Historically, the Welsh Streets in Liverpool were largely vacant before Place First's redevelopment of the Victorian terraces

Almost £1bn of empty homes in Liverpool

Liverpool has the highest number of empty properties of all towns and cities in the North West, with 8,357 homes sitting vacant, according to research by property investment marketplace Property Partner.

Property Partner analysed the latest data from the Department of Communities & Local Government, looking at long-term vacant dwellings in England between 2005 and 2016.

Across England, there were 200,145 long-term empty homes in 2016, amounting to more than £43bn.

Blackburn saw the biggest increase in empty homes outside London with a 32% rise in a year. The number rose from 1,179 in 2015 to 1,563 in 2016.

Blackpool crept into the worst 20 towns and cities outside London, but achieved the greatest percentage reduction, falling 26% in a year from 1,592 empty homes in 2015 to 1,174 in 2016.

Manchester saw the greatest fall over a decade, dropping 88% from 11,062 in 2015 to 1,365 last year. This drop, however, still left more than £300m of empty homes.

Dan Gandesha, chief executive of Property Partner, said: “These figures lay bare the huge amount of housing stock lying empty across the country.

“Councils have had the power to apply to seize empty homes since 2006 and huge advances have been made over the last ten years. Our research shows there is some great work being done in areas where the number of empty homes is coming down rapidly, such as Blackpool and Harrow.

“Dealing with this issue represents a fantastic opportunity to free up supply and help alleviate the scarcity of affordable housing nationally.”

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

I believe one of the problems of bringing empty homes back to life is ownership? But are our councils doing enough to rectify this situation, is it finances, legal or just inertia that is holding back the process. Definitely Liverpool could do with a greater effort, otherwise it makes a mockery of the Councils claims about housing the homeless.

By Man on bicycle

This is sad to see.Unlike Manchester, Liverpool is blessed with fine residential architecture very close to the centre.Surely someone can put a few bob into these and restore them to family homes?

By Elephant

The unfortunate thing is they will only pass them on if they stand to make a profit. I applied for the homes for £1 scheme as a first time buyer, in which you were required to have a certain amount of money to invest in the property and to develop it. Which if every person did in the particular area it would be become more pleasant place to live. Instead of someone who met their requirements Liverpool City Council decided to focus on adults with dependants I.e. people who could not afford the home as they would not have their own personal money to develop it. I think the scheme was a massive let down by the city council as these homes should have given the opportunity to new young professionals to redevelop the areas without the council spending a penny. All that will happen now is they will demolish and create new, smaller homes by a private developer who will purchase the land they sit on.

By Jazz

This is dreadful and Liverpool should really make this a priority

By CheshireResident

There’s a general feeling of decline in the city which really needs to be sorted out! These rows of derelict terraced houses aren’t what the most important city outside of London should be like.

By Sort it out

I’m struggling to fathom how the number is still so stubbornly high especially when you look at the progress made in Granby and Edge Hill in the past couple of years. The only problem spots now seem to focus on pockets of Anfield and the Welsh Streets. My guess is that this data is at least 18 months out of date


Also the average house price difference between the cities is vastly different to what is published nationally on different forums?

By Emperor of the North

This is a crime, there has to be some non-ideological, imaginative way to bring these streets back. How can we building new developments across the city while these lay desolate.

By Rich

How is Li’pool the most important city outside of London?! Are you talking about in 1850?

Beautiful, friendly, cultured, historic, interesting, I will give you. But we’re not the second most important by any measure! Not even third. Come on.

The challenge now is taking the “proof of concept” from Welsh Streets and applying it elsewhere…

By Rooney

I’m not even sure if you could say it’s in the top 5..?

By Rhino

There’s nothing wrong with being positive and if other cities want to make their own claims about this and that why can’t Liverpool claim that title, after all it’s all in the marketing mix.

By Emperor of the North

Because if you make clearly ridiculous claims, its easy to pick apart and find the negatives. Liverpool has many strengths, being the “second city” isn’t one of them.

By Rooney

You know, this is only a non official forum, most of the claims and announcements are not to be taken so seriously, because some of them will not happen.So I think it’s best to regard them as such. Otherwise one may believe a certain place was the “Mother of all invention” and it must be true!

By Emperor of the North

No, you can still be called out for spouting nonsense. This is a professional website and people read it.

By Rooney

It is a professional site, but not all the contributors may not be in the profession? I believe this adds a bit of variety and amusement to what otherwise could be a very dry and staid forum. I think anyone could be very busy indeed debunking all the claims and boasts we often see here!

By Burger van

You’d get called out in any context for claiming Liverpool is the second most important city in the UK. Even in the pub, I’d demand some evidence.

By Rooney

The second city economically in 2017 is without doubt Manchester. That should not cause people to say that Liverpool isn’t in the top five.It is probably the second most famous city in the country.If you ask a person in New York to name a British city other than London.I imagine most would say Liverpool. This is due mainly to the Beatles.

By Elephant

I suppose it’s what one deems important to them and what for it is more personal to an individuals perspective, I guess, anyway any second city is a very long way off London in so many ways.

By Burger van

That doesn’t make sense, because you’re talking about the second most important city *to the UK*, not to an individual. To an individual, the city where you live would be the most important city.

If Liverpool were wiped out by a Russian missile, it would have less impact to the rest of the UK than one to Manchester or Birmingham would. Therefore it is at best 4th.

By Rooney

This data is out-of context. Liverpool has made huge progress in reducing the number of empty home under Major Anderson – more than practically any other UK city. But wait, that would ruin the picture of a Liverpool going nowhere. Best keep peddling the bad news.

By Deebee

I suppose the Russian Missile option could be seen as quite controversial. Especially seeing as there would be even more derelict homes in Liverpool.

By Red Fred

I think the housing crisis is so bad that we must resort to the ‘nuclear’ option.

By Rooney

Surely the “Capital of the North, the second City of the Empire, leader of the Northern tribes and general backstabber of all things NP” would be first and in many peoples opinion the one to suffer a missile attack,because it is so important and the people are so friendly?

By Vladimir the Launcher