Sunday, 10 April 2011

What chance of some policy on second homes?

House-number-2 Shelter reminds us that 'there is a drastic shortage of housing in England'. There are approximately 252,000 second homes in England, and 288,000 long term private empty homes. Second homes are largely concentrated in attractive rural and coastal locations (including Cornwall and the south west, Norfolk, and Cumbria) plus the City of London. Beyond this regional trend, they are very much localised, with properties clustered in particular villages or neighbourhoods.

Shelter have published a new policy briefing which notes that evidence is mixed as to the impact that second homes have on local communities and housing markets, but

'Local authorities have limited tools available to mitigate any negative impacts.'

The paper notes that private empty homes could make a contribution to meeting housing need:

However, they are not spatially concentrated in the areas of greatest housing need and local authorities face challenges both in getting empty homes back into use and preventing homes from falling empty.

Among the recommendations:

  • Council tax subsidies for empty and second home owners, which reward underuse of stock, should be abolished
  • Councils should be allowed to charge higher rates of tax for unused stock and use the revenue raised to fund housing development.

Hands up who expects this government to grab this one with all four hands?


10 Apr 2011 12:43:58 | Social policy, Space and place

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Neighbours Day Aotearoa I’m fascinated by the momentum for nationally coordinated, policy-sanctioned efforts to stimulate social capital. One day perhaps it will be possible to study and compare the expressed objectives and reported outcomes of some of these schemes. Our kiwi friends had their inaugural national celebration of neighbourliness, 26-27 March. Hopefully there will be some useful evaluation material to emerge: at least they’re giving it some thought. One of the founders, Rebecca Harrington, is reported here on Scoop: 'Because the idea of Neighbours Day Aotearoa is focused on locally organised gatherings in homes, backyards, or footpaths across the country, gauging exact levels of participation was always going to be a challenge. 'The indicators we have are the visitors to the website, media coverage, participants in social media, and direct contact from individuals (which was hard to keep up with)' she says. 'A huge number of websites have helped spread the word, and we’ve discovered mentions published in all kinds of places we didn’t know about from kindergarten notices to businesses’ staff newsletters. So we think the real level of involvement is a lot higher than we can see or measure.' The pic is from here.
PREVIOUS POST
Behaviour change, my arse Well here's a little entertainment. Matthew Taylor, for whom I have enormous respect but who in my opinion is visibly in the wrong place, takes issue with Dave Clements on the Joe Public blog for the way he challenges 'nudge theory' and the whole morally-suspect 'behaviour change' approach promoted by what is still known as the 'government'. He describes Dave's post as a 'predictably tendentious and intellectually second rate contribution'. Well ok, the post looks a little hurried and not as well under-pinned by supportable assertions as we might like, but hey, it's Joe Public. And all credit to Dave for putting his hand up to challenge the snide 'behaviour change' rhetoric. I'd like to extend the challenge to some of the piffle about 'innovation' that comes out of our tired, wretchedly tired, think tanks. I really don't care about intellectual rates, whatever they are, and I doubt that Dave does either. What I'd like to hear of is some thinking about what comes after the think-tanks, partly because some of them seem to be running on empty, and partly because as a consequence there's a serious danger of this government doing yet more of its own thinking. How scary is that? About a year ago, before I took this stab at the lamentable pomposity of the RSA, I wrote that: 'Part of the difficulty is that many London-based suits don't speak to people who have the dirt of estate life under their fingernails, unless for a photoshoot and through an interpreter. They meet together in London events to problematise the issue as 'out there', thus ensuring that they do not see themselves as part of it. 'One of the consequences is that any action to be taken becomes the subject of organisational management (control) rather than local networked response.' I don't think that's far from the point that Dave Clements is making. Because these policy approaches have too arbitrary or fanciful a connection with the reality of so many people's lives, it's hard for them to be anything but coercive. I see no sign of this state of affairs improving, and 'behaviour change' and the fashionable rhetoric about getting ordinary people to 'learn to innovate' etc seems to confirm that decline. Perhaps the time is right to hear the regal opinion of Jim Royle: 'innovation my arse'. Whoops, I think I just slipped a few more places in the intellectual ratings.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments