Rural East Anglia Partnership Strategic Housing Market Assessment Sub­Regional Report Final Report October 2007
FOREWORD This SHMA report is accompanied by three district level reports (for Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, North Norfolk and Breckland). SHMA stands for Strategic Housing Market Assessment, a term defined in PPS3 Housing, November 2006, to describe the work conducted here. Key terms are defined in Chapter 2. As with SHMAs generally, this report is part of a process involving stakeholders. It is therefore important to point out that the report is only one stage in what is intended to be a continuing process. The report is structured to provide as clear an account as possible of the results of the study. Its structure does not mirror the process followed, since it is more important to provide a clear account of the results so that the policy implications of this evidence base can readily be seen.
P a g e i T a b l e o f Co nt en t s Chapter listing SECTION A: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1. Rural East Anglia and the Brief for the work ........................................................................................ 3 2. What is an SHMA? ................................................................................................................................. 6 3. Local perceptions and evidence ..........................................................................................................10 4. General issues for the REAP SHMA.....................................................................................................14 SECTION B: CONTEXT FOR THE SHMA..................................................................................................16 5. The planning context ............................................................................................................................18 6. Socio­economic context.......................................................................................................................21 7. Housing stock .......................................................................................................................................24 8. House prices .........................................................................................................................................27 9. Employment ..........................................................................................................................................38 10. Migration and Travel to Work .............................................................................................................41 SECTION C: RURAL EAST ANGLIA HOUSING MARKETS......................................................................48 11. Key housing information by tenure....................................................................................................50 12. First­time buyers.................................................................................................................................59 13. Characteristics of moving households ..............................................................................................66 14. Financial capacity ...............................................................................................................................71 15. Balanced housing market model outputs..........................................................................................74 SECTION D: RURAL ISSUES ....................................................................................................................81 16. The second homes issue....................................................................................................................83 17. Rural issues in Rural East Anglia.......................................................................................................86 SECTION E: PARTICULAR HOUSING NEEDS .........................................................................................99 18. Current and future housing needs ...................................................................................................101 19. Black and Minority Ethnic households ............................................................................................111 20. Key worker households....................................................................................................................115 21. Migrant workers ................................................................................................................................120 22. Households with support needs ......................................................................................................126 23. Older person households .................................................................................................................133 SECTION F: POLICY IMPLICATIONS .....................................................................................................138 24. Housing market gaps and the housing ladder.................................................................................140 25. Housing markets and new housing provision .................................................................................145 26. Policy on newbuild affordable housing ...........................................................................................146
P a g e i Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – Ho us i n g M ar k et As s es s men t ­ S u b­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 27. Policy on newbuild housing overall .................................................................................................151 28. Stakeholder comments on the SHMA process and outputs ...........................................................154 29. Compliance with Guidance...............................................................................................................155 30. Monitoring and updating ..................................................................................................................158 Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................167
P a g e i i T a b l e o f Co nt en t s Table of Contents SECTION A: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1. Rural East Anglia and the Brief for the work ........................................................................................ 3 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 3 Initial description of the area .................................................................................................................... 4 Fieldwork................................................................................................................................................. 4 Overall requirements for the study: the Brief............................................................................................. 5 Background history of data collection by Fordham Research.................................................................... 5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 5 2. What is an SHMA? ................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 6 What is an SHMA? .................................................................................................................................. 6 PPS3: Housing (November 2006) ............................................................................................................ 6 Sources of data for an SHMA................................................................................................................... 7 Summary of key terms and concepts ....................................................................................................... 7 Summary................................................................................................................................................. 8 3. Local perceptions and evidence ..........................................................................................................10 The perceptions of stakeholders .............................................................................................................10 Extent of the housing market...................................................................................................................10 Local economy .......................................................................................................................................10 Demography...........................................................................................................................................11 Housing balance.....................................................................................................................................11 Provision of affordable housing ...............................................................................................................12 Rurality...................................................................................................................................................12 Topics identified for further research .......................................................................................................12 Summary................................................................................................................................................12 4. General issues for the REAP SHMA.....................................................................................................14 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................14 General issues........................................................................................................................................14 SECTION B: CONTEXT FOR THE SHMA..................................................................................................16 5. The planning context ............................................................................................................................18 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................18 The pre 2004 situation ............................................................................................................................18 2004 changes.........................................................................................................................................18 Regional planning context.......................................................................................................................18 Draft Regional Spatial Strategy ...............................................................................................................19 Local Development Frameworks.............................................................................................................19 Affordable housing..................................................................................................................................20 Summary................................................................................................................................................20 6. Socio­economic context.......................................................................................................................21 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................21 Population ..............................................................................................................................................21 BME fraction of population ......................................................................................................................21 Health.....................................................................................................................................................21 Earnings .................................................................................................................................................21 Population projection ..............................................................................................................................23 Summary................................................................................................................................................23 7. Housing stock .......................................................................................................................................24 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................24 Tenure....................................................................................................................................................24 Dwelling types ........................................................................................................................................24 Council tax band.....................................................................................................................................26
