Purpose

To introduce a new service charge for leasehold customers, aimed at recovering some costs associated with maintaining shared external spaces around flats and maisonette properties. This measure will prevent tenants rent from being used to fund this service, which is currently provided by the Parks and Countryside team, and will align with the principles of full cost recovery as outlined in the Leasehold Management Policy, which was approved in December 2025.

Decision

a)    To approve the introduction of a new service charge for leaseholders to recover the costs associated with external space maintenance.

b)    To implement a consistent and transparent charging model for external space maintenance in line with lease agreements and the Leasehold Management Policy (December 2025).

c)    To introduce the new charge from March 2027, supported by a programme of communication and engagement with leaseholders.

Reasons for the decision

The decision provides a fair, consistent and legally robust framework for the recovery of costs associated with maintaining external spaces linked to leasehold properties. It addresses a long-standing inconsistency in current arrangements, where costs are incurred but not fully recovered, resulting in financial pressure on the Housing Revenue Account and an inequitable subsidy from tenants.

The introduction of a structured and transparent charging model ensures that leaseholders contribute appropriately to services from which they benefit. It also supports the Council’s wider strategic objectives by enabling the sustainable maintenance of external environments, contributing to safer, more green and better managed neighbourhoods, while improving transparency and reducing the risk of dispute.

Alternative options considered

The option to continue absorbing costs within the Housing Revenue Account without recovering them from leaseholders was considered but rejected due to its financial unsustainability and the inequity it creates between tenants and leaseholders.

The option to introduce partial or inconsistent charging was also rejected, as it would not address existing inconsistencies, could increase confusion and challenge, and would fail to deliver a fair and transparent approach across all estates.

A full, consistent and transparent charging model was therefore identified as the preferred option.