EIR - Cane Hill Park [Aug 2025]

[Section 40 Personal information] (Cane Hill Park, Optivo) that requires substantial remedial works due to noise and vibration issues. The disruption and impact of this cannot be understated. I have two questions:

1.) Our Shared Ownership lease states (clause 6.6)

If the whole or any part of the Premises (or the Common Parts necessary for access to it) are destroyed or damaged by fire or any other risks covered by the Landlord’s insurance so as to be rendered unfit for use then (unless the insurance money is irrecoverable by reason of any act or default of the Leaseholder) the Specified Rent or a fair proportion of it shall be suspended until the Premises (and the Common Parts necessary for access) are again fit for use.

Can you please advise on whether residents can legitimately be asked to pay the specified rent during the decant, when we have been told we must "vacate your home to carry out vital building works" Ditto for the service charge. Optivo have recently emailed and stated they expect both the specified rent and service charge to be paid, whilst we are forced out due to the works (these have been delayed multiple times and the expected time has increased to 42 weeks)

Does the NHBC warranty still in effect count as "landlord's insurance" for the purposes of the above?

2.) Should the housing association Optivo offer a buyback option. It seems they were aware of the noise/vibrations transference issue as early as 2018 but continued to sell flats to leaseholders without making them aware of it.

What would such a buyback look like in practice? For example, would mortgage interest and shared ownership rent be paid back to residents? What valuation would be used? Any other information around this would be helpful.

In answer to this question: "Please confirm if Optivo will buy back flats? If not, are shared owners able to sub-let their flats?" Optivo's response was: [Section 40 Personal information]

11.64 An area of moderate residential growth based on available land will be focussed on the District Centre and its surrounding area with a new residential community, delivered in Cane Hill. Residential development will respect the existing character and local distinctiveness.

The character of the road is one of widely-spaced detached and semi-detached houses with large verdant gardens. The proposed development does not respect the existing character and presents intense, not moderate residential growth.

[Section 40 Personal information]

I understand, finally the roads will be handed over by the developer. However, the current condition of roads may require some maintenance works before it can be handed over. I have raised this issue several times with the developer and management teams but no luck. Therefore, GLA, as a main land owner and development partner, hopefully will be able to raise this issue with the developer. Possibly a condition survey caried out by 3rd party independent engineer should clarify if there are any maintenance required before hand over after years of contruction traffics used this road.

Thank you for the effort and response.

Please see attached screenshot the number of times I have raised this issue with FirstPort. They just close the query without taking any action!

I have in touch with the voluntary directors as well and they have provided me the below response:

"We have forwarded your concerns on to the shadow directors for Cane Hill. Unfortunately the Residents' Association does not get involved with the Management Company directly as such, but you do raise a very valid point so thank you for raising this with us."

The Cane Hill Drive is still being managed (until December for sure) by Barratt due to the ongoing construction work.

I have contacted Barrat Homes several time regarding the road issue as well as snagging of the house, see attached email.

I find their response incorrect considering the attached extract and the response from the voluntary directors.

Just for the information, I have purchased this house over 5 and half years now and the developer yet to complete the snagging works!

Therefore, the only option I found is to contact directly to the Mayor of London as being the JV partner of this development.

I wonder if there is a process to add new areas to ULEZ? We live in a private estate (about 600 homes) on the border of ULEZ zone. Local motorists drive through our estate and parking their cars on our roads to avoid ULEZ.

This generates noise and air pollution and makes our roads less safe. The are multiple play grounds dotted along the main road that was not planned or designed for heavy traffic. Location details: Croydon - Cane Hill Park

Cane Hill, South London – Barratt Developments Plc

HTA Design | Cane Hill

I am researching some historical information that would previously have been held by English Partnerships (or Homes & Communities Agency) in the late 1990s / early 2000s in relation to Cane Hill Hospital, Coulsdon, Surrey. CR5 3YL.

I have previously contacted Homes England and GLAEnquiries regarding this matter without success. Homes England told me that they would have passed any information about Cane Hill onto the GLA around 2012 and GLAEnquiries drew a blank and suggested I make an FOI request to the GLA, which I am now doing.

As background, around late 1990s / early 2000s, English Partnerships added Cane Hill Hospital to the Hospital Sites Programme for re-purposing or redevelopment and there would have been surveys and other specialists' reports regarding the condition of the property/site that would have covered its structure and condition, including the presence of hazardous materials.

Normandie Analytical Services (NAS Ltd) are likely to have participated in the hazardous material analysis and production of a risk report of the site contents. Squibb Group Ltd were contracted for the demolition of the site including removal of the hazardous materials.

I would like to request copies of any such site survey reports that you may hold, particularly in relation to the presence of hazardous materials / asbestos at Cane Hill. These would have likely been produced between about 1998 and 2005 prior to redevelopment of Cane Hill.

If your search time permits, please can you also widen the search and supply me with any other documents you may hold specifically concerning the presence of asbestos - at Cane Hill Hospital between 1993 and 2008.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am writing to request detailed information regarding the Cane Hill Park development in Coulsdon, specifically in relation to infrastructure that remains under the ownership of GLA Land and Property Limited (GLAP). I kindly request the following:

1. Ownership and Land Status

• Please confirm the current ownership status of all communal infrastructure (including internal roads, public open spaces, and footpaths) within the Cane Hill Park development.
• Please provide a map or breakdown of land parcels that remain under GLAP ownership as of the date of this request.

2. Agreements with Developer

• Please provide copies of or detailed summaries of all development agreements, leases, build leases, or service-level arrangements between GLAP and the developer (Barratt Developments and its affiliates) concerning this site. - Please outline the developer’s specific responsibilities for constructing, maintaining, and/or handing over communal infrastructure and public assets.
• Is there any agreement or timeline for adoption of roads and open spaces by the local authority or another body?

3. Oversight, Monitoring, and Handover Assurance

• What surveys, technical assessments, or inspections were conducted by GLAP or its representatives to confirm that the developer constructed the GLA-owned infrastructure to the required standards?
• Were completion certificates or handover reports issued for roads, (especially after the roads were intensively used by BDW construction traffics), open spaces, or other communal infrastructure? - If no such surveys were conducted, please explain what quality assurance process was followed to validate developer compliance before transfer or continued GLA ownership.

4. Management Structure and Potential Conflicts of Interest

• The maintenance costs of these GLA-owned infrastructures are currently borne by residents through payments to the Cane Hill Park Management Company, which was appointed by the developer.
• Does the GLA consider this arrangement to pose a potential conflict of interest, given the developer's role in both building the infrastructure and appointing the entity responsible for maintaining it?
• Has the GLA conducted any review or audit of this governance structure, particularly to protect residents' interests?

5. Complaints and Compliance

• Has the GLA or GLAP received any complaints, reports of non-compliance, or correspondence from residents regarding the condition or ongoing management of infrastructure on GLA-owned land at Cane Hill Park?
• If so, please summarise the issues raised and any actions taken by the GLA or GLAP in response. I would prefer the response in electronic format (PDF or Word). If this request exceeds the cost limit or requires clarification, please contact me so I can refine the scope.