CP-014 - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: European Affordable Housing Plan 
Date: 2025-12-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: energy policy

EN 

EN 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg, 16.12.2025 SWD(2025) 1053 final PART 2/2 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Understanding the housing crisis Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS European Affordable Housing Plan {COM(2025) 1025 final} ANNEX TO THE STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT ACCOMPANYING THE 
EUROPEAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN: 

Synopsis report for the European 
Commission’s consultation process on 
housing affordability 

1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of the open public consultation (1) and related consultation activities (see 
sections three and four) was to gather input for the preparation of the first-ever European 
Affordable Housing Plan (EAHP). This document presents the results. 

The public consultation  on affordable housing also  informed the European Strategy  for 
Housing Construction prepared by DG GROW (2) and in parallel, other complementary 
consultations  were  conducted  on  the  State  aid  reform  by  DG  COMP  (3),  and  for  the 
communication on scaling up the New European Bauhaus by the JRC (4). 

The public consultation attracted 13,330 responses, of which 12,031 came from citizens 
and about 1,300 from experts, with the following countries most represented (France, Italy, 
Spain,  Germany,  Greece  and  Portugal).  The  results  of  the  public  consultation  were 
influenced by an encouragement  from  a large short-term  rental online platform to  their 
hosts calling on them to take part. It is estimated that the platform’s message could have 
mobilised up to 2,500 citizen respondents and up to 200 expert respondents which had a 
noticeable  impact  on  the  overall  consultation  participation  and  potentially  results,  in 
particular on questions related to the rental market and short-term accommodation rentals. 
However, the exact impact cannot be quantified. 

The initial questions for citizens were designed to understand the living situation of the 
respondents, as priorities and challenges would likely be vastly different depending on age, 
occupation and geography. In the second part, they were asked about experiences, such as 
reasons for renovating their house or apartment, and to list the main disadvantages of their 
current  living  situation.  Other  topics  such  as  short-term  rentals  were  also  included. 
Answering  each  question  was  optional,  and  open-ended  options  were  available  to 
supplement the multiple-choice questions.     

(1) https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14670-European-affordable-

housing-plan_en

(2) https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14762-European-strategy-for-

housing-construction_en

(3) https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/public-consultations/2025-sgei_en

(4) https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/15172-New-European-

Bauhaus-achievements-and-future-developments-recommendation-_en

Experts The questions for experts were structured in twelve thematic sections to cover the 
great range of policies that could have an effect on housing affordability. Close to half of 
the responses came from companies and businesses; largely small businesses with less than 
ten  employees,  more  than  half  from  the  tourism  and  short-term  rental  sector  including 
owners of holiday homes. 

Questions in the section on affordable and social housing allowed to gather respondents’ 
views  on  the  definitions  of  affordable  and  social  housing  including  at  EU  level  and  a 
number of concrete good practices in these areas. 

Questions on financing provided insights into respondents’ experiences  with challenges 
and solutions for the financing of affordable housing projects. This included good practices 
specifically to help young people to get access to housing and ways to improve the use of 
EU funds for affordable housing. Results indicate support for blended financing strategies, 
mechanisms for distributing risk and public-private partnerships. 

The part of the questionnaire on State aid covered some general questions on State aid for 
housing and complemented the more detailed public consultation by DG COMP. Those 
respondents who replied that they face challenges in the application of EU State aid rules 
(about a third of the respondents) provided useful insights on concrete issues that might be 
slowing down investment in this area. 

In  the  section  focusing  on  construction,  respondents  highlighted  simplifying  reporting, 
accelerating planning and permitting a swell as innovative building techniques as some of 
the main factors to reduce costs. Furthermore, working with public authorities to generate 
demand  for  transforming  empty  dwellings  or  office  buildings  was  seen  as  a  useful  EU 
intervention to increase affordability. 

Questions  on  zoning  and  permitting  confirmed  concerns  about  lengthy  and  complex 
bureaucratic  procedures,  a  lack  of  clarity  in  regulations  and  coordination  between 
authorities as obstacles. At the same time, concrete good practices and suggestions were 
gathered on how land use, spatial planning and permitting could be simplified. 

The  section  on  repurposing,  densification  and  vacant  properties  gathered  respondents’ 
insights on obstacles in repurposing and renovating empty buildings as well as ways in 
which public authorities or the EU can best support these activities.  

Regarding  simplification,  more  respondents  identified  national,  regional,  or  local 
regulations,  rather  than  EU  rules,  as  obstacles  to  providing  affordable  housing.    Many 
respondents called for EU action on digitalisation of the permitting system. 

Through the section on labour shortages, skills and working conditions, respondents were 
asked  to  share  their  views  on  measures  for  addressing  labour  shortages  in  construction 
trades thus helping to identify ways to increase the attractiveness and recognition of these 
professions. 

Questions  in  the  section  on  the  rental  market,  short-term  accommodation  rentals  and 
tourism, secondary homes collected respondents’ perspective on the impact s of short-term 

2 

 
 
rentals  and  secondary  homes  on  the  availability  and  affordability  of  housing,  on  good 
practices balancing short and long-term housing needs as well as measures to  

The  section  on  financialisation  and  speculation  provided  insights  from  respondents  on 
whether  and  how  limiting  housing  speculation  and  incentivising  the  use  of  vacant 
properties can contribute to the provision of affordable housing.   

Questions  on  inclusiveness  gathered  participants’  views  on  ensuring  affordable  and 
accessible housing for people in vulnerable situations, at risk of discrimination or homeless 
persons. The section also collected input on how to effectively support young people both 
as renters and as first-time owners. 

In the section on governance, participants highlighted opportunities for exchanging best 
practices and mutual learning to improve affordable housing. They also emphasized the 
importance  of  sharing  comparable  data  and  aligning  EU  funding  with  national  housing 
strategies. Funding, capacity building and technical assistance were seen as main areas of 
possible EU action. 

In the wider context of the consultation activities and in addition to the public consultation, 
the  Commission  services  worked  closely  with  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders,  Member 
States, with representatives from various levels of government including regional and local 
authorities such as cities and rural representatives. There has also been close contact with 
the  other  EU  institutions,  including  close  co-operation  with  the  European  Parliament’s 
special committee on the housing crisis in the European Union (HOUS) and the Council. 
A number of formal contributions to the preparatory process were collected in this way. 
Finally,  the  Commission  also  received  independent  advice  from  the  Housing  Advisory 
Board. 

2.  OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

The open public consultation took place from 11 July 2025 to 17 October 2025 (5). It was 
announced with a press release and was also actively promoted by different Commission 
representations  in  the  Member  States  and  on  social  media.  Responses  came  from  all 
Member States, although media attention and response rates varied across Member States. 

2.1.  Methodology  

An open public consultation is a tool which provides a transparent and accessible way for 
citizens and stakeholders alike to take part in the policy-making process, while from the 
institutional  point  of  view,  it  is  a  systemic  approach  for  the  collection  of  views  and 
evidence.  At  the  same  time,  public  consultations  are  not  statistically  representative:  in 
particular  web-based  public  consultations  have  a  self-selection  bias  towards  those 

(5) In parallel to the publication of this report, the Commission services are also publishing all  individual 
replies on the Have Your Say website in an anonymised way. The contributions received in the context of 
the public consultation and published on the Have Your Say portal cannot be regarded as the official position 
of the Commission and its services and thus are non-binding for the Commission nor can the contributions 
be considered as a representative sample of the EU population. 

3 

 
 
 
respondents  who  are  confident  users  of  the  internet  and  who  are  motivated  to  respond. 
These elements need to be kept in mind when interpreting the results. 

Housing  is  a  complex  topic,  touching  on  many  highly  technical  and  specialised  fields, 
while at the same time being deeply personal to individuals. Therefore, the consultation 
process was designed so that participants in the public consultation could either contribute 
as citizens or experts, leading them to different sets of questions that would match their 
knowledge and lived experiences. The full list of questions can be found at the end of this 
report.  

As the scope of this open public consultation is unusually wide and within an area where 
the EU has not previously made consolidated efforts, respondents could choose to reply to 
just some of the questions reflecting their areas of expertise and interest. Most questions 
offered open-ended replies alongside the multiple-choice options (6). A combination was 
chosen, as both reply categories come with advantages and disadvantages: multiple choice 
questions (MCQ) make it easy to quantify and compare results but comes with the risk of 
oversimplifying. Open-ended questions (OEQ), on the other hand, allow for both depth 
and nuance in answers but are more difficult to analyse. 

