Ministers launch £1m empty homes crack down
The government has announced a £1 million fund to help 17 councils crack down on anti-social behaviour in empty homes.
The money will renovate derelict houses to be rented out as social homes, and attract private funding to enable local people to buy and refurbish the homes.
The announcement is part of measures to tackle anti-social behaviour announced in November. The drive will equip up to 10,000 frontline workers and community champions, including 1,000 local tenants, with the skills to use tough powers to solve problems in their area.
Housing minister John Healey said: ‘Empty houses are both a blight on communities and a waste of much needed homes. Councils already have strong legal powers to force the owners of empty properties to act and if necessary take over homes, but these powers are often neither used or understood properly.
‘I want councils using every tool available so that people can see action being taken against anti-social behaviour in their area. That’s why I’m backing 17 councils in areas where empty homes have been a magnet for vandalism, threatening behaviour or other types of anti-social activities. They will get training for frontline workers and tenants so they understand how they can use their legal powers. And they will get the cash they need to renovate and re-let empty homes back, reviving run-down areas of their communities.’
Home Office minister David Hanson said: ‘Tackling anti-social behaviour is not just about using tough tools and powers to prevent people intimidating their neighbours and running down their communities. It is also about creating safe and confident communities where there is no room for this type of behaviour. We know derelict homes can often be a catalyst for crime and anti-social behaviour – this extra funding will help address that problem, making a real and visible difference to these communities.’
The 17 local authority areas that will receive funding are: Torbay, St Helens, Ipswich , Mansfield and Bolsover, Luton , Bolton, Liverpool, Stoke, Doncaster, Corby, East Northamptonshire and South Northamptonshire, Milton Keynes, Durham, Cornwall, and Warwick.
Liverpool, Stoke, Bolton and Doncaster, which have more than 3,000 empty homes, get £84,000 each. The remaining councils will each receive £53,000 with the exception of Corby, East Northamptonshire and South Northamptonshire which have been grouped together as they have proposed one officer to work across the authorities. The Homes and Communities Agency Academy will receive £80,000 to work with these local authorities and develop ideas which can be tested in one location and rolled out more widely.
The Empty Homes Agency and the Chartered Institute of Housing will work with the Homes and Communities Agency Academy on a programme of targeted consultancy to help develop skills and expertise in the 17 local authorities. The 17 authorities are in the 60 local authorities with the highest level of empty homes, were found to need improvement by the Audit Commission’s comprehensive area assessment, and were willing to take action and match the government funds with their own resources.
Meanwhile, Mr Healey has told Parliament the names of the 20 authorities with the largest number of social homes vacant for six months or more. They are Middlesbrough, Walsall, Oldham, Redcar and Cleveland, Sunderland, Knowles, Havering, Kingston upon Hull, Liverpool, Hackney, Newham, Hyndburn, Copeland, Mansfield, Teesdale, Newcastle upon Tyne, Bradford, North East Lincolnshire, Hartlepool and Cheltenham.
| Local authorities with the highest percentage of long-term empty social sector dwellings | |||
| Local authority | Social dwelling stock | Social long-term vacants | Social long-term vacants as percentage of social dwelling stock |
| Middlesbrough UA | 15,528 | 704 | 4.5 |
| Walsall | 26,634 | 831 | 3.1 |
| Oldham | 20,044 | 572 | 2.9 |
| Redcar and Cleveland UA | 12,390 | 332 | 2.7 |
| Sunderland | 34,048 | 892 | 2.6 |
| Knowsley | 18,198 | 448 | 2.5 |
| Havering | 12,901 | 304 | 2.4 |
| Kingston upon Hull UA | 34,475 | 780 | 2.3 |
| Liverpool | 55,197 | 1,192 | 2.2 |
| Hackney | 41,767 | 878 | 2.1 |
| Newham | 29,311 | 605 | 2.1 |
| Hyndburn | 4,825 | 99 | 2.1 |
| Copeland | 6,435 | 122 | 1.9 |
| Mansfield | 8,750 | 163 | 1.9 |
| Teesdale | 688 | 12 | 1.7 |
| Newcastle upon Tyne | 36,697 | 596 | 1.6 |
| Bradford | 31,896 | 497 | 1.6 |
| North East Lincolnshire UA | 10,271 | 158 | 1.5 |
| Hartlepool UA | 9,681 | 147 | 1.5 |
| Cheltenham | 6,746 | 102 | 1.5 |
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment





Readers' comments (8)
john bull | 08/02/2010 12:09 pm
What happened to an English mans(persons) home is his castle?
If someone is the owner of a freehold property, and after its been empty for six months pays full council tax on it, if they continue to keep it empty or derelict that is their business.
There are a great many reasons why someone might wish to keep a property empty. Particularly in the present property market. EG if you rent it out tenants could wreak it or turn it into a canabis factory. Once in tenants may pay one months rent and then stop paying, it takes many months or years and hard cash to get them out. ( all common events)
Hands off OUR houses, nanny state.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Parr | 08/02/2010 1:51 pm
But the owners dont pay full Council Tax after 6 months do they? Maybe if they did pay the full amount the number of empty homes would decrease.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bannside | 08/02/2010 2:00 pm
John, if you lived beside an empty property allowed to deteriorate into disrepair that affects your house, or, is squatted and you and your neighbours suffer antisocial behaviour and blight of the neighbourhood, would you want your Council to do something about it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
AC Preston | 08/02/2010 3:03 pm
I wouldn't worry too much, £1m between 17 councils? That should just about cover their stationary bills!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
palaver | 08/02/2010 4:04 pm
As Bannside says, empty homes blight areas and can make neighbours' lives hell. Council Tax must be paid on empty properties after 6 months grace but this does not stop uncaring owners keeping the property empty.
As John Healey says, "Councils already have strong legal powers to force the owners of empty properties to act and if necessary take over homes, but these powers are often neither used or understood properly." Why don't councils use these powers?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 08/02/2010 11:01 pm
There might be the case of some squatters being antisocial, of course and I sympathize totally with those who suffer the consequences. However I have got to point out that most squatters I have known are very considerate people. In fact, because they are squatters, they are better behaved than even normal tenants because they do not want attract attention to them and be evicted.
I think most antisocial issues are perpretated by people who are just vandals who find easy to pass the blame on squatters in general. And of course not many know that the word 'squatter' has been given a sinister meaning when in fact many of them are just homeless people using empty properties.
I strongly hope people do not fall into the trap to make squatters a scapegoat instead of tackling the real antisocial elements and causes in our communities.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The ONLY One | 09/02/2010 11:59 am
Kass - please can you explain what a 'normal tenant' is?? And I can see no mention of squatters in the article, only perpitrators of anti-social behaviour.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bannside | 09/02/2010 1:49 pm
Are the, 'strong legal powers' not used by councils because councils do not see empty property as an important issue? Despite what politicians say, Local Authorities have not taken the action they could have.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment