Empty Homes Grant scheme evaluation: summary

To help bring up to 2,000 empty homes back into use in Wales, the Empty Homes Grant (EHG) Scheme (hereafter ‘the scheme’) was introduced in January 2023. A £50 million fund was established to help homeowners renovate long-term empty properties, bringing them back into use as a habitable property. Individuals, local authorities, registered social landlords and community housing groups can apply for funding.

The scheme is administered by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (RCTCBC) on behalf of the Welsh Government, with eligibility based on the following criteria.

Eligibility criteria for the EHG scheme

• The empty home must be located within one of the 17 participating local authorities.
  The home must be registered as a chargeable empty property. A chargeable empty property is a property that has been empty (unoccupied and substantially unfurnished) for at least 6 months and is listed as a domestic property for council tax purposes. In order to qualify as a Chargeable empty property, a property must have been valued and banded by the Valuation Office Agency and entered on the Council Tax Valuation List.
• Applicants must be current or prospective homeowners who plan to live in the empty property as their primary and sole residence for a minimum of five years following the completion of grant-funded work. They must contribute 15% (capped at £3,750) towards the cost of the works.
• Funding is only provided for work deemed eligible by a local authority surveyor, and all identified work must be completed to ensure the property is free from hazards. Only essential repairs required to make the property safe, secure, and free from category 1 hazards will be considered.

A two-phase process and impact evaluation was undertaken by Opinion Research Services (ORS) between April and September 2025, to understand the implementation of the Empty Homes Grant Scheme and its effect (so far) on reducing numbers of empty homes in Wales.

Using the primary goal of reducing the number of empty homes and increasing housing availability across Wales as a basis, the overarching priority of the evaluation was to identify the main facilitators and barriers that influence the scheme’s effectiveness by:

• understanding barriers to application (i.e. the eligibility criteria)
• understanding what factors or changes could increase the number of eligible applications and increase the rate of successful applications, and what might be done to ensure more applications are successful in future
• exploring how many applications have translated into completed works; and understanding the reasons for withdrawals

The main stages of the research

A systematic secondary data analysis of the application and work completion data provided by the Welsh Government and other available datasets. This considered the number of scheme applications, a breakdown of a number of reasons for successful and unsuccessful applications, the rate at which applications translate into completed works, and the associated reduction in number of empty homes in Wales.

A survey for applicants to the scheme, available online between 9 July 2025 and 27 July 2025. The survey was developed by ORS in collaboration with representatives from the scheme administrators at RCTCBC Council and Welsh Government. 139 responses were received, a response rate of 12%.

Two virtual focus groups with local authority officers. The first was held in May 2025 to discuss how the scheme is working in practice, and seven of the 17 participating local authorities attended. The second, in July 2025, was attended by eight participating local authorities and considered the impact of the scheme in bringing empty houses back into use.

One virtual focus group (in May 2025) with three RCTCB administration officers to discuss how the scheme is working in practice.

An online call for evidence to ensure as comprehensive an evidence base from local authority officers as possible. This was distributed to those not available at the time of the online sessions, and 19 responses were received. Six of these were completed responses and 13 were partial responses (multiple responses were received from some local authorities).

Scheme administration

The scheme’s delivery model and communication between the administrative team, local authorities, and applicants were cited as positive aspects of implementation by RCTCBC officers, who reflected on the low level of complaints or issues raised to them as administrators.

This was not wholly reflected in the feedback from local authorities who, despite their overall positivity about the scheme, highlighted a lack of autonomy over applications in their individual localities, and not having all the relevant information available to them at all times. It was also suggested that centralised administration has led to a somewhat disjointed application process, and communication and information delays.

However, we would note that several officers considered RCTCBC acting as administrators to be both practical and for many authorities necessary, as they have neither the capacity nor the resources to run the scheme themselves. Moreover, officers generally praised RCTCBC for its administration of the scheme, stating that as a team they are consistent, helpful and responsive, especially considering the large number of authorities that they deal with.

Though feedback from participating applicants around the administration of the scheme was limited, a few suggested instances of poor communication and inconsistent administration between local authorities. Improvements in this respect would, it was felt, improve access to the scheme and ease the process of applying.

Promotion of the scheme

The majority of respondents to the applicant survey disagreed that the scheme is well promoted. It was suggested that it could be better promoted to potential applicants through estate agents, solicitors, and local councils; and general advertising on social and more traditional media.

Local authority officers had little knowledge about national promotions. They considered this unusual, considering the success of promotional campaigns for other schemes. However, RCTCBC officers explained that the success of the scheme during its pilot years meant that promotion on a national level was not as necessary as it had been elsewhere. Moreover, at the launch of the scheme all local authorities were encouraged by the Welsh Government to promote the scheme within their own authority to account for their differing needs and resources. Local ownership of promotion was thus thought to be important by the administrators.

Eligibility criteria

While most participating applicants considered it clear and easy to understand who is eligible to apply for the grant, some highlighted concerns about inconsistent and unclear eligibility rules, for example residency requirements, the duration for which a property has been empty, and what is meant by ‘empty and unfurnished.’

Furthermore, over three-in-five applicants whose applications were unsuccessful said they did not fully understand the reasons why. As applicants are always given a reason, this suggests that explanations given are not always clear. Providing more thorough explanations of the eligibility requirements could help applicants fully understand the reasons their application wasn’t approved.

This was echoed by the local authority officers, who called for tighter definitions of the scheme’s eligibility criteria to avoid differing interpretations and inconsistent application of the ‘rules.’ RCTCBC officers also acknowledged misunderstandings around eligibility criteria, particularly the ‘disconnect’ between what homeowners understand the term ‘empty’ to mean, despite a definition being available on the RCTCBC webpage. Meeting eligibility requirements was identified as a barrier by some participating applicants. However, many more participants felt the eligibility requirements should stay the same, than those who advocated widening them. The most common suggestions for change (offered by both applicants and local authority officers) were around the property needing to be registered for council tax or be completely ‘empty and unfurnished’.

Meeting eligibility requirements was identified as a barrier by some participating applicants. However, many more participants felt the eligibility requirements should stay the same, than those who advocated widening them. The most common suggestions for change (offered by both applicants and local authority officers) were around the property needing to be registered for council tax or be completely ‘empty and unfurnished’ unfurnished.

The application process

RCTCBC officers were strongly of the view that applicant understanding of the grant eligibility criteria and of the application process were crucial to successful applications. To facilitate this, they have made effort to ensure the process is as simple and easy to understand as possible and suggested that more applicants understand the process and go on to have successful grant applications, than do not.

Local authority officers suggested several deterrents and barriers for applicants, including a lack of clarity around and the complexity of the application process; and the ‘unrealistic cap’ to a maximum grant sum of £25,000 (considering rising contactor and labour costs and general economic changes). RCTCBC officers and some participating applicants also suggested increasing the overall sum of the grant to reflect the increasing costs of building works, materials and contactor costs in the current economic climate in the post-pandemic period.

RCTCBC officers disagreed that the application process is complex, describing it as quick and easy; with additional support available if required via the RCTCBC webpage and a dedicated call-line. This was echoed by participating applicants, most of whom felt it was clear and easy to understand how to apply to the scheme. Moreover, most participating applicants who had accessed support or guidance from scheme administrators or their local authority had found it helpful. However, others made suggestions for improvement around the proactive provision of support and guidance throughout the process, specifically around eligibility, timescales, and documentation. Flow charts, upfront lists of required documents, and application packs outlining stages of approval were recommended.

That said, RCTCBC officers did highlight the challenge of balancing the need for properties to meet building regulations and standards against applicants’ expectations in some cases. This can lead to withdrawal from the scheme if the extent of required works is greater than anticipated.

Some participating applicants also raised issues with the applications process. These included: a lack of support and guidance on how to complete the application; lengthy, complicated and unclear application forms and processes; and a lack of information or documentation. Challenges were also noted in terms of obtaining the required quotations and paperwork within the specified timescales, particularly from the local authority surveyors.

