If you have been reading anything about high streets recently, the chances are at least some of it included the reporting of another closure or collapse: M&S and Boots shutting stores, banks closing branches, pubs withdrawing. The list is long, and perhaps we would be less concerned if we were all confident that one ailing business would be replaced with another, more dynamic one. But for many of our high streets, that is not the case.
Against that gloomy backdrop, a report published at the end of November by the House of Lords’ built environment committee makes for refreshing reading, opening with evidence of “an optimistic and flourishing future” for our high streets.
Nevertheless, the report is honest about the scale of the problem. High street vacancy remains a persistent challenge in too many town and city centres. Earlier this year, a government consultation on this issue cited 172,000 empty units across the UK, with 80% of those having been vacant for more than two years.
Over the course of the previous government, action to address empty shops focused on loosening planning controls on high street uses and on expanding rights to convert underused space into homes. Under these permitted development rules, developers were able to undermine high street functions, deliver poor-quality homes and bypass affordable housing requirements. Last month’s report was right to recommend a review of this damaging policy.
However, there are some bright spots. One interesting idea to come late in the previous government’s term was the proposed introduction of high street rental auctions – giving local authorities in England the power to force landlords to let their long-term vacant properties to prospective tenants. It was a bold, interventionist policy that was one step short of the compulsory purchase powers used by authorities to build large-scale infrastructure projects such as HS2.
These high street auction powers, which came into force earlier this month, equate to compulsory rental matchmaking, run by councils, for properties that have been vacant for more than 12 months in a 24-month period. Once identified, councils can notify property owners, and subsequently begin proceedings to auction the premises for rental. There was even a refreshing mention in the original consultation that the preferred tenant may not be the one who is willing to pay the most for a spot on the high street, but rather a local business or one that brings greater variety to the high street offer.
Unsurprisingly, the idea has landlords spooked. They fear their ownership rights will be infringed, and that “forced” lettings at potentially lower values than the prevailing rate will hurt the valuations of their properties. Of course, with no tenant in the property, landlords can maintain a myth that it might be worth more, but as soon as it is occupied, it’s only worth what someone is willing to pay.
The consultation stressed that the scheme was not intended to be used for properties where landlords were actively seeking tenants. Those objecting are therefore arguing for their right to keep their properties empty and to not have to do anything about it.
My sympathies for those landlords are limited, especially since places blighted by long-term vacancy are often those where low incomes and high unemployment are rife – Manchester and Luton were cited as specific examples of this in the consultation information. Our research for the Greater London authority (GLA) has documented that high streets are particularly important places for vulnerable people in society, so supporting them to overcome persistent vacancy is vital work.
High streets are complicated places and the ground is shifting underneath them. While working on a study about adaptive strategies for high streets with the GLA, we looked at the challenges facing high streets. They include the climate emergency, the impact of digital technology innovations on consumer behaviour and work patterns, and the need to accommodate housing by restructuring town centres – all of which are felt keenly by those trading on our high streets. There are many issues and a great many stakeholders, all overlapping. Accordingly, only holistic approaches will do.
The government would do well to consider high streets as a powerhouse to multiply the benefits of its spending across multiple agendas. When spending on health, look at high streets first – as they have in Southend-on-Sea in Essex, where you can get a blood test in a council-owned shopping centre. When spending on education, prioritise high street locations – as they have in Margate, where East Kent College is opening a digital campus. And when considering environmental sustainability, look first at town centres – as they have in Stockton-on-Tees, where a waterfront park will be delivered.
This will require convening partners who may not usually work together – health services with market traders or universities with shop landlords – in a place-based model, where differences between groups who may not be used to joining forces are overcome for the sake of a shared location.
Through my work guiding and supporting high streets over many years, I have seen time and again how sustained, partnership-based working is the only sure way to guide high streets to more successful futures. Policing, licensing, planning, economic development, culture and leisure can all come together for shared goals if approached from this perspective.
Investment in our high streets is investment in our communities. With the right overlapping of funding and need, they make for great places to tackle two issues with the same pound. If we’re smart about it, high streets can be at the core of the brighter future that we’re all searching for.
-
Holly Lewis is a co-founding partner at the research, urbanism and architecture practice We Made That, and town architect for the London Borough of Hackney
