Remus Residents Meeting 24 March 2026
Residents Views
Hi Jo
- 1. Playground near school
- I believe the playground that was installed was never fit for purpose with poor quality and poorly chosen equipment which has inevitably broken/ become difficult to maintain. I believe the developer should be rectifying this. There needs to be more equipment suitable for under 10s and particularly the age 5-8 age group who are the most ardent users.
- The playground is frequently left unsafe . Recently the metal bits of the temporary metal fence around the removed roundabout were falling off leaving metal stakes all over the ground.
- There is no soft landing near the weird circular climbing item. The ground is frequently muddy leaving the play item covered in mud and making it more unsafe.
- if I report an issue I get no acknowledgement or update from Remus.
- What is the process and SLA for when we raise an issue.
- an example where the development plan is not working in practice. This green path just means it cannot be used for 9 months of year and 6 weeks when it can be used, the school is closed. It would significantly help walking to school if this path was an all weather path and that can be used all year.
- Homington Avenue is dangerous to cross especially with children and buggies. The speed and the parking means there is no safe crossing anywhere.
- do persimmon pay rent to put their large advertising signs on land managed by the management company and is it enough to justify it?
- Who will be responsible for the removal of signs and rectifying damage to the ground?
- Are there plans to subsidise the management charge by accepting other advertising signs? Do these need planning permission?
- Another example where the development plan is not working for residents.
- This has left an open space without any valuable use.
- I would like to see barriers put up to stop children running from this green area out onto Homington Avenue and some small play equipment added similar to the willow house, snail and sheep that are between Ashcombe and Ilford Close. My boy loves these items and they add character to the estate. Maybe we could add some different animals here to create an animal search challenge.
- I highly suspect the same applies to the green area at the bend of Homington Avenue and also the one near Bushton Close.
- an example where the development plan has no logic. Stops where logically no one would wait has shelters. Other really popular stops have no shelters (eg coate village and Rainscombe Road).
- There is no path or hard standing next to Rainscombe Road bus stop meaninh people have to step onto slippy mud in inclement weather.
- when appoint them? What support will be provided as based on current experience I would not expect many takers!
- several paths and roads within the estate have cracks and ridges and slopes. This feels like it should be resolved by the developer. If in areas already adopted then I would challenge the adoption quality process which appeared to exclude residents refusing to even share the list of defects.
- there are items which I would not expect to come under a management arrangement and are not listed as items but appear to not have clear ownership, this is unacceptable as a risk to the residents and needs to be sorted.
- another example of where the development plan does not work in practical terms. Having the bins so close to the benches can make the benches unusable due to smell, insects etc attracted by the bins.
- some of these worry me. I don’t like my 5 year old getting too close to them. Eg the one on Biddestone Avenue near Lordswood bus stop.
- What risk assessment has been done? Some of the water areas have warning signs, some don’t and only 1-2 have life rings, why the inconsistency? Are the life rings sited at the riskiest water courses or is it just random? (It looks random).
- this feels like a design flaw as it seems as if the wood is rotting away from the metal supports
- This is the third one that has broken in a few years.
- we still have dead trees around the estate. The handover did not seem to take this into account or replaced them with poor quality trees with no plan to water them.
- it would be nice to have more colour on the development with daffodils or other bright flowers.
SuDS Sustainable Urban Drainage System
Enhanced Protection for Homeowners
Subject: Response to Open Consultation: Enhanced Protections for Homeowners on Freehold Estates
29 January 2026
Dear Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
We are responding on behalf of the Coate (Badbury Park) Residents Working Group, a community of freehold homeowners living on a privately managed estate subject to estate management charges secured through Transfer Deeds (TP1).
We welcome the government’s recognition of the significant injustices faced by homeowners on privately managed estates and support the overall intention of the proposals set out in this consultation. We offer the following comments based on our direct experience at Badbury Park.
1. Double taxation and lack of service provision
Residents at Badbury Park are subject to a local authority precept for services that are either not provided at all or are duplicated by privately funded estate management arrangements. Homeowners therefore experience what is effectively double taxation, paying both council tax and compulsory estate management charges for basic services such as open space maintenance, lighting, and drainage.
We believe the consultation should explicitly address this inequity and explore mechanisms to:
- Prevent duplication of charges where local authorities do not adopt estate infrastructure
- Increase transparency and accountability where services are privately delivered
- Encourage or require earlier adoption of estate assets by local authorities
2. Protections against loss of home due to arrears – concerns about cost shifting
We support the principle that homeowners should not face the loss of their homes due to arrears in estate management charges. However, we have concerns about the practical consequences of this proposal if not carefully designed.
In our experience, where an individual homeowner refuses or fails to pay estate charges, the shortfall does not disappear. Instead, it is typically absorbed by the remaining paying residents through increased charges or reduced services. Management agents often continue to pursue unpaid charges passively, with enforcement only arising at the point of sale.
We are concerned that removing effective enforcement mechanisms without providing an alternative recovery routerisks unfairly shifting financial liability onto compliant homeowners. Any new protections must therefore:
- Balance safeguarding homeowners with ensuring estate costs are fairly apportioned
- Provide estate managers with proportionate, transparent recovery mechanisms
- Prevent non-payment from becoming a burden on neighbouring residents
3. Rights for freeholders to challenge estate charges
We strongly welcome the proposal to grant freeholders rights equivalent to leaseholders to apply to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the courts to determine:
- The reasonableness of estate management charges
- Liability to pay such charges
- The recovery of charges where disputes arise
This is a critical and overdue reform. Access to an independent tribunal will significantly improve fairness, accountability, and confidence for homeowners on privately managed estates.
4. Embedded management company at Badbury Park
Badbury Park is managed by a private embedded management company, established through the original Transfer Deeds (TP1). Homeowners have no meaningful ability to change or influence this arrangement, despite being permanently bound to it.
We urge the government to ensure that the new regulatory framework fully applies to embedded management companies and does not rely on voluntary compliance or contractual complexity to dilute homeowners’ rights.
5. Charging estate fees prior to land transfer
We believe the law requires amendment to prevent developers from charging estate management fees before the land and assets have been formally transferred to the management company.
At present, homeowners can be required to pay for services on land that remains under developer control, with limited transparency and accountability. This creates a clear imbalance of power and should be expressly prohibited in legislation.
Conclusion
We support the direction of travel set out in this consultation and welcome the government’s commitment to reform. However, we urge that the final measures:
- Address double charging and lack of service adoption
- Avoid shifting financial risk between homeowners
- Apply robustly to embedded management companies
- Prevent premature or unjustified estate charging by developers
We would welcome continued engagement as these proposals are refined and implemented.
Yours faithfully,
Coate (Badbury Park) Residents Working Group
SuDS Responsibility at Badbury Park – Summary
The Residents Working Group has asked Swindon Borough Council (SBC) to confirm who is legally responsible for maintaining the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) at Badbury Park.
Homeowners’ deeds contain no maintenance covenant, solicitors found no legal mechanism assigning responsibility, and SBC has not identified who is accountable.
The NEV SuDS SPD requires clear maintenance plans, adoption arrangements, and a responsible body—but none appear to exist.
We have asked SBC to confirm:
-
Whether they are responsible for SuDS maintenance
-
Whether the SuDS were offered for adoption
-
Who they believe is legally responsible
-
Whether any agreements or covenants exist
-
How maintenance would be enforced without them
This information is needed to ensure the drainage system is properly maintained and to support our complaint to the Ombudsman; which we have now submitted.