That brings us to our next item, which is a Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv), and I call on Dai Lloyd to move the motion.

Motion NDM6635 Dai Lloyd, David Melding, Nick Ramsay, Mike Hedges

Supported by Vikki Howells

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the number of roads in Wales which are unadopted, and are therefore not maintained by the relevant local authority.

2. Notes that a number of developers have not built roads on new estates to adoptable standards.

3. Recognises that there are weaknesses in the house-buying process, which does not always ensure that buyers have sufficient financial retentions in place to bring these roads up to the local authority's adoptable standard.

4. Recognises that house buyers are often faced with having to invest significant sums of money in order to bring roads up to the local authority's adoptable standard.

5. Notes that many of these roads remain unadopted and in a bad state of repair, for a number of years, sometimes in perpetuity.

6. Calls on the Welsh Government to establish a taskforce, to include local authorities, the legal profession, developers and other key stakeholders, with a view to developing improvements to the house buying and road adoption process.

7. Seeks to develop a Wales-wide programme to deliver a reduction in the number of unadopted roads in Wales.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I’m very pleased to open this debate on unadopted roads.

Following my election to Swansea County Council in 1998, one of the first pieces of casework I received involved an unadopted road in Waunarlwydd. The road in question was full of potholes and uneven, it posed a risk to the health and safety of its users, and, ultimately, it detracted from the local area’s beauty. The road had been unadopted for decades, and walkers and vehicles would have a hard time traversing it. The local residents and visitors were entirely fed up. Twenty years later, the road remains unadopted, and they continue to be fed up.

The road in Waunarlwydd, of course, is not an isolated case. Throughout Wales, in almost every constituency, we see example after example of these roads. Some of these roads are ancient, and who owns them is unknown. In Wales, several of these roads were developed during the nineteenth century, when land was provided for miners’ cottages on coal magnates’ estates. Terraced houses were often built with minimal infrastructure. With the nationalisation of the industry, some of these houses were sold to the National Coal Board, but what happened to the land between them wasn’t clear.

When the coal industry was decimated in the 1980s, the issue of who owned the land became even less clear. Often without any street lighting, without drainage and without a proper surface, these roads become inaccessible to older residents, especially at night and in the winter months. They are also unsuitable for children in our most disadvantaged communities—they are no place for a bike or skateboard, nor are they safe places to kick a ball. In addition, these roads can also be wholly unsuitable for the emergency services, such as ambulances or fire engines, and can create additional pressures as these services attempt to respond to an emergency. Due to their poor condition, they're often the cause of a significant amount of letters, e-mails and telephone conversations between residents and county councils across Wales, often going round and round in circles, with the problems persisting. 

Unadopted roads are the responsibility of the road owner, if they can be found, or the residents of properties fronting on to the unadopted road, often with no help from the local authority even though they pay full council tax. Unadopted roads, of course, can be adopted at the instigation of either a local authority or the frontages, but local authorities would normally expect the road to be of a proper standard before it can be adopted. Under section 236 of the Highways Act 1980, the local authority is permitted, but not required, to pay some or all of the cost of bringing a road up to an adoptable standard. The reality, of course, is that local authorities rarely instigate the process, and, in these austere times, it's seen as a liability that they can do without. The precise scale of the problem is not actually known. While local authorities are required by the Highways Act 1980 to maintain a register of the roads for which they are responsible, there is no such requirement to maintain a register of unadopted roads within their areas. Therefore, quantifying the scale of the problems is difficult. The data that is commonly quoted is generally sourced from a 2010 House of Commons library note on unadopted roads, which states that a Department for Transport survey in 1972 found that there were then approximately 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales, making up some 4,000 miles of road then. It's not just the roads that are neglected, but the stats are as well. 

The UK Government estimated in 2009 that it would cost £3 billion to make up these roads to an adoptable standard. The reality is that, as well as these historic unadopted roads surveyed in 1972, we have had a significant number of new estates being built in Wales, and we can all point to examples in our own areas where developers have either decided not to put forward roads for adoption, or have gone into liquidation, and where the roads in question remain unadopted for years on end and often in a state of disrepair. 

Will the Member take an intervention?

Yes. 

I've got those statistics in front of me as well, Dai Lloyd, and, as you say, 1972 is going back—well, it's when we entered the European Union, isn't it, or around that time. Would you join me in calling on the Welsh Government to get the up-to-date statistics so we know what we're dealing with in this situation, and then we can move on and get these roads sorted?

Absolutely. I was coming to that as part of a call for a taskforce later on. We need to know exactly where we are now. We are also seeing a rise in the number of new estates being developed with households then subject to annual management fees, sometimes running into hundreds of pounds a year on top of their council tax bills. There can be no doubt that the number of unadopted roads in Wales is on the rise. We might not be able to put a national figure on it— I'm sure we're working on it—but we can all see the reality on the ground.

Since residents cannot look to the local authority to maintain their road, they must do so themselves. Residents sometimes form an association, collect contributions, organise maintenance and deal with other issues such as insurance, parking, tree surgery, rights of way and so on. This brings with it added stress for house buyers, local residents and local representatives, which often results in disagreements, community tensions, legal costs and much local authority officer time being wasted going over the same arguments year after year. There must be a better way, a simpler way, a fairer way.

