mechanism would need careful design to avoid duplication with existing legal or regulatory processes and to clarify responsibilities for developers, management companies and public authorities.  While this may introduce compliance and cost considerations, we want to explore where there are gaps in the current redress and resolution system to drive higher standards and accountability across the sector.

We are seeking views on whether this approach is appropriate, what scope such a mechanism should have and whether this will lead to better outcomes for residents and adoption.

Question 67

Do you agree that homeowners on new estates need a dedicated and accessible mechanism to resolve disputes about the quality and maintenance of communal amenities? [Yes/No/ Don’t know]

Please explain you answer [Free text]

Question 68

Do developers, management companies and public authorities also require a mechanism to resolve disputes regarding amenity adoption? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please explain your answer [Free Text]

Question 69

What types of issues should such dispute resolution mechanisms cover?

• poor construction of amenities
• failure to adopt amenities
• inadequate maintenance
• service delivery failures
• standards of conduct
• charges
• provision of information
• misrepresentation
• time to adopt amenities
• other (please specify) [Free Text]

Question 70

How effective do you think current arrangements are for resolving disputes between homeowners, developers, management companies and public authorities regarding communal amenities?

• disputes between homeowners and public authorities [Very effective/somewhat effective/not effective]
• disputes between homeowners and developers [Very effective/somewhat effective/not effective]
• disputes between homeowners and management companies [Very effective/somewhat effective/not effective]
• disputes between management companies and developers [Very effective/somewhat effective/not effective]
• disputes between management companies and public authorities [Very effective/somewhat effective/not effective]
• disputes between developers and public authorities [Very effective/somewhat effective/not effective]

Please provide examples or reasons [Free Text]

Question 71

Are there any other gaps in redress provision for other stakeholders? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Please provide examples [Free Text]

Question 72

What would be the most important features of a new dispute resolution process for communal amenities? (e.g., independence, speed, affordability, enforceability of decisions).

Please describe your priorities [Free text].

Question 73

What impacts – positive or negative – do you think introducing such a mechanism would have on homeowners, developers, management companies and public authorities?

Provide details[Free Text]

Geographical Scope

The Government will work with our partners across the United Kingdom as our policy proposals progress following consultation, where applicable.

However, we would like to hear from stakeholders as to whether the government should work with its partners on a common approach to reform, or whether each nation in the UK has distinct custom and practices which would make this impractical.

Question 74

Should the UK government seek to implement proposals for reform across the United Kingdom where it is practical to do so with support and consent from the devolved administrations?  [Yes/No/Don’t Know]. 

Please explain your answer [Free Text]

Question 75

Are there distinct practices in the different countries of the United Kingdom that require special consideration for a joined-up approach to resolve these issues?

Provide details[Free Text]

Part 2: call for evidence

There is currently little reliable information to quantify the extent of unadopted roads or other unadopted infrastructure from residents, developers, adopting authorities (local authority, Planning, Housing and Highways Authorities or Water Companies) or management companies.

We want to collect evidence from these stakeholders specifically so that the government may form a comprehensive view on the next steps. You do not need to answer every question and only those which best describes your circumstances or organisation.

Homeowners and residents (i.e. social or private renters)

Residents and homeowners living on estates, or previous residents or homeowners subject to an estate management charge

Question 76

Are you still living on an estate [Yes/No]

Question 77

How long have you lived on the estate?

Provide details [Free Text]

About Your Housing Estate

Question 78

How many homes are/were on your estate?

• under 50
• 50–250
• 250–500
• 500–1000
• over 1000 (please specify) [Free Text]

Question 79

When was the housing estate built if known? [Free text]

Question 80

Where in the country is/was your estate located (Local Authority Area) [Free text]

Management and Charges

Question 81

How is/was the estate managed?

