Agenda item

To consider the number of empty residential and commercial properties within the borough, the current service demands which relate to these premises and the challenges in returning these properties to use, including the limitations of the Council’s legislative powers and work in default options.

Recommended               - That the report and comments be noted and actioned, as required.

The Environmental Health Manager (Housing Standards), Tom Birtwistle, presented a report to provide the Committee with an overview of the number of empty residential and commercial properties within the borough, he outlined the current service demands which related to these premises and the challenges in returning properties to use, including the limitations of the Councils legislative powers and work in default options.

The following information was provided to Committee providing data in relation to empty properties and the challenges in bringing them back into use:

·         The number of empty properties in the borough was reducing

·         The number of complaints with regards to empty properties was increasing.

·         The number of empty commercial properties was static, with problems mainly in the town centres.

·         There were limitations in the enforcement actions that could be used.

·         Issues with the number of empty commercial properties: large industrial sites were often contaminated and not easy to bring back into use; some commercial properties were owned by limited companies,not always UK based.

·         Properties in probate (some disclaimed by the Duchy due to the low value of the properties and the cost of bringing them back into use).

·         Private owners

·         Enforcement action was a lengthy process and if Council undertook works in default, costs could not always be recovered.

Advanced Questions and Responses

1)    How many empty properties have been turned into HMOs?

Data in relation to HMO conversions from long term empty properties was not held by the Housing Standards Team.  A request was made to the Council Tax department to establish if this data could be extracted from their existing records. The following response was provided:

“There are 191 properties that are classed as owner liable due to being in multi-occupation on the Revenues system.Of those 191 properties, 9 remain empty and 22 have been occupied since the 31.12.24.”

This data would indicate that 22 properties are now HMO’s which were previously un-occupied.  Councillor Clegg requested clarification.

2)    Have you requested an increased budget for works in default?

A request in 2022 was made by the Head of Environmental Health in relation to the existing work in default budgets. At the time, no budget was available and it was expected that expenditure would be offset by the charge applied to properties and subsequently repaid by property owners. However, property charges are difficult to recover and the process can take years to complete. Therefore, the decision was made that works in default should only be considered as a last resort and where there is a public health or safety concern.

3)    Vacant Commercial Properties – These are increasingly sold using online Auctions and only scant reference is made to the fact that Planning Permission may be needed for any Change of Use.  This also applies to HBC Assets.  This can lead to (1) Unauthorised Use, adding to the workload of our Planning Enforcement Team and (2) The property continuing to stand empty because the new owner can’t get Planning Permission for the usage they had in mind.  If HBC is the seller, could they draw attention to the fact that Planning Permission might be needed for Change of Use?

The sale of Council owned assets was not within the remit of Housing Standards, however, contact had been made with the Regeneration and Property Manager.  The reply was as below:

“When selling or leasing assets the Property Team includes in the particulars the need for the purchaser or lessee to attain their own permissions (could be planning and or building control). In some negotiations the sale is conditional on the purchaser getting planning approval for their intended use and on occasion the sale has fallen through because planning was not attainable.”

4)    Can Councils apply any pressure for HM Land Registry records to be brought up-to-date?  Despite increasing their Search Fees they have a backlog of over a year, meaning that if it’s known that a property or piece of land has changed hands, it isn’t possible to find out the new owner’s identity.

Contact and requests for assistance between government organisations would normally fall within the remit of the Member of Parliament for Hyndburn.

Councillor Addison referred to the importance of records being kept up to date.

Members submitted queries and comments on the following issues:

·         Funding problems limited any action the Council could take.

·         Rough sleepers were occupying the empty property in the Barnfield area – what could be done about this?

·         A proposal to list empty properties on the Council’s website, detailing current works on the properties as well as listing commercial properties to rent.  The Council could work with the owner to help to sell/lease properties.

·         Was there a pattern in who owned problematic/empty properties.  Did the same owners/landlords names keep arising?  Would licensing help with these issues?

·         What would happen to empty properties on site of heritage protection.  Reference was made to Mercer House and loopholes in regulation.

The Environmental Health Officer (Housing Standards) reported that empty properties were the responsibility of private owners although the Police did have powers to intervene if permission was granted by the owner.  He indicated that he would look to see if anything was actionable such as property access being open.

In respect of the proposal to list empty properties on the Council’s website, he indicated that he would have to seek legal advice on GDPR in relation to this.  He also reminded the Committee that the Council was limited in its resources (both staffing and finance) to manage the various schemes suggested but that he would take the ideas back for further consideration.  

He reported that there were more ‘problematic’ empty properties and many were long term empties. He explained that ownership was a ‘mixed bag’ as some were owned by individuals and some were owned by limited companies.  Many owners were difficult to trace.  Empty properties were also targeted so could become a neighbourhood issue. 

Commercial properties were often held as assets and even when sold would not be brought back into use.  

He indicated that he would investigate further the issue raised around Clayton Clinic, Church Street, Clayton Le Moors.

Resolved                               -   That the report be noted.