Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the work being undertaken in-line with the Council’s Empty Homes Policy, to bring empty homes back into use. The report was introduced by Lynn Sellar, Private Sector Housing Team Manager as set out in the agenda pack at pages 17 to 20. The Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning was also present for this item.  The following arose during the discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel sought clarification around whether officers knew the number of second homes in the borough. In response, the Panel was advised that this information used to be collected by Council Tax but that it wasn’t collected any more as second homes were exempt under the legislation.

b.    The Panel suggested that the report showed that there were 88 properties empty for five years or more and it was questioned whether there was comparative data from neighbouring boroughs. In response, officers commented that this would be based on Council Tax data and agreed to supply comparative data for empty homes to the Panel. (Action: Lynn Sellar).

c.    In relation to substantially furnished properties and whether owners could bypass the legislation by having a few pieces of furniture in the property, officers advised that in order to pursue an empty property, that property had to meet the public interest test and so the Council focused on nuisance properties and those that had been empty the longest. It was likely that there would be a number of properties that were only used occasionally and were semi furnished as result, these were not necessarily the kind of properties that the Council would pursue.

d.    The Cabinet Member reiterated that the revised policy, agreed by Cabinet, set out that the Council would only really enforce against properties that were considered a blight on the local area and that the Council would not be seeking to force a sale or CPO ordinary properties that were empty for a period of time, or were used as second homes. There were a variety of reasons a home could be empty, such as probate or the owner being in care and officers had to establish this before taking a particular case forward.

e.    The Panel sought assurances about whether there was any evidence to suggest that properties were being bought by overseas owners and left empty. In response, officers suggested that they did not have specific data on this but that it was possible that some of the empty properties in the borough, identified through Council Tax, fell into this category. It was commented that the Council received a premium in Council Tax for empty properties and that it may not necessarily be in the Council’s interest to pursue those homes.

f.     The Panel sought clarification around how a decision was made to either go down the route of enforced sale or a CPO. In response, officers advised that there was a panel who met; comprised of Legal, Council Tax and other services involved in a particular case, and that the panel would ultimately decide which route to take. Legal colleagues had to take a view as to whether the intended outcome met the public interest test and that a CPO would involve notifying the Secretary of State. The enforced sale of a property was easier to undertake and could be done if the property in question had over £1000 of debt to the Council, either through unpaid Council Tax or through noncompliance with enforcement notices etcetera.

g.    The Panel enquired whether the homes that were sold or subject to a CPO would be used as Council accommodation. In response, officers advised that in most cases they would be sold on the open market through a process of sealed bids, with the owner due a certain percentage by way of compensation.

h.    Officers set out that the acquisitions team within the Council had criteria for the types of properties that they would like to acquire and repurpose, but that in most of these cases the costs involved with re-purposing these types of property would be prohibitive.

i.      The Cabinet Member advised that she would be looking further into this issue to see what more could be done to acquire homes for Council accommodation, as this was already done in terms of acquiring temporary accommodation through the wholly owned development vehicle. 

j.      The Panel suggested that properties being bought up and used as an investment, rather than homes was a political issue for Labour councils and that this should be raised with London Councils. In response, the Cabinet Member commented that this was not historically a big issue in Haringey but that changing demographics were likely to change this. Cllr Carlin noted that Islington had tried to overcome this problem by placing planning covenants on the buildings not being empty into the planning permission process for new developments.

RESOLVED

That the report was noted.