I would specifically like to comment on Sally Turners of the CLG, quote, "When the local authority applies to the RPT for an interim EDMO they will need to demonstrate that the property has been causing a nuisance to neighbours and that there is clear community support for the EDMO."

Here in Oxford a substantial proportion of our empty properties are not necessarily a blight on the community.  The general trend here is for wealthy people to hang onto empty properties and to leave them unoccupied just because they can. Like having savings in a bank etc. 

We do have properties which are causing a nuisance and they are reported to us however, only by the immediate neighbour. Unless we were to canvas neighbours to see what their reaction was to the empty dwelling and in return have a reasonable response, I would have concerns about applying for an EDMO with just the neighbour as the aggrieved person.  Add to it the request by the neighbour to remain anonymous and the nuisance emphasis diminishes further.

Was not the initial intention of the legislation to help in ensuring the countries thousands of empty properties were not left unnecessarily unoccupied?  For such a small authority our housing needs are substantial.  We now have over 6000 households on our housing register. If the legislation is changed to require local authorities to demonstrate both 2 years vacancy and nuisance then the majority of Oxford's long term empties will remain so.

Mel Mutch