Empty properties

[Tim Lund]

Please bear with me, guys, as I share new found knowledge of housing in London ...

This one is a spin off of discovering, while trying to work out how new housing helped maintain services in Lewisham, that in the year to Oct 12, no empty properties in Lewisham were brought into occupation - which would have helped just as much. I'm a bit doubtful about this number, but as it stands it suggests either that there really aren't any empty homes other than ones only temporarily empty, or that Lewisham officers are not very good at getting empty homes into use. But to put this into perspective, I've produced some charts, comparing Lewisham with other London boroughs, first looking at total numbers of empty properties, and then this as a percentage of empty properties as reported in the

GLA Datastore





Lewisham may not be doing well, but it's far from the worst.

There's a chart for total vacancy rates from the same GLA databank since 1991, which shows the rate in London declining by more than 50% since a peak in 1993. What interests me about this is that I believe this has been a time when the private rental sector has expanded significantly, with a fair amount of 'buy-to-let' investment money going into the sector. The fact that vacancy rates have fallen so much makes the idea that buy-to-let investors are worsening the housing shortage in London fairly implausible.

[Tim Lund]

I've been contacted by Lewisham officers to say that the issue of no emtpy homes being brought into use has been

investigated ... and Lewisham Council have ( over the period in question ) facilitated bringing a considerable number of properties back into use. These statistics have been reported to CLG but as yet they have not been published. We are contacting CLG to find out the reason for this. Hopefully this will result in the correct figures being published shortly. In the meantime I can assure you the Council put considerable effort into dealing with empty properties and this will be reflected eventually in the published figures.

These numbers are clearly important, since funding depends on them, so I assume they have to be thoroughly checked, and properly documented; my guess is that somehow there are glitches in this process, which I imagine would be of concern to the DCLG as much as to local authorities such as Lewisham and ordinary citizens such as myself. Let's hope we can identify how Lewisham could get its proper funding allocation!

[bensonby]

Is this empty properties owned by the council or all empty residential properties on the borough?

[Tim Lund]

All empty properties.

[Eagle]

Lewisham should certainly get any empty properties of theirs ready for all the Romanians due in 11months. If they have not got enough they could turf some locals out.

Not sure what they can do about private housing. Not their problem.

[bensonby]

Do the council have a duty to do anything about, or indeed any power to do anything about, empty properties?

[Tim Lund]

Not sure what they can do about private housing. Not their problem.

I'm interested to know what they can do to help get private sector houses back into occupation, but if people do move in, I think it's quite sensible for central government to give the Council more funding, both because new inhabitants will impose new costs on the Council - finding school places, funding social care, etc. I only hope that the New Homes Bonus is enough, since, with the housing shortage, I think it's also reasonable to give councils an incentive to house more people in their areas. This is a core element of the Localism Act - to get communities to welcome more housing as a route to better funded local services.

[Eagle]

Tim
You are correct about inadequate facilities. Only last week someone mentioned impossible to get appt at Bell Green Health Centre. Could it be that they were obliged to take on all the new flat dwellers in the vicinity.

[Nigel]

Eagle
I am very much with you on this . It is a case of under supply of housing versus over supply of people. Someone elsewhere on this forum highlighted the lunacy of building motorways as an antidote to congestion. When you apply it to housing the example is even more apt - at least you actually have to own a car to contribute to congestion.

Tim's reference to localism is misguided too- investment in social housing is a clear statement that a country/city/community welcomes more people who will make demands on health/ criminal/social and welfare services .
My own position is that we owe all of our citizens care and consideration in all aspects of life . That does not mean I wish to attract more people with the same needs of a very finite resource .

I don't believe as a community we would vote or consent to that ( least of all those with the most genuine and severe need who live in Sydenham already).

On that basis I really do not want to be included in anyone's lofty aims for home -building until that visionary and sainted individual can explain how we deal with a, the problems we already face and b, how to get a rapid appointment at Bell Green surgery.
Good evening
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

Eagle
I am very much with you on this . It is a case of under supply of housing versus over supply of people. Someone elsewhere on this forum highlighted the lunacy of building motorways as an antidote to congestion. When you apply it to housing the example is even more apt - at least you actually have to own a car to contribute to congestion.

I'm confused - are you saying if we build too many houses, people will only breed more to fill them up, so we need housing shortages as a way to limit population?

Tim's reference to localism is misguided too- investment in social housing is a clear statement that a country/city/community welcomes more people who will make demands on health/ criminal/social and welfare services .

Why the reference to social housing? Owner occupiers and people in the private rented sector put demands on local services too, and people in social housing can also make positive contributions to local society.

My own position is that we owe all of our citizens care and consideration in all aspects of life . That does not mean I wish to attract more people with the same needs of a very finite resource .

