Reusing buildings: quicker, cheaper and greener

Welcome to Lucy Frazer, the latest housing ministers. As one of (many predecessors) I know that she'll be judged in part by the number of new homes which get built.

Yet this has blinded government to another way to deliver more homes: reusing existing buildings. I am not suggesting no new homes are needed, rather that housing policy needs to include the large number of existing buildings which could deliver thousands of homes, quicker, cheaper and greener than building new.?

There are more than 260,000 homes which have been empty for over six months. English councils own nearly 20,000 of these. Then there is the huge number of empty retail units which stand boarded up in the heart of towns and cities. It is thought that English councils alone own 24,000 of these.?

In addition, there are thousands of smaller office buildings which haven't been converted under the PDR policy. Their number will increase as working from home and higher EPC standards leaves many older office blocks empty. This empty space above ground floor shops has long been recognised as a missed opportunity. Different surveys have found between a third and half of upper floors above shops and hospitality are not in use.?

However, there is another compelling reason to change policy. Reusing existing buildings generates far fewer CO2 emissions than new buildings on green fields. If the construction sector is to achieve net zero carbon, it will need to encourage more reuse, repurposing and retrofitting. Forward thinkers are already on the case with excellent campaigns by the Architects Journal, architect George Clarke, the irrepressible Tom Bloxham and long-term landowners like the Crown Estate and Grosvenor Britain & Ireland.

What needs to change??

First, the planning and building regulations policy framework should actively encourage reuse, where more affordable homes can be delivered. The balance of policy needs to make it in everyone’s interest to bring underused or empty space back into use. This is not the case at present.

Take empty floors above smaller shops. These are often owned by individuals or small companies, who aren’t property experts. They just hope for a steady income. At present the owner has no incentive to convert these spaces because the whole building is usually let on full repairing and insuring terms. However, if leases, when up for renewal, would allow tenants to lease only the ground floor this would encourage the landlord to act to bring the upper floor back into use.?

There are particular challenges around the 500,000 or so buildings which are protected for historical reasons. The excellent Heritage & Carbon report sets out sensible reforms to heritage planning policy and for action on costs and guidance which could help bring many underused historic buildings back into use.?

Second, Government - national and local - needs to lead by example when it comes to empty buildings. The existing regulations and incentives don’t actively encourage owners to bring these buildings back into use. This needs to change, including for public authorities. It needs to cost owners to keep buildings empty and for that cost to rise. Equally the regulatory barriers to reuse need reducing. This doesn’t mean weak building standards, rather a unified, simpler process to initiate reuse.

Third, I strongly support the arguments for reducing VAT for reuse and retrofitting projects. The huge task of making our existing housing stock net zero carbon will entail a significant incentive anyway, but the Treasury should avoid trying to tightly ring-fence energy retrofits, from other reuse projects. Where an owner is bringing an empty property into use as a home or where they are undertaking works to make that home meet new environmental standards VAT should stand at no more than 5%.?

Shifting the balance so we make better use of our existing buildings won’t be easy. However it offers the opportunity to deliver more homes, more quickly and more sustainably than relying solely on new build.?