Memorandum by the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister (ANN 01)
Request for further information:
Further to your letter of 20 October detailing
the additional information Ministers undertook to provide, the
information is attached. For ease of reference each response is
numbered in accordance with your original letter.
Mavis McDonald
1. A definition of garden in the context
of its designation as brownfield land
Answer:
Brownfield land, which is known as "previously
developed", is land "which is or was occupied by a permanent
structure . . . and fixed surface infrastructure". The full
definition is set out in Annex C, of Planning Policy Guidance
Note 3: Housing, and is based on the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister's Land Use Change Statistics (LUCS) Guidance, established
in 1985.
The definition of previously developed land
includes all LUCS urban land uses (except "vacant land within
urban areas not previously developed").
"Residential" is defined as an urban
land use, and is defined as "houses, flats, sheltered accommodation
where residences have separate front entrances and adjoining garages,
gardens, estate roads and pathways".
It is ultimately for the Courts to decide on
specific cases whether something is brownfield or not, taking
into account the LUCS/PPG3 definition. Due to the SoS quasi judicial
role in the planning system it is not appropriate to comment on
a particular case.
3. The date the ODPM expects to respond to
the strategic plans developed for the Northern Way
Answer:
The Government is carefully considering how
best to take forward the proposals in the Northern Way, and will
provide a detailed response in due course. Nevertheless, the Deputy
Prime Minister has already shown his commitment to the Northern
Way by agreeing to the creation of an initial £100 million
Northern Way Growth Fund. The Fund is made up of £50 million
from the three Northern RDAs and £50 million from ODPM and
will kick-start the strategy into practical action and help maximise
the impact and effect of more than £7 billion investment
already earmarked for the North in the Government's Sustainable
Communities Plan.
4. The budgets allocated to each of the Market
Renewal Pathfinders
Answer:
The budget allocations to Market Renewal pathfinders
was as follows:
| Pathfinder | Allocation (£ million)
|
| Manchester Salford | 125.00
|
| Merseyside | 90.00 |
| Newcastle Gateshead | 73.00
|
| East Lancs | 72.00 |
| South Yorks | 75.00 |
| Oldham Rochdale | 57.50 |
| Birmingham Sandwell | 54.00
|
| North Staffs | 34.00 |
| Hull and East Riding | TBC |
| |
In addition to the above, each pathfinder received £2.64
million from the Capital Modernisation Fund for preparation of
their market restructuring scheme.
5. Details on how the compulsory management orders on
long-term empty homes will operate and the associated costs for
the ODPM and local authorities
Answer:
EDMOs are intended to apply to dwellings that are genuinely
vacant for long periods of time where the owner cannot offer a
justification for the vacancy to continue.
EMPTY DWELLING
MANAGEMENT ORDERS
Outline of Housing Bill Provisions
The provisions in the Housing Bill provide that:
— A local authority may apply to a Residential Property
Tribunal for approval to make an Interim Empty Dwelling Management
Order ("interim EDMO") where the dwelling has been vacant
for at least six months and it considers the owner has no intention
to secure occupation of it.
— A Residential Property Tribunal must be satisfied
on a number of matters before it can give approval.
— Once approved, an interim EDMO can last for up
to 12 months.
— A local authority assumes management responsibility
for the dwelling but cannot create a tenancy without the consent
of the owner.
— Where consent is not given, a local authority
may revoke the interim EDMO and make a final Empty Dwelling Management
Order ("final EDMO").
— A final EDMO can last for a maximum of seven years.
— A local authority may secure occupation (eg by
granting a tenancy) without the consent of the owner.
— A management scheme must be set out to keep track
of income and expenditure.
— The owner is entitled to any surplus income after
deduction by the local authority of its reasonable expenditure
(including the cost of renovation works).
— The local authority cannot pursue the owner for
a deficit remaining at the end of the order (but it may seek to
"make good" a deficit if a subsequent order is made).
— Owners can appeal to a Residential Property Tribunal
against a wide range of matters relating to the making and operation
of EDMOs.
KEY ISSUES
IN MORE
DETAIL
Exceptions
The Bill provides for a general exception of six months and
allows for certain category of dwelling to be exempt indefinitely.
Homes become empty for many varied reasons and most come back
into use without the need for intervention—ie "transactional"
vacant dwellings. Also, homes may be unoccupied for a period of
time but not generally regarded as "vacant"—ie
where the owner is temporarily absent from their principal home
or it is a second home or holiday home used from time to time.
The exceptions will be prescribed by secondary legislation,
but we have set out on the face of the Bill the category of exception
which, in particular, may be prescribed. These cover:
— the principal homes of absent owners;
— second homes and holiday homes;
— homes undergoing repairs or renovation or awaiting
planning or building regulations approval;
— homes on the market for sale or letting; and
— homes where the relevant proprietor died less
than a specified period of time before the application for an
order was made.
Compensation
An EDMO is a control on use of property rather than a deprivation.
As such it does not give rise to an automatic right to compensation.
The person against whom the order is made ("the relevant
proprietor") is not entitled to compensation but is entitled
to any surplus income from the EDMO following deduction of the
local authority's relevant expenditure in managing and maintaining
the property. As no income would have been generated had the property
remained vacant, it is reasonable to allow an authority to deduct
its costs from the income it has secured.
Compensation may be payable to a "third party"
(someone with an interest in the dwelling but not the relevant
proprietor) for any interference with his rights as a result of
the EDMO. Where compensation is payable, a local authority would
be entitled to deduct such payments from any surplus they make
prior to paying the balance to the relevant proprietor. We consider
it is right that an authority should be able to use any surplus
it has managed to generate in order to meet obligations to pay
compensation. Had the order not been made there would be no income
to make payments to the relevant proprietor.
Deficit of income to meet relevant expenditure
If a local authority fails to generate sufficient income
(from rental and other payments) to meet its relevant expenditure
plus any compensation that may be payable, it cannot recover the
difference from the relevant proprietor, unless:
— the relevant proprietor has agreed to meet the
difference; or
— in the case of an interim EDMO, the relevant proprietor
refused to give consent to allow the property to be occupied.
But if a subsequent final EDMO is made, a local authority
may seek to make up any deficit relating to the previous order.
If an EDMO ceases to have effect and is not replaced with
a subsequent order, any deficit will have to be met by the authority.
A local authority must therefore be confident that it can
generate sufficient rental income under the EDMO or it may have
to bear the risk of meeting a deficit. This provides local authorities
with an incentive to ensure that the level of expenditure is commensurate
with the income they expect to achieve.
Repairs and Improvements
There are no restrictions on the works a local authority
can undertake to make a dwelling habitable under an EDMO. However,
the work should be commensurate with the income the local authority
is likely to receive during the lifetime of the order. As an interim
EDMO must end within 12 months, it is unlikely that an authority
would seek to expend larger sums of money. Indeed, because it
must obtain consent from the relevant proprietor before a letting
can be granted it is more likely that an authority would only
expend money for work of an immediate nature to secure the property
or make it safe. Under a final EDMO, an authority is more likely
to consider doing significant work as it would have up to seven
years to recoup the cost from rental income.
Duration of Final EDMOs
The maximum duration of a final EDMO is seven years (as opposed
to five years for other Final Management Orders under the Bill).
The additional time is necessary to allow a local authority to
recover the cost of works that might be necessary to bring an
empty property up to a habitable standard. If a property is in
a poor condition it is likely that it would require significant
investment to make it habitable. Such investment is likely to
mean the property cannot be occupied immediately an EDMO is made.
So it is important that a local authority is given additional
time under a final EDMO to recoup its relevant expenditure.
Further information is contained in Housing Bill Factsheet
13 which can be downloaded from the ODPM website:
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm housing/documents/page/odpm
house 031914.hcsp
COST OF
EMPTY DWELLING
MANAGEMENT ORDERS
Information on costs and benefits were set out in ODPM's
Regulatory Impact Assessment which can be downloaded from the
ODPM website.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm housing/documents/page/odpm
house 031041.hcsp
It is not possible to accurately predict costs, which would
depend on the number of EDMOs made and what level of expenditure
on repairs and renovation is undertaken. However, the RIA assumes
that the average cost of bringing back into use an empty dwelling
via a management order is in the region of £7,000 (most of
which would fall in the first year). It also assumes that local
authorities would have capacity to make no more than 1,000 EDMOs
per year. Therefore, the average annual cost to local authorities
could be in the region of £7 million.
The intention of the legislation is that Empty Dwelling Management
Orders should be largely cost-neutral over the lifetime of the
order in that relevant expenditure incurred by local authorities
would be recovered from rental income, with any surplus paid to
the owner. Expenditure not met from rental income would not be
recoverable from the owner. It is recognised that where a property
required significant expenditure to make it habitable, a local
authority would have to make a judgement as to whether it would
be able to recover all of its relevant expenditure under the management
order prior to proceeding.
6. Details of when the tenancy deposit scheme is due to
be implemented
Answer:
Since May policy and legal officials in ODPM have been heavily
engaged in instructing Parliamentary Counsel on provisions that
were introduced in the House of Lords at Committee Stage mid-September,
with amendments to those provisions being required at Report and
Third Reading in the Lords on 20 October and 3 November.
A particular aspect of that drafting process has been the
need, on legal advice, to re-visit the approach to the safeguarding
of tenancy deposits reflected in the Consultation Paper of November
2002 and as reflected in ministerial statements up to, and after
Commons Report this year. A key departure is that the approval
of existing tenancy deposit schemes is no longer on the agenda.
