Funding

The following is a document drawn up by TRAC secretary George Parkin, for distribution to

Arguments for the Public-Funding of a Road Adoption/Environmental Improvement Programme

Contents:

Summary

In order to highlight the long-standing issue of unadopted roads within the city of Sunderland, The Road Adoption Campaign or TRAC was formed. Part of the campaign has included the production of a ‘Discussion Document’ highlighting the main issues relating to unadopted roads; the problems faced by residents, the effects and implications for the rest of the community, our proposed solution etc. While this document and the points it raised were well received and the issue of unadopted roads was indeed acknowledged to be a ‘saga’, many people remain unconvinced of the need to resolve this matter. Politicians especially, are yet to be convinced of the need for a publicly funded road adoption programme. The Road Adoption Campaign (TRAC) has therefore compiled this follow-up document.

The purpose of this document is to convince elected representatives that a phased programme of street works and related environmental improvements, funded by the taxpayer (including residents of unadopted roads), is justifiable and the only way to resolve the problem of unadopted roads in Sunderland and indeed nation-wide.

Introduction

Even though it is now the 21st century and achievements such as satellite communications, genetic engineering and space exploration are everyday occurrences, it is a fact of life that many of Sunderland’s residents (and other resident’s nation-wide) are still living in conditions reminiscent of the 19th century. What are these 19th century conditions that still exist in Sunderland and who are the residents that still live in them? They are the conditions that exist in many of the city’s unadopted roads and the residents are the residents of those roads. Why do unadopted roads, with their deplorable and unhealthy conditions, still exist? Why do such conditions, more akin to a poor third word country, still remain in a nation such as ours?

The main reason is the failure by successive administrations (both local and national) to acknowledge that unadopted roads are a social problem with implications for the whole community and not simply a problem for the residents of such roads/streets. The present appearance of many of Sunderland’s unadopted roads can be attributed to the elected representative’s and officers of both local and national government. Members of Parliament, councillors and planners have presided over a steady decline in the visual appearance of many unadopted roads. Due to their lack of foresight, their lack of real commitment to either the environment or conservation or simply through their lack of interest these ‘guardians of the built environment’ have simply stood by and ignored the steady physical and visual deterioration of such streets. They have even contributed to this deterioration by approving a mishmash of alterations/extensions that detract architecturally and visually from the original neat appearance of these mainly terraced streets. Some examples are so bad that many streets and even whole areas take on a ‘shanty-town’ appearance.

Resolving the issue of unadopted roads has always been hindered by the question of ‘who will pay for the making-up process’ prior to adoption – a residents vs. council scenario. In the past and during the course of the present campaign, elected representatives and members of the general public have put forward a number of arguments ‘why the residents of unadopted roads’ should bear the cost of improvement work, prior to such roads being adopted by the city council. As the problem of unadopted roads exists nation-wide these arguments have even manifested themselves in the House of Commons i.e. several Hansard Debates have included the topic of unadopted roads. Initially these arguments appear to be logical and justified and have over the years served ‘elected representatives’ and the ‘taxpayer’ well. However TRAC members have considered these arguments carefully and we have compiled our own counter arguments. This document sets out those arguments that have, over the years stood in the way of eliminating the problem of unadopted roads. Each argument is accompanied by TRAC’s logical counter argument. As well as these counter arguments there are also a range of arguments supporting our campaign for a publicly funded programme aimed at resolving what is basically a ‘legacy of the past’ and a ‘national social problem’.