I think you're saying the resource of capacity at Bell Green health centre, and by extension other local services is finite. This will only be true if we fail to anticipate and fund increased capacity. This is what the funding mechanisms of the Localism Act aim to permit for those services supplied via local authorities; I'd guess there are similar funding arrangements for NHS practices.

I don't believe as a community we would vote or consent to that ( least of all those with the most genuine and severe need who live in Sydenham already).

I don't doubt that "Disgusted of SE26" would vote to keep out those who aren't quite our demographic.

[Tim Lund]

This story in the Standard, about making it easier to convert unused office buildings to residential seems sensible to me.

Ministers are to announce that developers will be allowed to convert the blocks without seeking permission from councils in a move that property experts said would have a “profound impact” on London.

Property experts said the change in planning rules could unleash a flood of applications to turn hundreds of disused or part-empty commercial buildings into flats that could help ease the capital’s housing crisis. Vacancy rates in commercial buildings are three times higher than in the residential sector.

On the face of it, there's a contradiction here, since if developers are "allowed to convert the blocks without seeking permission" as in the first paragraph, why would there be any applications flooding in in second paragraph? I suspect getting permission would still be required to ensure certain basic standards, but not for the change of use.

I find it curious that there's one expert quoted saying that "if too much retail and commercial is lost a place quickly gets a dormitory feel to it", when I'd have thought unused office space makes somewhere look even more run down. Rather than try to second guess the market, I'd have thought planners would do better to demand flexibility of future use in any applications, so that neighbourhoods don't get stuck with office space, retail space or residential space as needs change, which can't be easily changed into another use, and not look awful. It would be better to have professional architects working on how to do this, than professional planners making the process being more inflexible by insisting on current planning use classes. Economically it's rather like a transactions tax, but whose benefit is solely as a kind of in door relief for the professional classes.

[michael]

I really like solutions that convert existing high density commercial development for residential use (where suitable). Not all commercial properties are idea for immediate conversion to residential, but the use of any empty proper brownfield sites for residential should be welcomed.

There is a big difference between the conversion of office blocks and the conversion of A1 retail and pubs to residential. Office blocks in London provide employment opportunities, so you don't want to lose too much of such space, but loss of pubs and A1 retail (given the value of these sites for residential) needs to be resisted, or at least carefully considered.

I do think that it would be foolish to allow any conversion of office blocks to residential without going through planning (and I'm sure the rules will be set up in an appropriate way). The last thing we need is for failed office blocks in town centres to become failed housing projects in town centres because of poor quality accommodation and failure to build quality homes for all sections of the market.

It is good that you are finding there are many good ways to increase housing supply before expecting existing home owners to convert their attics to house the poor, and bulldoze whole suburban streets to build high density dwellings.

[Tim Lund]

It's a real pleasure to find an area of agreement with you here, Michael - and there's absolutely no irony in my saying this.

It wouldn't be you - or me - if there wasn't a little barb at the end, but I'll limit my rising to it for the time being. Let's just leave it at correcting any suggestion that I might expect existing home owners to convert their attics against their wishes; I'm more for making it easier for them to do so, should they so wish.

[Eagle]

Michael

I agree that a limited number of commercial premises could be converted , however we must not lose to many commercial opportunities as employment would suffer.

No point of housing without jobs.

[Tim Lund]

Michael

I agree that a limited number of commercial premises could be converted , however we must not lose to many commercial opportunities as employment would suffer.

No point of housing without jobs.

The point I made about flexibility is meant to address this - the more easily a building use can change, the less likely it is to stand unused for any period of time, either as empty residential, office or retail. If buildings can be sufficiently flexible, I can't see why any planning use classes, in general, are needed.

It's a point I made in an earlier thread about their impact of Sydenham and Forest Hill town centres. In Sydenham something like 75% are A1 - e.g. the sort of traditional retail most of us like to see - while in Forest Hill it's more like 50%. And yet Forest Hill seems to be doing bettter. This should not come as a surprise to anyone; if thanks to these rules there are more such business than there would otherwise be, they will tend to undercut each other, be less profitable, and less able to invest for the long term. Meanwhile, there will be less space for the sorts of businesses, such as cafés, which we do see thriving in Forest Hill. It is quite paradoxical that so many people think planning use classes such as this protect our High Streets, while in fact they undermine it.

[Nigel]

Tim
You handled that as consummately as Gordon Brown in his "bigoted old woman" episode.
Despite your veiled accusation of elitism your response is exactly what one would expect from a highly educated person in a moderately privileged person , certainly relative to this discussion.
Your supposition that resources follow head of population is risible - can you name one public service that is not set to shrink in the next 12 months? I do not for one minute think you believe this, I am sure nobody else does, and I can only assume it is yet more attempts to explain how building more social housing, housing more people with more profound and complex needs , will ultimately lead to a better outcome for Sydenham.
I am more than miffed at your portrayal of me as "disgusted of SE26" and more so still as a member of any elite . My own perspective is from a background that has times relied heavily on social housing , solely on state education and frequently on the NHS.