The Commission services also took into account replies to the questionnaire and position 
papers sent through other means (e.g. e-mail) within the consultation period, if they could 
not  be  submitted  via  the  online  questionnaire  due  to  technical  issues.  As  regards  the 
analysis  and  treatment  of  data,  this  report  considers  all  valid  responses  to  the  public 
consultation (i.e. after elimination of duplicates from the initial dataset). Duplicates were 
defined as more than one reply with the same email address. 16 replies containing abusive 
and  off-topic  language  which  contradicts  the  rules  of  the  Commission  for  providing 
suitable feedback (7) were removed. 

The  Commission  services  used  analytical  tools  to  identify  any  organised  campaigns, 
whereby the exact same response is copied and introduced by more than ten respondents. 
This type of identical replies was not found. However, on 2 October 2025, a large short-
term rental online platform sent a message to its hosts calling on them to take part in the 
consultation. In the message, the platform also provided a limited selection of material on 
the  effects  of  short-term  rentals  serving  as  background  for  hosts  for  their  consultation 
responses.  This  message  coincided  with  a  surge  in  responses,  especially  from  specific 
countries  (France,  Italy,  Portugal  and  Greece).  When  compared  with  the  number  of 
responses  from  the  previous  and  following  weeks,  it  is  estimated  that  the  platform’s 
message  could  have  mobilised  up  to  2,500  citizen  respondents  and  up  to  200  expert 
respondents. This had a noticeable impact on participation and potentially on the overall 
consultation results, in particular on questions related to the rental market and short-term 
accommodations.  This  effect  needs to  be  taken into  account  in  the interpretation  of the 

(6)  Percentages used always refer to the number of responses to a specific question, with some questions 
allowing for up to three answers – meaning that the total percentage of answers to some questions can 
go above 100. 

(7) https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/rules-feedback-and-suggestions_en 

4 

 
 
 
results,  as  it  was  not  possible  to  clearly  separate  these  replies  from  others  given  that 
responses were not identical. 

2.2.  Results  

The consultation attracted 13,330 responses, of which 12,031 came from citizens, 1,189 
from stakeholders or businesses, and 109 from public authorities.  

2.2.1. 

Citizens 

Those who identified themselves as citizens were asked a number of questions to profile 
their  situation  and  understand  their  opinions  on  several  housing  topics.  Most  of  the 
questions had an open-ended form, where respondents could elaborate on their answers. 
The following overview provides a summary of the results. 

2.2.1.1.  Profile 

Of  those  responding  as  EU  citizens,  most  responses  came  from  Italy  (2,462),  France 
(2,446) and Spain (1,584). More than two thirds categorised themselves in the age groups 
40-54 (37%) or 55-69 (32%). More than half (52%) were male, and more than two in three 
(68%) had a university degree or higher. 

More than half were either employees/workers (35%) or self-employed/freelancers (30%). 
Just above half (50%) lived in cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants. Most people lived 
in a household of two (35%) or three (18%) people. More than half of the respondents lived 
with  a  partner  or  spouse  (55%)  and  more  than  one  in  three  (36%)  with  children  or 
grandchildren. 

Most respondents owned their place of residence, of whom almost half (47%) lived in a 
house and about  one in  four (28%) in  an  apartment.  Most  respondents  (57%) said  they 
spent less than 30% of their income on mortgage or rent. 

2.2.1.2.  Questions 

Of those who had recently renovated their home, better comfort (46%) and better energy 
performance (43%) were the main motivations stated. For those who had recently built a 
home, availability of own funds (25%) and challenges finding construction and installation 
service providers (19%)  were the main challenges. While almost  half (47%) found that 
there were  no particular  drawbacks  to  their  current living situation, more than a third 
(38%) said that associated costs of living are too high (i.e. gas, electricity, water etc.). 

Almost half of respondents (46%) said that the biggest  challenges in finding the right 
place to live was how unaffordable it was to buy, while 19% said it was unaffordable rent 
prices.  Where people were most ready to compromise to find affordable housing was 
the size (30%) while about one in five would compromise on location (23%), availability 
of parking space (21%), garden or terrace (21%) or aesthetics (20%). 

When asked whether they see impacts of short-term rentals in their country or locally, 
respondents were split almost equally between yes and no. More specifically, respondents 
reported that short-term rentals are additional sources of income for hosts (74%) as well as 
that they offer more choice for tourists (71%). Around 20% of respondents thought that 

5 

 
 
shot-term rentals increase prices and displace local residents and change the quality of life 
in neighbourhoods. 

Asked about whether buying homes primarily for investment and subsequent resale 
particularly by financial and investment entities contributes to rising housing costs, 
it was almost split evenly between yes and no (47% and 46% respectively). 

284 participants chose to reply to the question on whether they wish to move out of their 
current accommodation. Most in this subgroup (61%) indicated they are living with their 
parents  and  want  to  move  out,  with  one  in  five  (27%)  saying  their  living  situation  had 
changed, making them want to move out. 

2.2.1.3.  Rural and urban 

EU citizens could specify in the consultation where they live. 6,016 citizens indicated that 
they lived in a city (more than 50,000 inhabitants); whereas 1,968 citizens indicated living 
in rural areas or a village (less than 5,000 inhabitants). Respondents from a small, medium 
and large towns were not considered in this comparison.  The analysis below covered their 
replies to closed and open questions. It identified common challenges, but also specific 
issues related to where they lived. 

Availability of own funds is the most important challenge that citizens experienced when 
they  renovated  or  built  their  home.  Challenges  are  perceived  in  the  same  way  by 
respondents living in rural areas and cities (26%). Respondents living in villages and rural 
areas indicated challenges with finding construction and installation services (20%) and 
more  delays  or  costs  in  sourcing  building  materials  (15%)  slightly  more  often  than 
respondents  overall.  Citizens  in  rural  areas  had  a  significantly  higher  perception  about 
challenges  related to  energy performance requirements driving up the costs (16%) than 
those living in cities (4%). Citizen respondents both from cities and rural areas were ready 
to  compromise  on  size  to  secure  more  affordable  housing,  respectively  33%  and  27%.  
Respondents from cities are also ready to compromise on parking spaces (29%) and private 
garden or terrace spaces (27%). 

2.2.1.4.  Young families 

A total of 544 respondents identified as 39 years old or younger and living with children. 
Almost half (47%) were living in their own house, one in four (25%) in their own apartment 
and less than one in five (18%) were renters. 

Close to half of this group (45%) said that the associated costs of living (e.g. energy, water 
charges) are too high, more than one in five (21%) that their mortgage payment is too high, 
and more than one in seven (15%) that their rent is too high. 

2.2.1.5.  Students 

288 respondents identified themselves as university students or in vocational training. In 
this group, close to half (43%) indicated that they live with their parents or grandparents.  

In this group of respondents, two in five (41%) said the associated cost of living are too 
high and 104 (36%) answered that their rent is too high. 

6 

 
 
2.2.1.6.  Retirees 

1,676 of the respondents indicated that they were retired. Two in three (67%) lived in their 
own house and more than one in five (23%) lived in their own apartment.  

Almost half of this group (46%) said there were no particular challenges with their current 
living situation, but almost a third (31%) said the price of buying a home was unaffordable 
to them. 

2.2.2. 

Experts  

The expert category consists of people self-identifying as such in the survey, whether they 
are  academics/research 
institutions,  business  associations,  companies/businesses, 
consumer  organisations,  environmental  organisations,  non-governmental  organisations 
(NGOs),  public  authorities  or  trade  unions.  The  respondents  identifying  themselves  as 
“other”  indicated,  amongst  others,  that  they  were  associations,  networks  of  local  and 
regional governments, business service providers, cooperatives or architects. Respondents 
who qualified themselves as belonging to one of these groups were offered questions on 
substance of both open and closed nature. 

A total of 1,299 responses were submitted in the expert section (see breakdown by category 
in  Figure  1  and  by  country  in  Figure  2).  Respondents  were  also  asked  to  indicate  their 
primary field of work as shown in Figure 3. In addition, approximately 200 position papers 
and other supporting documents were submitted via the online questionnaire. 

7 

 
 
Close to half of the responses came from companies and businesses; a large share of these 
(86%) were small businesses with less than ten employees, mostly (54%) from the tourism 

8 

 
 
 
 
sector such as owners of holiday homes. Overall, 28% of all respondents identifying as 
experts were companies with business activities in tourism or short-term rental providers.  