• Resident Management Company managing themselves (RMC)
• Resident Management Company using a managing agent (RMC)
• Embedded Management Company
• other (please specify) [Free Text]

Question 82

Do/did you pay estate management charges for shared amenities? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Question 83

What amenities do/did you pay for in addition to council tax and utility rates? (tick all that apply)

• roads
• sewers and drains
• Sustainable Drainage Systems
• open spaces
• playground
• car park
• other (Please explain) [Free Text]

Question 84

How much are you required to pay each year? (If you no longer live please consider the amount you paid in your final year on the estate)?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 85

Did your estate management charge increase since you first bought your home/move into your home? [Yes/No]

If yes, what was the reason for the increase and by how much? [Free text]

Additional Costs and Permissions

Question 86

Have you paid one-off charges for repairs or upgrades? [Yes/No/Don’t Know] (

Provide details [Free text]

Question 87

Have you paid fees for permissions (e.g., home improvements, sale packs)? [Yes/No] Provide details [Free text]

Impact and Experience

Question 88

Have estate management charges affected your ability to sell or use your property? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Provide details [Free text]

Question 89

Is/was it clear to you how the charges you pay are/were calculated and what they cover? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Question 90

Do you think these charges are reasonable [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Question 91

Is/was your management company responsive? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Question 92

Does/did your management company provide value for money? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Awareness and Control

Question 93

When did you find out you had to pay estate management charges?

• during purchase
• after moving in
• other (please specify) [Free Text]

Question 94

Are/were you aware of who is responsible for maintaining and repairing the various amenities on your estate? [Yes/No Some amenities but not others]

Explain [Free Text]

Question 95

Did the estate allow some form of resident participation? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

If yes, what form of participation did this take? [Free Text]

Question 96

Are/were you a director or member of the management company? [Yes/No]

If not, would you want to be? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Public Access and Adoption

Question 97

Are/were any of the shared amenities used by the wider public? [Yes/No]

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 98

Has a public authority ever adopted amenities on your estate? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Provide details [Free Text]

Overall views

Question 99

Overall, are/were you happy with your estate management arrangements?

• very satisfied
• fairly satisfied
• neither/nor
• fairly dissatisfied
• very dissatisfied

Question 100

What do you think is most important in estate management?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 101

Why do you think amenities are often not built to adoptable standards?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 101

Anything else you’d like to tell us?

Provide details [Free text]

Relevant Public Authorities (Local Authorities, Highways Authorities, Water Companies, Other)

About Your Organisation

Question 102

Is there anything else you’d like to tell us?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 103

What types of amenities do you currently adopt?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 104

Do you have a formal policy or framework for amenity adoption? [Yes/No]

If yes, please share details [Free text]

Current Practice and Barriers

Question 105

Are there amenities you could adopt but do not? [Yes/No]

If yes, why? [Free text]

Question 106

What are the main barriers to adopting amenities?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 107

How do you ensure consistency and quality in adoption decisions?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 108

What data do you currently collect on adopted and unadopted amenities?

Provide details [Free Text]

Funding and Costs

Question 109

How do you currently secure funding for ongoing maintenance of adopted amenities?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 110

Do you seek financial contributions (e.g., commuted sums)? [Yes/No] (If yes, how are they calculated?)

Provide details [Free text]

Question 111

How much do you charge for inspection fees?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 112

Do you require performance bonds for amenity adoption? [Yes/No]

If so, how is this calculated? (e.g., set fee, percentage of costs etc) [Free Text]

Question 113

If mandatory adoption were introduced, what would be the estimated cost to your organisation?

Provide details [Free text]

Standards and Assurance

Question 114

Do you use standards or guidelines to assess adoptability? [Yes/No]

If yes, which? [Free text]

Question 115

How do you provide assurance that private management arrangements are sustainable and affordable for residents?

Provide details [Free text]

Improvements and Good Practice

Question 116

What changes would help make adoption easier and more consistent?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 117

Do you have examples of good practice you would like to share?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 118

Is there anything else you would like to tell us?

