______________________________________________________________

Matthew Taylor Review on Rural

Economy and Affordable Housing
Planning and land use to support sustainable rural communities

Submission by the Empty Homes Agency

______________________________________________________________

March 2008
About you:

i) Your details:

Name: Henry Oliver

Position: Policy Advisor
Name of organisation (if The Empty Homes Agency
applicable):
Address: Downstream Building,
1 London Bridge,
London,
SE1 9BG.
Email: Henry.Oliver@emptyhomes.com
Telephone number: 020 7022 1869

ii) Are the views expressed in this survey an official response from the
organisation you represent or your own personal views?

Organisational response ✓
Personal views

iii) Please tick the box which best describes you:

District Council
UA/County Council
Parish Council
Regional Government
Land Owner
Housing Association/RSL
Private Developer/house builder
Rural Business
Voluntary sector/charity ✓
Community Land Trust
Rural Housing Enabler
Rural Resident

Other
(please comment):

iv) What is your main area of expertise or interest in this work (please tick one
box)?

Housing provision ✓*
Rural economies/business
Planning policy/implementation
Environmental protection

*But n.b.: the EHA has an interest and expertise in all of the others as well, in particular planning
policy/implementation and environmental protection.
v) Do your views/experiences mainly relate to one or more specific regions
within England, or across the whole country?

South West
South East
East
East Midlands
West Midlands
North West
Yorkshire & Humberside
North East
London
All of England ✓

Other
(please comment):
Specific local area
(please comment):

vi) Data protection

Please note that it is our intention to publish responses to this call for evidence,
except where respondents have specifically indicated that they do not wish us to
do so.

• If you would prefer us not to give out your answers please tick this box:

• We also sometimes quote from the information we get in published reports.

If you do not want us to quote your answers please tick this box:

Would you be happy for us to contact you again in relation to this questionnaire?

Yes ✓ No

_____________________________________________________________________
Questionnaire

A) Rural Economy:

General:

• A1) How is the application of planning policies to develop and support rural
business practically taking place on the ground: What is working well? What
are the barriers and blockages? How might the barriers and blockages be
overcome?

A1:

Specific:

• A2) Are there specific issues in the planning system (at national, regional, or
local level – see Annex B) unnecessarily restricting business start-ups or
expansion in rural communities? If possible give examples.

A2:

• A3) What scale and type of business should be encouraged or discouraged in

rural communities, and is the planning system effective in doing so
appropriately?

A3:

• A4) Some suggest there is ongoing loss of workspace and employment in

some rural communities, often to housing, or because expanding businesses
are forced to relocate to industrial and business space in larger communities.
What do you believe is working, or not working, in the planning system to
facilitate and promote suitable rural economic development? Should rural
workspace and employment be more strongly protected by the planning
system to maintain and encourage appropriate employment and business
opportunities in rural communities – and if so how?

A4:

• A5) What is the potential for more live/work units, and mixed use schemes
including housing and employment space, to support rural business and
housing needs in rural communities?

A5:
 • A6) What impact is regional and local planning having on the supply of land
and premises for employment in rural areas? Is there a need for provision of
new sites for business in rural communities to be increased – and if so, how
could this be done?

A6:

• A7) Is the balance right in the planning system at present when considering
the use of public transport/private car usage in relation to economic
development in rural areas? Is there a need for greater flexibility to allow
appropriate scale growth of rural business in communities with limited access
to public transport

A7:

• A8) Do you think planning policies support the conversion of redundant

properties, including agricultural buildings, into premises for employment? If
not, is there scope to increase the number and type of properties/sites that
could be used in this way?

A8:

B) Affordable Housing:

General:

• B1) How is the application of planning policies to develop and support rural
affordable housing practically taking place on the ground: What is working
well? What are the barriers and blockages? How might any barriers or
blockages be overcome?