It is to be noted that conclusions should not be drawn based on the number of responses 
per sector. Some replies came from small businesses, representing only themselves, while 
others  were  from  business  associations  with  a  membership  of  up  to  several  thousand, 
representing all of them with one reply.   

The questions for experts were structured in twelve thematic sections to cover the range of 
policies that could have an effect on housing affordability. Respondents were encouraged 
to reply only to the questions that were relevant for the sector they represented or worked 
in.  This  means  that  not  all  respondents  chose  to  reply  to  each  section.  The  number  of 
responses  per  topic  is  illustrated  in  Figure  4.  While  the  number  of  replies  changes,  the 
composition  of  respondents  in  terms  of  type  of  respondent  and  field  of  work  remains 
largely the same. All percentages in the following sections refer to the share of the number 
of responses for that specific section, not the total number of expert responses. 

2.2.2.1.  Public authorities 

Of  the  109  public  authorities  which  responded  to  the  consultation,  25%  identified  as 
national, 26% regional and 46% local. About a third of the authorities who responded were 
active in  social housing. Another  ten worked  in spatial  planning and  six in  finance and 
investments. Hence, they were able to provide very concrete and informed responses  to 
these questions, for instance, by sharing concrete good practices and projects on promoting 
affordable  and  social  housing  or  on  how  different  challenges  facing  urban  and  rural 
housing, need to be addressed. Many local authority respondents indicated that they were 
the bodies responsible for urban and housing development in their municipality.  

9 

 
 
 
 
2.2.2.2.  Affordable and social housing  

This  rather  diverse  area  of  questions  received  1,156  replies.  There  was  no  agreement 
among  respondents  on  the  need  for  a  common  EU  definition  of  affordable  housing 
(single-choice question, see figure below). 

With respect to the most relevant ways to increase the supply of housing over the short- 
and medium-term perspective (MCQ), the respondents answered questions relating to 
affordable and social housing. With respect to affordable housing, beyond the optional 
replies in the questionnaire, some respondents suggested the need to set up national and 
municipal housing funds and to mobilize private landlords to offer housing at controlled 
rent prices in return for renovation grants or tax breaks. Moreover, respondents argued for 
clear regulations and stable legal frameworks, the involvement of local authorities and the 
promotion  of  public-private  partnerships.  Some  respondents  stressed  the  importance  of 
improving spatial planning and mobility to connect rural and urban areas.  

10 

 
 
 
 
  
With  respect  to  social  housing,  other  suggestions  included  setting  targets  for  the 
proportion of social housing in new buildings, increasing publicly owned social housing, 
promoting  renting  mechanisms  for  social  purposes  with  private  owners,  such  as  social 
rental agencies, as well as cooperation with other social economy actors. 

In addition, experts pointed to the importance of housing reforms to de-privatize a portion 
of the existing private housing stock and reallocate them to social purposes. 

As  regards  good  or  innovative  practices  promoting  affordable  and  social  housing 
(OEQ),  respondents  pointed  to    the  value  of  urban  regeneration  projects  which  offer 
opportunities  to  increase  supply  in  an  inclusive  and  sustainable  context;  setting  up 
municipal  and  national  housing  funds;  projects  to  mobilise  private  landlords  to  offer 
housing at controlled rent prices in return for renovation grants or tax breaks; acquisition 
by municipalities of housing units that go on auction; and various forms of public-private 
partnerships. 

In terms of good or innovative practices combining sustainability and affordability of 
housing (OEQ), a variety of practices were mentioned, such as public support for energy-
efficient  social  housing  for  achieving  sustainability  and  affordability,  energy  efficiency 
criteria for housing that receives public financing, energy efficient design and integration 
of  renewables,  the  use  of  natural  materials  and  modular  construction,  as  well  as  the 
conversion and repurposing of existing buildings. Some respondents also made reference 
to energy communities and housing cooperatives. Some concrete projects were also cited, 
such  as  the  car-free  Merwede  neighbourhood  in  Utrecht,  targeted  energy  poverty 
programmes for groups in vulnerable situations  such as Roma in Romania and the EU-
supported French programme “MaPrimeRénov’”, a one-stop-shop helping homeowners to 
renovate. 

11 

 
 
 
Approximately  half  of  the  respondents  valued  the  potential  of  cooperative  and 
community-based  living  models  to  provide  more  affordable  housing  (OEQ).  They 
suggested,  for  example,  that  these  models  can  remove  property  from  the  speculative 
market, keeping housing affordable over the long term. The majority reported that these 
models  can  reduce  rental  costs  and  maintain  affordable  levels.  Some  respondents 
mentioned that cooperative and community land trust models require supportive regulatory 
mechanisms, financial infrastructure, and reduced bureaucracy to be successful.  

On addressing the different challenges facing urban and rural housing needs (OEQ), 
many  respondents  suggested  promoting  affordable  housing  through  measures  such  as 
mandatory  affordable  units,  rent  regulation,  and  reducing  urban  sprawl.  Approximately 
half  of  the  responses  to  this  question  advocated  for  improving  spatial  planning, 
infrastructure and mobility to better connect rural and urban areas. Some suggested that 
rural  revialisation  (through  job  creation  or  renovation)  could  reduce  the  pressure  on 
housing  markets  in  cities.  Others  highlighted  the  importance  of  leveraging  financial 
instruments like EU cohesion funds and other subsidies.  

2.2.2.3.  Financing  

A  broad  cross-section  of  1,039  stakeholders  replied  to  the  questions  on  financing. 
Respondents  consistently  identified  financial  barriers  as  the  main  constraint  on 
developing  new  affordable  housing  projects  (MCQ).  The  most  frequently  cited 
challenges were difficulties accessing financial support or unclear funding opportunities 
(48%) and high upfront land and construction costs (41%), followed by low profitability 
compared with market-rate developments and lack of long-term financing.  

Respondents proposed a range of solutions to overcome these barriers (MCQ). The most 
commonly mentioned measures were below-market interest loans (46%), blended finance 
combining  grants,  loans  and  public  co-investment  (38%),  public-private  partnerships 
(31%) and the promotion of institutional actors such as cooperatives and social housing 
organisations (28%).  

On  targeted  financial  incentives  to  help  young  people  in  accessing  housing  (OEQ), 
support for vulnerable or low-income youth was recommended over broad age categories, 
using  instruments  such  as  preferential  loans,  rent-to-own  schemes,  cooperative  housing 
models, and regional or local hubs.  

With respect to improving the use of EU funds (OEQ), respondents highlighted the need 
to simplify procedures, provide clear guidance and establish local “one-stop-shop” support 
structures. Alignment of EU funds with national and regional programmes, technical and 
administrative assistance for local authorities and developers, earmarking funds for social 
or cooperative housing, and long-term policy planning were also emphasized as essential 
for maximizing the impact of EU funding.  

These  findings  support  blended  finance  approaches,  risk-sharing  mechanisms,  public-
private  partnerships,  and  intermediary  structures  like  the  Pan-European  Investment 
Platform  for  Affordable  and  Sustainable  Housing  (PEIP).  Simplified  procedures,  local 

12 

 
 
hubs and stable policy frameworks are seen as essential to mobilising investment while 
maintaining housing as a basic right.  

2.2.2.4.  State aid  

This  part  of  the  questionnaire  included  some  rather  general  questions  on  State  aid  for 
housing, while a more detailed public consultation by DG COMP on the State aid reform 
was ongoing in parallel (8).  

The questions on State aid attracted 965 responses. Regarding the application of State aid 
rules for social housing, 30% of respondents indicated that they experienced challenges, 
70% replied with no. When asked to elaborate (OEQ), respondents indicating difficulties 
perceived existing State aid rules as overly bureaucratic, fragmented, and legally uncertain, 
placing  disproportionate  administrative burdens on local  governments  and discouraging 
both public and private actors from making use of available funds. Many felt there was a 
lack  of  clear  guidance,  inconsistent  interpretation  across  Member  States,  and  narrow 
definitions  of  eligible  activities  which  undermined  confidence  and  delayed  investment 
decisions.  In turn, this limited the ability to support mixed-income or community-oriented 
housing models that reflect contemporary social needs. Respondents therefore called for a 
more  transparent,  coherent  and  enabling  system  that  balances  accountability  with 
flexibility, encourages innovation, and provides local actors with the certainty and capacity 
needed to address Europe’s housing challenges effectively and sustainably. 