Provide details [Free text]

Developers

About Your Organisation

Question 119

Please provide a brief summary of your organisation.

Provide details [Free text]

Question 120

How many homes do you build in a typical year?

• under 10
• 11-50
• 51-100
• 101-500
• 501-1000
• 1000+

Question 121

As a percentage, how many of these will be built on estates with estate management companies?

Provide details [Free Text]

Adoption Preferences and Practices

Question 122

Do you generally seek adoption of amenities on new developments? [Yes/No]

Explain why [Free text]

Question 123

What types of amenities do you typically offer for adoption?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 124

Are there amenities you prefer to keep under private management? [Yes/No]

Explain why [Free text]

Barriers and Standards

Question 125

What are the main barriers to adoption of amenities?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 126

Do you encounter inconsistencies in adoption standards across authorities? [Yes/No]

Provide examples [Free text]

Question 127

What standards do you follow when designing amenities for adoption?

Provide details [Free text]

Costs and Contributions

Question 128

Do you pay commuted sums or other financial contributions for adopted amenities?

[Yes/No]

Explain how these are calculated[Free text]

Question 129

How much does this cost?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 130

If mandatory adoption were introduced, what would be the estimated cost impact on your organisation?

Provide details [Free text]

Performance Bonds and Inspection Fees

Question 131

Are you required to provide performance bonds or inspection fees? [Yes/No]

Please explain your experience and challenges [Free text]

Question 132

How much are these fees?

Provide details [Free Text]

Question 133

Do you believe these mechanisms are effective in ensuring quality? [Yes/No]

Explain why [Free text]

Estate Management and Consumer Impact

Question 134

How do you select estate management companies where amenities are not adopted?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 135

Why do you think amenities are often not delivered to an adoptable standard?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 136

What do you think are the most important aspects of estate management?

Provide details [Free text]

Additional Feedback

Question 137

Is there anything else you would like to tell us?

Provide details [Free text]

Estate Management Companies (Including Resident-Controlled Management Companies)

About Your Organisation

Question 138

Please provide a brief summary of your organisation.

Provide details [Free text]

Question 139

How many estates do you manage and how many customers do you serve?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 140

Which types of amenities do you manage (e.g., green spaces, play areas, private roads, lighting, drainage)?

Provide details [Free text]

Funding and Charges

Question 141

How is your management activity funded (estate management charges or other sources)?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 142

What is the average estate management charge?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 143

Do you receive commuted sums, endowments, or other contributions from developers or authorities? [Yes/No]

Provide details[ Free text]

Question 144

Do you operate sinking funds or reserves for long-term maintenance? [Yes/No]

Services and Practices

Question 145

What services do you provide beyond basic maintenance (e.g., community engagement, sustainability initiatives)?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 146

Do residents need permission for certain actions (e.g., home improvements, sale packs)? [Yes/No]

Provide details and costs[Free text]

Question 147

Do residents have a formal role in decision-making (e.g., RMC, advisory boards)? [Yes/No]

Please explain [Free text]

Challenges and Improvements

Question 148

What are the biggest issues residents report?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 149

What are the main challenges in managing estates effectively?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 150

Why do you think amenities are often not delivered to an adoptable standard?

Provide details [Free text]

Good Practice and Additional Feedback

Question 151

What works well about the existing arrangements?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 152

How do you work with residents to resolve issues?

Provide details [Free text]

Question 153

Have you supported transitions to resident-led management? [Yes/No]

Provide examples [Free text]

Question 154

Is there anything else you would like to tell us?

Provide details [Free text]

Other information

Impact on people with protected characteristics and the environment

In addition to the more specific policy design questions, we are keen to understand perceived impact in a range of areas.

The Public Sector Equality Duty, set out in the Equality Act 2010, requires us to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relationship between different groups. We are seeking views on potential impacts on those groups.

