We Need to Build — But Why Are We Ignoring What We Already Have?

By Cllr Rick Deller - Executive Board Member for Housing, Regulatory and Customer Services - Wychavon District Council

There is little argument now that the UK needs to build more homes. We know it. Communities know it. Governments know it. The housing crisis is real, and for too many people the dream of secure, affordable housing feels further away than ever.

But perhaps the bigger question is this: are we thinking creatively enough about the solutions?

For years the national conversation has focused almost entirely on new housing targets. Build more. Build faster. Build bigger. Yet while cranes dominate skylines and new estates are announced with fanfare, another reality sits quietly in plain sight — empty homes, boarded-up shops, abandoned buildings, and neglected town centres across the country.

By some estimates, there are over one million empty homes in the UK. Even if only a fraction of those were brought back into use, it could make a significant difference. And yet the issue remains treated as secondary, almost an afterthought, despite repeated promises from governments of all colours to tackle housing shortages.

This is not an argument against building. We absolutely must build new homes. Empty homes alone will never replace the need for development. Every day, more homes fall empty due to changing family circumstances, probate delays, economic pressures, and neglect. The problem constantly renews itself.

But if we are serious about solving the housing crisis, why are we not equally serious about reusing what already exists?

Perhaps the answer lies in how we think about power, investment, and responsibility.

For decades after decades after decades, local councils have faced systematic underfunding while simultaneously being handed more and more responsibilities. Governments talk endlessly about devolving power and empowering local communities — something I strongly support — but local power without local funding is little more than political theatre.

Central government cannot wash its hands of responsibility while expecting councils to solve increasingly complex problems with shrinking resources. In no other walk of life would that be considered acceptable.

And nowhere is that contradiction clearer than in housing and planning.

We are repeatedly told that councils already have the powers to deal with empty homes. In theory, that is true. But the world does not operate in theory.

Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMOs) are expensive and resource-intensive. Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) can take years and require significant legal and financial backing. Probate delays can leave properties sitting vacant for extended periods before councils can even begin discussions. Enforcement itself requires officers, legal teams, funding, and political backing — all things many councils increasingly lack.

The powers exist on paper. The capacity to use them often does not.

That is why government needs to stop treating this issue as simply a matter of local willpower. Councils need money, resources, and stronger practical powers if they are to bring homes back into use at scale.

And perhaps we also need to rethink our approach entirely.

The “stick” approach alone will never solve this. Carrots often work far better than punishment.

Should councils suspend Council Tax temporarily while renovation work is carried out? Should owners be offered interest-free loans to restore long-term empty properties? Could governments create national regeneration funds specifically aimed at bringing vacant buildings back into use?

These are not radical ideas. They are practical ones.

My council is already showing what can be achieved. Wychavon District Council has invested in tackling empty homes and supporting regeneration. But isolated local success stories are not enough. Government needs to follow suit nationally and work in partnership with councils rather than simply setting targets from Westminster.

Because piling pressure on local authorities without providing meaningful support does not create solutions — it creates frustration.

This debate is also bigger than housing numbers alone. Empty shops damage high streets. Empty homes affect communities. Derelict buildings drag down local pride, local economies, and public confidence. Reusing existing buildings can support regeneration, reduce waste, preserve community character, and in many cases be faster than starting entirely from scratch.

Yet too often the national debate becomes simplistic: build or don’t build. Growth versus obstruction. Nimby versus developer.

The reality is far more complex.

We do need to build. But we also need to think differently. More progressively. More creatively. More honestly.

And above all, government needs to understand that solving the housing crisis cannot simply be outsourced to councils without the funding, resources, and powers necessary to succeed.

Because the problem is not that local authorities do not care.

The problem is that they are too often expected to perform miracles with empty pockets.