High Street Rental Auctions: what the new powers mean — and why Gloucester’s heritage makes the stakes higher

The UK’s High Street Rental Auctions (HSRAs) are now live across England. Enabled by Part 10 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and commenced on 2 December 2024, they give local authorities a discretionary power to force the letting—by auction—of qualifying, long-vacant high-street premises on short leases (typically 1–5 years). Central government’s non-statutory guidance, updated in June 2025, sets out the mechanics from notices to template leases and auction packs.

How it works (in plain English)

If a property on a designated high street or in a town centre has been vacant for at least 366 days within the previous 24 months, a council may serve notices and run an auction for a short tenancy. The owner does not have a veto (nor do superior landlords or mortgagees), though there are opportunities to engage, propose a tenancy, or challenge via counter-notice on defined grounds. The aim is to get inert space back into productive, public-facing use (retail, services, leisure, community, culture).

The government has issued a full suite of forms (initial/final letting notices, counter-notice) and model tenancy documents to standardise the process. A June 2025 update also recommends entering a Land Registry restriction at notice stage so incoming parties can see an auction is in train.

What it means for landlords

For responsive, actively-marketing owners, the immediate message is “work with your council, or the council may step in.” The regime can compress voids but reduces control over tenant selection, lease terms and timing. Industry commentary has warned of lender concerns, residual liabilities, and the risk that low-rent short lets could reset local comparables—though the counter-argument is that activation beats blight.

Two important guard-rails temper the power:

It’s discretionary: councils choose when to use it and must follow the statutory tests and guidance.

It doesn’t trump other consents: planning permission (where needed) and Listed Building Consent still bite; the auction lease cannot authorise unlawful works.

What it means for places

Academic and policy literature on high streets consistently links persistent vacancy with lower footfall, safety perceptions and investment confidence. HSRAs are a behavioural nudge with teeth: they create a default path to occupation when negotiation stalls. Government frames them as part of a place-activation toolkit rather than a full market fix (they don’t address business rates, online competition or structural catchments).

The Controversies

Critics—particularly landlord bodies—argue HSRAs erode property rights, risk mis-matching tenants to buildings, and socialise costs (e.g., compliance, basic fit-out) onto owners for limited upside on short terms. Proponents counter that auctions are targeted at long-term vacancies and include procedural safeguards, while the broader public interest in re-animating centres justifies intervention.

There’s also a live debate about quality: will short leases encourage low-capex, pop-up uses that churn, or can councils curate resilient, community-anchoring occupiers? Practice will vary by place and by how assertively councils use pre-auction engagement and conditions.

Applying it to Gloucester: a city rich in listed fabric

Gloucester is unusually heritage-dense: ~680–700 listed buildings, 14 conservation areas, and a nationally significant docks and medieval street pattern. That richness is an asset—and a constraint.

In that context, HSRAs could help re-fill stubborn voids along the Gate Streets and routes into the Docks, with likely targets being small and medium retail frontages where vacancy drags on the public realm. Politically, Gloucester has recently mooted adopting and using HSRA powers, signalling a willingness to deploy them where voluntary routes fail.

But the heritage overlay matters:

Listed Building Consent still applies. Any works affecting character—shopfront changes, signage, internal fabric alterations—require consent regardless of an auction outcome. Early dialogue with the City Conservation Officer and use of model shopfront guidance will be essential to avoid delay or enforcement.

Fit-out economics are tighter in listed stock. Short leases may not support deep retrofits (M&E, accessibility, thermal upgrades). Councils may need to shape auction packs with realistic works scopes, staged licences for alterations, and signpost grant/heritage funding where available.

Curation over churn. Given Gloucester’s concentrated heritage streetscapes, the city will benefit most if auctions prioritise public-facing, spill-out and cultural uses that animate frontages without heavy interventions.

A pragmatic read-out for Gloucester

Used sparingly and well, HSRAs could be a useful backstop: they shift bargaining power on a handful of long-term empties, restore overlooked frontages, and send a clear signal that vacancy has a cost. But success will hinge on heritage-literate execution—tight auction packs, early conservation input, and realistic lease terms that reflect the additional time and cost of working in listed buildings.

For landlords of Gloucester’s historic properties, the takeaway is simple: re-engage early (before notices land), assemble your heritage and building-regulations strategy, and be ready to propose a credible letting that beats the auction. For the council, transparently linking HSRAs to a wider place strategy (public realm, wayfinding, rates relief lobbying, and active travel to boost footfall) will help ensure auctions are a means, not the end.


Sources & further reading: Government guidance and templates (updated June 2025); the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (Part 10); Parliamentary Library briefing (Feb 2025); and sector analyses from Dentons, TLT and others on lender/landlord implications. Gloucester heritage context from Historic England and City Council materials.

Sustainable Urban Regeneration: Balancing Growth and Community in the Face of Gentrification

Featured

As urban centres across the UK and globally grapple with the pressures of economic growth, population change, and post-pandemic recovery, urban regeneration has emerged as a critical tool for revitalizing neglected areas. However, with regeneration often comes the looming spectre of gentrification—a process that can displace long-standing communities and erode the very cultural fabric that makes a place unique. Striking a balance between sustainable growth and the preservation of community identity is not just a challenge but a necessity for planners, local authorities, and developers.

The Double-Edged Sword of Gentrification

Gentrification, often defined as the transformation of an area through an influx of higher-income residents, can lead to improved infrastructure, increased property values, and economic rejuvenation. However, the downside is clear: as property prices rise, existing lower-income residents may find themselves priced out of the areas they’ve lived in for decades. This displacement can fracture communities, displace small businesses, and lead to a loss of local character.

Studies such as those by Lees, Slater, and Wyly (2008) suggest that gentrification often disproportionately affects marginalized groups, exacerbating social inequalities. Yet, regeneration without gentrification remains possible, provided that careful planning and inclusive strategies are implemented.

Community-Centric Regeneration: Learning from Success Stories

The challenge for urban planners and local authorities lies in developing regeneration schemes that improve the area for all its residents, not just new ones. In this context, inclusive regeneration models, which focus on both physical improvements and social sustainability, are emerging as a way to address gentrification.

One such model is the concept of Community Land Trusts (CLTs). CLTs provide a mechanism for ensuring that land remains under the control of the community, preventing the wholesale displacement of existing residents. A study by Davis (2010) found that in areas where CLTs were implemented, not only did housing remain affordable, but the communities also reported higher levels of civic engagement and satisfaction. Cities like Liverpool and Bristol have already successfully used CLTs to protect housing affordability while enabling regeneration.

Another approach is socially responsible development, where local authorities engage in genuine, bottom-up consultation with communities before breaking ground on projects. The success of the Glasgow Canal Regeneration Project is often cited as a case where community engagement helped shape development, ensuring that existing residents remained at the heart of decision-making. The result? A regenerated area where new businesses and residents coexist with long-standing communities, enhancing the local economy without displacing those who had contributed to the area’s identity for years.

Sustainability as the Core of Regeneration

Sustainability is not only about green buildings or eco-friendly public spaces; it’s about creating environments that support long-term social cohesion and economic inclusivity. Local authorities must adopt a holistic approach to regeneration that addresses housing, local jobs, cultural infrastructure, and green spaces, all while safeguarding affordability and accessibility.

“True regeneration should be based on a principle of social justice,” as urbanist Jane Jacobs famously noted. Her work underscores the importance of maintaining diverse, vibrant communities rather than focusing solely on physical renewal. Sustainable regeneration initiatives, like the one seen in the Elephant and Castle redevelopment in London, which implemented affordable housing schemes alongside new development, provide a framework for balancing growth and community needs.

The Role of Local Authorities and Developers: Collaboration is Key

For local authorities and developers, the goal should not be to prevent change but to manage it in ways that protect community interests. Here are key strategies that can help mitigate the negative effects of gentrification:

  1. Inclusive Housing Policies: Ensure a proportion of new developments include affordable housing to cater to low- and middle-income families. Policies such as “inclusionary zoning” can mandate that a percentage of new units remain below market rate. Research by the London School of Economics (2016) indicates that such policies help maintain a socio-economic mix in regenerated areas.
  2. Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs): Developers can enter into CBAs with local authorities, promising to deliver certain community benefits, such as local job creation, affordable retail spaces, or community centres. In New York, the redevelopment of the Atlantic Yards included a CBA that ensured the development provided direct benefits to residents, including affordable housing and job training programs.
  3. Participatory Planning: Engage with residents early and often to ensure their voices are heard in the planning process. According to a report by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), community participation can lead to better project outcomes, higher local support, and more socially sustainable results.

A Call to Action: Expertise in Action

The challenges of urban regeneration, particularly in balancing growth and community preservation, are significant but not insurmountable. Through careful planning, collaboration, and a commitment to social equity, local authorities and developers can deliver projects that benefit all stakeholders—old and new.

At this crucial moment in urban development, it’s imperative that cities across the UK and beyond adopt forward-thinking, inclusive, and sustainable regeneration strategies. By leveraging my expertise in placemaking, urban regeneration, and community engagement, I am equipped to help organizations navigate these challenges. Whether you’re a local authority seeking to develop a long-term regeneration plan or a developer aiming to create sustainable communities, I can provide actionable insights and strategies to ensure your project is both economically viable and socially responsible.

Let’s build places that work for everyone—together.