If one has need to use the services of Job Centre Plus, the one thing you don't wish for are more jobseekers , chasing fewer jobs. Similarly, if one is in dire housing need one would not be reading your recent post and hoping that more people flood into Sydenham to be housed before your own acute need is met.

To me that is common sense. As a believer in greater distribution of wealth and life expectations (do not get me started on the inequality of what this country spends on higher education for a few , increasingly comprising the better off anyway) , I would like to see the burden, and it is a burden, of building more social housing move to the most affluent boroughs and neighbourhoods. That way , we would achieve a better and more varied social mix , instead of boroughs like Lewisham absorbing more and more people with fewer and fewer resources.

Your final point about removing planning control is probably the most elitist comment so far - essentially "rules are for the little people" . I sincerely believe that in TimTopia it would work out very nicely but in the real world it would result in more and more high-density , poorly sited/constructed building and / or conversions of an equally unsuitable nature.
Good evening
Nigel

[Tim Lund]

Tim
Your supposition that resources follow head of population is risible - can you name one public service that is not set to shrink in the next 12 months?

The issue is whether resources are allocated equally - per head - which seems a different question from whether the amount per head goes up or down. Some services - the long established universal benefits - clearly are allocated per head - e.g. old age pensions and child benefit, albeit not for long. Other services are in principle redistributive i.e. more goes to poorer people, e.g. all those which are means tested. OTOH - which is the point you make later, there are many which we'd like to think are universal, but are taken up much more by the wealthy, such as subsidised university education, and most state support for the arts, which I find hard to justify. We both know all this - I can't see why you are getting annoyed with me about it.

I do not for one minute think you believe this, I am sure nobody else does, and I can only assume it is yet more attempts to explain how building more social housing, housing more people with more profound and complex needs , will ultimately lead to a better outcome for Sydenham.

I don't think this, which is why I asked why you raised the question of whether the housing was social or not. I don't actually want to get into the question of whether having a higher or lower social housing mix is a good thing or not. I think most people would accept that higher levels of social housing do bring problems - as I do - so I think it reasonable in principle that the Localism Act has provisions to give more money for local authorities which accept more social housing. How can there be any dispute about that, other than how much ought to be given?

I am more than miffed at your portrayal of me as "disgusted of SE26"

Well don't rise to the tease

If one has need to use the services of Job Centre Plus, the one thing you don't wish for are more jobseekers , chasing fewer jobs. Similarly, if one is in dire housing need one would not be reading your recent post and hoping that more people flood into Sydenham to be housed before your own acute need is met.

If I was in dire housing need, in Sydenham, I think I'd mainly just want more houses to be built, and preferably in Sydenham so that I wouldn't have to move away from my friends.

I would like to see the burden, and it is a burden, of building more social housing move to the most affluent boroughs and neighbourhoods. That way , we would achieve a better and more varied social mix , instead of boroughs like Lewisham absorbing more and more people with fewer and fewer resources.

I suspect the Tory voting residents of Tory boroughs think that it's their generally higher taxes which pay for the net transfers which poorer boroughs such as Lewisham receive, and so are to some extent sharing the burden; forcing them to accept more social housing in their own areas would require massively more central control of what local authorities do. There's not much appetite for that - in fact I think I'm the only person on this Forum who's argued for less borough or 'neighbourhood' localism (I'd prefer more London-wide control). And electorally, I don't suppose Labour controlled boroughs are any keener on middle-class incomers who are more likely to vote Conservative than Tory boroughs are keen on social housing tenants more likely to vote Labour.

Your final point about removing planning control is probably the most elitist comment so far - essentially "rules are for the little people" . I sincerely believe that in TimTopia it would work out very nicely but in the real world it would result in more and more high-density , poorly sited/constructed building and / or conversions of an equally unsuitable nature.
Nigel

Rules with no emprical evidence of doing any good are for people who like rules for their own sake. Rather than say what would happen in the real world, why not address what actually happens in Sydenham and Forest Hill? I don't in general have a view on whether there should be more or fewer rules - just better ones.

As for being "a highly educated person", I wonder what your evidence is. As is generally known, I'm a mathematician by background, which is hardly relevant to this discussion, so if I come across as highly educated, that says something about self-education, which does not depend on any kind of privileged background. I like to think of myself as carrying on the tradition of my Rochdale grandfather, leaving school at 14 but going on to study at Manchester University.