The issue of legal advice is one aspect that comes up time and time again. We hear of examples of new housing estates being built, the developer going into liquidation, and the residents left to foot the bill in order to bring the road up to an adoptable standard. Very often, the sums that the solicitors have retained for this purpose are totally inadequate—only a few hundred pounds, where the actual cost for bringing the sewerage, roads and lighting up to adoptable standard runs into thousands. For many low-income families whose savings have been spent in buying their first home, this is an expense that they simply cannot meet. It is unfair, and it is cruel. What advice is available to solicitors to help them set aside sufficient levels of retentions? What more can local authorities do to address the situation? What can the Welsh Government do to aid the legal profession and bring about a uniform and fair system in Wales? Members will know that this area of law generates a large number of constituent enquiries. The adoption of roads is a devolved matter, so we have the power to bring about change.

We need to ask ourselves this afternoon some pretty fundamental questions. Do we believe that the current situation is unacceptable? Do we believe that we can develop a better system? Do we believe that the Welsh Government should be taking steps to address the issue? The answer to those questions, in my mind, is a resounding 'yes', 'yes' and 'yes'. 

So, what can we do? Is there a case for changing legislation to ensure that more roads are adopted? Can we seek to establish a national, regional or local funding mechanism that would allow local authorities to adopt roads? What about innovative funding solutions—interest-free loans to residents who want to adopt roads, payable over a long term, perhaps? Is there room to introduce legislation that would allow land adjacent to these roads to be sold, with the funds used to bring roads up to adoption standards? Are there additional duties that could be placed on local authorities to be more proactive in getting to grips with this issue? Can we develop a long-term plan, over a number of years, to decrease the number of roads yet to be adopted? I believe that it is vital that we get to grips with these problems facing taxpayers and residents in a number of our communities. Those residents deserve support, not indifference.

The motion today calls on the Welsh Government to establish a taskforce, including local authorities, the legal profession, developers and other stakeholders, including those people who can count how many of these roads aren’t adopted in our nation, with the intention of developing improvements to the processes for purchasing houses and adopting roads. I am confident that, through collaboration, the Assembly can show clear leadership on this issue and develop a programme that will decrease the number of unadopted roads here in Wales. We must develop a better system, a system that’s simpler and a system that is fairer. Thank you.

Unadopted roads can be split into three categories: unmade roads—I think Dai Lloyd's explained in great detail about those—private roads that have public access but have been made up by the local residents, and people probably don't know they are unadopted roads; and what I want to concentrate on is roads in new estates that have not been built to a standard that would allow the council to adopt them, and there are a lot of those happening at the moment. I know Dai Lloyd mentioned builders going bankrupt; some of this is done by some of the biggest builders in Britain. They're building estates, and they're not building them anywhere near the standard. I've got an estate, a very large, relatively affluent estate near where I live, which Dai Lloyd will know, which is the Herbert Thomas Way estate, which used to be known as Brynheulog, where there are a lot of roads that are unadopted. I'm sure that Dai Lloyd has had lots of letters from the residents and has been talking to the residents' association. I have, and I'm sure the Minister has been contacted by them as well. I want to concentrate on this group.

A new road will be considered by the council for adoption provided that the freehold owners of the land dedicate the road as a public highway when it is built, under a section 38 agreement of the Highways Act 1980, and the following criteria are met: there is a direct link with the existing public highway network; it must be of sufficient utility to the public and offer wider community benefits; the roads offered for adoption will have a wider use than simply providing access for individuals to their houses; the road will remain open to the public to pass and repass at all times when formally adopted; the carriageway and footways offer safe passage for pedestrians and vehicles. That's the easy bit. If that was the answer, there would be no problem at all, but the next bit is the bit that catches them: the carriageway and footways have an approved means of surface water drainage, street lighting must conform with current local requirements and national standards, and the road is constructed to a satisfactory standard. And I'll tell you, I wouldn't know, walking down a road, how thick the tarmac is on it. If I see tarmac on it, I assume it's okay. I'm sure most other people who are not civil engineers would feel exactly the same. And commuted sums are paid to provide ongoing maintenance.

For all roads offered for adoption, the developers must ensure that these accord with the above criteria prior to consulting the councils. Councils do not adopt all new roads built by housing developers. Housing developers can choose to keep their new roads private if roads do not meet the above criteria. Residents see a new tarmac road and believe it will be adopted. Why wouldn’t they? I would. They do not know if the drainage meets the requirements or not. They don't know whether the lighting columns are the right height in the right places, have the right-sized bulbs, are able to have the right-sized bulbs, are dealt with effectively by electricity. How would they? And they have no idea what the sub-structure of the road is like. The first that many residents on new estates know that their road has not been adopted by the council is when a problem occurs. 

Often, a street light stops working and they then go directly to the council who tell them, 'It's not our responsibility.' This is when the irate residents contact, first, their local councillors, then their local Assembly Members and MPs. This is becoming more of a problem as major house builders are not building roads to adoptable standards. This has to be addressed. This needs legislation, I'm afraid. When a new planning law is brought in, it needs to allow councils to set a planning condition that all roads will be constructed to adoptable standards and that roads built are built to a standard under a section 38 agreement. I do not believe that people buying a house on a new estate want unadopted roads. In fact, all my experience is they're desperate to have their roads adopted. Why would they want an unadopted road? Why would they want a road where they are responsible for its maintenance? No rational person, I would suggest, would want to buy a new house and then want to look after the road themselves. If nothing else, it reduces the resale value of the property.