B1: The re-use of empty and underused buildings is encouraged by national

policy, but the degree to which it is pursued by most rural local authorities is
questionable. There are at least 675,000 empty homes in England (not
including buildings with potential for conversion to housing); of these, 288,000
have been empty for more than six months (the accepted definition of long-
term vacancy). In 2005 20,000 homes were returned to use as a result of local
authority intervention (DCLG, 2006); the bulk of this activity is concentrated in
urban areas, however: in 2004, just 1,642 homes were returned to use by rural
local authorities; and 64 authorities had no activity at all despite sitting on a
total of 60,000 empty homes. The evidence indicates that an empty home is
three times as likely to be brought back into use if it lies within the area of an
urban local authority than a rural one.
Part of the problem is that small local authorities with small budgets and broad
areas of responsibility simply do not prioritise this area of work.

The EHA is worried that this is likely to get considerably worse with the
impending demise of the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs). BVPI 64,
which measures empty homes returned to use, has been a mainstay of
councils’ political (and hence financial) commitment to work on the issue, yet
the draft proposed National Indicators make no mention of empty property (see
B2 below).

Where positive encouragement and assistance fail to effect re-use, some rural
authorities lack the skilled staff needed to use the enforcement powers that are
available to them (e.g. Compulsory Purchase Orders, Empty Dwelling
Management Orders, enforced sale etc.). In many cases the scale of the
problem within each authority’s boundaries makes this understandable, but it
does not help.

• B2) The flow chart at Annex B describes how the planning process works at
the national, regional and local level. Which aspects (and at what level) of the
planning policy framework do you think need attention to better deliver
affordable homes for rural areas?

B2: All of them. The EHA would like to see the following:

• (if there is a national target for new housing provision),

accompanying national and regional targets for empty properties brought
back into use for housing (this would cover both affordable and other
housing);

• revision to PPS3 Housing to reinforce the sequential approach

to housing provision, so that existing buildings are always the first option
for housing provision; (this would have to be subject to important caveats
regarding isolated rural - e.g. agricultural - buildings so as to minimise car
dependency and avoid housing in open countryside inappropriately sited
housing);

• inclusion of empty homes returned to use within the new

national indicators on housing supply (we propose NI 154 Housing
Supply);

• local authorities allowed to count long-term empty homes

brought back into use as part of their housing supply for the purposes of
their eligibility
for Housing and Planning Delivery Grant;

• payment of a premium rate of HPDG for empty homes

returned to use, to in recognition of their advantages over new build; and
 • a duty on local authorities to take action to bring empty homes
back into use.

Specific:

• B3) Is there sufficient alignment between priorities set out in Sustainable

Community Strategies and planning policies for rural affordable housing in
Local Development Frameworks?

B3: The EHA does not have enough direct experience of SCSs to comment in
detail, but the superior sustainability of re-using empty property over building
new means it ought to be the priority option for housing provision. (See also
our comments on LDFs and SCSs under B13 below.)

• B4) How are planning policies for rural housing, as set out in Planning Policy
Statement 3: Housing (PPS3), being implemented locally on the ground in
rural areas following the recommendations of the Affordable Rural Housing
Commission?

B4: While PPS3 highlights the opportunity of empty property and encourages
re-use, it contains no detailed advice on implementation. We therefore have no
specific comment.

• B5) Are there any skills or resource gaps within local authorities that hinder
the adoption of PPS3 based rural affordable housing policies? For example, (i)
with regards to testing economic viability, (ii) adoption, maintenance and use
of Strategic Housing Market Assessments, (iii) supporting community
engagement, and (iv) use of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments.
How might these gaps be filled?

B5: See B4 above.

• B6) While plan-led allocation of sites for development is the main process for
new housing delivery, for very small rural communities, rural exception sites
are the most likely avenue for affordable housing, but relatively few come
forward. How could or should local communities be encouraged to bring
forward suitable exception sites – what is the role of the community (including
the parish council), the local authority (officers and members), rural housing
enablers, or others? And what should the balance between plan led allocation
of sites and exception sites be?

B6: As far as we are aware, the exceptions sites policy has had little or no
direct bearing on empty properties, but its existence and use does have
implications for all other users of the planning system. The EHA is concerned
that the exceptions sites policy, which by definition circumvents normal
planning policy, risks undermining the public credibility and therefore
effectiveness of rural planning more widely. It is particularly unfortunate where
it provokes greater local opposition to affordable housing than would arise
through re-use of existing buildings or a plan-led approach to new
development.

