FOI request (FOIR-467384728)

Empty properties owned by the council

Requested Wed 23 November 2022
Responded Mon 19 December 2022

I would like to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

1a. How many residential properties does the council currently own?

1b. What is the total value (or estimated value) of these properties?

2a. How many residential properties does the council own which are currently vacant/empty?

2b. What is the total value (or estimated value) of these properties?

3a. How many residential properties does the council own which have been vacant/empty for more than six months?

3b. What is the total value (or estimated value) of these properties?

4. Please provide a list of all residential properties that the council currently owns which have been vacant/empty for more than six months. For each property, please state: (i) the full address, (ii) the number of bedrooms, (iii) the amount paid for the property at time of purchase, (iv) the current estimated value, if known.

Response

1a. 54

1b. Refused under Section 43, please see below.

2a. 12

2b. Refused under Section 43, please see below.

3a. 6 properties in one building.

3b. Information not held

4. Refused under Section 31, please see below.

NOTICE OF REFUSAL - SECTION 43

The information you have requested in relation to the value of the empty properties is commercially sensitive and falls under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act - Commercially Sensitive Information.

Information prejudicing commercial interests - commercial interest relating to an organisations commercial activity and may include trading activity procurement and relationships with third parties.

The exemption afforded by Section 43 is subject to what is known as the 'public interest test'. When applying the test in a particular case a public authority is deciding whether the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than by disclosure.

Although the Freedom of Information Act does not define 'in the public interest', there is a presumption under Freedom of Information that openness is in the public interest. In applying the public interest test a public authority will take into account the distinction that has been often made by courts between things that are in the public interest, and things that merely interest the public. Where applicants have not identified public interest considerations succinctly or accurately, the public authority has a responsibility under the Act to make their own assessment of the public interest considerations in the particular case.

We have identified the following public interest factors that may be seen as encouraging the disclosure of information:

a) accountability of public spending

We consider these factors to be of limited relevance in relation to the information in question.

Public interest factors seen as encouraging non-disclosure are, generally, the exemptions themselves. In consideration of this matter we came to the following conclusions:

a) ensuring that companies are able to compete for business fairly

b) damage to reputation and/or financial interests

In weighing the factors for and against disclosure we have concluded that the likely benefit to the applicant and the wider public of disclosure is outweighed by the likely prejudice caused by such disclosure and that therefore the public interest is better served by non-disclosure.

For the reasons given above we will not be communicating to you the information you have requested.

NOTICE OF REFUSAL - SECTION 31

Please note that I consider the information you have requested regarding empty commercial properties to be exempt information under S31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act in that disclosure of that information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

The nature of the prejudice in this case is that the disclosure of the information in question would render the properties in question more vulnerable to damage and potential unauthorised occupation and the crime and disorder commonly associated with such occupation. Because it is our policy to refuse disclosure of the addresses of empty properties we are unable to provide direct evidence of a causal link between such disclosure and prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime. We believe, however, that there is evidence that the advertisement of the fact that a property is empty serves to make it vulnerable to damage and potential unauthorised occupation and the crime and disorder commonly associated with such occupation and that the nature of such prejudice is real and substantial and that there is a real and significant risk of such prejudice.

The exemption afforded by S31(1)(a) is subject to what is known as the 'public interest test'. When applying the test in a particular case a public authority is deciding whether the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than by disclosure.

Although the Freedom of Information Act does not define 'in the public interest', there is a presumption under Freedom of Information that openness is in the public interest. In applying the public interest test a public authority will take into account the distinction that has been often made by courts between things that are in the public interest, and things that merely interest the public. Where applicants have not identified public interest considerations succinctly or accurately, the public authority has a responsibility under the Act to make their own assessment of the public interest considerations in the particular case.

We have identified the following public interest factors that may be seen as encouraging the disclosure of information:

a) furtherance of understanding and participation in the public debate of issues of the day.

b) promotion of accountability and transparency by public authorities in the decision they make and the spending of public money.

c) bringing to light information affecting public health and safety.

d) bringing empty properties back into use.

We consider these factors to be generally of limited or no relevance in relation to the information in question.

We believe that there is no evidence that disclosure would bring any significant proportion of empty buildings back into use. In this respect we would point out that we consider that any disclosure would take no account of the reasons such properties are empty.

Public interest factors seen as encouraging non-disclosure are, generally, the exemptions themselves. In consideration of this matter we came to the following conclusions:

a) that there is no evidence of a wider public (rather than individual) interest in disclosure.

b) that the disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

c) that the nature of such prejudice is real and substantial and that there is a real and significant risk of such prejudice.

d) that crime associated with empty properties, whether owned by individuals or by organisations, has a substantial detrimental effect upon other individuals in the neighbourhood and wider community.

e) that the motives behind the request (albeit not provided to us) have no relevance since disclosure would mean the information would be in the public domain.

In weighing the factors for and against disclosure we have concluded that the likely benefit to the applicant and the wider public of disclosure is outweighed by the likely prejudice caused by such disclosure and that therefore the public interest is better served by non-disclosure.