Private property body wants safeguards in Right to Buy scheme 1

Finance | Tania Mason | 9 May 2011

The private property industry has signalled its opposition to the ‘Right to Buy’ proposals contained in the Localism Bill and has implored the government to insert “safeguards” to stop communities making vexatious claims on properties.

In its submission to the consultation on the scheme, the British Property Federation has recommended that any community group wishing to buy a community asset should have to prove its ability to raise the finance, before the local authority adds the property to its list of nominated properties.

The Community Right to Buy concept is intended to give community groups and other civil society organisations (CSOs) the power to nominate a piece of land or building to be listed with the local authority, and then be given time to prepare a bid to buy it if the owner wants to sell it. The Department for Communities and Local Government, which is sponsoring the Bill, hopes the legislation will help to save local community services from closure and also bring empty buildings back into use.

The NCVO has recommended to government that the sector should be given first right of refusal over any such property, ahead of prospective private-sector buyers.

But the response submitted by the BPF indicates that it may not be willing to accept the proposals without a fight. It suggests that the scheme will do little to save local services such as post offices and pubs from closure, and could even be “hijacked” to stifle development and economic growth.

Liz Peace, chief executive of the BPF, said it was misleading of the government to portray the scheme as a mechanism for local communities to keep services open because communities will only be able to list the building and not the service that operates from within it.

“For example, a post office is a contractual service and while the community may be able to bid for the building, this would not guarantee the continuation of the service. Equally, if a local pub faces closure and the community manage to purchase it, they would take ownership of the building and not the service. They would have to take on and organise this for themselves.”

The BPF also raised concerns that “vexatious” nominations could be made in order to stifle development and regeneration.

“Given the financial impact and inconvenience to property owners that could result, the BPF is calling on the government to put in place a series of safeguards that communities must satisfy in order to successfully list a property with the local authority," said Peace. "Such safeguards include providing proof of their ability to raise the money for the purchase.

"Including this measure will help to reduce incidence of vexatious applicatons and go some way to providing peace of mind for property owners affected."

Directory: National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO)

Place a comment

Bob
16 May 2011

Chicken and egg !

Whilst I agree that the issue of "vexatious nominations" must be dealt with the BPF proposal is inherently flawed in my understanding.

1. Namely the community needs to know of a problem / opportunity before it can consider whether or not to nominate an asset
2. At this stage the decision to nominate must surely be supported by the subsequent / parallel development of a (Business) plan
3. From which plan the funders (banks et al) can make a (commercial) decision on whether or not to support the community's ideas

BPF seems to indicate that the community must have the funds available and provide proof of this (stage 3) before the nomination can be made / accepted.

Clearly they have never dealt with a public body when looking for funding and / or a 3rd sector lender or bank looking for debt / development capital who will all want plan first and offer second !!

Dare I say their wish is "vexatious" also ??!!

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.