Question 155

Do you believe any of the proposals put forward could negatively or positively impact individuals who have a protected characteristic?

[Yes/No] Age

[Yes/No] Disability

[Yes/No] Sex

[Yes/No] Gender Reassignment

[Yes/No] Marriage or civil partnership

[Yes/No] Pregnancy and maternity

[Yes/No] Race (colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins)

[Yes/No] Religion or Belief

[Yes/No] Sexual orientation

[If you have answered yes to any of the above]

Please explain your rationale and evidence your thinking where possible. [Free text]

The Environment Act 2021 established a legal duty in England to also have due regard to five Environmental Principles. Their purpose is to prevent environmental damage and enhance the environment. We are keen to hear views on any perceived environmental impacts of this policy.

Question 156

Do you anticipate any environmental impacts from this policy, either positive or negative? [Yes/No]

If yes, please elaborate. How could positive impacts be maximised or negative impacts be mitigated or minimised? [Free text]

Glossary of key terms

Term	Definition
Adopted amenities	Amenities within a housing development that have been formally taken over by a public authority (such as a local council, highways authority, or water company) for long-term maintenance and management. Adoption usually occurs after the amenities meet agreed quality standards and developers provide any required financial contributions (e.g., commuted sums). Once adopted, the cost of upkeep is funded through public resources rather than estate management charges paid by homeowners.
Amenity or Amenities	A feature, facility, or piece of infrastructure provided within a housing development to support residents and, often, the wider public. This may include roads, drains and sewers, sustainable drainage systems, and open spaces. Amenities may be: - Adopted – maintained by public authorities after meeting agreed standards. - Unadopted – maintained privately by homeowners through estate management charges.
CMA	‘Competition and Markets Authority’
Communal areas	Areas on housing estates that are accessible to members of the public and which contain a number of public amenities, including highways (that incorporates street furniture and streetlights), sewers and drains, sustainable urban drainage systems, and open spaces (including playgrounds, wildlife areas, woodland). The public amenities in the communal area for which individual homeowners are responsible for contributing towards their management and maintenance is set out in property deeds or other legally binding document.
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)	The CMA is the UK’s principal competition and consumer authority. It is an independent non-ministerial government department, and its responsibilities include carrying out investigations into mergers and markets and enforcing competition and consumer law. The CMA helps people, businesses and the UK economy by promoting competitive markets and tackling unfair behaviour.
Commuted Sums	Financial contributions paid by developers to public authorities to cover future maintenance costs of adopted amenities.
Developer	Private developers of new housing and infrastructure on new development, it may include registered providers of social housing and local authorities.
Embedded Management Company (EMC)	A contractual arrangement where a specific management company is named in property deeds, limiting homeowner choice
EMC	‘Estate Management Company’ or ‘Estates Management Companies’
Estate management charge (or estate charge)	A financial contribution payable by a homeowner for managing and maintaining public amenities in communal areas. Details of what can (and cannot) be charged by the estate manager and the proportion of the charge to be paid by the individual homeowner will be set out in the property deeds.
Estate management charge demand	An estate management charge demand is an invoice issued by the estate manager or managing agent setting out the contribution that a homeowner is required to pay for a specified period as set out in the property deeds to contribute towards the management and maintenance of a number of public amenities on communal areas.
Estate manager	Any person who has a right to enforce payment of an estate management charge. An estate manager may be a private or resident management company.
Event fee	A fee payable under a term of or relating to a residential lease of a retirement property on certain events such as resale or sub-letting. Event fees may be referred to by a variety of names including exit fees, transfer fees, deferred management fees, contingency fees and selling service fees.
Homeowner	A homeowner is a person or company who owns a property on an estate and who has a legal obligation to pay an estate management charge (not service charge) for the management and maintenance of public amenities on communal areas. This may include a freehold homeowner or a leaseholder.
Managing agent	An individual or company appointed to run and manage the communal areas on behalf of an estate manager
Performance Bonds	Financial guarantees provided by developers to ensure amenities meet adoptable standards before adoption.
Public amenities	Shared infrastructure and facilities provided within housing developments that are intended for public use including highways, sewers, pumping stations, sustainable drainage systems, public open spaces and green infrastructure.
Residents	This includes homeowners, social housing tenants and private renters.  Social housing tenants and private renters may also pay for unadopted communal amenities indirectly through a service charge or rent to their landlord.
Resident Management Company (RMC) or Resident-Controlled Management Company	A company controlled by residents to manage communal amenities.
Right to Manage (RTM)	The RTM is a no-fault right, that can be exercised regardless of whether the landlord has breached any of their management obligations.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs)	Drainage solutions designed to manage surface water sustainably, often required in new developments.
Unadopted amenities	Infrastructure and communal facilities within a housing development that have not been formally taken over by a public authority for long-term maintenance. Instead, these amenities are managed privately, usually by an Estate Management Company (EMC) or a Resident Management Company (RMC) and funded through estate management charges paid by homeowners.

