The HCA has now revealed the main outlines of its £100M empty homes programme. The announcement, such as it was, came at a Round Table in L ondon on 28th June to discuss DCLG’s forthcoming Empty Homes Strategy. DCLG handed over to Gera Drymer of the HCA to describe the likely shape of the HCA’s £100million empty homes programme due to start in April 2012, which indicated that the HCA proposals, in their broad outline, are now accepted by DCLG. The key points to emerge were:
- Homes should be empty for 2+ years (but see below)
- Homes would be expected to be let as “Affordable Rent”
- Purchase and Repair would fall into this programme (presumably if meeting other criteria)
- Leased homes should have leases of between 5-<30 years
- The optimum lease length was described as 10 years
- Payment is currently set to be on completion in line with the main Affordable Homes Programme (but see below)
- There will be a “programme approach” rather than monitoring at the individual property level
There is little new in these proposals: they are consistent with those that the HCA has floated on many different occasions over the last few months. Any alternative ideas that may have been put forwards by practitioners seem to have had zero impact. And whilst concerns have been expressed in various quarters—including by Registered Providers— about the risks of making any programme too prescriptive, the only sign of any possible concessions were that
- perhaps not every single property would need to have been empty for two years, in certain ill-defined circumstances
- the option of payment at Start-on-Site as well as on Completion was still under consideration.
It is not yet entirely clear which products are likely to fall within the programme or the extent to which they will depart from existing models. Purchase and Repair is certainly one product and could hoover up significant amounts of the available funding. The criteria suggest that leasing will be based on the short-lived Temporary Empty Homes Grant, but as far as we can tell without the flexibility that TEH offered around rents applicable for homelessness accommodation. Perhaps there is still some room for negotiation on details such as these and this could be significant for the outputs than be delivered for the money available. There was no information to suggest that home-ownership products will be allowed.
Presumably there is a group of people somewhere who are both highly enthusiastic about tackling empty homes and similarly enthusiastic about the shape of these proposals but it is difficult to imagine who they are. Practitioners who saw the opportunity for developing a broad-based programme that would support, promote and further develop the most cost-effective approaches to tackling empty homes are likely find the proposals disappointing. Disappointment will have been sharpened amongst those who have had time to read our recent
Briefing on the statutory constraints within which the HCA operates. This demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, that the HCA has considerable flexibility should it choose to use it, including the option of dispensing with the “Registered Provider” requirement if funding is not for acquisition. Of course, we are not party to the political jockeying that may have gone on behind the scenes, for example the extent to which the “Affordable Rent” programme might have been assigned a higher priority than tackling empty homes.
Hope for community organisations?
There is, however, a ray of light for community organisations: discussions are apparently underway to create a separate, dedicated funding stream for them administered by CLG and top-sliced from the £100million. No exact figures were discussed but there were rumours that this might amount to £10million to £20million. We await the outcome of these discussions with interest.
What next?
What local authorities will want to do in the light of the above (and if they have not already done so) is to prepare themselves to bid directly in their roles as Registered Providers or to find housing associations prepared to do so. Interest from housing associations could be muted if the responses we have heard so far are anything to go by: there are big concerns about risks associated with the programme.
Self-build and other community groups will be hoping that the top-slice goes ahead and will await the outlines of any targeted funding programme with interest. And local authorities will want to build stronger links with any such groups that have shown an interest in the programme.
Finally, efforts to secure a share of the New Homes Bonus and to tap into other sources of funding such as commuted sums and prudential borrowing will need to be redoubled.