Regarding  application  of  State  aid  rules  for  affordable  housing,  70%  of  respondents 
pointed  to  no  challenges  while  30%  of  respondents  did.  Among  the  latter  group  of 
respondents, when specifying (OEQ) there was almost unanimous agreement on the need 
to change the State aid rules in the field of affordable housing. They argued that the narrow 
focus on disadvantaged groups means that housing projects for broader target groups are 
not  implemented,  even  though  they  are  needed.  Programme  notifications  seem  too 
burdensome.  One  respondent  argued  that  that  there  was  a  broader,  long-term  need  to 
developing  permanently  affordable  housing  that  is  not  dependent  on  income  limits. 
Another respondent noted that the rules had significantly restricted municipal housing. In 
Sweden, the rules caused a rapid decline in investment. In the Netherlands, social housing 
providers stopped building affordable housing, creating a large deficit in this segment. 

As regards State aid rules for financing renovation projects, 62% of responses indicated 
no  difficulties,  38%  of  responses  pointed  to  difficulties.  For  example,  when  asked  to 
specify (OEQ), respondents felt there was a mismatch between State aid frameworks and 
the financial realities of building renewal. The de minimis ceiling and the low aid intensity 
under the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) were considered inadequate for 
deep or structural renovations. The mechanism of the services of general economic interest, 
though theoretically available, was regarded as far too complex to use in practice. Many 
local  authorities  and  social  service  providers  said  they  lacked  the  technical  and  legal 
capacity to navigate these instrument, noting that significant renovation needs remained 

(8)  https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/public-consultations/2025-sgei_en  

13 

 
 
 
unmet, especially in the social and affordable housing segments. A recurring concern was 
funding  sources  –  EU,  national  and 
the  difficulty  of  combining  different 
private.  Respondents stressed that overlapping regulations impeded projects that pursued 
both energy-efficiency and social objectives.  

Regarding the issues that the Commission should bear in mind when designing State 
aid  rules  to  establish  affordable  housing  schemes  (MCQ),  the  most  frequently 
mentioned issues  were the income of occupants  in  relation  to  housing costs (41%), the 
price of affordable housing (38%), and ownership rules ensuring long-term affordability 
(37%). Environmental  performance  (28%)  and  social  diversity  (15%)  were  less 
emphasized, while accessibility (12%) and the identity of housing providers (13%) were 
the least prioritised.  

2.2.2.5.  Construction  

The  questions  on  housing  construction  received  replies  from  998  stakeholders.  On  the 
most important factors to reduce costs and scale up building activity (MCQ), 60% of 
respondents  highlighted  the  need  for  less  red  tape  and  reporting,  faster  planning  and 
permitting,  followed  by  innovative  building  techniques  and  renovation  modules  (44%), 
improved  access  to  finance  (36%)  and  sustainable  and  energy  efficient  construction 
materials  (34%).  Beyond  the  given  response  options,  some  of  the  respondents  also 
suggested new models for public housing and a more favourable taxation system for not-
for profit and the construction of affordable housing. Re-zoning, land policies and simpler 
permitting  procedures  together  with  the  renovation  and  re-use  of  vacant  spaces,  better 
working  conditions  and  better  procurement  rules  were  also  listed  among  the  factors  to 
reduce costs and scale up building activities.  

14 

 
 
Work  with  public  authorities  to  generate  demand  for  transforming  empty  dwellings  or 
office buildings (48%), reduce the administrative burden related to public procurement and 
enable a preference for European products (43%) and create a Single Market for recycled 
construction materials and waste (33%) were indicated as the three main EU interventions 
to bring building and renovation techniques and construction products to the market 
to increase housing affordability (MCQ). They were followed by working with financial 
institutions  and  industry  to  de-risk  investments  in  innovative  construction  products  and 
methods,  and  developing  the  necessary  standards  under  the  new  Regulation  on 
Construction Products to make it easier to sell novel construction products across the EU 
Single Market. About 10% of the respondent think that no EU intervention is necessary. 

Furthermore,  experts  suggested  the  use  of  offsite  construction,  incentivizing  co-living 
resources as part of new developments to reduce resource use and demand, strategic public 
procurement  to  create  stable,  long-term  demand  for  new  sustainable  housing,  selective 
deregulation, permit simplification, de-risking innovation, mobilising private investments 
and  boosting  innovation  through  public  procurement  and  blended  finance.  Several 
respondents highlighted the need to standardize fire safety, modernising and harmonising 
national building codes to accommodate modern methods of construction and sustainable 
products. 

2.2.2.6.  Zoning and permitting  

885 stakeholders responded to the questions on zoning and permitting. In highlighting the 
main challenges to obtaining a permit during the zoning and spatial planning phase 
(OEQ) the majority of respondents reported lengthy and complex bureaucratic procedures, 
a lack of clarity in regulations, delays in decisions and unwieldly coordination between 
authorities  as  major  obstacles.  Approximately  half  of  the  respondents  suggested  that 
excessive bureaucracy, including rigid or inconsistent planning documentation, and legal 
complexity  were  particularly  challenging  during  this  phase.  Some  respondents  reported 
environmental constraints and lack of developable land as challenges. 

Notably, a significant variation in the time it takes to receive a building permit (OEQ) 
was recorded, with estimates ranging from as little as on to two months to as long as three 
to five years, depending on the location and project complexity, and time added for pre-
application negotiations. Several respondents attributed the long timelines to issues such 
as  administrative  procedures  (including  lack  of  staff  and  digitalisation  but  also  some 
mentions of corruption) and the complexity of legislation.  

In proposing measures that public authorities should prioritise to increase the supply 
of  affordable  housing  when  it  comes  to  land  use,  spatial  planning  and  permitting 
(MCQ),  a  number  of  priorities  were  suggested:  fast-tracking  for  renovation  and 
repurposing  projects;  implementing  efficient  land  use  policies,  for  example  identifying 
areas suitable for housing projects not expected to have a significant environmental impact; 
and accelerating permitting procedures (e.g. with streamlined procedures for prefabricated 
housing, district-level renovations, or repurposing of buildings).  

15 

 
 
As to what measures the EU could take to support Member States in simplifying and 
accelerating land use, spatial planning and permitting (MCQ), approximately 45% of 
respondents  suggested  facilitating  exchange  of  best  practices  among  public  authorities, 
while 36% suggested the EU should provide recommendations and technical assistance on 
efficient  land  use  and  spatial  planning  policies  for  housing  affordability.  32%  of 
respondents proposed presenting new EU legislation to accelerate planning and permitting 
for housing projects.  

2.2.2.7.  Repurposing, densification and vacant properties  

The questions on repurposing, densification and vacant properties received replies from 
952 experts. They indicated three main obstacles for repurposing and renovating vacant 
buildings (MCQ): high costs (48%), length of time to receive a permit to repurpose and 
renovate (46%) and the complexity in designating an area from a commercial or industrial 
use  to  residential  use  (42%).  Other  obstacles  were  related  to  ownership  and  legal 
complexities, the need to comply with legal and regulatory requirements and the difficulty 
to  adapt  non-residential  buildings  (commercial,  institutional  and  post-industrial)  for 
residential  purposes.  When  asked  to  specify,  experts  also  raised  concerns  about 
speculation, taxation, the need to adjust zoning and building standards, as well as limited 
administrative capacity, resources and dedicated staff to streamline repurposing of vacant 
buildings.  Conflicting  mobility  requirements  for  commercial  and  residential  use  (e.g. 
parking requirements), potential structural risks and inadequate conditions for a successful 
recovery and repurposing of vacant buildings were also listed as obstacles for the use of 
vacant buildings.  

16 

 
 
 
 
When  asked  to  choose  three  options  highlighting  how  public  authorities  should  best 
support the repurposing of vacant buildings (MCQ), most respondents (61%) identified 
funding,  subsidies  or  tax  incentives  to  facilitate  renovation  and  repurposing  of  unused 
buildings as the best support public authorities can provide, followed by adjusting zoning 
policies,  reforming  building  standards  and  streamlining  the  permitting  process  for 
reconversions or repurposing of buildings, reducing bureaucratic hurdles and delays and 
ensuring a comprehensive inventory of buildings, their state and their occupancy. 