It always amazes me that, under conditions, planners can specify the brick colour, the colour of the window frames, but cannot specify that the road must be built to adoptable standard. I'll tell you now, most people buying a house would take adoptable standard of the road well ahead of what colour brick it's made of and what colour windows it has. This is an issue causing concern for many people. When a road is unadopted, a fairly lengthy process has to be undertaken to get it adopted. I supported a constituent in getting Bishop’s Walk in Morriston adopted, which was only completed because it had one resident prepared to lead on it and do all the work—work with the solicitor, and, more importantly, set up a company. I mean, it's a fairly lengthy process. It's not, 'Dear Sir, please will you adopt our road?' It's a fairly lengthy process, and all the residents worked together and supported it. If one resident had been opposed, it would not have gone to being adopted. If one resident had been unwilling to pay any of the money needed, it would not have been adopted. 

All new estates should have roads built to adoptable standard. As the developers are not doing it voluntarily, I would urge the Government to give serious consideration to legislating, as part of the new planning Bill, to ensure that all roads built must be to adoptable standard. 

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

I think we've heard two outstanding speeches that covered most of the ground and done so, I think, with great eloquence, because I think we all have experience of this issue and it is a matter that really does affect our constituents. It affects day-to-day life and can leave them in a very exposed financial situation. Like others, I've been very concerned to find that we're way short of best practice, often, in the way developers leave roads in new estates. We have a historical problem, which is probably more difficult to deal with, but what's happening at the moment, when we're building record low numbers of houses—it does seem astonishing that we can't regulate that activity more effectively.

I'm very concerned about what happens when roads are unadopted. Just to spell it out: roads, grass verges, pavements and playgrounds are then retained by the developer and the developer usually subcontracts day-to-day management. These companies pass on the costs to homeowners, for freeholders and leaseholders, via a deed of transfer that obliges the homeowner under the Law of Property Act 1925—I think that takes us even further back than the research note from the House of Commons Library of 1972 [Laughter.] The Law of Property Act 1925 is governing these practices, and they have to pay for the maintenance of the land. This is often referred to as an estate charge, a community charge—not a name that evokes very much happiness—or a service charge, and, unfortunately, these practices are not dying out. I share the real anger that Mike had for this being continued now.

We are already facing, generally, problems of affordability with housing. I mean, even people in good jobs and, however, no access to other wealth—or wealth—find it difficult to buy a home, and then to be faced with these sorts of charges and—. I have to say, it would never occur to me to check that the road is being built to acceptable standards and, you know, by the time you go under the road and think of the drainage and everything—these are duties of care that the planning system should be able to deliver, frankly. I think that's what we should be aiming for.

Some of the other onerous clauses on these ground rents are just remarkable—a charge for altering the property, charges even to sell the property. Some practices are perhaps similar to what we're now experiencing with the leasehold crisis coming back, and developers sometimes selling on leasehold, and then selling on those leaseholds, and doing the same with the management companies. They're not required to publish accounts to the residents and to prove the works that are being charged for are being delivered to an appropriate standard. There's a horrible lack of transparency in this area. It is antiquated and it's leaving these home owners exposed to really punishing practices. As Mike said, these matters are now devolved, as far as I understand, and they are things that we can attempt to tackle.

So, if you are minded to tackle this area, Cabinet Secretary, I think you can rely on extensive support across the Chamber, and I do hope that you will move—. You've heard the suggestion of a new law or, at least, a taskforce at first to examine the situation.

Can I just finish with the lack of data? I'm told that there are 92 km of unadopted highways in Cardiff. It is really quite remarkable—[Interruption.] Well, that's their best guess in 2010. So, it may be very different now. But really, this area cries out for reform and we should deliver it.

I'm pleased to make a brief contribution to this debate. Now, I don't profess to have the kind of detailed and technical knowledge that some of our other speakers have shown this afternoon, but what I do know is that I have dealt with a very steady stream of complaints about unadopted roads in my 19 years as Assembly Member for Torfaen. Now, in some cases, those roads have been in a genuinely woeful condition. I made a site visit a few years ago to Brook Street in Pontrhydyrun in Cwmbran, to find that the road was in such a bad state on a rainy day that a duck had actually taken up residence in one of the potholes there. I hasten to add that this was not a water feature that anybody in the street was pleased to see.

Now, I am acutely aware of how cash-strapped my local authority is. I know that they simply don't have the resources to deal with this problem throughout the borough, and I also know that, in most cases, my constituents don't have the spare cash either. So, I therefore very much welcome the idea of a taskforce to bring everybody together to look at this issue. We all know that we are in very difficult times because of austerity with our public finances, but I hope that bringing people together can be an opportunity to look at innovative solutions, like the ones that Dai Lloyd has referred to, but others such as where the local authorities can come together to block-buy materials to work together to do things. I really think we have to think outside of the box on this. Otherwise, it will be a problem that's with us in another 40 years, and that duck will still be there. So, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute. I will be supporting this motion.

Thank you to Dai Lloyd for bringing this debate forward this afternoon. I think it's the third debate that we've had on similar areas. We've talked about cavity wall insulation and leaseholds, and now this issue today. These are issues that do concern our constituents, and it's very appropriate that we discuss them here at the National Assembly and, more importantly, that we seek solutions to these problems.

I'm going to tell you about one example in my own constituency, which is a perfect example of what we're talking about this afternoon. The Caeau Gleision estate in Rhiwlas is an estate of 80 houses built between 1975 and the early 1980s. The cul-de-sacs there are now in an appalling condition, to say the least. I haven’t seen any ducks in residence yet, but there are large, water-filled potholes and there are huge problems. The roads and cul-de-sacs on this estate have never been adopted by the local authority, namely Gwynedd Council, and there are nine of these cul-de-sacs on the estate. Over a period of time, the surface laid by the developers has been washed away, leaving large potholes and puddles, and rock in some places, or the hard-standing. That is all that is left. From what I understand also, there are pitch fibre pipes that have been laid to carry surface water away, and whilst these kinds of pipes were recommended at the time, they have now become damaged and they’re not fit for purpose. They need to be repaired.

