Empty homes targeted by Cheltenham Borough Council in bid to raise cash, tackle housing crisis
A CRACKDOWN on vacant homes is set to commence in Cheltenham in a bid to fix the town's 'absurd' housing crisis.
There are currently more than 340 privately owned homes which have been left empty long term and Borough Council bosses have decided enough is enough.
They have agreed to bolster their enforcement team so that officers have the chance to go after absentee landlords whose run down properties are blighting communities and denying people a place to live.
Cheltenham Borough Council hopes its investment in staff in the next three years will lead to a further 23 homes being brought back into use every year.
Sunday and Monday evenings £12.00 per head for an all inclusive meal with Indian and Thai cuisine (normal price £14.50).
Bring this voucher to the restaurant complete with your name and email address on it.
Terms: Expires 31st July
Contact: 01452 223782
Valid until: Wednesday, July 31 2013
Boosting the workforce will help free up time to enable experienced professionals to tackle the longest term and most problematic vacant properties, especially in cases where owners cannot be traced, refuse to bring their properties back into use or say no to selling up.
In such cases the council will threaten landlords with enforced sale or compulsory purchase orders to force their hand.
According to the Council there is a constant stream of homes becoming classed as long term empty every year and many of the most problematic cases have 'stood empty for far too long'.
In a borough struggling to find homes for everyone who wants to live here, bringing as many homes as possible back into use is deemed to be an important goal.
However, the authority also has a financial motive for pursuing the properties with increased vigour, as Councillor John Rawson (LD, St Peters), cabinet member for finance, explains.
"It obviously makes sense to bring empty homes back into use for its own sake. It is absurd to be building more homes than we need while existing homes are standing empty.
"There is also a big financial advantage to the Council in getting empty homes brought back into use. By doing so, we qualify for the Government's New Homes Bonus on each property. This is worth around £12,000 per property over six years. So if we can reach our target of bringing 23 more empty houses a year back into use, that is worth around £276,000 to us – vastly more than the £30,000 it is costing us.
"We are losing £423,000 in Government grant this year due to national budget cuts, so anything we can do to claw back some of that money from the grasping hands of the Treasury is well worth doing."
The Council will spend £30,000 in each of the next three years on a new fixed-term enforcement post as well as making other changes – even the creation of one new job will have a major impact though.
The Council's current work brings an estimated 100 homes back into use every year.
7 Comments
by mikemesza
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 12:37PM
“It's a disgrace that the Council's Empty Homes Team don't do something about their own empty homes. For instance, a prefab in Hatherley has stood unoccupied for at least three years because they refuse to spend money on underpinning. They won't sell it, won't rent it out and won't work on it. Yes.... just let it stand there.... well done to the hypocritical powers that (are supposed) to be..”
by unsustainable
Thursday, March 14 2013, 4:09PM
“A significant number of these properties are speculative "land banks". Another wheeze that seems to be encouraged by CBC, is to have what could be described as an "each way bet" on providing a wind fall for the owner of the land, by allowing the house and its garden to become derelict to such an extent that the "only option" is to build a new house in the garden! Bad enough to build in the garden in the first instance, but this crassness pales into insignificance with regard to the assertion by the Council during Planning "consultations" [ I use this word loosely] that there is not a sufficient number of homes in Cheltenham. Meanwhile the dilapidated donor house that has been deliberately left unoccupied for over 6 years is ignored during the Planning View during which the venerable members of the Planning Committee and Planning Officers are so shocked by the dilapidated state of the rear of the property that they exalt "cram them in!…..we must build in this garden!". Do not hold your breath waiting for CBC to bring back neglected, empty homes back into the housing stock. Hell will freeze over first.”
by AndyPrestbury
Friday, March 08 2013, 12:41PM
“Are the council going to do anything with the Axiom?”
by Bonkim2003
Thursday, March 07 2013, 5:31PM
“JASB123 - agree it s friendly persuation and incentives for the owners - not riding rough shod. The terms 'crack down' and recruiting an 'enforcement officer' are misplaced - didn't give much thought earlier. Will our councils ever learn how to influence people?”
by JASB123
Thursday, March 07 2013, 5:10PM
“Bonkim2003 you are stating my point quite well.
The article lays the blame squarely with landlords for keeping empty houses on thier lists rather than explore why there are so many empty properties.
What is needed is more publicity on the funds available to owners of empty property so that they can be brought back into use.”
by Bonkim2003
Thursday, March 07 2013, 3:38PM
“Great - owners have a variety of reasons but if houses have potential to be refurbished and brought to use to reduce numbers on the housing list, and appropriate contracts entered into with owners, the council will come up trumps.
JASB123 - the coalition government offers funds to councils to bring empty homes back into use and there are legal safeguards for owners - mostly these are inheritances, or people that just have bought properties for investment and waiting for the market to go up - many just don't have the resources to do them up or manage tenancies - all areas where the council should help and in return get the properties for use for contracted periods.”
by JASB123
Thursday, March 07 2013, 1:12PM
“Why assume that a landlord would leave a property empty for a long period of time? It doesn't make sense to single them out for blame.
It is far more likely that a significant proportion of the empty houses are empty due to other reasons such as owner apathy or lack of knowledge or skills to rennovate a property. The property may also be going through probate or other inheritance relate problems.
By accusing landlords of allowing property to stand empty, not making them any money, is only shifting the blame and hiding ways a solution can be found.”