Finally, as regards possible EU support of Member States’ efforts to repurpose vacant 
buildings,  most  answers  argued  that  specific  funding  streams  (e.g.  New  European 
Bauhaus,  Affordable  Housing  Initiative)  should  be  devoted  to  repurposing  and 
densification  and  it  should  be  ensured  that  EU  legislation  on  renovation  of  buildings 
facilitates  the  repurposing  of  buildings.    In  addition,  other  support  measures  were 
suggested, such as facilitating exchange of best practices, providing recommendations and 
technical assistance on repurposing and renovation of unused buildings and facilitating the 
use of the EU Building Stock Observatory to provide data and information on the EU’s 
building stock, including energy consumption and renovation rates, and developing criteria 
on  what  constitutes  a  “vacancy”.  Experts  also  noted  that  the  conversion/repurposing  of 
public buildings should be a priority and the need to have uniform rules and requirements 
across the EU (including standardization of buildings repurposing, fire safety) to enable 
conversions  and  support  reuse.  Integrating  summer  thermal  comfort  and  climate 
adaptation, accelerating embodied carbon for existing building methodology and a general 
attention to quality and a common approach were also highlighted as potential supporting 
measures.  

There were about 100 responses to the question on how illegal occupation and squatting 
should be best addressed by the responsible public authorities (OEQ). The answers 
were very diverse and ranged from addressing what are seen as the root causes (lack of 
affordable  housing  and  homelessness),  to  prevention  and  social  support,  to  enabling 
redevelopment of formerly occupied buildings and making renovations easier for owners, 
as well as taxing vacant homes. Some voices called for establishing legal definitions for 
occupation/trespass with swift criteria for legal action and fast-track judicial procedures 
for  enforcement,  while  others  called  for  the  avoidance  of  punitive  actions  and  even 
legalising long-term informal housing where possible. 

2.2.2.8.  Simplification  

A total of 710 experts completed the questions on simplification. A higher proportion of 
respondents  pointed  to  national,  regional  or  local  rules,  as  opposed  to  EU  rules, 
constituting barriers to supply of affordable housing.  

With  regard  to  the  identification  of  national,  regional  or  local  rules  that  create 
unnecessary barriers to the supply of affordable housing, 51% said no while 49% said 
yes  (single-choice  question,  see  figure  below).  Of  those  who  answered  yes,  issues 
identified included lengthy approval processes, strict zoning rules, inconsistent building 
codes  that  delay  and  increase  the  cost  of  delivering  homes, fragmented  funding 

17 

 
 
instruments, complex permitting and environmental regulations, a lack of coordination in 
spatial planning and a duplication of processes at regional and national levels. 

When  they  were  asked  if  they  had  identified  any  overlapping,  unnecessary  or 
disproportionate EU rules that create barriers to the supply of affordable housing, 
71% said no while 29% said yes. Of those who answered yes, parts of EU legislation in 
procurement, environment and energy were suggested (including the Energy Performance 
of Buildings Directive, energy performance certificates or the EU Taxonomy), as well as 
State aid rules (especially regarding social housing) and access to EU funds. In addition, a 
number or respondents noted that EU reporting requirements, particularly for  small and 
medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs),  raised  compliance  costs  and  slow  housing  delivery, 
diverting resources from innovation, and limiting ability to support affordable housing and 
invest in their green, digital, and skills transition. 

In the detailed submissions received, many respondents acknowledged the myriad steps 
that apply to the construction value chain, but there was broad agreement that streamlining 
procedures  would  help  reduce  the  cost  and  complexity  of  the  various  processes  and 
ultimately  improve  efficiency.  A  harmonized  EU  standard  for  Building  Information 
Modelling  (BIM)  was  cited  as  having  the  potential  to  enable  efficient  data  exchange 
between diverse software platforms and accelerate construction processes. A number of 
respondents  called  for  the  development  of  EU  standards  for  both  new  and  reused 
construction  products,  and  for  innovative  building  techniques.  This  could  avoid 
duplication of efforts by national authorities, while acknowledging that those authorities 
should retain the autonomy to supplement requirements, if appropriate. The majority of 
respondents  called  for  EU  action  on  digitalisation  of  the  permitting  system  noting  the 
“Omgevingsloket” centralised platform in the Netherlands as a good example.  

Many respondents proposed a simpler, more flexible public procurement framework, that 
includes criteria for example for the use of innovative construction methods, and digital 
tools, and that procedures should be appropriately calibrated, to avoid undue administrative 
burden and the exclusion of SMEs, in particular.  

Many respondents proffered that clarifying environmental impact assessments could help 
accelerate  permitting  processes.  Rules  on  such  assessments,  for  example  the  Habitats 
Directive,  could  be  updated  to  achieve  clearer  pathways  for  priority  sectors,  such  as 
housing  and  other  essential  infrastructure.  Clear  interpretation  from  the  European 

18 

 
 
 
Commission  would  provide 
environmental protection at European level. 

legal  certainty  and  ensure  uniform  and  effective 

2.2.2.9.  Labour shortages, skills and working conditions  

When it comes to addressing labour shortages in construction trades (MCQ), according 
to  the  889  respondents  in  this  section,  public  authorities  in  the  Member  States  should 
prioritise three policy approaches:  (i) increase the attractiveness, quality  and number of 
offers in Vocational Education and Training programmes, (ii) improve working conditions 
and (iii) stimulate upskilling and reskilling along the construction value chain to match the 
knowledge gap (e.g. in digital technologies, advanced manufacturing, off-site construction, 
hybrid techniques combining timber and concrete, integration of technologies such as heat 
pumps and renewables).  

As inspiring practices to address labour and skills shortages (OEQ), some respondents 
reported  the  need  to  incentivize  apprenticeship  models,  like  in  the  UK,  for  students  of 
younger ages in schools, and that around 20% of hours should be dedicated to this. A few 
respondents mentioned outreach campaigns, dedicated scholarships, and gender-sensitive 
workplaces as ways to increase the participation of women and underrepresented groups 
in  the  construction  sector.  A  few  other  respondents  stressed  the  importance  of  local 
initiatives and collaborations between local technical schools, businesses including local 
micro-enterprises and chamber of crafts. Good practices on the use of new technologies 
and automation were also mentioned by some experts.  

Finally, as regards the possible additional role of the EU (MCQ), nearly 40% of the expert 
respondents prioritised improvement of the recognition of professional qualifications and 
skills as the main EU action to address labour and skills shortages. Other highlighted top 
priorities related to legal migration and social dialogue.  

2.2.2.10.  Rental  market,  short-term  accommodation  rentals  and 

tourism, secondary homes  

Overall, 986 experts replied to the questions on the rental market and tourism. As outlined 
in the methodology, the respondents mobilised by a short-term rental platform’s message 
to  its  network  may  have  had  an  effect  on  the  responses,  particularly  in  this  section. 
However, the exact impact of this cannot be quantified. 

As  regards  impacts  of  short-term  rentals  and  secondary  homes  (OEQ),  the  expert 
respondents  indicated  both  positive  (economy  boost,  greater  choice  for  tourists  and 
innovative  living  solutions)  and  negative  (increase  of  rents  and  housing  prices, 
displacement of local population and businesses, gentrification) aspects. Replies indicated 
that both phenomena tend to be concentrated in big cities and tourist hotspots. Specifically, 
on short-term rentals, it was felt that they contributed to a decrease in life quality (noise, 
pollution) while on secondary homes it was felt that they exacerbate social inequalities and 
that buildings often remain vacant outside of holiday periods. 

Citizens  were  asked  the  same  question  about  the  impact  of  short-term  rentals  and 
secondary homes (MCQ) on their country or region. Approximately half of them noted 

19 

 
 
such an impact. Individual citizens reported that short-term rentals are additional sources 
of  income  for  hosts  (74%)  and  that  they  offer  more  choice  for  tourists  (71%).  Other 
respondents (20%), however, thought that short-term rentals increased prices and displaced 
local residents and changed the quality of life in neighbourhoods.  

Expert  participants  were  further  asked  what  actions  should  be  taken  at  the  EU  level 
regarding short-term rentals (MCQ). 39% of respondents said that there is no need for 
policy intervention to further regulate short-term rentals. Amongst those who saw a need 
for  action,  the  top  three  preferred  interventions  were  acting  against  unjustified  and 
disproportionate restrictions (31%), gathering additional economic evidence on the impact 
of  short-term  rentals  (30%),  and  measures  to  diversify  tourism  flows  (28%).  Some 
respondents  suggested  fairer  taxation  of  platforms  and  that  short-term  rentals  measures 
should be designed locally.  

In  terms  of  good  practices  to  balance  short-term  rentals  with  needs  for  long-term 
housing (OEQ), some respondents called for obligatory registration of listings, restrictions 
on,  or  quotas  for  units  allowed  to  be  rented  as  short-term  rentals  in  a  given  area,  and 
retrofitting of old buildings as a way to balance between the use of housing stock for short-
term  rentals  and  long-term  housing.  Other  practices  respondents  listed  included  the 
introduction of a code of good practices for hosts, and compensation measures for creation 
of new short-term rentals units. 

20 

 
 
 
Concerning secondary homes (MCQ), respondents  favoured introducing  provisions  to 
incentivize  renting  of  secondary  homes  (53%),  ensuring  equal  treatment  for  owners 
including  foreign  buyers  (25%)  and  thirdly,  introducing  additional  property  tax  for 
secondary homes (24%). On the other hand, some respondents feared infringement of the 
right to private property and free markets and called for better protection against squatting.  

With respect to a wider question on additional aspects to ensure the proper functioning 
of the rental market (MCQ), respondents pointed out in particular to reduced taxation of 
rental income (52%), fiscal or regulatory incentives favouring long-term rental contracts 
(45%)  and  promotion  of  transparent  and  enforceable  rental  agreements  (32%).  Some 
respondents  suggested  also  enhanced  protection  of  tenants’  and  landlords’  rights  and 
setting up rent support mechanisms.  

2.2.2.11.  Financialisation and speculation  

The  questions  on  financialisation  and  speculation  were  filled  out  by  929  expert 
respondents. On the question of whether profit-driven house purchase increases housing 
costs, the respondents were evenly split between yes and no replies. Those who did not see 
any impact were mainly composed of companies and business associations. The majority 
of  public  authorities  (58%),  however,  drew  a  connection  between  profit-driven  house 
purchase and the surge in housing costs.   

To the single-choice question of whether commercial ownership of housing in a defined 
geographical  area  should  be  limited  or  discouraged,  a  significant  proportion  (41%) 
disagreed  (among  which  two  thirds  strongly  disagreed,  mainly  from  companies  and 
businesses)  with  any  limitation  of  housing  commercial  ownership,  citing  the  risk  of 
reducing  investment,  lowering  the  available  rental  stock,  thus  increasing  prices. 
Respondents  in  support  of  limiting  commercial  ownership  of  housing  in  certain 
geographical areas (29%) mentioned several benefits, such as limiting demand, improving 
housing affordability and quality and not competing with smaller investors and citizens. 
Rent control, or limitation in house purchase for commercial entities or non-residents, were 
mentioned as interesting avenues to explore. The municipal regulation in Paris requiring 
multi-listings  hosts  to  compensate  for  the  loss  of  residential  housing  was  cited  as  an 
example to follow. The need for public education campaigns to build understanding on any 
measures was also raised.   

To the question if vacant properties should be taxed or regulated to encourage owners 
to put them on the market (single choice & OEQ), respondents were also split, with those 

21 

 
 
 
against (51%) mainly composed of companies and business associations. The majority of 
public authorities (65 %) supported such measures. It was reported that such measures have 
proven effective in cities like Vancouver and Paris, reducing speculation and encouraging 
better  use  of  existing  housing  stock.  The  need  for  distinction  between  stressed  housing 
markets and low-populated rural districts was also raised.   

A question on financialisation and speculation was also put to citizens. When asked if they 
think  financial  and  investment  entities  buying  properties  for  investment  purposes, 
with the goal  of reselling them at higher  prices or renting them out contributes to 
rising  housing  costs,  the  responses  were  evenly  split  between  yes  and  no  among 
respondents. When asked to specify, citizen respondents felt that this contributes to rising 
housing  costs  (pricing  out  of  first-time  buyers,  rent  burden)  and  displacement  of  local 
residents due to gentrification. It was also suggested that is due to a lack of regulation or 
appropriate policy measures.   

2.2.2.12.  Inclusiveness  

Out of expert participants, 808 replied to at least one of the questions on inclusiveness. 
Approximately  half  of  them  reported  that  the  EAHP  should  prioritize  (OEQ)  young 
people, families with children, low-income earners, and other vulnerable groups, such as 
single  parents,  older  persons,  homeless  people  and  persons  with  disabilities.  A  few 
respondents were in favour of providing public housing for employees in administration. 
Notably, numerous respondents highlighted the housing situation of discriminated groups, 
including children with a migrant background or with a minority ethnic origin. Almost all 
respondents  reported  that  the  most  vulnerable  groups,  such  as  low-income  families, 
children, homeless people and Roma communities, deserve special attention and protection 
in housing policies. 

To the question on how young people could be most helped as renters or homeowners 
(OEQ), approximately half of the respondents mentioned the need for financial support 
and  assistance  to  become  first-time  homeowners,  such  as  low-interest  mortgage  loans, 
higher mortgage limits, State guarantees for mortgages, incentives for developers to build 
housing for young people and rent subsidies. Some respondents suggested the importance 
of increasing the supply of affordable housing, through policies that encourage housing 
construction and densification, as well as measures to combat speculation in the housing 
market. A few respondents mentioned the need for dedicated housing programmes, such 
as co-rental and shared housing options, targeted information and education programmes 
to  support  young  people  in  accessing  affordable  housing  and  a  greater  involvement  of 
young people and communities in the design of housing policies. 

Regarding actions to improve accessibility of housing for persons with disabilities and 
older  persons  (MCQ  &  OEQ),  some  respondents  underlined  that  their  national 
construction  codes  already  integrate  accessibility  requirements,  while  others  called  for 
application  of  accessibility  standards  in  all  new  buildings  or  for  the  improvement  of 
construction professionals’ skills and awareness of accessibility requirements. Some also 

22 

 
 
called for mapping needs and available accessible housing or setting targets of accessible 
housing units.   

In terms of ensuring equal access to quality housing and independent living for groups 
at risk of discrimination (based on race, ethnicity,  religion,  sexual  orientation,  gender 
identity or disability) (MCQ), the most frequent replies chosen were the strengthening of 
national anti-discrimination laws in housing and ensuring effective enforcement of existing 
legislation;  tackling of housing segregation by supporting the development  of inclusive 
housing projects; and encouraging cooperation between public authorities, civil society, 
and community groups. 

To the question on how housing policies and investments could contribute to the fight 
against  homelessness  (MCQ),  both  in  terms  of  prevention  and  of  ensuring  sustainable 
housing  solutions  for  homeless  people,  half  of  respondents  expressed  support  for  the 
preventive measure of providing more efficient and timely support services to people at 
risk  of  eviction.  About  the  same  number  of  respondents  indicated  the  importance  of 
ensuring housing benefits and allowances for the most vulnerable.  

To  effectively  combat  homelessness  beyond  the  options  offered,  respondents  further 
commented  that  housing  policies  must  combine  legal  protections,  social  investment, 
housing supply, and support services. More specifically, they mentioned the safeguarding 
of housing security, better protection against evictions without decent housing alternatives, 
expanding affordable housing supply, prioritising Housing First solutions or other housing-
led models and coordination with welfare services. Some respondents expressed support 
for  squatters'  rights,  especially  when  it  contributes  to  a  sense  of  community  or  social 
benefit and some highlighted the key role of cities in combatting homelessness.  

23 

 
 
 
2.2.2.13.  Governance  

The  public  consultation  enquired  about  best  ways  to  work  together  for  an  effective 
delivery of the EAHP as well as to develop mutual learning (OEQ). This question was 
answered by around 550 expert respondents, of which 13% were public authorities, 46% 
local and 30% regional authorities. The majority of respondents (over 60%) emphasized 
the need for such coordination involving local, regional, national, and EU administrative 
levels, public and private actors, with clear delineation of responsibilities and in respect of 
the principle of subsidiarity. There were calls for a dedicated forum to bring such actors 
regularly together.  

Overall, the consultation confirmed that there is in particular scope for mutual learning and 
exchanging of best practices to promote effective, affordable housing solutions across all 
levels. Many respondents also referred to the need to develop and share comparable data 
and to align EU funding to national housing strategies. Funding was seen as a strong area 
for EU action, as well as capacity building, technical assistance and innovation. 

There were also calls to improve EU policy coordination for the benefit of housing policy, 
including ensuring that existing EU legislation does not hinder housing affordability and 
construction. Respondents pointed out the need to ensure a very strong link to the local 
level  in  particular  which  is  mainly  responsible  for  housing  policy  implementation, 
including housing providers and civil society.  

3.  CALL FOR EVIDENCE  

As a first step in the consultation process for the EAHP, a call for evidence was conducted 
between May and June 2025 to gather insights and opinions from various stakeholders on 
the approach that the Commission  should take when preparing the  plan.  A total  of 313 
responses  were  collected,  representing  a  diverse  array  of  contributors  and  24  Member 
States. This included 82 responses were submitted by business associations, 76 responses 
by NGOs, 57 responses by EU citizens, and 27 responses by public authorities.  

