Decision letter: Highways Act 1980 - Section 220

Mr M G Berry
Managing Director
Stately Developments Ltd
Estate Office
4 Myrtle Street
BOLTON
BL1 3AH

Dear Mr Berry

Highways Act 1980 - Section 220
Advance Payments Code
Development at Woodlea Chase, Bentley Street, Rochdale

1. I refer to the appeal by Stately Developments Limited (SDL), Estate Office, 4 Myrtle Street, Bolton, against a notice under section 220(4) of the Highways Act 1980 (the Advance Payments Code) dated 29 February 2000, served by Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, requiring the sum of £59,375 to be deposited or secured in respect of phases 2 and 3 of development at Woodlea Chase, Bentley Street, Rochdale.

2. The appeal went to a hearing on 24 January 2001 before the Secretary of State's Inspector, Mr John B Evans MA (Oxon) ARICS, and I enclose a copy of his report.

Background to the appeal

3. Plans were deposited with Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) in respect of phases 2 & 3 of a housing development at Woodlea Chase, off Bentley Street, Rochdale. These were approved for building regulation purposes on 13 May 1999. The Borough Solicitor served a notice under section 220 of the Highways Act 1980 on SDL with the letter dated 11 June 1999. The notice specified that, in the opinion of RMBC, the sum of £70,459 would be recoverable as the cost of private street works, and required the payment of, or giving of security for that sum in accordance with section 220 of the Act. By a letter of 15 June 1999 SDL appealed against the amount specified, but that appeal was subsequently withdrawn.

4. Work on the construction of the subject roads and footways had progressed at various times after the first notice, to partial completion. In order to reflect the reduced amount of work necessary to complete the streets to an adoptable standard, a revised notice was served on SDL on 29 February 2000 for the sum of £59,375. Subsequent negotiations reflecting further physical progress of the works resulted in the further revised figure of £44,000 being offered by RMBC in their letter of 13 April 2000. This last figure has not been reflected in an amended notice.

5. The subject appeal is against the figure of £59,375, being the sum specified in the notice dated 29 February 2000.

The site and the development

6. The development to which the notice relates is phases 2 & 3 of a residential development on the south side of Bentley Street, Rochdale, which will contain approximately 49 houses, when completed. All but one of the 20 houses fronting onto the western cul de sac appear to have been completed, but of the 9 houses fronting the eastern cul de sac, only 6 appear to have been physically completed. A further 20 plots in the two phases of the development do not front onto either of the subject roads.

Points agreed by both parties

7. At the hearing, both parties agreed to a small adjustment to the length and area of the eastern cul de sac (from 792/m² to 755/m²), and to the consequent reduction in the value of the work remaining to be done to complete the subject roads to an adoptable standard. RMBC and SDL are in agreement that the values of the outstanding works at the relevant dates are set out in the table immediately below. The third column indicates the adjusted values following the agreed reduction in the area of the eastern cul de sac, and the values in the second column were agreed earlier.

Relevant Date	Agreed Value of Works	Agreed Adjusted Value of Works
29 February 2000	£59,375 *	£57,747*
13 April 2000	£44,000	£42,375
24 January 2001	£40,000	£38,375

Note: * indicates that the amounts shown include the sum of £5,110 for supervision, which sum should be added to the unstarred figures.

8. Both parties accept the sum of £5,110 as fairly representing the cost of supervision. Both parties also accept that this amount should remain constant.

The case for Stately Developments Ltd

9. The case for the developer is set out at paragraphs 13 to 19 of the Inspector's report.

The case for the council

10. The case for the council is set out at paragraphs 20 to 26 of the Inspector's report.

Conclusions

11. The main considerations in this case appeared to the Inspector to be:

1. the value of the remaining works necessary to complete the roads to adoptable standard;
2. the appropriate date for the valuation of the sum to be specified in the subject notice, and;
3. whether the subject notice should have been served only on the appellants, or whether the notice should also have been served on the purchasers of houses in the development, as frontagers, and, as a result, the sum apportioned between the appellant and the new frontagers.

12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions set out in paragraphs 27-50 of his report. Having regard to the fact that RMBC have not served a further notice under section 220(4), and having further regard to the Inspector's observations at paragraph 32 of his report, the Secretary of State is not persuaded that a further reduction should be made to the sum of £57,747 which had been previously agreed by both parties.

13. Since the hearing of 24 January the Secretary of State understands from RMBC that no significant works at Woodlea Chase have taken place.

Recommendation

14. The Inspector recommended that the sum required by the notice of 29 February 2000 served on Stately Developments Ltd under section 220(4) of the Highways Act 1980 by Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council be reduced from £59,375 to £57,747.

Decision

15. The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has considered the report of his Inspector, and has concluded that the sum specified in the section 220(4) notice of 29 February 2000 should be reduced. His decision accordingly is that Stately Developments Limited's appeal should be upheld to the extent that the sum to be paid under the Advance Payments Code should be reduced to £57,747 which he considers to be a reasonable estimate of the costs to be incurred by the authority during the maintenance period of the housing development at Woodlea Chase, off Bentley Street, Rochdale.

16. Copies of this letter and the Inspector's report have been sent to Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council.

Yours sincerely

Tim Barrow