Housing and Planning Delivery Grant
Given the recent, exciting announcement of new incentives to local authorities to bring empty properties back into use, via Housing and Planning Delivery Grant, I have created a new forum (under Specific Issues) for relevant discussion.
I have also added key documents into the Information Library, including the ministerial announcement and the links to the consultation document on the allocation mechanism for the grant.
You will of course need to log in to participate in any discussion. If you have a problem logging in, please do let me know by email to admin@naepp.org.uk
Access to the items in the Information Library is restricted to full paying members.
Before NAEPP responds to
Before NAEPP responds to this new consultation (deadline 17 January), it would be good to get members' views.
We presumably all welcome the principle of grant eligibility being conditional on local authorities having an effective empty homes strategy. NAEPP could offer to contribute to drafting criteria for effective strategies. If Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOEs) continue, these criteria and the empty homes element of KLOE 9 should be consistent.
The consultation considers that "due to data difficulties it would be problematic to allocate funding on the basis of empty homes brought back into use". Nonetheless we could argue that it should do so. We could propose tighter criteria for local authority intervention than under BVPI 64. I would favour a high vacancy duration threshold: at least one year.
Do we have other suggestions for how this grant could encourage the reuse of empty homes?
Graham Everett
Housing and Planning Delivery Grant
I'm curious about DCLG's comment that: "due to data difficulties it would be problematic to allocate funding on the basis of empty homes brought back into use".
The Audit Commission has been scrutinising BVPI64 returns for six or seven years now, and more recently CPA indicator returns for empty homes have been introduced and are also subject to verification. Furthermore, HMRC will accept a letter from the LA EPO confirming vacancy status and length as 'proof' of such when considering an applicants claim for VAT reduction/exemption in the case of the refurbishment of dwellings that have been empty for longer than two years.
Clearly, we already have an established process for the reporting and subsequent verification of empty homes returned to use following LA action. While this process is not without its flaws, it has (and for the time being) still is accepted by central government as a 'viable' method.
Consequently, it surely provides a starting point for any measurement necessary in applying HPDG to empty homes.
It would seem sensible therefore, that if the HPDG is allocated on the basis of additions to the housing supply (over the initial 0.75% of stock baseline) on a unit by unit basis for new build or the planning element, a similar rule could be applied for empty homes returned to use – that is, each empty returned to use is potentially rewarded with HPDG. It does of course remain to be established what, for the purpose of this new grant, should constitute a ‘long term empty’ in terms of length of vacancy, and what constitutes qualifying LA action*. But having done that, the measurement of eligible instances should be quite straight forward, on lines similar to those in current use.
*How about, “vacant for at least 6 (or 12) months as verified by: council tax records and/or a dated and recorded site visit by the EPOâ€; and (a revised version of) the NAEPP BV64 guidelines to establish what counts as “qualifying LA actionâ€?
The Government proposal for
The Government proposal for Housing Delviery grant is for net additions above 0.75% of existing stock to be measured using National Indicator 154. NAEPP's proposed amendment (to be found elsewhere on this website) to NI 154 is similar to Jeremy's proposal, but omits any need to demonstrate LA qualifying actions.