Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Philip Dunne (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 7 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Rating (Empty Properties) Bill.


Rating (Empty Properties) Bill

If I heard the Financial Secretary correctly, he said that owners would be encouraged to move on their properties more rapidly than they would if they benefited from the relief. That might apply when the owner is a developer of property put up for speculative purposes, which might be the case for much of the central London property to which he has just referred. What analysis has the Treasury done of the proportion of empty space to which the relief applies for occupiers—tenants of buildings—rather than owners? Outside speculative development, it is largely tenants of properties—and their predecessors, which I shall talk about in my speech—who might be unable to continue trading in those properties, who end up paying the bill.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
461 c440 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Clubs Charities Business Competition Brownfield sites Business premises Contamination Environment protection Greater London Empty property Farms Land use Internet Economic situation Housing stock Local government finance Property Business rates Listed buildings Prices Pension funds Small businesses Tax allowances Valuation Sports Tenants Shops Retail trade Supermarkets Rents Rural areas Regeneration Vandalism Retail prices index Local Government Finance Funding Changes Independent Inquiry Land Use Planning Review
Legislation
Rating (Empty Properties) Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk