Farewell BVPI64?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, BVPI64 is not one of the 198 national performance indicators proposed by the government in their latest document on how they propose to performance manage local authorities. Nor are any of the CPA measures (H18, H23) included. Nor is there any alternative proposed.
We might be able to adapt the guidance for NI170 to ensure it includes vacant homes - but the criterion is empty over five years. Nor does this monitor pro-active performance of local authorities the way that BVPI64 purports to do.
No doubt many will want to lobby for one or another of these to be re-instituted. I think we would be unlikely succeed. My view is that we need to concentrate on KLOEs and make sure that guidance is absolutely clear on the need for local authorities to have an effective empty homes strategy if they are to proceed beyond "fair" in their CPA assessment.
- Forums
Farewell BVPI64 - Hello, the new performance framework!
In respect of this issue, Councils are now tasked with selecting their own choice of 35 indicators from the 198 listed in the 'New Performance Framework'. (You can access the full document by following the link from our library item if you are a full member) of NAEPP. These 35 indicators will then feed into Local Area Agreements (LAAs) and performance against them will be reward funded.
I suspect my own authority is no different than many others in that the different depts and sections are now 'preparing the case' for their own particular field of work to be taken into account in the selection of which of these indicators are chosen - so as to maintain them as a "local priority".Similarly, as empty property practitioners, we need to do our utmost to ensure that empty property issues retain the high profile they merit, particularly with the forthcoming demise of BV64.
While (as mentioned in another thread) there is no new indicator directly relating to empty homes, the issue does tie-in with some of the indicators in the documen, particularly in the "stronger communities" "safer communities", "local economy" and the "environmental sustainability" sections. (E.g.; Indicators 5, 21, 154, 170, 196).
Can we now as members of NAEPP work to establish an overall case for the selection of those indicators which acknowledge the importance of empty homes work, or alternatively put, articulate the case as to how empty homes work impacts and contributes to certain important indicators which should be selected for inclusion in LAAs?Have any members already begun this work and can we share our thoughts to date? I'm sure such an exchange will help avoid duplication of efforts and result in more effective lobbying (at local level) for the retention and support of empty homes strategies.
NAEPP's response (in this
NAEPP's response (in this website's library) to the Green Paper consultation makes some suggestions for the NI 170 definition. When CLG consults on technical definitions, NAEPP could also propose that the NI 154 definition of "net additional homes" include existing properties empty over a specified period.
Regardless of that, I agree with Jeremy that empty homes work is necessary to achieve several other NIs which don't expressly mention empty homes.
Graham Everett
N170 etc - new forum
I've created a new forum for N170 and any other "N" indicators to keep the discussion separate from BVPI64 - as there will doubtless still be further issues that will arise with BVPI64 before it finally disappears.
David Gibbens Housing Enabling Manager, Exeter City Council