- Agreement with the proposed interventions follows a similar pattern to the objectives and approach. The majority of respondents agree with them (79%) although agreement levels are much lower amongst former or current empty homeowners than amongst residents
- Almost a third of those who agree with the interventions comment that they seem sensible and fair with benefits for everyone involved
- 11% also comment that the interventions will help alleviate the housing shortage in the city
- Of those who disagree, a third of respondents again make the point that it is the property owner’s choice what they do with their property and that the measures seem too heavy-handed. 15% also comment that they don’t think the measures will work or achieve the desired outcomes
Proposed interventions: Levels of agreement
Summary
How much do you agree or disagree with these proposed interventions?
Base: Total sample (468)
This chart shows agreement with proposed interventions: 41% strongly agree, 38% agree, 8% disagree, 6% strongly disagree, and 7% don’t know.
Why do you agree with the interventions?
Base: All those who agree or strongly agree with the interventions (369)
| wdt_ID | Key themes | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sensible/fair/good plan e.g. benefits everyone, graduated approach | 30 |
| 3 | Alleviate the housing shortage | 11 |
| 12 | Timely advice and support | 7 |
| 13 | Reduce the impact of empty properties on surrounding residents | 5 |
| 14 | Identify empty properties early | 5 |
| 15 | Action needed/concerns about successful implementation | 4 |
| 16 | Ensures empty home owners don't just do nothing/legal action can be taken | 4 |
| 17 | The earlier the better/3 months not 6 | 3 |
| 18 | More enforcement/penalties needed | 3 |
| 19 | Respects the property owner and their individual situation | 3 |
| 20 | Limited room for new buildings so maximise what is there | 2 |
| 21 | More detail needed e.g. specific timelines, thresholds for informal to formal escalation | 1 |
| 22 | Partnership working | 1 |
| 23 | Other e.g. concern landlords will profit, action against HMOs, may put developers backs up, central government starving councils of resources | 4 |
| 24 | Na/no comment | 37 |
Why do you disagree with the interventions?
Base: All those who disagree or strongly disagree with the interventions (67)
| wdt_ID | Key themes | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Property owner's choice/measures too heavy-handed | 33 |
| 3 | Won't work/ineffective | 15 |
| 12 | More council powers needed if owners don't engage | 9 |
| 13 | Takes too long to get issues resolved | 6 |
| 14 | Generally negative/abusive | 6 |
| 15 | Will cost too much to use tracing agents and take legal action | 4 |
| 16 | Owners not given long enough before intervention | 4 |
| 17 | Concern over HMOs or other unwelcome tenants | 4 |
| 18 | Other e.g. rebate after completion would be more motivating than a VAT reduction, doesn’t address the underlying causes of the housing shortage, council should focus on other things | 9 |
| 19 | Na/no comment | 25 |