24 

 
 
 
The respondents provided valuable input for further work on the EAHP and touched upon 
many topics that were closely examined during the development of the plan and covered 
in the subsequent open public consultation, in particular the provision of affordable and 
social  housing;  construction,  repurposing  and  densification;  and  on  ways  to  finance 
affordable housing, as well as the question of subsidiarity and division of competences in 
the field of housing. 

4.  BROAD STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING  

The public consultation was part of a wider consultation effort with stakeholders, experts, 
Member States and other EU institutions that was taking place during the entire 2025. 

4.1. 

Stakeholder and expert consultation 

In  addition  to  the  open  public  consultation,  the  dialogue  leading  up  to  the  EAHP  also 
included  numerous  meetings  with  EU-level  and  national  stakeholders,  research  and 
academia and the participation of members of the Housing Task Force in events as well as 
country visits and bilateral meetings of Commissioner Jørgensen on housing.  

Two thematic workshops were organised with experts from academia, businesses, public 
authorities and civil society, as well as from within the European institutions for targeted 
discussions. A workshop on social housing took place on 26 September organised by the 
Housing Task Force and DG Employment. Case studies from Austria, France, Spain and 
Finland  were  presented  to  reflect  on  the  diverse  social  housing  systems  across  the 
EU. Another session on homelessness was organised in November by the Housing Task 
Force together with DG Employment.  

4.2.  National, regional and local authorities  

To establish effective communication and collaboration with Member States on housing, 
the Commission organized two meetings with representatives from the national ministries 
from all Member States who are responsible for housing policies. The first meeting took 
place online on 21 May 2025 and the second was held in a hybrid format in Brussels on 14 
October 2025. 

Furthermore, exchanges were held with representatives from various levels of government 
to ensure that the voices of national, regional, and local  authorities including cities and 
rural  areas  were  included,  recognizing  that  housing  is  managed  at  various  levels 
government with differing national approaches.  For example, two expert roundtables to 
discuss the specific challenges faced by small and medium-sized cities in rural areas were 
organised in September and November and the Commissioner met several times with the 
representatives of 15 Mayors for housing, who presented their manifesto.  

4.3. 

Interinstitutional cooperation 

During  the  preparatory  phase  of  the  EAHP,  the  Commission  maintained  regular 
collaboration with the European Parliament’s special committee on the housing crisis in 
the European Union (HOUS) and the incumbent and upcoming Council Presidencies.  

25 

 
 
The  preparation  of  the  EAHP  benefited  from  an  extensive  number  of  hearings  and 
exchanges of views organised by the HOUS committee in preparation of the forthcoming 
Parliament report on the housing crisis in the European Union. Commissioner Jørgensen, 
other members of the College and the Commission services including the Housing Task 
Force actively participated in most of these events. In September, the draft report of the 
Parliament on the housing crisis in the European Union with the aim of proposing solutions 
for decent, sustainable and affordable housing was published (9). 

In addition, Parliament and other EU institutions directly contributed to the EAHP through 
their formal positions, in particular: 

•  European  Parliament  non-legislative  resolution  on  the  role  of  cohesion  policy 

investment in resolving the current housing crisis (10). 

•  The Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 23 October 2025. 
•  The Presidency conclusions on the future European Affordable Housing Plan of 1 

December 2025. 

•  Opinion of the European Committee of Regions on the role of cities and regions in 

the EU Affordable Housing Plan (11). 

•  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee - For a European 

Affordable Housing Plan – the contribution of civil society (12).  

•  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Affordable 

Housing: Cohesion policy, Urban agenda and civil society (13). 

•  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee - Social housing in the 

EU - decent, sustainable and affordable (14). 

4.4.  Housing Advisory Board  

As part of the broader consultation efforts, the European Commission set up the Housing 
Advisory  Board,  an  expert  group  tasked  with  providing  concrete,  independent  policy 
recommendations  for  the  Commission  to  consider  in  addressing  the  affordable  housing 
crisis, thus feeding into the EAHP. 

After a thorough assessment of over 200 applications, the Commission appointed 15 highly 
qualified members in their personal capacity, with a balanced representation across profiles 
and areas of expertise, along with a geographical (members from 15 different EU Member 

(9) https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file?reference=2025/2070(INI)  

(10) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2025-0139_EN.html  

(11) https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions/cdr-0042-2025  

(12) https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/european-affordable-

housing-plan-contribution-civil-society  

(13) https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/affordable-housing-

cohesion-policy-urban-agenda-and-civil-society  

(14) https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/social-housing-eu-

decent-sustainable-and-affordable  

26 

 
 
 
 
States) and gender (eight women and seven men) balance. Their mandate runs until June 
2026. 

On 20 November 2025, the Housing Advisory Board provided a set of recommendations 
to the Commission which are available on the Commission’s website (15). 

5.  CONCLUSION  

The widespread consultation process over the course of 2025, including a call for evidence, 
an  open  public  consultation,  as  well  as  the  broad  dialogue  with  stakeholders,  other 
European institutions and Member State authorities, provided indispensable insights for 
the preparation of the EAHP.  This was highly necessary as the publication of the plan 
represents  the  first  time  that  the  European  Commission  presents  a  comprehensive  and 
ambitious housing policy initiative. Hence close co-operation with other actors, listening 
and  consulting  were  prime  activities  and  have  formed  an  all-important  basis  for  the 
preparatory process. 

This synopsis report attempts to capture a fair overview of the extensive feedback received 
and does not purport to capture every detail either of the 13,300 responses from the open 
public  consultation,  or  of  the  other  input  received  as  part  of  the  broader  consultation 
process. In particular, it is important to note that the findings are not representative, neither 
for  stakeholders  nor  for  citizens.  Nevertheless,  the  Commission  services  conclude  that 
extensive and high-quality input has been received across the board that highlights a broad 
range of different perspectives as well as many good practices relevant to the EAHP.  

the 
The  Commission  services  welcome  further 
implementation  of the  EAHP.  The Commission will continue to  review and analyse all 
input received from all sources. 

input  as  work  proceeds  with 

(15) https://housing.ec.europa.eu/news/commissioner-jorgensen-welcomes-recommendations-housing-

advisory-board-how-tackle-housing-crisis-2025-11-20_en  

27 

 
 
 
Open public consultation: list of 
questions 

Questions for the general public (EU and non-EU 
citizens) 

1. Age [single choice] 

2. Gender [single choice] 

3. Completed education [single choice] 

4. Are you … [single choice] 

5. What is the population size of your place of 
residence? [single choice] 

6. Do you live … [multiple choice, max 2 options] 

7. What is the size of your household? 

8. Household composition [single choice] 

9. What best describes your living situation? [single 
choice] 

10. What percentage of your monthly income do you 
spend on your rent or mortgage (excluding utility 
costs)? [single choice] 

11. If you have recently renovated or built a house or 
apartment, which of the following benefits have been 
your main motivation? [multiple choice, max 3 
options] 

12. If you have recently renovated or built a house or 
apartment, did you experience challenges with any of 
the following? [multiple choice, max 3 options] 

13. Considering your current living situation, what are 
the biggest disadvantages of where you live? [multiple 
choice, max 3 options] 

14. What are the biggest challenges for you in finding 
the right place to live? [multiple choice, max 3 
options] 

15. What areas would you compromise on to secure 
more affordable housing for yourself? [multiple 
choice, max 3 options] 

16. Do you consider that the rental market in your 
country works satisfactorily and why? [open question] 

1. What describes your or your organisation’s field of 
work best? [single choice] 

17. Does the idea of cooperative, community-based 
living appeal to you? Do you think it has the potential 
to provide more affordable housing? [open question] 

18. What benefits and challenges do you see related to 
the construction of new housing, densification (adding 
floors to a building) or repurposing of existing 
buildings in your neighbourhood? [open question] 

2. In which countries do you primarily operate? 
[multiple choice] 

Affordable and social housing 

3. Do you consider that a common definition of 
affordable housing is needed in the EU? [single 
choice] 

19. Short-term accommodation rentals via online 
platforms have experienced fast growth. Which of the 
following statements do you agree with? [multiple 
choice, max 3 options] 

4. What would be the most important solution to 
significantly increase the supply of affordable housing 
over the short- and medium-term perspective? 
[multiple choice, max 3 options] 

20. Do you see an impact of short-term 
accommodation rentals or secondary homes in your 
country or region? If yes, please describe the impact 
and your location (e.g. capital city, rural area, touristic 
region). [single choice] 

21. As regards investment in housing assets, do you 
think that buying homes primarily for investment and 
subsequent resale particularly by financial and 
investment entities contributes to rising housing costs? 
Please provide evidence, if available. [single choice] 

22. On which kind of support should the EU focus its 
action to improve housing affordability in your view? 
(funding, exchange of good practices etc.) [open 
question] 

23. Which specific new actions would you recommend 
the EU to put in place to promote housing 
affordability? [open question] 

24. Do any of the following statements apply to your 
current situation? [single choice] 

25. What is the main reason stopping you from 
moving out of your current accommodation? [open 
question] 

26. What kind of accommodation would you like to 
move into instead? [open question] 

Questions for experts (company/business, public 
authority, academic / research institution, NGO) 

5. The EU building stock accounts for about 35% of 
energy-related greenhouse gas emissions also due to 
insufficient insulation. The use of materials for 
buildings can have a strong environmental impact. The 
choice of buildings can also severely affect soil health 
or water status, as well as the use of land in general. 
There are concerns that making such buildings more 
sustainable will make them less affordable. 