The Arguments & Counter Arguments

From the Hansard debates that have taken place in the House of Commons over recent years, it would appear that whilst the problem of unadopted roads is one that is taken seriously and has existed for many, many years, successive local authorities and governments have failed to find a solution. The main obstacle to a solution seems to be one of ‘who will pay’ the initial cost of ‘making up’ unadopted roads. Many speakers are of the opinion that the residents themselves should pay the cost of ‘making up’ their unadopted road - after all they knew the situation when they moved in. This sounds like the capitalist philosophy of a Conservative government under Mrs. Thatcher, rather than the socialist philosophy of a Labour government. Or is this another indication of how New Labour has conveniently forgotten its roots. While the residents of unadopted roads may not be poverty stricken, neither are they the most affluent in society. Yet here we have elected representatives, whose high salaries are partly financed by these residents, suggesting that these same people should be burdened with the cost of resolving this legacy of the past. Not surprisingly TRAC disagrees with this solution - members do not believe that the financial cost of ‘making up’ unadopted roads should be placed upon the residents of such roads. What we do believe is that, this cost should be classed as capital expenditure and thus placed upon everyone - through normal taxation. To reinforce that opinion we have set out extracts from the House of Commons Hansard debate (Nov. 1997) in which these arguments were expressed. Accompanying each argument is TRAC’s own logical and justifiable counter argument.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South): “They do not understand the difficulties that local authorities have in how they spend their money.”

Sunderland City council do not appear to have any difficulties in how they spend “their money” ? – The Seaburn Fountain; Ambit; Durham Road Super-route; the refurbishment of Mowbray Park, Backhouse Park & Barley Mow Park; countless sets of unnecessary traffic lights, the list appears endless. I am sure that it is a similar story in other local authority areas. However, TRAC does not wish to debate the virtues of particular projects – no matter what project’s authorities decide upon, there will be criticism. What TRAC does wish to do however is to ask - is it unreasonable to suggest that authorities allocate a percentage of “their” money, to the making up of unadopted roads in their area, or simply change their priorities. In the case of Sunderland City council for example, would it matter if say the refurbishment of a public park was delayed for a few years, in order to make money available for the making up of the cities unadopted roads. Having worked in the public sector for several years I do know of the problems faced by local authorities, due in part to impractical rules and ‘red tape’ - that in my opinion leads to vast amounts of money being wasted. Take for instance the construction of the cycle-way from Hendon to Pallion. This project was carried out in the knowledge that most of its route was destined to become part of the metro extension, wasting over £1,000,000. Why did this happen? Because under the rules, ‘any budget allocation that is not spent in one financial year cannot be carried over to the next financial year’. Also, ‘if the current budget allocated to a section/department is not totally spent its following year’s budget could be reduced’. In other words ‘spend it’ or ‘lose it’ - a certain recipe for large sums of money to be wasted.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: “Many householders have paid for their own streets to be made up and may feel aggrieved by a decision to make the service free to future users, especially in residential roads, where the benefits will be enjoyed almost entirely by the householders and those who visit them, rather than by the public at large.”

So, a service should not be made free to future users because users in the past had to pay for it and may feel aggrieved, what nonsense. If we were to follow this train of thought to its logical conclusion then nothing would ever change and social benefits, such as free education and free health for example, would never have come about. No, TRAC members do not feel that this is a valid argument on the part of Ms Armstrong and/or the D.O.E.T.R. Nor do we feel it is a valid argument that householders should pay for the making up process because it is they and their visitors who will enjoy the benefits. Do the householders who enjoy the benefits of traffic calming measures pay for them to be installed? Do the householders who enjoy the benefits of a town or village bypass pay for its construction? No, it is the ‘public at large’ who pay via taxation for such work to be carried out and rightly so, for without such ‘sharing of costs’ nothing much would get done. Thus, over a period of time the residents of unadopted roads (part of the public at large) have and will continue to contribute (via taxation) to many projects that do not directly benefit them. Therefore is it not right that other residents should do the same and contribute to the making up/environmental improvement of unadopted roads even though they do not directly benefit. In other words why can’t the residents of unadopted roads be on the receiving end of public expenditure, like the residents of the two examples stated above?

Ms Hilary Armstrong: “My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley mentioned the blighting effect of a street not being made up. She seemed to be saying that making up streets would produce an increase in house prices greater than the cost of the work. That is an additional argument for house owners, rather than local authorities, to bear the cost.”

