Should empty unsold new build properties be included in BV64?
At South Gloucestershire Council we are still using BVPI64 as a local performance indicator, and was hoping for some views on whether new build properties can also be counted, and if anyone has been doing so yet?
As a result of the current housing market conditions we are finding that there are a fairly large number of new build properties, or part completed units, that developers are unable to sell on the normal market, and are therefore already standing empty, or are units that they are not expecting to sell. Some of these may not have yet had completion certificates and therefore not yet set up on council tax.
Within our enabling team we have been supporting our RP partners in bids to the HCA, in order to help their bid for grant to purchase some of these such units, where they meet housing need etc.
We are also working with RPs on development of 'Rent to Buy' options for some of these units, including some unsold housing association's shared ownership units (eg from s106 developer contirbutions) where we are supporting their bids for unsold units to be converted to intermediate tenures, or from shared ownership to other affordable rented tenures.
The Housing Corporation doesnt allocate grant without the local authorities support for the bid, which then enables the RPs to purchase or convert the tenure of such units, to enable them to become occupied, therefore should count as 'direct result of action by a local authority'.
Please let me know if anyone has any views or comments on whether these properties could be counted, as I am sure this is becoming an issue nationwide?
Many thanks
- Forums
Standing Stock Empties
I wonder if the simple answer to this is to have a separate category within our PI that records bringing into use standing stock that has been empty for 6 months and more. If we use "normal" BVPI64 type criteria i.e. without any threshold then all sorts of newbuild will start being counted when the market recovers.
In short my suggestion would be to count "homes that have never previously been occupied and have been empty for over 6 months" as a separate category of success within whatever monitoring/recording framework is adopted. These could be aggregated with other units to give an overall figure for success, provided they can also be segregated out.
Just in passing, it is worth point out that one advantage of no longer being bound by BVPI64 is that we can create our own definitions and criteria that can be more tailored to the realities of the situation. That is what the HSSA should now be doing and the level of refinement on empty property work should mirror that in other categories of statistical recording such as P1es, the BPSA or other bits of the HSSA return.
David G
David Gibbens (EHN Policy and Supoprt)
Empty New Builds
Hi Amanda
I have to say that I'm with you on counting long term empty new builds within the BVPI 64 figures. I've noticed an increase in the overall number of empties, many of which are new builds, over the past few months. As a result we have had to take additional action to bring these long terms into use especially as the bottom has fallen out of the flats market. The properties are still within the interpretation of the Private Sector even if there may be RSL involvement.
However, there could be an issue if the definition is taken literally as it states ‘the number of private sector vacant dwellings that are returned into occupation…' I don't know if this could be problematic if we're talking about properties that have never been occupied, by definition you can't return them to a situation they have never been in.
My overall feeling though is that as an authority we are ensuring the properties are occupied and therefore assisting in meeting housing need - which after all is surely the name of the game - rather than sitting empty for years until the market picks up.
Alex Starritt
This relates to the earlier
This relates to the earlier forum topic "Monitoring empty homes work after BVPI 64". The NAEPP executive committee proposal then would not be entirely consistent with Amanda's proposal because:
The committee will need to consider this further at its meeting on 23 February, in the light of all the comments received since posting the committee's proposal last September.
Graham Everett
Inclusion in Valuation List and Returned to Occupation
The Returned to Occupation doesn't apply to conversions either (or demolitions) which we have historically counted. So it is just a question of amending the Guidelines to accept this scenario if we are happy to do it.
On "inclusion in the Valuation List", as we count success at the time when the propety is occupied we should be able to assume it will be on the Valuation list.
As for how long it has been empty, this would be have to be a matter of judgement and other evidence would have to be brought into the frame. I do continue to believe we would have to apply some sort of criterion to the amount of time empty in these cases only, otherwise there would be no way of distinguishing this intervention from any occupation of a newly built home funded by us.
David Gibbens Housing Enabling Manager, Exeter City Council