There are individuals on the estate who have tried to tackle this problem. They’ve been in touch with the county council, and the MP and I as the Assembly Member have been trying to help them, but unfortunately we haven’t had much success to date. The response that we get from Gwynedd Council is that the roads and cul-de-sacs are unadopted and therefore, in the current economic climate, they don’t intend to do anything about the situation. By now, because of the condition of these roads, the estate as a whole appears to be very unkempt, despite the fact that the residents are keeping their homes as neat and tidy as possible.

We in the constituency have tried to do some research into this area to see what’s possible and we’ve been studying a book by the author Andrew Barsby, a book called Private Roads, and this includes a number of suggestions as to how residents can take action, but it depends, to a great extent, on having ownership of the road, which isn’t always an easy process. The developers disappear over time, and it can be a very expensive process for individuals, of course. According to the book Private Roads, if it’s not possible to gain ownership of a particular road, then it is possible for local residents to make improvements to the state of the road, but they do run the risk of prosecution on the basis of unlawful trespass.

So, it’s a difficult situation, and I welcome the proposals put forward here, particularly the idea of the establishment of a taskforce and having a work programme in place so that we can tackle this problem in a meaningful way and resolve a problem that exists in all constituencies, I would assume. Thank you.

Many of the points I make will have already been made by other contributors to this debate, but I make no excuses for repeating them because I don't think these arguments could be repeated too often. I, as have many others, have had a number of contacts from constituents with regard to the matters raised in this motion, which can, in certain circumstances, lead to health issues caused by anxieties with regard to the financial problems related to unadopted roads. So, UKIP is broadly in agreement with all the points included in this motion and would be supportive of the calls on the Welsh Government included in point 6.

However, could not all of the points and problems noted in the motion be negated in the future by the local authority making planning permission dependent on the developers contracting to provide roads to an adoptable standard?

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

That's what I asked for because, at the moment, they can't make that a condition on giving planning permission.

Well, thank you for that, Mike. 

But subsequent failure to provide such roads would then place them in breach of contract and liable to commercial penalties. Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary will look to being able to give local authorities that power in the future. With regard to historical neglect in respect of unadopted roads, I fear that this will not be seen as a high priority for local authorities. Lynne Neagle has made the point that, obviously, they are under great austerity measures and there could be substantial costs in bringing the roads to an adoptable standard. And, of course, an adopted road will be a further and continuing drain on their resources. It would therefore seem that only the Welsh Government would have the necessary funds to carry out these improvements or repairs, but is there a will to do so?

Hear, hear. 

Thanks, Lee. [Laughter.] I'm delighted to speak to Lee Waters and to the rest of the Assembly as well. 

I'm pleased to subscribe to this motion. Roads are an issue close to my heart, whether I'm supporting them or opposing them, with some of my colleagues sometimes. And at the heart of this motion is the fact that, when you leave the beaten track of our motorways and our A roads and B roads, many of our rural roads and also, as we've heard, our urban roads are indeed way below the standard that we would expect, and many speakers have already spoken about those problems.

I was looking at the website of the Resident Adoption Action Group, which outlines some of the issues affecting our unadopted roads in Wales, including the fact that regular health and safety inspections are not being undertaken to ensure that the roads are being kept safe. And as this is a national issue, there are countless road users who are regularly driving on unsafe and unregulated roads. As Mike Hedges and other speakers have mentioned, developers can often save thousands by dodging the legal agreements that pass the roads on to local authority control—an issue that seemingly has no repercussions for those developers. And I support Mike Hedges's call and others to perhaps put this on a statutory footing to make sure that road adoption is part of that planning process at the outset.

Clearly, we need to make unadopted roads a priority, and in order to fully do that, we do need up-to-date statistics. I'm still laughing, amused, at Dai Lloyd's mention of the 1972 Department for Transport survey that found that there were then approximately 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales. I think it would be helpful if we did have some Welsh statistics. So, I support the call for a taskforce and ask the economy and infrastructure Secretary to look into getting some up-to-date statistics on that infrastructure.

I do think that there is light at the end of this tunnel—pardon the pun—and if we look back through history, as David Melding did, there is good reason to be hopeful for the future. In fact, roads in the UK were not classified at all until the 1920s, and the classification itself was not tidied up until the 1930s. In those days, they had a rolling, yearly reassessment of the classification of roads—probably far more up-to-date than it has been since 1972, but they recognised the importance of a good road structure. And when we went into the second world war, the road network was in a shambolic state, and after that war, it was clear that something—[Interruption.] Tory Government—get over yourself. [Laughter.] After the second world war, it was clear that something needed to be done, and there was that programme of road building and road improvements that has been going on since then. But throughout all of the time, under Labour Governments and Conservative Governments and coalition Governments, the issue of unadopted roads was not addressed, and maybe that's because it was seen to be too difficult to deal with, or just easier to ignore, and it wasn't necessary to the national infrastructure of the country. But, of course, we now know that many of these roads are not just unsuitable for emergency vehicles—and I was looking at a case where an ambulance actually got lodged in a pothole on one of these roads back in 2014—but, of course, those road surfaces aren't even suitable for modern motor vehicles of any standard. So, this is a problem that has existed for far too long.