Regarding the blighting effect, what Caroline Flint seemed to be saying was, that by making up a road prospective buyers may be more willing to actually look at and purchase property. Nowhere in her speech did the Member for Don Valley say that making up streets would increase house prices by a value greater than the cost of the work. Indeed, Caroline Flint made no reference whatsoever to any ‘increase in house prices’. Caroline Flint did say, “I am advised that houses on such roads cost less, which sometimes leads to lower council tax”. This is not quite the same thing and does not necessarily mean that making up a road will automatically lead to increased property prices - other factors have much more influence upon house prices. Many of the unadopted roads in this area for example are located in former mining communities or other run down areas with few local facilities. The properties themselves tend to consist of older, terraced houses with no garden or garage etc. It is these factors that determine the value of the houses, not the fact that the road itself is ‘not made up’. Relating this to my own street, Rectory Road, I am sure that the presence of a strip of Tarmac along its length would have little if any effect upon the value of its houses. However, such a facility would improve considerably the chances of selling a house. As far as ‘paying lower council tax’ is concerned, the residents of unadopted roads in this area pay the same amount as residents of similar adopted roads, since they are in the same tax band. I think these arguments and facts somewhat nullify the above arguments put forward by Hilary Armstrong and invalidate particularly, her statement referring to an “additional argument for house owners, rather than local authorities to bear the cost”.

Caroline Flint (Don Valley): “We should seek imaginative ways of overcoming the financial obstacles to the making up of roads for adoption, such as private finance to avoid the local authority having to make an initial capital outlay. Householders and other bodies with frontages on such streets are liable for making up private roads. The cost could perhaps be spread over 10 years as a charge on their council tax, thereby spreading the financial impact for present and future householders. Private, unadopted roads should be regarded in the same way as outside toilets and asbestos in buildings: a legacy of the past and not something that we should live with in the future.”

Caroline Flint speaks of seeking imaginative ways of overcoming the financial obstacles to the making up of roads for adoption. She then goes on to talk of spreading the financial impact for householders over 10 years as a charge on their council tax. TRAC members do not see this as imaginative since the cost still falls upon the residents of unadopted roads. Below are three examples of what TRAC considers to be imaginative ways of overcoming the financial obstacles:

  1. Over the years ‘tax evasion’ in the form of non-payment of the road fund licence has resulted in quite significant losses of revenue for central government. I am sure I am not alone in suggesting that the ‘tax disc’ system of collecting this revenue should be discontinued to allow the road fund licence ‘revenue’ to be collected at the pumps, via fuel tax. Collecting ‘road tax’ in this way would eliminate this form of tax evasion thus increasing the amount of revenue raised. Applying this to the problem of unadopted roads the extra revenue raised in this way could initially be allocated to the financing of an ‘adoption programme’ i.e. the making-up of unadopted roads. On completion of this programme the extra revenue would then be available for general use. This method of collecting ‘road tax’ would also act as an incentive to drive more economical cars, to drive more carefully and to make only essential journeys, since the more fuel you use the more road tax you pay. These benefits could be compounded by also applying the ‘fuel tax’ method to the payment of ‘third party insurance’. This would eliminate two forms of illegal driving which are both widespread and on the increase i.e. driving without tax and/or insurance.
  2. As regards my own situation the deeds of the property indicate that I own the road (area of land) immediately in front of the house to a position midway across the road. Where this scenario exists, TRAC suggests that the residents could sell these areas of land to the local authority for a nominal sum of say one-penny (1p). The local authority would then own the entire road (areas of land) and thus they would then be responsible for its making up and maintenance, without the need for adoption. The cost of making up the road would then be funded, by either the local authority themselves, central government or a combination of these two bodies. At some future date, when the houses came to the end of their useful life and were ripe for redevelopment, the local authority could then recover their capital expenditure (cost of making up) by selling their ‘assets’ (the areas of land taken up by the roads) to a private developer. Local authorities might even make a profit, depending upon land values at the time of selling.
  3. The national lottery has now been in existence for several years. Its purpose was to generate large sums of money for worthwhile causes/projects from the desire to gamble. Many causes and projects have indeed benefited from lottery grants. However, there has been criticism regarding some of the beneficiary’s and the amounts of money they have received. TRAC members do not wish to comment upon the worthiness of individual cases however. What we would like to say is that we believe a ‘national road adoption programme’ financed from the ‘national lottery’ would be just as worthwhile a project as any so far.