About this consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and UK data protection legislation). In certain circumstances this may therefore include personal data when required by law.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the information access regimes and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will at all times process your personal data in accordance with UK data protection legislation and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included below.

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles?  If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Personal data

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are entitled to under UK data protection legislation. Note that this section only refers to personal data (your name, contact details and any other information that relates to you or another identified or identifiable individual personally) not the content otherwise of your response to the consultation.

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of our Data Protection Officer    

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or by writing to the following address:

Data Protection Officer,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DF

2. Why we are collecting your personal data  

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters.

We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose.

Sensitive types of personal data

Please do not share special category personal data or criminal offence data if we have not asked for this unless absolutely necessary for the purposes of your consultation response. By ‘special category personal data’, we mean information about a living individuals:

• race
• ethnic origin
• political opinions
• religious or philosophical beliefs
• trade union membership
• genetics
• biometrics 
• health (including disability-related information)
• sex life; or
• sexual orientation.

By ‘criminal offence data’, we mean information relating to a living individual’s criminal convictions or offences or related security measures.

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

The collection of your personal data is lawful under article 6(1)(e) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation as it is necessary for the performance by MHCLG of a task in the public interest/in the exercise of official authority vested in the data controller.  Section 8(d) of the Data Protection Act 2018 states that this will include processing of personal data that is necessary for the exercise of a function of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department i.e. in this case a consultation.

Where necessary for the purposes of this consultation, our lawful basis for the processing of any special category personal data or ‘criminal offence’ data (terms explained under ‘Sensitive Types of Data’) which you submit in response to this consultation is as follows. The relevant lawful basis for the processing of special category personal data is Article 9(2)(g) UK GDPR (‘substantial public interest’), and Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘statutory etc and government purposes’). The relevant lawful basis in relation to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences data is likewise provided by Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

MHCLG may appoint a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Department and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation. We may also make use of Artificial Intelligence in the analysis of responses. Where we do, we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation.

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period.

Your personal data will be held for two years from the closure of the consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point.

6. Your rights, e.g. access, rectification, restriction, objection

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right:

• to see what data we have about you
• to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record
• to ask to have your data corrected if it is incorrect or incomplete
• to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances
• to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law.  You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.

Please contact us at the following address if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO: dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or:

Knowledge and Information Access Team,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DF

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas.

8. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making.

9. Your personal data will be stored in a secure government IT system.

We use a third-party system, Citizen Space, to collect consultation responses. In the first instance your personal data will be stored on their secure UK-based server. Your personal data will be transferred to our secure government IT system as soon as possible, and it will be stored there for two years before it is deleted.

1. We refer to ‘Privately Managed Estates’ in this document but these types of estates may also be referred to as ‘fleecehold’ or ‘freehold estates. ↩

2. The CMA referred to common standards as “common adoptable standards”. ↩