Monitoring empty homes work after BVPI 64
Following the end of BVPI 64, the replacement National Indicators do not record empty homes work or achievements (except that NI 154 measures buildings vacant over 5 years).
To the extent that LAs continue to monitor empty homes work, it would be useful if their criteria were as consistent as possible.The NAEPP executive committee recommends that, regardless of what (if any) vacancy threshold is adopted, LAs continue to follow:
- the former BVPI 64 description and definition
- the NAEPP Code of Guidance.
The only changes recommended by the committee are:
- Change to description: To only count dwellings returned to occupation, not dwellings demolished. (While demolition is sometimes beneficial, it is very different type of activity and objective.)
- Change to Code of Guidance: To replace its confusing definition of "dwelling" by the clear definition of inclusion in the Valuation List as a separate dwelling (including any removed from the Valuation List as uninhabitable).
The description would then read:
"Number of non-LA-owned vacant dwellings returned to occupation during the financial year as a direct result of action by the LA."
That leaves the question of whether to use a minimum vacancy threshold for such monitoring. At my workshop on BVPI 64 at our Birmingham conference last year, a large majority of participants favoured a six months threshold rather than none. Do you favour:
- No vacancy threshold
- 6 months
- 12 months
- 24 months?
Some pros and cons of each threshold option are listed below.
Six months
Advantages:
- Corresponds with the vacancy threshold:
- Originally used for BVPI 64
- Reported annually in the Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix
- For expiry of Council Tax exemption C
- For making an Empty Dwelling Management Order.
- It would avoid distorting local authority efforts in favour of very long term vacant dwellings, at the expense of nipping medium term vacancies in the bud.
Disadvantage:
A threshold that low will include many transactional vacancies.
One year
Advantages:
- Corresponds to the vacancy threshold for expiry of Council Tax exemption
- Such a threshold would include far fewer transactional vacancies than six months.
Two years
Advantages:
- Corresponds with the revised threshold (from January 2008) for the 5% VAT rate on works of renovation or alteration.
- Such a threshold would include very few transactional vacancies. Therefore it could reasonably be assumed that occupation resulted from local authority action.
- Forums
Threshold timing
I agree with the suggestions for the definition but in thinking about the threshold time, whilst generally I would prefer a longer time eg 1 or 2 years to then focus work on the more problematic empties, the benefit of no threshold is that it allows for preventative work. ie helping persuade someone who has just left a property or is planning to leave it empty to get is occupied (I was trying to get someone about to go to Australia for 3 years to rent out his home, possibly on a PSL scheme, rather then leave it just in case he wants to visit the UK for a week or so during the years!). Hard to police but could it be properties that have been empty for a year or where there is a "reasonable" likelihood that the property would have ben empty for a year?
Vacancy Threshold
I support the 6 month threshold.
I accept that there will be the inclusion of many transactional vacancies, but to my mind the five advantages that are listed by Graham outweigh the disadvantage.
Empty Property Monitoring
Here in Kensington and Chelsea we have a large number of very large properties, typically 4 storeys or more. Many of these are also either listed or in conservation areas and it can be difficult getting suitable contractors. 2 years is considered a reasonable period for a major refurbishment or conversion project. We are, therefore, intending to use the 2 year vacancy period as the threshold for action and for monitoring.
Richard Clark
Empty Property Initiatives Officer
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Monitoring empty homes work after BVPI 64
Although this debate has ‘moved on’ somewhat in the last few weeks, I would like to put forward the views of the East Midlands Empty Property Forum. The membership of EMEPF comprises 36 of the 40 LAs in the East Midlands region, and the forum considered this issue in its autumn conference on October 9th. The following points represent the views of the vast majority of the 35 delegates attending this conference:
· EMEPF fully supports and endorses NAEPP in its action to retain a national measure in respect of empty homes work by LAs. We believe such a measure is essential in maintaining this work as high profile, and providing for consistency of practice across the country. It can also provide a starting point for practitioners developing their own local indicators.
· EMEPF agrees with the NAEPP formulation for such a measure, with one exception, which relates to demolition. As demolition can be a useful tool for tackling the blight and nuisance caused by vacant stock, we consider its measurement should be retained.
· The vacancy threshold we believe should be set at six months. This is in line with original practice under BVPI64, corresponds with HSSA reporting, and arguably is ‘commonly understood’ by practitioners to constitute the minimum amount of time before an empty can be considered a long term empty.
Having said that, the principle of achieving a measure which is clear, straightforward and consistent, is more important than the precise formulation or alternative options regarding vacancy thresholds, etc. Therefore, EMEPF will of course work with NAEPP in promoting whatever formulation is finally agreed upon.
Regards,
Jeremy Mason (Chair) EMEPF
Moving thinking onwards - this is not a PI
This issue will be discussed at the Executive on 23rd Feb, so it is a good time for people to add further comments if they wish to do so.
We need to move our thinking on in the following sense: this is no longer a single Performance Indicator dictated to us by CLG. We can influence what is put in its place but whatever it will be, it will not be a national Performance Indicator. Some intelligence and refinement can now be brought to bear, based on our experience and knowledge as empty property practitioners.
In my view, all the points made by others are valid and all can and should be accommodated, by recording and reporting more than one piece of information. This is just the same as all the other pieces of information that are picked up in for example P1e returns on homelesseness or other parts of the HSSA return.
I believe as a minimum we should identify the following categories for reporting (each property to appear in one category only):
This is a more nuanced approach and usefully indicates the wide range of work that we get involved in. It breaks down a meaningless aggregate figure into something much more meaningful.
David Gibbens (EHN Policy and Supoprt)
Continuing to monitor BV64.
We have just been asked by our performance unit at Bradford Council to review and set targets for the next 3 years for BV64. In the current economic climate, we are conscious that the number will be severely affected by the down-turn in the housing market because developers the Council have been partnered with are moth-balling schemes, and conversions are not selling. We anticipate that if we project a reduced target figure we will be criticised for altering the target significantly, but neither do we want to set what would seem an unachievable target and fail badly. We are now discusssing whether we should scrap the monitoring of this target in-house altogether and replace it with a target that reflects more accurately the work of the team in directly bringing empties back into use.
Any comments will be gratefully received.
Lorna Frost . Environmantal Health Officer. Regeneration Team, Housing. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.
Lorna Frost Environmental Health Officer, Regeneration team, Housing City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council