Arguments for Public Funding

As well as the counter arguments to the ‘why residents should pay’ train of thought, TRAC members have several arguments to support our campaign for public funding of a phased programme of street works and associated environmental improvements. Listed below are those arguments:

  1. Unadopted roads are part of the ‘built environment’; their appearance thus forms part of the image of the city – a somewhat negative image. It is therefore in the interests of everyone in the city to eliminate the atrocious conditions of unadopted roads and the detrimental image that they portray.
  2. The thousand’s of homes that bound unadopted roads are an important part of the city’s and indeed the nations ‘housing stock’. Many of these houses provide low cost affordable home ownership for many first-time buyers/low-income families – a category under-subscribed according to a report by the National Housing Federation (N.H.F.) and the Town and Country Planning Association (T.C.P.A). Indeed the deputy-prime-minister recently announced plans to build many thousands of such low-cost homes. Yet many thousands of low-cost homes already exist in unadopted roads. Unfortunately these are basically ‘frozen out’ of the housing equation because many prospective buyers simply turn around when they see the state of such streets, without ever viewing any properties which may be for sale. This results in many thousands of home owners finding it difficult to ‘move up’ the housing property ladder - trapped in their unadopted road, thus creating ‘sluggish movement’ and ‘shortages’ at the lower end of the market. Would it therefore not be more economical to replace a ‘house building programme’ with a ‘road adoption programme’ thus bringing into the housing equation at least 400,000 low-cost homes in 40,000 unadopted roads (nationally)? This approach would rid the nation of the long-standing issue of unadopted roads and at the same time reduce the Government’s responsibility to provide so many low-cost homes.
  3. The conditions that exist in many unadopted roads contribute directly to both the physical deterioration of adjacent houses and to the social decay of communities. By allowing such conditions to continue, deterioration of this important section of the city’s housing stock will also continue eventually resulting in much higher capital expenditure and thus higher costs to the taxpayer.
  4. Having a phased programme of road adoption covering all residential unadopted roads in the city allows us the chance to create training and job opportunities in a wide variety of skills and vocations. These training/job opportunities could include a portion specifically targeted at young people and the long-term unemployed.
  5. Residents of unadopted road’s pay 100% council tax yet they do not receive 100% of the council’s services. Services such as road maintenance and street cleansing for example are not carried out on unadopted roads. In addition most unadopted roads have little or no street lighting or drainage. Therefore one can say that over the years the residents of unadopted roads have been overcharged, thus they have already contributed to the making-up process.
  6. Even the councils’ own publications support our campaign to make up and adopt what are currently unadopted roads. The following extracts were taken from two publications by the city council: ‘A Community Strategy for Sunderland, 2001-2004’ and ‘Sunderland Best Value Performance Plan, 2000-2003’:
    1. “the issue of decent housing in an attractive and secure environment that meets individual needs is a basic requirement – this applies whether housing is owned or rented, regardless of who supplies it.”
    2. “to promote a green, clean, attractive and stimulating city by securing continuous environmental improvement.”
    3. “an environment that is attractive, safe and sustainable also makes a vital and beneficial contribution to the image of the city and the external reputation of Sunderland which can affect the investment decisions of others.”
    4. “develop initiatives to further improve the skills of local people through training and work.”

By failing to carry out a phased programme such as that envisaged by TRAC the city council are going against their own strategy and promises. Over the years the city council via the reclamation department has completed a programme of environmental schemes designed to eliminate what was another long-standing problem – the problem of colliery/industrial spoil heaps. This phased programme has gone a long way to improving the ‘image’ of the city and the northeast, culminating in the recent opening of ‘Herrington Country Park’. This programme of ‘land reclamation’ has proved that the city has got the skills and expertise to carry out difficult environmental improvements. However with only one industrial reclamation scheme remaining (Lambton Coke Works), what is going to become of those skills and expertise? The point TRAC would like to make is that the city can once again prove itself, this time in the environmental improvement of the ‘built environment’ by the reclamation/improvement of unadopted roads.

