Key findings

• A Freedom of Information exercise undertaken by HBF found that on new housing developments of 10 or more units built over the last three years, just 10% of sites have the roads adopted.
• Just 3% of sewers on new housing developments are adopted by the relevant water company.
• 2% of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) on new housing developments are adopted by the water company.

The non-adoption of public amenities on new housing estates is an increasingly significant and complex problem in the UK housing market. Typically, when new developments are built, roads, open spaces, drainage systems, and other communal infrastructure are expected to be adopted by the relevant local authority or utility provider. However, this is happening less frequently. A growing number of housing estates are being left with unadopted amenities, creating complications for developers, local authorities, and, most critically, the residents themselves who face increased costs and added frustration.

For home builders, the inconsistent and fragmented approach to adoption across local authorities presents a substantial challenge. There is no unified national standard for the adoption process, leading to procedural inconsistencies and additional administrative burdens. In many cases, developers are now required to enter into agreements with private management companies to maintain infrastructure, in the absence of adoption. This introduces unforeseen delays and additional long-term costs, which in turn can stall the delivery of much-needed housing.

For homeowners, the longer-term consequences can also be problematic. Residents on unadopted estates will often have to pay annual fees to management companies for the maintenance of communal services that, in fully adopted areas and on previous generations of new developments, would be covered by the local authority and funded through council tax and other local authority revenue sources. Yet, despite covering these costs privately, these households still pay full council tax to the relevant public bodies, receiving no rebate or discount value to those areas, effectively ‘double charging’ these homeowners.

The broader policy context has also exacerbated the challenges that developers face. The introduction of Biodiversity Net Gain and regulations around the need for SuDS means that more land is dedicated to meeting these policy requirements. On some sites, too, the provision of other amenities such as cycle storage and communal electric vehicle charging stations means that new housing sites are increasingly complex.

The issues associated with unadopted housing estates were examined in depth by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in its Housebuilding Market Study, published in 2024. The CMA highlighted widespread concerns about the transparency and fairness of estate management charges and raised questions about the role of local authorities and national government in ensuring long-term stewardship of public infrastructure. The CMA identified the private management of public amenities on housing estates as a detriment to consumers and concluded that the root cause of the aggregate detriment is the decrease in levels of adoption of amenities by relevant authorities.

Two important recommendations made by the CMA on this matter were:

• That the UK, Scottish, and Welsh governments each implement common adoptable standards for public amenities on new housing estates.
• That the UK, Scottish, and Welsh governments each implement mandatory adoption of public amenities on new housing estates (outside of minor, well-defined exceptions).

The CMA also concluded that each government should also consider options to support the adoption of public amenities on housing estates currently under private management.

HBF analysis

Roads and highways

Despite the increasing prevalence of unadopted amenities and use of private management companies, there is very little data on what proportion of new estates are having various amenities adopted.

A Freedom of Information (FOI) survey exercise of local authorities, undertaken by HBF, which looked at over 1,000 new housing developments of 10 or more units built over the last three years found that just 10% of sites had the roads adopted.

The survey results showed that in a third of local authorities, zero roads were adopted in new developments built over the last three years, with 65% of local authorities adopting less than 10% of roads.

Just one local authority responded that 100% of new developments had had its roads adopted, and one that had adopted 50%. All other respondent councils had adopted roads in less than 50% of new developments.

These findings build on HBF’s previous research on the issues facing developers over Section 278 and Section 38 agreements, which found that highway bonds – the financial guarantee local councils demand of developers to ensure the road is built to the agreed standards - have increased by up to 1,000% over the last seven years. In addition, the time taken to approve such agreements varies from two weeks to two years.

HBF has long been imploring policymakers to pay sufficient attention to the process for the adoption of roads. The risks, costs and delays associated with a lack of road adoption also has a significant impact on SME home builders. The conflicting approaches used by highways authorities, the lack of standard timescales and the increasing costs make it near impossible for businesses to plan and deliver housing.

Sewers and drainage

Sewers and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) were also highlighted by the CMA as concerning areas with regard to adoption of amenities.

Under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991, sewers built on new developments can be entered into an adoption agreement and brought into control of a public authority, most likely a water and sewerage company. However, water companies are increasingly delaying adoption of sewer and drainage systems. Until that point, everything remains in the responsibility of the home builder – despite home buyers paying the water bill and standing charge to the water company from the day of moving in.

An FOI request to the six largest water companies found that, over the last three years, they have collectively received almost 2,300 applications for sewer adoption on new housing developments. However, only 3% (79) have actually been adopted. In the last year, just nine sewers have been adopted out of over 630 applications, equivalent to approximately 1.5% of applications.

Similarly, the same six water companies have received just over 170 applications for SuDS adoption, with just 2% (3) adopted.

Through water bills, households pay an annual standing charge to water companies which is, in part, to fund maintenance and other necessary infrastructure to ensure water and wastewater services can be delivered. As with council tax, households on developments where sewers are managed privately are offered no discount on this charge. Additionally, as local authorities will not adopt the roads until the sewers are adopted, the delays to sewer adoption also contribute to delays to road adoption.

Barriers to adoption

Adoption of amenities by a local authority is the most desirable solution and is the outcome that home builders will invariably seek when constructing new developments. However, a number of barriers stand in the way of amenities on new housing estates being adopted currently, including the increasing cost of adoption – for bonds, commuted sums and inspection fees – inconsistencies in local authority design requirements, and the length of time it takes to go through the adoption process.

Local authorities are increasingly unwilling to adopt amenities. Concerns have emerged in the context of reduced local authority budgets and resourcing pressures, with local authorities struggling to maintain even existing roads.

Conclusion and recommendations

The widespread non-adoption of public amenities on new housing estates represents a serious and growing structural issue within the housing market. It has created a fragmented, inconsistent, and ultimately unfair system that undermines consumer trust, places unreasonable burdens on homeowners, and introduces significant financial and operational challenges for developers, particularly SME developers.

While the use of private management companies may provide a short-term solution to the gap left by public adoption, it is clearly not sustainable or equitable in the long term. As research from both the CMA and HBF, homeowners are being placed in a position of double financial responsibility, double paying for services that should be provided by public bodies.

Additionally, developers are being hampered by opaque processes and excessive costs and excessive delays. This restricts housing delivery and the ability to acquire new housing sites, raises development costs, and creates long-term reputational risks across the home building sector.

To resolve this, Government must, first and foremost, take forward the CMA’s recommendations to introduce common adoptable standards and mandatory adoption by public authorities.

In addition, HBF urges Government to:

• Introduce statutory timelines for adoption agreements: Government should introduce statutory timelines for the negotiation, approval, and implementation of Section 38, Section 104, and other relevant adoption agreements. This will reduce uncertainty, cut delays, and help to ensure developments are completed and adopted in a timely manner.
• Review and reform of financial requirements: A review of highway bond requirements, commuted sums, and inspection fees is needed to ensure these do not present unnecessary barriers to adoption. Government should introduce a consistent and transparent framework across all LPAs for costs that can be budgeted for. Additionally, payments to LPAs could be staged, in line with the work being undertaken and payment at the point of adoption rather than 100% upfront.
• Local authority capacity and resourcing: Government should explore options for additional ring-fenced funding associated with new highways agreements in order to help local authorities manage the long-term maintenance of adopted infrastructure and ensure they have the resources needed to process adoption applications effectively.
• Reduce relevant bills for residents of households on new estates with unadopted amenities: This would both address the unfairness for those households double paying for services and provide a financial incentive for authorities to seek effective adoption of roads and amenities assuming they meet adoptable standards and other reasonable criteria.