• B7) PPS3 allows local authorities to set their own thresholds on the size of
development above which they will seek a proportion of affordable housing,
rather than the national indicative minimum threshold of development of 15
units (and to set different thresholds across communities in a local area based
upon their local circumstances). To what degree are local authorities setting
their own thresholds? How is this policy being used locally – what are the
blockages to its effective use? How could local authorities’ ability to negotiate
with developers/landowners be improved?

B7:

• B8) What is the role of the planning appeals system – how is it influencing
decisions in practice? Are there changes that would be appropriate to guide
planners and developers as to what evidence inspectors need, and their likely
approach?

B8:

• B9) How has advice and reports from the Planning Inspectorate (PINs)
affected policies for the provision of affordable housing in rural areas? How
have local authorities responded to this?

B9:

• B10) How is the role of regional planning affecting the delivery of affordable
housing in rural areas? How could it be improved?

B10: The EHA has worked to in recent years persuade regional planning
bodies to pay greater attention to the potential of empty homes to contribute to
housing supply of new - and in many cases affordable - housing.

85% of empty homes are privately owned; they therefore have particular
potential to address the increasing element of intermediate housing need - that
which is met neither by (scarce) social housing nor (unaffordable) housing for
sale on the open market.

Some regional assembles have begun to take much fuller account of empty
property in their spatial and housing strategies. For example, the East
Midlands Regional Assembly is jointly funding a comprehensive survey of
empty properties in its region. In London, the Mayor’s draft Housing Strategy
includes a specific target for reducing the proportion of the stock made up by
long-term empty homes. The London target as currently drafted is flawed in
that, were the Strategy’s overall housebuilding objectives achieved, the
proportion of vacant stock would automatically fall to the specified level. The
principle of including specific targets for re-use of empty homes in overall
housing strategy and numbers is sound, however.

The EHA strongly believes that such approaches should be replicated in all
regions as part of the Regional Spatial Strategy and consequent Local
Development Framework documents. The particular need for affordable
housing in some rural areas demands that specific attention be paid to ways of
improving the performance of rural property owners and local authorities in
bringing empty properties back into use. Regional bodies could encourage
local authorities to undertake surveys of empty properties and their owners, for
example.

• B11) The planning system requires evidence-based decisions – how is the

need for evidence effecting outcomes, and could the process for obtaining
appropriate evidence be clarified or simplified?

B11:

• B12) What role do local councillors have in the provision of rural affordable
housing? Could they be better supported (and if so how?) to take a positive
leadership role that would encourage increased delivery?

B12: Elected members of all councils, county, district or third tier, have a role to
play in helping identify where there is (and is not) need for housing, what and
where are the most beneficial and least harmful means of meeting that need,
and how conflicting local views might be mediated. In the EHA’s experience,
political commitment is essential to effective empty property work by local
authorities, especially in relation to enforcement where other inducements have
failed. Councillors can also be instrumental in providing the necessary impetus
for authorities to recognise and take on the problem in the first place.

The EHA already provides advice and support to local authorities, partly as a
condition of support from government (currently due to end in 2009). This does
not exclude councillors, but in practice most contact is with officers rather than
members. Given identified need and the necessary resources, we would be
interested in helping to provide support for elected members on empty property
issues.
• B13) What is the impact so far of the new system of Local Development
Frameworks – getting them prepared, approved, and then using them in the
delivery of affordable housing in rural areas?

B13: In the EHA’s experience LDFs have so far had very little impact,
beneficial or otherwise, on empty property work. We see two main problems
that limit their potential to help. First, the overwhelming emphasis of national
government on new housebuilding rather than housing supply (with some
coming from empty properties) is beginning to reduce the resources and
attention paid to filling empty properties. Second, local authorities seem to find
it extremely difficult in most cases to co-ordinate their spatial planning and
housing arms – something that would improve the effectiveness of empty
property strategies. In theory, the status of Sustainable Community Strategies
in informing LDFs should help with this, but in practice SCSs are often remote
from genuine public input. The process of SCS preparation is much less robust
than that for Local Development Documents, which also reduces their
usefulness. Further, they contribute to the increasing sense among some
community interests of a surfeit of consultation that drains their limited (and
sometimes diminishing) voluntary resources.