Grant approval and completion of works

Delays to grant approval were noted by many participating applicants. Such delays were not only stressful and frustrating for them in general terms, but also in relation to specific issues like payment of the council tax long-term empty premium. Local authority officers highlighted that lengthy time periods from grant application to award can mean applicants are paying this premium simply because they are awaiting approval.

Local authority officers also echoed the point that that the sometimes-lengthy approval process can be stressful for applicants. They said it impacts the success of applications and impacts contractors, who can be put on hold for long periods of time.

One of the main issues raised by local authority officers was the stipulation that all works must be completed within a nine-month period of receiving grant approval. This requirement was said to be increasingly difficult to meet due to rising costs and difficulties securing affordable contractors in the time allotted.

Many applicants also highlighted process delays that made it difficult to adhere to the nine-month requirement, most notably in relation to the time taken to find and/or appoint a contractor, for grant payments to be issued, and for information to be provided to scheme administrators following a survey.

Limitations to the scope of work permitted under the scheme (gas boilers are not included for example) were also highlighted by local authority officers and participating applicants. The latter also noted the timescales involved (i.e. that renovations take longer than they would without the scheme) and having less control over works progress as drawbacks; as well as financial pressures as a result of having to make upfront payments, discrepancies in cost estimates, and insufficient grant contributions for necessary work, leaving recipients to absorb extra expenses.

Meeting the scheme’s main objectives

The findings from the data review show that the percentage of long-term empty properties for which a valid application has been received varies by local authority. Rhondda Cynon Taf has received most, with valid applications made for 11% of properties. For many of the other participating local authorities, valid applications have been received for fewer than 5% of the long-term empty properties, suggesting that these areas could attract more valid applications.

In total, 582 properties were approved for the EHG between January 2023 and April 2025, with the total value of the grants amounting to £13.2 million (an average value of £22,500 per property). This means that 2.6% - or around 1 in 40 - of all current long-term empty homes in Wales will have been developed by the scheme, if all approved applications progress to completion. To date, 241 of the 582 approved properties have reached the point of completion, receiving grants worth £5.4 million and resulting in around 1.1% of all long-term empty homes in Wales being brought back into use. This is 12.1% of the eventual 2000 home ambition for the grant scheme, achieved with 10.8% of the grant scheme’s £50 million funding. It is important to note that the grant scheme was intended to help bring up to 2,000 empty homes back into use in Wales, and not to address the issue of empty homes by itself. The grant scheme exists within the context of wider efforts, and the Empty Homes Grant Scheme is just one of several interventions.

While the scheme has made some progress in bringing empty homes back into use, there is more that can be achieved. Assuming that the 11% estimated valid application rate demonstrated in Rhondda Cynon Taf is achievable across all local authorities, we could expect a maximum of 2,256 properties brought into circulation, requiring a total of £50 million investment (based on the average grant value) , This would be compatible with the overall budget of the scheme but some of the barriers to delivery (discussed below) would need to be fully understood and addressed in order for this to be a realistic expectation.

Three-in-five applicants who have received grant approval said that the scheme has helped them to renovate a home, with some further emphasising that it has enabled them to afford the necessary work to bring a home back into occupation. Applicants also highlighted the scheme’s positive impact in speeding up the process of bringing a home back into occupation and enabling renovations that would otherwise have taken years. However, those who had not had their application approved were significantly more likely to feel that the scheme had had no impact at all. 

Local authority officers and grant administration officers agreed that the scheme is achieving its objective of bringing empty properties back into use, and that the scheme has been advantageous to both local authorities and residents (first-time buyers especially). They also highlighted community benefits in reducing the ‘urban blight’ associated with empty homes; and encouraging residents in neighbouring properties to improve their homes in line with renovated ones.

