Graham

This is something of a victory in that the criteria has at last been clarified as to what sort of properties and circumstances should be captured by the H18, which can be consistently applied by all LAs.

That said, we still need to get the AC/CLG to explain exactly what they are attempting to measure here. If it is truly LA success in keeping the percentage of > 6 months dwellings against total stock proportionately low, and dwellings such as vicarages/owned by prisoners etc are to be excluded – presumably on the grounds that the void is effectively a ‘temporary enforced absence’ which will resolve itself at some point and not for LA intervention - then surely the same can be said for repossessed properties and bankruptcy, where legal processes are working through on their own volition to resolve the premises in the foreseeable future?

In the same vein, it would still be better to consider use the EDMO exemption categories rather than the council tax exemptions as the comparator basis for excluding dwellings from H18, if this is in fact supposed to measure the overall effectiveness of LAs and they are prevented from accessing a key reoccupation option eg on undetermined probate cases for example?

Lastly, it still needs to be made clearer as to exactly what agreements HSa7a1e is referring to eg does this include S 106s, less formal ‘intention in principle’ agreements etc? And should n’t this include conversions as well as demolitions/redevlopt?

As previously suggested, a meeting might still be the best way of resolving this………

Thanks

Keith

Keith Gunner
Empty Property Officer, Housing Development Team, Housing Solutions
Southampton City Council

I think the draft response is fine Graham but just a couple of additional thoughts

1. Dwellings owned by bankrupts should also be excluded, on the grounds that presumably, the property is either a frozen or disposal asset depending on the actions of the official receiver. In both cases, there is little an LA can do to achieve reoccupation until the legal processes have worked through.
2. Assuming the underlying philosophy of H18 is to identify those empty dwellings which lie totally dormant as wasted assets awaiting owner and/or LA action, it would seem logical to also exclude EDMO exemptions under 4c but with a simple time limit – eg repairs have stalled/unimplemented planning consent was granted over 12 months ago?
3. Lastly, not sure what we decided about unbanded dwellings being included – these are typically dwellings which have been vandalised or have deteriorated to the point where they are merely buildings rather than dwellings as such, and the owners have successfully apply to take them out of valuation altogether. The flip side is newly built dwellings awaiting PC/Planning/Building Control clearance to enable them to become legally occupied. Strictly speaking, one is n’t actually a dwelling any more, and the other is yet to become one, so both should be excluded form H18 arguably?

Thanks