• B14) Are there any difficulties in delivering rural affordable housing while
Local Development Frameworks are under preparation? For example, does it
affect where and how much affordable housing can be negotiated in a rural
community or affecting the supply of rural exception sites?

B14:

• B15) How do local communities currently affect the delivery of rural affordable
housing and what steps/support might encourage them to engage more
positively?

B15: Properties empty for six months or more usually indicate other problems
(e.g. lack of capital for repair work, lack of time to tackle the problem) that
owners need help to overcome. While most empty properties will return to use
in time, the existence and marketing of incentives to bring them back into use
sooner are important for making more efficient use of the overall housing stock.

The introduction (in places where they do not exist) or expansion/extension (in
places where they do) of assistance to empty home owners in filling their
properties would encourage owners to put them to good use This can take the
form of grants (e.g. for repairs), loans (which, on repayment, form a revolving
fund), private sector leasing schemes where local authorities may offer
anything from assistance in finding tenants to a complete management service,
brokerage between owners and interested registered social landlords,
information on recommended contractors, and general information and advice.
Whatever is offered needs to be widely and repeatedly advertised to encourage
take-up, with sufficient staff time dedicated to implementation to secure results.

All of these need to be backed by a willingness to use enforcement powers

(Compulsory Purchase Orders, enforced sale, Empty Dwelling Management
Orders) where encouragement and incentives fail to produce the desired result.

The needs of owners of empty rural properties may differ from those in urban
areas, and local authorities should be encouraged to find out (e.g. from owner
surveys) what assistance would be most welcomed by such people in their own
areas.

• B16) What might best reduce local opposition to new affordable housing
development in rural communities?

B16: The EHA strongly believes that, where existing buildings exist, their re-
use should always be preferred to new development. This is a logical
extension of the sequential preference for previously developed land over
greenfield sites.

Above all, prioritising the re-use of adaptation of empty homes and other empty
property (in the right place) for affordable housing will usually be the least
controversial way of providing housing. This applies even more in rural
settlements, where greenfield sites are often the alternative, than elsewhere. .
A survey carried out for the Joseph Rowntree Fund in 2004 found only 28% of
residents in South East England thought that “many more homes should be
built”, while 46% disagreed. This contrasts with the evidence of widespread
public support for action to tackle empty homes: an NOP poll carried out on
behalf of HBOS in 2003 found 92% of respondents wanted their local authority
to do more to bring empty homes back into use, and 91% wanted the
Government to actively reduce the number of empty homes in the UK.

Aside from minimising opposition, there are good environmental and

conservation reasons for preferring re-use to new build. Re-use of existing
buildings can help conserve the historic and cultural interest of a place,
especially in small rural settlements where even very small amounts of new
development or redevelopment have a disproportionate impact on the whole. It
also conserves the embodied (built-in) energy in existing buildings – EHA
research to be published later this month indicates that comprehensive
refurbishment of an empty home on average gives rise to 15 tonnes of CO2
emissions, compared with 50 tonnes for a newly built house, and that over
about 50 years the combined embodied and operational (in-use) emissions are
similar for both or slightly lower for refurbished buildings.

• B17) What might the benefits or disadvantages be in using a Community Land

Trust model for the development of affordable rural housing?

B17:
 • B18) There are representations from some rural communities that purchase of
homes as second homes and holiday-lets is having a significant impact upon
the availability and price of local housing. Others argue they have a modest
impact in the context of wider housing supply issues and trends for migration
from urban to rural areas. The Affordable Rural Housing Commission
recommended that a new Use Class for second homes be introduced to allow
such uses to be subject to local planning control. Do you have evidence that
second homes and holiday-lets are having a significant impact (or otherwise)
on rural housing supply generally, or in specific communities? And if so could
this be practically addressed through the planning system, taking into account
which communities may be affected and how any planning controls could be
reasonably enforced?

B18: While we do not have any direct experience of second homes and
holiday lets affecting rural housing supply, the EHA is sympathetic to the acute
concerns held about the issue in the most affected places. The self-evident
popularity of older, existing properties to prospective second home owners
increases the competition local residents face in bidding for such homes, and
the high return in some areas from letting to holidaymakers can make the
option of private letting for year-round occupation less attractive. The EHA
supports the ARHC’s proposal to enable planning authorities to control the
further spread of second homes, whether through the creation of a discrete
Use Class or by other means.

• B19) What might encourage landowners to offer land at low cost for affordable
housing in rural communities, especially for exception sites?

B19:

C) Real life Examples/Case studies

The review team is particularly interested in real life examples and case studies
of:

(i) good practice and examples of where local housing and business needs
are being met – which could possibly be replicated elsewhere, and,
(ii) examples of where there are local barriers and blockages which are
preventing progress.

We would also welcome any suggestions for visits to areas where good practice
is taking place, or where progress has been prevented due to any particular
barriers or blockages.
• C1) Good practice examples. Please state what the local circumstances were,
the problem or issue to be addressed, what was done, and what the outcome
was.

C1: There are some excellent examples of rural local authorities that are
effective at returning empty homes to use. We cite three examples to illustrate
this:

Kent County Council has taken an active interest. District councils in Kent
were not making the most of their powers to tackle the large numbers of empty
homes in their areas, partly because of a lack of funding to initiate action.
Under its No Use Empty initiative with Kentish district councils (which flowed
from a Local Area Agreement objective), KCC has provided strategic co-
ordination and support. It has appointed an empty homes officer, carried out a
large survey, and is making £5m available to help district councils in north and
east Kent bring more empty homes into use. In its first year the initiative saw a
quadrupling of the rate at which empty properties have been brought back into
occupation. The initiative’s success has prompted its extension to cover the
whole of Kent from January 2008.

In Devon, Exeter City Council is providing an empty homes service for six small
rural councils which previously had little or no activity in this area.

Great Yarmouth Borough Council has become an expert at compulsorily

purchasing empty homes; it currently carries out this work as an agent for
several local authorities in East Anglia.

We would be pleased to provide further information or contacts for these and

other areas if requested.

• C2) Local examples of barriers or blockages. Please state what the local
circumstances were, the problem or issue to be addressed, what was done,
nature of barriers which prevented progress, and what the outcome was.

C2:

• C3) Are there any schemes, projects, initiatives or local areas that you think
the Review team should visit as part of this work to gather evidence on what
works – or where there are barriers which need to be overcome?

C3:
 D) Other comments

• D1) Are there any other comments you would like to make?

D1:

The approach taken by the Review

We are concerned from the drafting and tone of the questions in this call for
submissions that the Review appears to have prejudged some of the issues it
is addressing and to be looking for particular answers. Implicit in this, despite
the terms of reference, appears to be an assumed criticism of the spatial
planning system. The EHA cautions against such an approach. We do not
view the planning system as a problem requiring a cure, but as a critical
process of publicly accountable mediation of the intense competition for land
that exists across England, especially in the countryside. We would like to see
greater attention paid to the availability of affordable housing where it is
needed, but this needs to take place in a way that is environmentally as well as
socially and economically benign – for example by making best use of existing
empty or under-used property before building new. Moreover it is, in our view,
mistaken to suppose that planning can deliver change in isolation from other
important factors, among them the question of local rural services (viz. the
recent controversy over closure of rural schools), uncertainty around long-term
support for farming and other land-based industries, and consideration of the
role demand-side measures should play in regulating the housing market.

Forthcoming research
The EHA has recently submitted to DEFRA a proposal for a research project
examining the incidence of empty homes in rural as compared with urban
areas (using combined DEFRA and DCLG data) and incorporating detailed
survey work to determine the main obstacles to re-use, with a view to providing
information and advice to help rural communities make better use of their
empty housing stock. While the proposed timetable for this project extends into
2009, we would be happy to discuss the proposal and initial findings with
Review staff.

Annex B
The order in which elements of the planning process are displayed in the chart
in Annex B appears to run contrary to the hierarchy of plans, i.e.: RSS above
and before LDF. The SCS, which is not subject to the same statutory
requirements, informs not only the LDF but also other local authority policies.
The distinction is important because the degree of local community freedom
(e.g. in the LDF) is severely circumscribed by the prescriptive relationship of
the RSS to local plans.

EHA
7/3/2008
_____________________________________________________________________