I'm delighted that Dai Lloyd asked me to be a subscriber. I think there is general agreement in this Chamber that something does now need to be done. So, let's get on with the job of doing that, let's get a proper survey, get that taskforce under way, get a survey to see what were actually dealing with, and then look to bring all our roads up to a satisfactory standard so that motorists and emergency vehicles can drive on safe roads.

There is an estate in my constituency that was built in the 1970s: the roads are spacious, there's plenty of parking, large gardens, and spacious houses. And it is striking that when you visit the newer houses that have been built in the last decade, the newer estates that have been built in the last decade, the houses are squashed in, it's unclear which street is which, and everyone is packed in together and the roads are unadopted. We have taken steps backwards in the last 10 years, and I think that part of it is because the big four housing developers, or the big six housing developers, are using the housing shortage to their advantage, and they have all the power in these circumstances. That's not good enough, and I think this is an opportunity to do something about it. I'm not going to repeat, actually, Dai Lloyd's speech, David Melding's speech and Mike Hedges's speech—my speech was an amalgam of those three. So, I'm not going to go and repeat everything that's been said, but I will just pick up on some of those things.

Adoption of roads: absolutely. I've checked out the statistics and there is one unadopted private street—that's a street with only one access point—in Caerphilly borough. There are seven unadopted rear lanes. But there are 15 unadopted new developments, and what is happening—. I'm going to name-check Castle Reach and Kingsmead estates, because I've been trying to sort out the broadband there. I went out and delivered a letter to every house about broadband and nearly sprained my ankle on the potholes that are in the roads on that unadopted estate. It is not good enough. I've had correspondence from constituents who feel very strongly. And the estate is still being built. People have been living there for two years. The estate is still being built. When are they going to finish? They're stringing it out so they don't have to complete the roads and the infrastructure. It is not good enough.

I had a meeting at Cwm Calon at the other end of my constituency, which is a completed estate with most of the roads adopted, but some still not. The residents there are paying to an estate management company. I shouted the word 'extortionate' when that was being said, and Michelle Brown said, 'Well, it's not extortionate'. Well, actually, I don't think that's too far off the mark, to be honest with you. The residents in Cwm Calon wrote to the estate management company. One resident had a response from the estate management company to her. 'With respect', it said, in an e-mail, 'get a life'. That's from the estate management company to a resident in Cwm Calon estate. Absolutely disgraceful.

Now, I'll be looking to have a meeting with both the developer and the estate management company to look at what more they can do to complete the work that they should be doing as a result of the monthly payments that people are making in that estate. 

Will you take an intervention?

Yes. Sorry, I'm really angry.

Just to share an experience in my constituency where one developer said, 'If you go to your Assembly Member, I will make damn sure that I will never do the work that needs to be done on your street'.

Rhun ap Iorwerth, you make a very clear point, because that is exactly the kind of language that's being used, because the power is in the hands of these people. They're doing the minimum—the estate management company are doing the minimum amount of work on these estates. They're holding residents to ransom, and the contracts that you have to sign to buy your house aren't worth the paper they're written on when you want work done. It's used as something to constrain and control residents and make sure they just keep on paying up. And I think that needs to change, too. So, it's not just the unadopted roads. It's also the way that the estate management companies work.

So, I think—very rarely do I get furious in this Chamber, but I'm, I think justifiably, furious about the way residents are being treated in my constituency. I'm not pleased, but I'm pleased that we've had the opportunity for other constituency and regional AMs to identify that this is happening in their constituencies and regions too. So, I think it's time to take this opportunity to support this motion and ask the Cabinet Secretary to do whatever is in his power, as outlined by Mike Hedges, to take action against these companies that are taking advantage of residents and the housing shortage.

 I share absolutely all of the sentiments and views that have been expressed in the Chamber this afternoon so far. Like every Assembly Member and constituency, I also have estates with unadopted roads in my own area, the most prominent of which is the Sandy Cove estate, which the Deputy Presiding Officer will be familiar with. It's an estate of 250 bungalows that were built in the 1930s as holiday homes for wealthy people from around the UK to come and enjoy some time by the seaside in. But unfortunately, over a period of time, those homes have become permanent residences, and the company that built the estate has folded and left this legacy of all of these roads that, now, are in a very, very poor state of repair. It's not ducks we're seeing in those puddles, it's seagulls, predominantly, and unfortunately, many of the people who live on that estate—. There's a public health issue here, because many people who live on that estate are people with mobility problems, people with walking difficulties, other chronic illnesses, and the condition of those roads, the lack of pavements, the lack of drainage, the lack of even street lighting on those roads, is causing them, yes, anxiety, but also difficulties in just getting out. They are living in social isolation, many of them. They feel unsafe because it's dark. And of course this estate, to add to its woes, is also in a flood-risk area, immediately behind the sea wall defences in Kinmel Bay. It's been flooded on multiple occasions in recent years. So, it's in a pretty sorry state of affairs.

Now, to be fair to the local authority and others, they have tried to do what they can to support those residents. They've tried to look at what the cost of bringing those roads up to an adoptable standard might be, and the latest estimate is that it would be around £3 million, which is obviously a significant sum of money for 250 home owners to be able to find. In fact, it's nigh on impossible for them to raise that sort of sum in order to get those roads up to an adoptable standard.

