Are new houses really needed ?.

Cornucopia

The councils had made a concerted effort not to house families there. This had been working since the 90s until the mid 00s.

Since then, increased demand, benefit caps and rising private rents have pushed things back the other way.

The numbers are not vast - certainly not as bad as they were in the 80s/90s.

In this debate, it's easy to assume that as most people have some form of roof over their heads that there is not a problem. Unfortunately (as usual) there is devilment in the detail.

CLAPTON

Cornucopia wrote: »

The councils had made a concerted effort not to house families there. This had been working since the 90s until the mid 00s.

Since then, increased demand, benefit caps and rising private rents have pushed things back the other way.

The numbers are not vast - certainly not as bad as they were in the 80s/90s.

In this debate, it's easy to assume that as most people have some form of roof over their heads that there is not a problem. Unfortunately (as usual) there is devilment in the detail.

these people do have a roof over their heads

Cornucopia

Yes - but the question is whether the housing is safe, clean, appropriate for the residents and cost-effective for public funds?

I don't entirely understand why the councils do not run the b&bs themselves - at least then they could have some control over the quality & cost.

pbouk

CLAPTON wrote: »

being wrong twice is nothing to boast about

YOU would know, as you are more often than not wrong.

cepheus

antrobus wrote: »

Council Tax Data published on 20 November 2012 put the number of empty homes in England at 710,000. Of these, 259,000 were defined as long-term empty properties (empty for longer than six months) – representing a net reduction of 20,000 (7%) on 2011 figures.

Why quote England when the OP stated the UK, and why leave out the ones which are not liable for council tax? There are probably in excess of a Million empty homes, excluding uninhabitable and homes due for demolition (although even these sound better than sleeping on spikes). I also understand there are more rooms than people in London.

We estimate that there are 845,000 empty homes across the UK

It is important to note that some homes are not included in the statistics. These include:

Uninhabitable homes: Homes in very poor condition can be excluded from council tax and so are not counted in these statistics. No data is available to quantify how many of these there are nationally. Recent research in Bradford showed that there were 5,000 uninhabitable homes in that city, this indicates that there are many thousands across the country.

Homes due for demolition: Again these are exempt from council tax. In our view these should not be counted unless demolition is in doubt or has been cancelled. Currently 40,000 homes that were due for demolition under now cancelled regeneration schemes stand empty.

Flats above shops. Many unused flats above shops have no residential planning use class even though they are clearly laid out as dwellings. These are charged under business rates and not council tax and so do not feature in empty homes statistics. A report carried out for the government in 2004 estimated that there were 300,000 flats in this state in England.

http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/empty-homes-statistice-201112/

spikes being removed from Tesco! Protest works. Homes Not Spikes

CLAPTON

pbouk wrote: »

YOU would know, as you are more often than not wrong.

too true, but I don't normally boast about it

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

Why quote England when the OP stated the UK,...

Because, you silly old fool, housing in the UK is a devolved matter, and so each of the nations publishes its own separate statistics. So I gave sources for empty home statistics for England and Scotland, (that covers about 90% of it) in order to support the contention that the 2.5 million figure was a trifle OTT.

cepheus wrote: »

...and why leave out the ones which are not liable for council tax?.....

I didn't leave anything out, I simply pointed people in the direction to where the actual statistics could be found.

cepheus wrote: »

..... There are probably in excess of a Million empty homes, excluding uninhabitable and homes due for demolition (although even these sound better than sleeping on spikes). I also understand there are more rooms than people in London..

A million is a lot less than the 2.5 million the OP said there was. Which is the figure I was suggesting was wrong. You appear to agree that it is wrong.

cepheus wrote: »

...http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/empty-homes-statistice-201112/

Err, that's the exact same source I cited in my post #7, when I quoted their statistic that there were 635,127 empty homes in England.

You now draw attention to the fact that it states that "We estimate that there are 845,000 empty homes across the UK,"

What I originally said was;

antrobus wrote: »

....Conclusion: the claim that "In the UK there are around 2.5 million empty properties" is a load of nonsense. The true figure is probably about a third of that....

According to my calculator one third of 2.5 million is 833,000. Thank you for pointing that I was correct in making that statement.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't know if the original figure is correct, however, there was a big thing near me recently highlighting the issue that a lot of homes were empty for 11 months of the year.

All of those homes will, I assume, be paying council tax, so won't come under the figures posted above.

But those homes ARE empty for 11 months of the year or around about that figure. I guess this would be better defined as underused rather than empty, even if they are empty 90% of the year.

Which means they aren't the issue the original poster was imaging. A house that I own but choose not to occupy for most of the year isn't an 'empty' home that can be renovated and sold to decrease the shortfall in housing.

The view can be taken that 2nd/3rd/4th homes are a bad thing and thus they should be discouraged. I'm not persuaded that it is needed, nor that stopping it would have a noticeable benefit to the housing market.

Examples of houses used for 1 month a year are almost certainly the near fictional exception to the rule. I know two people who own 2nd/3rd homes in Cornwall and in both cases the houses are occupied for half the year or more. When they are occupied they are occupied by people spending considerable amounts in the local area. If they didn't own them in Cornwall then they'd own them in France, Spain or any number of other places and the money would be spent there instead.

N1AK

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't entirely understand why the councils do not run the b&bs themselves - at least then they could have some control over the quality & cost.

Because 1) Short-termism makes people choose the long term bigger cost option over the short term high cost option and 2) If they run it themselves then they get control and responsibility. If someone is mistreated in a private B&B the council can act shocked etc more easily than if they run it.

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

Which means they aren't the issue the original poster was imaging. A house that I own but choose not to occupy for most of the year isn't an 'empty' home that can be renovated and sold to decrease the shortfall in housing.........

Indeed, there is a world of difference between a home that is empty and one that is underoccupied by some defintion or other.

As I intimated earlier in this thread, the authrorities are quite aware of the fact that there are 'empty homes' . LAs have Empty Homes Officers if not entire teams devoted to the issue, whilst the UK government, together with the various devolved administrations have adopted various initiatives over the years. It's not just a question of waving some magic wand; houses are normally empty for a reason, and you have to tackle that reason in order to make the house non-empty.

One might, of course, assert that the under-occupation of property is also a problem, and complain that it isn't fair that (a) some people have more than one home, or (b) have properies that are far to large for their needs. But aside from advocating some kind of state licensing scheme, I'm not that sure that there is anything that can be done about it.