[Simon Kelemen]

Last week we emailed all members to say that a full audit of 2024 service charges were underway. The audit committee gets into all costs and we do this in huge amount of detail on members’ behalf. As we said, we will update @everyone when this is completed.

Whilst this is progressing, we are acutely aware of the tarmac installation on Blue Anchor – if owners have to pay for this this won’t feature until the audit of 2026 service charge so we need to get ahead and gain clarity on the source of funding and on the quality concerns many members have expressed.

With this in mind below is the statement we have submitted to Away about the tarmac FYI …… We will of course update @everyone when we have a response:

Formal Notice – Tarmac Works: Cost Liability, Quality, and Health & Safety Concerns

As the legally recognised Owners Association, the FBOA writes on behalf of owners within the holiday village regarding the recent tarmac works carried out on certain plots following the removal of hazardous railway sleepers.

This letter addresses:

1. Clarity as to who is bearing the cost of these works, and
2. Serious concerns regarding the quality, safety, and adequacy of the works undertaken, including matters of duty of care and health and safety.

This correspondence is sent formally and without prejudice to owners’ rights.

1. Background and Historic Context

Railway sleepers have been installed extensively across the village and have always been  dangerous and slippery, particularly in wet or icy conditions.

There have been numerous slips and falls, some leading to serious injuries, of which management has long been aware, as evidenced by the installation of warning signage across the village.

In 2022, the previous freeholder acknowledged these risks and commenced a sleeper replacement programme. That programme:

• Was fully funded by the freeholder, with no costs passed to owners
• Replaced sleepers on a small number of plots
• Used block paving, installed to a high professional standard
• Was intended as the start of a wider programme to replace all sleepers across the village

This established both:

• Recognition of a health and safety issue, and
• A precedent for appropriate replacement and funding responsibility

2. Change of Ownership and Interruption of Works

Following the sale of the village to a new owner in late 2022, the sleeper replacement programme ceased.

No explanation was provided to owners as to:

• Why the programme stopped, or
• Whether the new owner intended to continue the works to the same standard
• Whether the new owner was accepting responsibility to continue to fund the replacement programme.

As a result, known hazards remained in place across large areas of the village and falls/injuries have continued to occur.

3. Renewed Programme and Current Works

Throughout the years, often as the result of the “next accident”, owners have complained of the lack of movement on this issue.  In 2025, owners formally raised concerns regarding the ongoing safety risks posed by the remaining sleepers.

In response, the new owner announced a three-year programme to address sleeper replacement. Parts of this programme have now been implemented using tarmac rather than block paving.

While owners acknowledge the need for replacement works, the execution of the current works gives rise to serious concerns.

4. Quality and Safety of the Current Installation

The tarmac works undertaken to date are of poor and uneven quality, including:

• Absence of proper edge restraints or ending strips
• Open exposure to vehicle traffic without suitable structural detailing
• Uneven finishes likely to deteriorate rapidly
• Increased risk of edge failure, trip hazards, and future safety issues

These defects are particularly concerning given that the works were undertaken specifically to address a known safety risk.

Replacing one hazard with another does not discharge the duty of care owed to owners, residents, and visitors.

5. Duty of Care and Health & Safety Obligations

The freeholder and managing agents owe a clear duty of care to ensure that communal areas and access routes are:

• Reasonably safe
• Fit for their intended use
• Maintained to a suitable standard

Given:

• The historic slips and falls,
• The acknowledged dangers of the sleepers, and
• The prior high-standard remediation undertaken in 2022

Any replacement works should meet or exceed a reasonable professional standard.

A visibly substandard installation, particularly one exposed to vehicle use and weathering, raises serious concerns as to whether health and safety obligations have been properly discharged.

6. Lack of Clarity on Cost Allocation

Owners have not been informed whether:

• The cost of the tarmac works is being borne by the landowner/freeholder, or
• The costs are intended to be recovered through the owners’ service charge

Owners require immediate written clarification on this point.

7. Position if Costs Are Proposed to be Included in the Service Charge

If any part of the tarmac works is proposed to be recovered via the service charge, owners formally state that such costs will be challenged.

It is not reasonable for owners to pay for:

• Replacement works necessitated by the initial use of inappropriate wooden sleepers, particularly in parking areas where weight tolerances have to be higher
• Replacement works where the previous Freeholder acknowledged the responsibility to replace and pay for those replacements

Owners will not accept liability for such works.

8. Position if Costs Are Not Included in the Service Charge

If the works are not being charged to owners, the quality and safety concerns remain.

In that event, owners require:

• Confirmation of the specification under which the works were carried out
• Confirmation that the works have been inspected and signed off as safe
• Details of remedial measures to bring the installation up to an acceptable standard

9. Owners’ Position

In summary:

• There is a long-standing, documented safety issue relating to sleepers
• The previous freeholder addressed this appropriately and at their own cost
• The current works represent a downgrade in quality and execution
• Owners require clarity on funding and assurance on safety
• Owners do not accept responsibility for unsafe or substandard works under any circumstances

10. Required Response

We request a written response within 14 days confirming:

1. Who is bearing the cost of the tarmac works
2. Whether any part of the cost is included in the service charge
3. What steps will be taken to address the quality and safety concerns identified

Failing a satisfactory response, owners reserve all rights to pursue further action.