And worse than that, of course, many of the people who own those properties don't actually live in them, they're rented out, because the value of those properties has been depressed as a result of the state of the road. So, obviously, they can be a lucrative source of income for some potentially unscrupulous buy-to-let landlords. So, that further complicates the problem, because of course those buy-to-let landlords, so long as their rent is being paid, so long as the income is coming in, they're not really interested in making any sort of contribution to bringing those roads up to a standard that is even passable for motor vehicles in some places. Frankly, the situation is intolerable and we need to do something about it.

A few years ago, back in 2011, I can remember being in this Assembly when the then environment Minister took a very brave decision to use some powers that she had under the Water Act 2003 to transfer private sewers and lateral drains into the water system, which is of course the responsibility of Welsh Water here. So, they were all basically adopted, whether they had been before or not. I think what we need is that sort of approach, frankly, with all of these historic unadopted roads, in order that we can solve this problem once and for all. Then, absolutely—as Mike and others have said—we need to change the planning system to make it a requirement that if an estate is going to be built, there has to be an adoptable road that is accessible.

One of the things that really irritates me on nearly every planning application I see these days is so-called 'private driveways'. You've seen them—where there's one single link road through the estate, which is adopted, and then you have a private driveway that serves as an access to about 10 or 15 different properties, which is generally brick paved because it looks attractive, but within four or five years is starting to crumble, the dips are starting to appear in it, because it's not been made up to an acceptable standard. So, we're storing problems up for the future, and I do believe that the current review of the planning system that is under way in Wales gives us an opportunity to sort this out once and for all.

One thing I would like—if the Cabinet Secretary is minded to establish a taskforce, which is an idea that I very much welcome—is that that taskforce sorts out, in terms of priorities, which areas might need to be addressed first, because I can tell you now that I suspect very much that the Sandy Cove estate in my own constituency would be right near the top of that list, for the reasons that I've outlined today. So, I encourage people to support the motion.

In rising to speak in support of this motion today, I will focus my remarks on the experiences of my constituents—my constituents who live not just on unadopted roads, but, as so many of my colleagues here have stressed today, on unadopted estates. I want to talk about the impact that the failure of developers to bring these estates up to adoptable standards is having on my constituents. Indeed, I don't think it's being overly dramatic to talk about the misery that this is causing.

I am at present dealing with three sizeable housing estates of so-called 'executive homes', all built by the same developer. This is one of the so-called 'big four' UK developers. I know other AMs have talked about the problems caused when house builders go into liquidation, but I am talking about a company here that remains one of the big four UK house builders. So, far from being unable to sort these issues out, they are too busy going on to build more houses in other locations, making millions and millions of pounds, before they complete estates to proper adoptable standards. I'm not going to name the developer here today, but the comments that I make later on may hint at their identity.

As the motion notes, one of the most pressing problems relates to roads on these housing estates. As the roads have not been adopted, they're in an unsafe condition. This can cause damage to residents' cars, which I've taken on numerous pieces of casework about, but also injury to residents, too. Again, I've taken on numerous cases involving that. In particular, in this example, it is not just the road that the developer has not bothered to finish: residents of the same estate of over 150 properties have had issues with their broadband provision; a promised playground has not been built; landscaping hasn’t taken place; and a pumping station hasn’t been completed. All of this has a negative impact—a very negative impact—on householders. And in this case where the housing estate was completed four years ago, it has left residents feeling very disappointed that the shiny, brand-spanking-new homes that they were promised have been dumped in what resembles little more than a building site. Some of the householders are so disappointed they've told me they want to move, but the poor condition of the estate means that they cannot do this because their homes have been devalued.

I'm dealing with two other estates, built by the same big housing developer. Here, residents face similar problems. In one case, the work needed to bring the estate up to an adoptable state hasn’t been completed 17 years after the houses were built. I want to re-emphasise that point—17 years, by a major UK house builder. That is just not acceptable.

Now, I've spoken to the house builder. I've met with their executives and received a warm and mollifying response. But in terms of action, nothing has changed. No progress has been made. My residents' queries, pleas and complaints have fallen on deaf years. And what makes these matters all the more galling is that the developer is already looking at a new site in my constituency. Yes, we need homes, but there is no duty on large-scale builders to ensure that works are completed before they move on, and I think this is very wrong.

Would you like to take an intervention? 

Yes. 

I agree totally with what you've just said, and you're placing the problem of unadopted roads within a wider problem: that we've got an increasing number of estates now run by management companies with services provided. I think you're exactly right: the developers move on to the next site without properly finishing what they've got already, and we should address that with legislation. 

I couldn't agree with the Member more. If you take a school, for example, if a school was performing badly and not delivering results for its pupils, then action would be taken to ensure that it was brought up to standard. But in terms of the private sector, we don't have these powers currently, but we do have the ability through the planning review to look at this, and I think it's absolutely vital that we do so. 

I know that the developer in question has also paid multimillion-pound bonds to the local authority, but that also seemingly has no impact either. And in many cases, the sums needed to bring these estates up to an adoptable standard is comparatively insignificant. For example, the estate that has been unadopted for 17 years, the housing developer there told me themselves that the one and only outstanding job would cost just a few thousand pounds to complete, yet nothing has happened.

At the same time as I was meeting that developer, lobbying for my constituents, they announced a bonus package of over £500 million for their top bosses. This may provide a clue to the developer’s identity. In addition, the package included over £100 million of personal bonus payments for their chief executive—for one man presiding over a company where they told me themselves they have over 40 unadopted estates in Wales. It is no surprise that this leaves a bad taste in my constituents’ mouths.