Instead tenancy deposit schemes (and there may be more than one)
may be subject to a process of government procurement.
What may be required of a procurement process will need to
be the subject of a feasibility study preceded by a research project.
The first step will need to be to draw up the specifications for
that research project, having regard to internal advice on contracting,
legal, financial and insurance issues. The views of external stakeholders,
especially those involved in existing voluntary schemes will be
relevant. We will need to have regard to the management of similar
arrangements in other countries, data collection and protection
issues. That process could take at least three months.
Setting up and carrying out the feasibility study could take
at least nine months and the contracting process a further six
months at least. There will then need to be a period of at least
three months in which the tenancy deposit scheme(s) so procured
have to establish themselves. Only then could we bring in those
parts of the Housing Bill that would make it a legal requirement
that landlords and agents taking deposits had to safeguard the
deposits through membership of a scheme. We estimate that this
process would take a further three months to become established.
7. A note on the progress of improvements to the pay and
conditions of the retained fire service
Answer:
Pay and conditions of service are matters for the National
Joint Council for Local Authorities Fire Brigades.
A detailed review of the recruitment and retention challenges
affecting the retained duty system, involving key stakeholders
including ODPM, has recently been completed. Although it was outside
the remit of the review to recommend or negotiate pay for personnel
employed on the retained duty system, nonetheless the review team
acknowledged how influential remuneration packages can be in attracting
and keeping staff and that traditional remuneration arrangements,
where earnings potential is directly linked to emergency response,
may not be attractive enough.
The review team has recommended that detailed examination
is required of the alternative remuneration systems adopted, or
being trialled, by various fire and rescue services to tackle
the recruitment and retention problems. A stakeholder task group
will take forward the report's recommendations.
8. The names of local authorities that have had their
Planning Delivery Grants withdrawn
Answer:
No local authority has had Planning Delivery Grant permanently
withdrawn. However, we are withholding, pending further investigation,
10% of any development control allocation to authorities whose
2002-03 best value performance indicator (BVPI) 109 return was
qualified by the auditor. The authorities in question are:
Breckland
Chesterfield
Crewe & Nantwich
Dacorum
East Dorset
Harlow
Isle of Wight
Macclesfield
Mid Suffolk
Norwich
Rossendale
South Lakeland
St Albans
Teignbridge
Thurrock
Waltham Forest
Welwyn Hatfield
West Somerset
Weymouth & Portland
These authorities have been asked to revise and resubmit
returns for BVPI 109, or to risk losing another 40% of their Planning
Delivery Grant allocation for 2004-05 on account of development
control. The conditions of payment of Planning Delivery Grant
also provide that, where statistical data or other information
on which grant was allocated or payments made is subsequently
shown to be fraudulent, erroneous, incomplete or compiled in error,
for whatever cause, Ministers may require the repayment of all
or part of the grant paid.
It is essential that Planning Delivery Grant is distributed
on a fair and equitable basis, and allocated on the basis of accurate
information, and that is why we make this condition. As well as
asking for further information from qualified authorities, ODPM
officials have written to all other authorities asking them to
look again at their data returns, and if they think that they
have made errors, to resubmit returns.
Planning Delivery Grant contains, in addition, another condition
relating to performance on appeal. If the level of appeals upheld
was more than 50% higher than the national average in the year
end September 2003 authorities are abated by 10% of their initial
development control and plan-making allocations. This is intended
to deter authorities from making poor quality decisions in order
to meet targets and qualify for more grant. For 2005-06 we are
proposing to strengthen this mechanism to send out the message
that speed must not be achieved at the expense of quality in planning
decisions.
9. The progress to date on 2000 SDA Target—"To
give people better housing via investment by local authorities
and registered social landlords"
Answer:
This target is measured through the English House Condition
Survey (EHCS).
Detailed analysis from the 2003 EHCS will be available in
the New Year, which will give us information on our progress from
2000 to 2003.
The 2004 ECHS, published in Winter 2005, will enable us to
give a final assessment on whether we have achieved these strands
of the SDA targets.
10. The total net efficiency savings within the ODPM budget
Answer:
In SR04, ODPM agreed to make 2.5% pa efficiency gains, equating
to at least £622 million by 2007-08.
We are seeking efficiencies that do not compromise delivery;
many of the efficiencies proposed are key to helping us achieve
our objectives by delivering more and better outputs. Almost 70%
of ODPM's efficiency gains are cash-releasing, ie with the potential
to release gains in cash for other areas of programme spend. In
most cases, we currently intend for the gains to be recycled within
the same areas to deliver more outputs.
On our administration spending, we will be living within
a broadly flat cash administration cost limit whilst continuing
to deliver against our Public Service Agreement targets. That
means achieving efficiency gains of at least 2.5% pa. Attached
is a copy of our ETN, published on 29 October 2004 which sets
out in more detail what our efficiency gains are and how we are
going to achieve them.
| 
