New housing: the management burden of public spaces

Many local authorities are reluctant to take on the long-term management of public spaces within new housing estates. Some local authorities are willing to do so provided substantial commuted sums are paid, which can be difficult to accommodate where sites are facing viability challenges. Private management companies commonly fill the void, funded by service charges paid by residents.

Estate amenities typically include open spaces and play spaces intended primarily for residents, often with sustainable drainage features and habitats supporting biodiversity. Larger housing developments may include formal pitches or games areas, or more extensive parks, often intended for general public use. 

A Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) report in February 2024 raised concerns as to the impact of private management companies on consumers, not least as residents often end up paying for amenities used by the general public. The Government is keen to increase the adoption of amenities and consulted in December 2025 on the issues faced by developers and authorities. We summarise some of the key themes below. The outcome of the consultation is awaited.

Common standards – The Government is keen to secure common standards for amenities where appropriate, to drive up quality and ease the adoption process. It sought views on where common standards exist, why they are not met and what standards could be set and whether nationally or locally. It recognises however, that local discretion may be appropriate in some circumstances e.g. in the design of suitable open spaces. 

Mandatory adoption – The CMA recommended mandatory adoption of amenities with limited exceptions. The Government acknowledges that this could drive down quality (given the need for authorities to manage maintenance costs) and therefore sought views on potential exclusions to mandatory adoption which could include:

• amenities for private use for residents only
• high-cost luxury or bespoke / non-standard / specialist design features requiring specialist maintenance or other features with disproportionate maintenance costs
• small scale amenities of negligible public benefit
• where environmental or heritage constraints apply e.g. listed structures
• integrated private management models where residents have agreed to manage amenities collectively e.g. commonhold arrangements
• where adoption would compromise statutory obligations of the local authority.

The above list highlights the difficulty of setting a simple rule requiring adoption.

Removing perverse incentives driving non-adoption – The Government recognises that adoption processes can be complex, costly (including commuted sums and inspection fees) and inconsistent. It proposes to work with authorities, developers and water companies through the Future Homes Hub to look at these issues. The consultation queried whether adoption processes could be simplified and whether commuted sums and inspection fees could be standardised (nationally or regionally). More controversially, the Government raised the possibility of increasing the costs of non-adoption to create a level playing field e.g. requiring performance bonds or commuted sums for private management arrangements or penalties for non-adoption.

Transparency – The consultation noted that many authorities did not publish policies on adoption. Publication on the approach and requirements of each authority (e.g. for commuted sums) would provide  more clarity to developers and would be welcome. 

Impact on consumers – In terms of the financial impact on residents of private management arrangements, the consultation suggested financial sustainability and affordability tests –  potentially at both the planning stage and point of sale - supported by a costed management plan. This could enable scrutiny of projected charges and mitigation e.g. limitations on increases in charges or contingency or sinking funds for example. In the worst case, planning permission could even be withheld. The Government acknowledged however that these tests would add another layer of complexity to the planning process and require authority resource, neither of which would assist in increasing housing delivery.

Prohibiting embedded management company arrangements – The Government supports the CMA recommendation to prohibit new ‘embedded’ management arrangements, where the management company is specified in the sale documentation, making switching companies impossible or at best difficult.  

Disputes – The consultation also addressed the need for mechanisms to resolve disputes between developers and homeowners about the quality of communal amenities and between developers, public authorities and management companies on adoption.

The range of issues demonstrates that there is no single way forward. There is much to be gained from simpler and more transparent processes to facilitate adoption of estate amenities, but the option of private management should be preserved to accommodate scenarios where adoption is not in the public interest. Model s106 clauses could usefully address both options and help speed negotiations.