I'm delighted to support this motion today, and I'd like to echo Mike Hedges's call for the current review of planning in Wales to address this issue. I can only hope that it helps contribute to a resolution for my constituents.

Firstly, I'd like to welcome this debate because following on from the debate on leasehold, it shows the importance of these types of debates that actually identify issues that have complete cross-party support, that relate to powers that we have where we can use those powers to make a real difference to people's lives. Leasehold was one, this was the other one. 

Can I also thank David Melding for reminding me of the Law of Property Act 1925? [Laughter.] That wonderful revising piece of legislation that couldn't be contained in less than 1,000 pages and which propped up more bookshelves than I ever came across. I also thank Darren Millar, really, for his exposition of the iniquities of the capitalist system. [Laughter.] But, particularly thanks to Dai Lloyd for his almost Shakespearean exposition of the injustice that does exist.

There are just a number of simple points that I want to add. Firstly, planning permission. We know that whether they be maintained estates or whatever, it's just clearly the case that planning permission should not just be given. Just as we should not be allowing planning permission to be given to new properties with leasehold, exactly the same applies here as well. 

Secondly, in terms of unfinished roads and responsibilities and so on for new properties, why can't we have a simple thing like a National House-Building Council certificate? You have that—something that gives a guarantee if the property developer goes bust, a guarantee in terms of rectification of the structure. Why could you not have something exactly like that that gives that extension—? Because the crux of it is the lack of guarantees and deposits, so that if the developer disappears or doesn't fulfil it, the house purchaser can go along and say, 'Well, there is the money, there is the resource or the guarantee that enables this to be done.' It seems to me that that is the future.

The point that was made in terms of the companies themselves, because what they will say is, of course, 'Ah, yes, but all these are things that add to cost and so on.' These property developers, they work on at least a 25 per cent profit margin. This is it. This is exploitation of the worst kind, and the fact that you have one director of one of these companies with many properties in Wales, some of which are getting a bonus of £150 million—. I mean, it is out of control and it is absolutely outrageous. It is a public scandal.

Just a very brief intervention—thank you very much. In the case of Llys Tegeirian in Llangristiolus on Anglesey that I mentioned earlier, different property holders have taken out different insurance schemes against possible losses or the defaulting of the developer down the line. Would what you're proposing, a uniform plan, get around that issue of different householders, due to the different legal advice that they're getting, paying out different sums to try to get around the problem?

Absolutely. I mean, the Government stepped in to force insurers, for example, to deal with uninsured vehicles, cars, with the Motor Insurers' Bureau. The NHBC is also a similar product of that, and why should that not be extended in exactly the same way? It seems to me to be a relatively simple solution. We talked about the profitability of the house building companies. These are the same companies that said it was not viable to put sprinklers in our houses to prevent those houses being burnt down and they wouldn't build houses that sold. Sooner or later, they've got to be taken to task.

So, the crux is—I agree very much—it's an area where there is legislation that's justified, we do need a strategy, and this is an area where we can make a real difference to people's lives in Wales.

I agree with the concern expressed by the motion that some developers have not been building roads to an adoptable standard, leaving the costs of bringing the road up to standard firmly on the doorstep of the homebuyer or, alternatively, saddling homebuyers with ongoing maintenance costs. I'm therefore very pleased to be able to speak in support of the motion. Others, including particularly Dai, have covered historic unadopted roads extensively, so I want to talk about new-build estates. Please forgive me if I duplicate what's already been said, because I am agreeing with you all, pretty much.

For the most part, if not for all homebuyers, the house buying process is exactly that—the process of buying a house or a home, not buying a piece of road or working out how to maintain it. Whilst it's true that professional advisers will advise their homebuying clients about the implications of the roads not being adopted, the buyer isn't in a position to assess how much it will cost them and to be able to properly assess the risk to them of the roads not being adopted. Furthermore, by the time the buyer has that conversation with their adviser, in whatever form that conversation may take, the buyer has made a financial and emotional investment, and an investment of time, in buying the home. It's very, very hard to walk away from buying that property, and it's impossible to do so if that's the only home you can afford.

But I disagree that the problem lies solely in a weakness in the house buying process. Surely this is a problem caused primarily by a weakness in the planning consent process, which has been highlighted by pretty much everybody who's spoken today. It seems to me that the time to address adoption of a development's roads is at the time of planning consent by the local authority. My view would be that, if a developer wants to build a housing estate and take the profit that arises from it, that same developer should ensure that the roads on the development are of a standard to be adopted by the local authority. Local residents shouldn't be expected to carry the onus of taking that process forward and upgrading the road, hoping the council will take the road on.

The big question for me, and part of it has been answered today, is why planning departments at local authorities haven't already been stipulating that roads need to be constructed to an adoptable standard—it has been answered, I know—and why highways departments at the same local authorities have not been addressing this for years. But this has been going on for donkeys. Planning was devolved some time ago, so the logical question here is: why has Welsh Government not already addressed this? This has been going on for years.

So, the idea of a taskforce is an excellent one, I think. This issue isn't simple, and proper consideration of the options needs to be given, including the amendment or creation of appropriate planning legislation. So, I'm therefore supporting this motion. Thank you.

Thank you. I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking Members across the Chamber for their contributions and the opportunity to respond to what I think has been an enlightening and informative debate with no dissent from the central position that a problem needs solving in Wales. Now, firstly, of course, I need to be absolutely clear that we as a Government are responsible for the motorway and trunk roads in Wales. We do not have jurisdiction over local roads or unadopted roads. But I do sympathise very, very deeply with people who find themselves in the position of having bought a new home, only to find that the road outside is in an unadopted condition, and I think we can all agree that this is unacceptable.