Costs

Whilst no accurate estimate for a road adoption programme is available, a figure of £23m was quoted by a Sunderland council spokesman (Echo, Oct 2000). Assuming that this sum only took into account the installation of the basic infrastructure of a ‘standard’ road (drains, lighting, tarmac road and footpath) then TRAC will increase this by 50% to take into account a more varied and comprehensive programme that would also include hard/soft landscaping.

Therefore TRAC’s estimate for a phased programme spanning 10 years would be in the region of £35m. Taken over the ten-year period this, amounts to £3.5m per annum, which equates to approximately 2.5% of the council’s annual budget of £250m (as stated by Councillor Mrs. Florence Anderson at the public meeting in Oct 2000). However this figure is a worst case scenario whereby the full cost of the programme is funded from council tax. With government grants and/or other sources this figure could be reduced, by 50% or more. Thus the annual expenditure by Sunderland City Council taxpayers could be as low as £1.5m per annum.

Conclusions

As we are all aware, the problem of unadopted roads has existed for many years. During this time successive administrations have failed to appreciate the scale of the problem or have chosen to ignore it and have thereby failed to allocate the required resources and effort needed to resolve what is a ‘social’ problem. Unadopted roads are a problem that was inherited from the past. Are our elected representatives going to allow it to continue in this way by leaving it for future generations? Continuing to ignore the problem has diverse implications for the city and society as a whole on the other hand tackling the problem has diverse benefits.

The Implications:
As already outlined in our ‘Discussion Document’ the present situation regarding unadopted roads has varied implications for the residents of Sunderland, other than those who are directly affected. Outlined below are those implications:

  1. The conditions that exist in many unadopted roads are a threat to both public health and public safety. The link between poor living conditions/environment and poor health was established many decades ago. Yet elected representatives do nothing to eliminate what could be a prime source of health problems - unadopted roads, with their deplorable and often unhygienic conditions. Recent reports highlight the alarming increase in the rat population, especially in urban areas. Many unadopted roads make ideal breeding grounds for such vermin, with their overgrown verges, pools of standing water, adjacent waste ground etc. Unlit, unadopted roads with their uneven surfaces pose a serious threat in terms of both potential accidents and potential criminal activity not only to the residents of such streets but also to the public at large, since most unadopted roads are public thoroughfares.
  2. The neglected and often Dickensian appearance of many unadopted roads can lead to a lack of pride not only in individual homes and streets but also in whole communities. This can lead to crime, vandalism and other ‘social’ disorders. Once this ‘rot’ has started it is often difficult to reverse and eventually it can lead to great public expenditure.
  3. These same conditions also portray a very poor ‘image’ of the city, its people and its council, making the job of attracting investment and jobs even more difficult.
  4. The many houses that bound unadopted roads form an important part of the city’s and the nations housing stock, especially in the area of low-cost housing. However the atrocious conditions that exist in many unadopted roads leads to the physical deterioration of those houses. Thus, allowing unadopted roads to remain in their present state will result in further deterioration of this very important part of our housing stock.

The Benefits:
Tackling the problem of unadopted roads however would have benefits, not only for the residents of such streets but also for the rest of the city. A phased programme of street works and associated landscaping would have the following benefits:

  1. extend the life of a vital part of the city’s housing stock – low cost homes.
  2. improve the environment.
  3. improve access for disabled residents/visitors.
  4. remove potential health and safety hazards.
  5. create job/training opportunities.
  6. improve the ‘image’ of the city.

From the above it can be seen that the implications posed by the continued existence of unadopted roads and the benefits posed by their eradication goes beyond the front and back lanes of such streets and the householders who live in them. In conclusion therefore, it can be argued that unadopted roads are not simply a problem for their resident’s, unadopted roads are a problem for the whole city and society at large – unadopted roads are indeed a ‘social’ problem. The problem of unadopted roads is one that needs to be resolved. The problem of unadopted roads is one that requires the long-overdue attention of our elected representatives. The problem of unadopted roads is one that requires ‘public funding’.

<<No Menu?

Site design: ECat Partners