However, there was some feeling among local authority officers that ‘savvy’ applicants (such as those purchasing or owning high value properties, and those who already own a property, rather than trying to renovate their family home) are taking advantage of the scheme, sometimes at the expense of those who actually need the grant. This translates into missed opportunities for certain groups of applicants.

Some specific barriers to effectiveness were raised by local authority officers, which include lack of capacity within teams, a lack of support from senior management, and the current financial situation within local government in Wales as a whole.

The scheme’s centralised administration was again highlighted by local authority officers as a potential barrier to effectiveness, as it may be preventing some individuals from applying not only for this scheme but also for other potential opportunities. Specifically, once it is determined that an applicant is ineligible, there is currently no mechanism in place for RCTCBC to refer them to the appropriate local authorities, where support with applications or consideration for alternative schemes could be given.

Overall thoughts on the scheme

Despite some administrative frustrations (outlined above) and some concerns about match funding it in times of economic constraint, local authority officers recognised the value of the scheme, and the role played by RCTCBC in administering it. Indeed, it was generally felt that the scheme should be retained as it is “a really useful tool for us to use to get empty [properties] back into use.”

Indeed, for RCT officers, the scheme has adapted and matured to a point where it is an integrated partnership that is working well and is, in the main, enabling successful grant applications.

Moreover, applicants themselves showed general support for the scheme in the survey, with most greatly valuing its role in helping them bring a home back into use, which may not have otherwise been possible.
In light of this, concerns were expressed by local authority and RCTCBC officers that the scheme might be lost in the future, and as the only grant scheme available to owner occupiers, its loss as a tool for getting empty properties back into use would be considerable.

We make the following recommendations for the future of the Empty Homes Grant Scheme based on findings of this evaluation.

1. The scheme would benefit from being promoted more widely, at both local authority and national levels, especially amongst younger applicants and those who are new to home ownership. Estate agents could play a bigger part in promoting the scheme when selling eligible homes. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and YouTube could also be vital tools in marketing the scheme, highlighting real-life experiences of the process and final outcomes.
2. Eligibility requirements and guidance on all aspects of the process should be made clearer and easier to understand at the outset to avoid issues during the application process and to make the application less complicated in general. A checklist of all requirements including required documentation, and clear definitions, should be made available at the very start of the process. This could outline approval stages and specify mandatory documentation such as Land Registry ownership paperwork, and define important terminology, such as ‘empty and unfurnished.’
3. Consideration should be given to modifications to the eligibility criteria to increase the attractiveness of the grant and to allow for a swifter application process and a shorter approval period, e.g. by offering broader eligibility criteria, more generous grants, and updated thresholds to reflect local housing pressures and living costs.
4. It should be considered whether there could be increased flexibility and less rigidity around eligibility requirements such as the need for properties to be completely unfurnished for the full duration of the required period, which contractors can be used to complete the required works, and any additional specific requirements such as proving a connection to the local authority area.
5. Consideration should also be given to whether the main aim of the scheme is solely to be used as a tool to bring empty homes in Wales back into use or whether it also has a role to play in making properties more affordable. Where this balance between affordability and returning empty home to use is required, changes to the eligibility criteria need to reflect this.
6. Employing dedicated staff, and a local point of contact, ideally with the option of in-person support would aid more timely and accessible support for applicants as well as improved communication between all parties. This could also help speed up the overall process with less time waiting for administrative tasks to be undertaken.
7. Ideally, the level, form and quality of support available should be consistent across all participating local authorities with systems in place to facilitate the sharing of best practice.
8. Administrators should also aim, as far as possible, to manage the expectations of applicants in terms of the timescales involved from the outset, and throughout the process, to allow for financial and practical planning.
9. Strengthening collaboration and communication networks between RCTCBC and local authorities to aid transparency and promote partnership and more joined-up working e.g. with local Council Tax Officers.

Report author: Kelly Lock and Dr Emma Price

Views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government.

For further information please contact:
Housing Research Team
Knowledge and Analytical Services
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Email: HousingResearchTeam@gov.wales

Social research number: 105/2025
Digital ISBN: 978-1-80633-679-1