Can you share good practices on solutions that 
combine sustainability and affordability? [open 
question] 

6. What are the best ways to increase availability 
social housing? [multiple choice, max 3 options] 

7. Do you know of any good or innovative practices that 
you  would  like  to  share  on  promoting  affordable  and 
social  housing?  Please  provide  evidence  if  available. 
[open question] 

8.  What  is  the  potential  of  cooperative  or  other 
alternative housing forms (e.g. community land trust) to 
increase affordable housing? Can these approaches be 
scaled up? Please provide evidence if available. [open 
question] 

9. How can the different challenges facing urban and 
rural housing needs be addressed to improve access to 
affordable, sustainable and decent housing for all 
Europeans, including through spatial planning and 
financial support? [open question] 

Financing 

10. What are the biggest financial challenges in getting 
new affordable housing projects off the ground? 
[multiple choice, max 3 options] 

11. What solutions would be most useful in 
overcoming these challenges for affordable housing 
projects? [multiple choice, max 3 options] 

Please provide details and evidence if you have 
experience with any of the solutions selected above. 
[open question] 

12. How can affordable housing investments be scaled 
up more effectively and funding and financial schemes 
improved? [open question] 

13. How can financial incentives be best targeted and 
calibrated to help young people get access to housing? 
[open question] 

14. How can the use of EU funds for affordable 
housing be improved in practice and be made more 
user-friendly? [open question] 

State aid 

15. Have you experienced any difficulties related to 
State aid when financing social housing projects? 
[single choice] 

16. Have you experienced any difficulties related to 
State aid rules when financing affordable housing 
projects with public resources? [single choice] 

17. Have you experienced any difficulties related to 
State aid rules when financing renovation projects? 
[single choice] 

18. The Commission will revise the State aid rules to 
allow support for affordable housing without the 
Commission’s prior authorisation. Some conditions 
may be attached to these new rules. Which issues do 
you think that the Commission should bear in mind 
when designing State aid rules to establish affordable 
housing schemes? [multiple choice, max 3 options] 

Construction 

28 

 
 
19. Which factors do you consider most important to 
reduce costs and scale up building activity? [multiple 
choice, max 3 options] 

27. How could the EU support Member States’ efforts 
to repurpose vacant buildings? [multiple choice, max 3 
options] 

35. In your view, what else should be done at EU level 
to address the issue of short-term accommodation 
rentals? [multiple choice, max 3 options] 

Please provide links or studies or to good practices on 
any of the above [open question] 

20. In the context of its work on affordable housing, 
the Commission is developing a European Strategy on 
Housing Construction focusing on the supply side of 
the housing crisis. 

What type of EU intervention do you consider 
necessary to help bring innovative building and 
renovation techniques and construction products to the 
market to increase housing affordability? [multiple 
choice, max 3 options] 

Please provide links or studies to good practices on 
any of the above: [open question] 

Zoning and permitting 

21. What are the main challenges to obtaining a permit 
during the zoning and spatial planning phase? [open 
question] 

22. What is the average time to receive a building 
permit in your city/region/country? [open question] 

23. When it comes to land use, spatial planning and 
permitting, what type of measures should public 
authorities prioritise to increase the supply of 
affordable housing? [multiple choice, max 3 options] 

24. How could the EU support Member States in 
simplifying and accelerating land use, spatial planning 
and permitting? [multiple choice, max 3 options] 

Please provide links or studies to good practices on 
any of the above: [open question] 

Repurposing, densification and vacant properties 

25. Do you see obstacles in repurposing and 
renovating vacant buildings? (You may indicate up to 
three) [multiple choice] 

26. How should public authorities best support the 
repurposing of vacant buildings? [multiple choice, 
max 3 options] 

29 

28. How should illegal occupation and squatting be 
best addressed by the responsible public authorities? 
[open question] 

Please provide links or studies to good practices on 
any of the above: [open question] 

Simplification 

29. Have you identified any overlapping, unnecessary 
or disproportionate EU rules that create barriers to the 
supply of affordable housing? [single choice] 

30. Have you identified any national, regional or local 
rules that create unnecessary barriers to the supply of 
affordable housing? If yes, which ones? [single 
choice] 

If available, please provide any data or relevant 
information as an attachment or as a link. [open 
question] 

Labour shortages, skills and working conditions 

31. What measures do you think that public authorities 
in the Member States should prioritise to address 
labour shortages in construction trades? [multiple 
choice, max 3 options] 

32. Can you share good practices on solutions that 
address labour shortages in construction trades? Please 
provide evidence if available. [open question] 

33. Do you think that the EU should take additional 
measures to address labour shortages in construction 
trades? [multiple choice, max 3 options] 

Rental  market,  short-term  accommodation  rentals 
and tourism, secondary homes 

34. Do you see an impact of short-term rentals in your 
country, region or city? If yes, please describe the 
impact and the context (e.g. capital city, rural area, 
touristic region). Please provide quantified evidence if 
available. [open question] 

36. Do you have good practice examples and ideas of 
policies that balance short-term rentals better with 
needs for long-term housing? Please specify and 
provide evidence if available. [open question] 

37. A secondary home is a property where people 
spend time away from their primary home. Secondary 
homes may be rented out for certain periods (short-
term rentals) or may be primarily used by the owners. 
There are concerns that secondary homes can make 
housing less affordable for local residents, and/or can 
contribute to vacant housing stock. 

Do you see an impact of secondary homes in your 
country or region? If yes, please describe the impact 
and the context (e.g. capital city, rural area, touristic 
region). [single choice] 

38. What policy intervention do you consider most 
effective in encouraging more efficient use of 
properties owned as secondary homes that are 
underused? [multiple choice, max 3 options] 

39. What additional aspects should be considered to 
ensure the proper functioning of the rental market? 
[multiple choice, max 3 options] 

Financialisation and speculation 

40. Do you think that buying homes primarily for 
resale at a higher price contributes to rising housing 
costs? Please provide evidence, if available. [single 
choice] 

41. Should commercial ownership of housing in a 
defined geographical area be limited or discouraged? 
[single choice] 

42. Which measures should be implemented to limit 
the commercial ownership of housing units? [multiple 
choice] 

43. What would be the impact of measures to limit the 
ownership of housing units by financial firms, for 
instance on rental supply and rental prices or on the 

returns for small investors in investment portfolios. 
Please provide evidence, if available. [open question] 

44. Do you think vacant properties should be taxed or 
regulated to encourage owners to put them on the 
market? [single choice] 

Inclusiveness 

45. Should any target group(s) be prioritised by 
the European affordable housing plan? If yes, 
please explain which one(s) and why. [open 
question] 

46. How can young people be most effectively 
supported both as renters and as first-time 
owners? [open question] 

47. What actions could be taken to improve the 
accessibility of housing for persons with 
disabilities and older persons? [multiple choice, 
max 2 options] 

48. What could be done to ensure equal access to 
quality housing and independent living for groups at 
risk of discrimination (based on racial or ethnic 
origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender 
identity, sex characteristics etc.)? [multiple choice, 
max 3 options] 

49. How could housing policies and investments 
contribute to the fight against homelessness, both in 
terms of prevention and of ensuring sustainable 
housing solutions for homeless people? [multiple 
choice, max 3 options] 

Governance 

50. Housing is impacted by a very wide range of 
policies which can be set at local, regional, national or 
even EU level. What would be the best way to work 
together across all these levels to improve the 
affordability of housing and disseminate good 
practices? [open question]