I myself live on an estate that is accessed by an unadopted road, and we've set up a management company as residents, as neighbours. But, for the reasons that Dai Lloyd outlined, many people can't afford this, or it's not a suitable solution. I hasten to add I've never been told to get a life by anyone on my management company, because it is a resident-run company. I have to say I've been utterly shocked by some of the stories that I've heard today about the way that constituents of Members in this Chamber have been treated.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I have copious notes with me that perhaps I should be reading through concerning the rights of home owners and tenants, but, quite frankly, I think it's worth cutting to the chase, because the problem associated with unadopted roads is both a local and national issue. In my view, it therefore justifies a national approach to ensure a consistent approach across all authorities. Coming up with a solution requires input from many key players, including, but not limited to, Welsh Government, local highway and planning authorities, national parks, the legal profession, developers, the National House-Building Council and mortgage companies.

There are two areas that require consideration: there is the here-and-now issue around bringing existing unadopted roads to adoptable standards, and then there is also the need to develop a way that avoids existing issues being repeated in future developments. I accept that the Welsh Government has an important role to instigate this change, and so I'm very pleased to be able to inform Members today that I have asked my officials to seek discussions with the Welsh Local Government Association on the development of a taskforce to resolve this problem across our country. Working with key partners, we will review the current position and we will come up with recommendations on how we can address and avoid, in the future, the issues experienced by house buyers that have been outlined by Members across the Chamber today. As I've said before in relation to other infrastructure in Wales, whilst Welsh Government is not the cause of the problem, we most certainly can offer a cure.

Thank you very much. Can I call on Dai Lloyd to reply to the debate, please?

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I think in this debate we've seen the National Assembly for Wales at its best, frankly. This is an issue of national importance, and it demands a national approach, as the Cabinet Secretary has just outlined, and I'm very pleased with his response, agreeing to the central tenet of a taskforce where we bring everybody together who's got interest and knowledge and, in fact, a duty to sort this issue out.

For too long, this issue has been ignored. My case load over 20, 25 years as an elected representative runs into hundreds, now, on this particular issue. I didn't realise that everybody else's case load also runs into hundreds as well. I haven't had ducks yet, but it's only a matter of time. But it does bring about huge emotion and passion as well, because I've been in so many meetings over the years where people have just said, 'Well, sorry, there's nothing that can be done,' you know. And you're an elected representative and you want to help people, and there's a problem there, and people say, 'Ah, well, it's not in planning' and all the rest of it. Well, things need to change. Things need to change. I'm very pleased with this debate this afternoon. We've come together. We've decided there's a huge issue here. Emotions have run high. Our constituents are getting abused. There's no stronger term. There's an issue that needs sorting. I mean, I was talking to somebody who said, 'Dai, unadopted roads—that's not earth-shattering, is it?' Well, I've just discovered just how earth-shattering it is, frankly, because, if you are a house owner with frontage on an unadopted road, it is a huge issue. So, I'm very grateful—. Mike.

All I was going to say is, of course, a number of people living on unadopted roads don't know those roads are unadopted until they have a problem.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you very much, indeed, Mike, and you were the first speaker as well, so thank you very much. Indeed, one of the tenets that the taskforce needs to look at is a change in planning consent, is a change in planning law. I think we've heard a lot of comments about that. David Melding, in his own wonderful way, took us, obviously, back, further back than some of us would like to remember, or even can remember, in 1925. But the 92 km of unadopted roads in Cardiff was an interesting statistic, being as that's the most up-to-date statistic I've had this afternoon, really. Lynne Neagle, thank you very much indeed with the duck—that'll remain in the memory—and your steady stream of complaints as well. Because, yes, it's a steady stream of complaints that you feel unable to sort out, but the complaints keep coming.

Siân Gwenllian: the new estate, Caeau Gleision estate. Well, it's not a new estate—it's 40 years old—with a number of roads there that re unadopted. No ducks there.

David Rowlands, thank you very much indeed for your contribution—and Nick Ramsay—emphasising the real health and safety issues and the need to change the planning law. And a very powerful presentation, once again, from Hefin David here, about the huge number of unadopted roads and the abuse suffered by constituents, and the same point made by Rhun as well. So, it's obviously—. It's pan-Wales, how people are treated, with a very honest problem that demands resolution. 

Thank you again to Darren Millar, outlining the same issues again, in Kinmel Bay, with the poor condition of roads, with the frail and elderly people—seagulls this time, not ducks—but obviously the huge, unaffordable costs to adopt, and we need innovative solutions. 

Diolch yn fawr, Vikki. Thank you very much indeed, Vikki. And also the point that it's unadopted estates as much as unadopted roads, and that house builders—. It's not just about the house builders that have gone into liquidation; it's about the house builders that are very much nowhere near going into liquidation that are profiting on this experience. And similar points made by Mick as well, in terms of linking it with the leasehold issue as well, and the change in planning. And that national insurance situation is something, again, a national taskforce could bring together. And thank you, also, Michelle Brown, for also making that planning consent point as well, particularly on the new build estates. 

And, as I started, reiterating thanks to the Cabinet Secretary for responding positively to what has been a very powerful debate with wholesale support from all sides—yes, we've had some high emotion and passion and stuff, but it does show this National Assembly to be a true national body when we can come together with our local challenges and demand a national solution. So, support the motion. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi.

Thank you. The question is—the proposal is to propose the motion is accepted. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the motion is carried.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.