Bringing empty homes back into use – there must be a better system
Bringing empty homes back into use – there must be a better system
Since it was Empty Homes Week (28 Feb – 6 March), we checked out the total number of long-term empty homes.
According to Government figures, in Sept 2021 there were 238,306 properties that had been empty for longer than six months – 4,566 of which were in Brent and the other West London boroughs.
Given the acute housing crisis, more must be done to bring these properties back into use.
We know that the rate at which new homes are being built will never be enough, even to house the 96,000 households in temporary accommodation, let alone all the households who are in acute housing need due to severe overcrowding, serious disrepair and/or rents that leave them in poverty.
Even if we could build enough homes, the energy this would consume would make it impossible to meet our carbon reduction targets, so It’s essential that we make best use of the housing that already exist, and it can be done.
It has never been easy to persuade reluctant owners to bring empty properties back into use. It’s even harder when so many investors regard homes as a commodity to trade in, rather than somewhere to live. The scandal of oligarchs owning multi-million pound properties in London (often purchased with ill-gotten gains) is only the tip of the iceberg. Using London houses as an investment has been practised for decades.
To assist local authorities to get properties occupied when other measures failed, they were given powers to serve Empty Dwelling Management Orders. When this power came into force, back in 2006, we dared to hope that it would help, but astonishingly, only 66 Orders have been served across England in all of that time, with only two in West London (one in Hammersmith and Fulham and one in Hounslow).
What more could be done?
We believe the time has come for some major changes in the law. We could start by learning lessons from Denmark which has the lowest rate of empty dwellings in Europe.
In Denmark, digital registration is needed to secure ownership rights and Denmark’s Land Register is complete, open and (unlike HM Land Registry) is free to access. A free Land Registry is an incentive for individuals and communities to try to negotiate with owners on innovative ways to use properties to meet local housing needs.
Denmark has a Land Value Tax. A tax on land, based on its potential value if developed, acts as a major disincentive to ‘land banking’. Land banking is used by large developers here to ensure that demand for housing exceeds supply, keeping house prices high, and watching the value of the undeveloped land increase, without financial penalty. The Land Value Tax paid to the Danish State goes towards the cost of public services.
Property owners in Denmark also pay a property value tax to the local authority, based on a percentage of the property value and it’s paid only by owners, not tenants. This is fairer than our own Council Tax because the cap on Council Tax bands means that those on the lowest incomes, including renters, pay a higher percentage of their income in Council Tax than wealthy people.
Finally, in Denmark, it is illegal to leave a property vacant for longer that 180 days. Property owners are therefore obliged to either occupy the property themselves or rent it out as a permanent residence. If owners breach this rule, the local Council can nominate a household to occupy the property.
While it is rarely possible to import complete housing systems from one country to another without adjusting for circumstances and customs, these ideas are certainly ones the Government should consider carefully.
By Jacky Peacock, Head of Policy and Campaigns