P a g e i i i Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – Ho us i n g M ar k et As s es s men t ­ S u b­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Summary................................................................................................................................................26 8. House prices .........................................................................................................................................27 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................27 General price levels................................................................................................................................27 Survey of estate and letting agents .........................................................................................................28 Affordable housing..................................................................................................................................34 Summary of housing costs in REAP........................................................................................................35 Summary................................................................................................................................................36 9. Employment ..........................................................................................................................................38 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................38 Role of employment................................................................................................................................38 Current employment structure.................................................................................................................38 Educational attainment ...........................................................................................................................39 Summary................................................................................................................................................39 10. Migration and Travel to Work .............................................................................................................41 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................41 Migration ................................................................................................................................................41 Moves between the HMA and other areas...............................................................................................42 Comparison with present survey .............................................................................................................43 Travel to Work ........................................................................................................................................44 Summary................................................................................................................................................45 SECTION C: RURAL EAST ANGLIA HOUSING MARKETS......................................................................48 11. Key housing information by tenure....................................................................................................50 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................50 The four tenures .....................................................................................................................................50 The owner­occupied sector.....................................................................................................................50 The private rented sector ........................................................................................................................51 Affordable intermediate housing..............................................................................................................51 The social rented sector..........................................................................................................................51 Accommodation typology........................................................................................................................51 Household composition...........................................................................................................................53 Socio­economic and financial status .......................................................................................................54 Movement between sectors ....................................................................................................................56 Summary................................................................................................................................................57 12. First­time buyers.................................................................................................................................59 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................59 Situation of younger people ....................................................................................................................59 Housing circumstances of existing younger households..........................................................................60 Characteristics of first­time buyer households .........................................................................................61 Existing younger households aspiring to own ..........................................................................................62 Concealed younger households aspiring to own .....................................................................................63 Financial capacity of first time buyers......................................................................................................63 Implications of this analysis.....................................................................................................................63 Summary................................................................................................................................................64 13. Characteristics of moving households..............................................................................................66 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................66 Annual cycle of moves............................................................................................................................66 Socio­economic characteristics of movers by tenure ...............................................................................68 Socio­economic characteristics of movers by household type .................................................................68 Summary................................................................................................................................................69 14. Financial capacity ...............................................................................................................................71 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................71 Financial capacity in Rural East Anglia....................................................................................................71 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................72 15. Balanced housing market model outputs..........................................................................................74 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................74
P a g e i v T a b l e o f Co nt en t s Relationship of BHM, CLG Needs Model and Policy implications ............................................................74 Key requirements of Guidance................................................................................................................74 The CLG Needs Model ...........................................................................................................................74 Balancing Housing Markets model (BHM) ...............................................................................................75 Aspirations vs. Expectations ...................................................................................................................76 Methodology...........................................................................................................................................76 Methodology for assessing demand from newly forming and existing households ...................................77 Results of unconstrained BHM Analysis..................................................................................................78 BHM results constrained to the RSS target .............................................................................................79 Summary................................................................................................................................................80 SECTION D: RURAL ISSUES ....................................................................................................................81 16. The second homes issue....................................................................................................................83 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................83 Survey information..................................................................................................................................83 Character of second home households and housing ...............................................................................83 Summary................................................................................................................................................84 17. Rural issues in Rural East Anglia.......................................................................................................86 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................86 General characteristics ...........................................................................................................................86 Access to services..................................................................................................................................90 Future housing intentions........................................................................................................................93 Newly emerging (concealed) households ................................................................................................94 Balanced Housing Markets analysis........................................................................................................95 Comments on BHM findings ...................................................................................................................95 Considering the Western Coastal area....................................................................................................96 Summary................................................................................................................................................97 SECTION E: PARTICULAR HOUSING NEEDS .........................................................................................99 18. Current and future housing needs ...................................................................................................101 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................101 Key Terms and Definitions ....................................................................................................................101 Housing need .......................................................................................................................................101 Unsuitable housing ...............................................................................................................................101 Affordable housing................................................................................................................................101 Assessing affordability ..........................................................................................................................101 Housing Needs Assessment .................................................................................................................102 Net Shortfall or Surplus of Affordable Housing ......................................................................................106 Findings in context................................................................................................................................107 Status of intermediate housing..............................................................................................................108 The private rented sector ......................................................................................................................109 Comparison with previous HNS ............................................................................................................109 Summary..............................................................................................................................................110 19. Black and Minority Ethnic households ............................................................................................111 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................111 The BME population .............................................................................................................................111 Characteristics of BME households.......................................................................................................111 Household type and support needs.......................................................................................................112 Geographical Location..........................................................................................................................113 Income and savings levels....................................................................................................................114 Unsuitable housing ...............................................................................................................................114 Gypsy and travellers .............................................................................................................................114 Summary..............................................................................................................................................114 20. Key worker households....................................................................................................................115 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................115 Number of key workers .........................................................................................................................115 Housing characteristics of key worker households ................................................................................115 Previous household moves of key worker households...........................................................................116 Housing aspirations of key worker households......................................................................................117
P a g e v Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – Ho us i n g M ar k et As s es s men t ­ S u b­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Income and affordability of key worker households ...............................................................................118 Summary..............................................................................................................................................119 21. Migrant workers ................................................................................................................................120 Demographics ......................................................................................................................................120 Employment .........................................................................................................................................121 Housing ................................................................................................................................................122 Community involvement and harassment..............................................................................................123 Access to services................................................................................................................................123 22. Households with support needs ......................................................................................................126 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................126 Support Needs: data coverage..............................................................................................................126 Support needs groups: overview...........................................................................................................126 Characteristics of support needs households ........................................................................................127 Requirements of support needs households .........................................................................................129 Analysis of specific groups....................................................................................................................129 Care & repair and staying put schemes.................................................................................................131 Summary..............................................................................................................................................132 23. Older person households.................................................................................................................133 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................133 The older person population .................................................................................................................133 Characteristics of older person households...........................................................................................133 Dwelling characteristics ........................................................................................................................135 Older person households and unsuitable housing .................................................................................136 Summary..............................................................................................................................................136 SECTION F: POLICY IMPLICATIONS .....................................................................................................138 24. Housing market gaps and the housing ladder.................................................................................140 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................140 Housing market gaps............................................................................................................................140 How to fill the market gaps....................................................................................................................142 Summary..............................................................................................................................................143 25. Housing markets and new housing provision .................................................................................145 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................145 Housing market gaps............................................................................................................................145 Summary and conclusion......................................................................................................................145 26. Policy on newbuild affordable housing ...........................................................................................146 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................146 Affordable housing evidence base for districts.......................................................................................146 Affordable housing targets for non­rural sites ........................................................................................146 Affordable housing targets for rural sites (including exceptions sites) ....................................................147 Size and type of affordable housing ......................................................................................................147 Other matters .......................................................................................................................................148 Size and type of market housing ...........................................................................................................149 Summary..............................................................................................................................................149 27. Policy on newbuild housing overall .................................................................................................151 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................151 Net in­migrants to REAP.......................................................................................................................151 The present situation on overall housing targets ...................................................................................151 Implications for RSS target ...................................................................................................................152 Summary..............................................................................................................................................152 28. Stakeholder comments on the SHMA process and outputs ...........................................................154 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................154 The event .............................................................................................................................................154 Key issues from the discussion .............................................................................................................154 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................154 29. Compliance with Guidance...............................................................................................................155
P a g e v i T a b l e o f Co nt en t s Introduction...........................................................................................................................................155 Process requirements...........................................................................................................................155 Output requirements of PPS3 ...............................................................................................................155 Provision of the PPS3 outputs...............................................................................................................156 Summary..............................................................................................................................................156 30. Monitoring and updating ..................................................................................................................158 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................158 Scope of this discussion .......................................................................................................................158 Guidance context..................................................................................................................................158 Updating the general findings................................................................................................................158 Primary dataset ....................................................................................................................................161 Triggers for updating.............................................................................................................................161 Updating weekly costs ..........................................................................................................................161 Why not update incomes as well as the weekly costs of housing? .........................................................162 How to calculate the updated prices......................................................................................................162 Putting purchase prices on a weekly cost basis.....................................................................................163 Policy use of the information .................................................................................................................165 Summary..............................................................................................................................................165 Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................167
P a g e v i i S ECT I ON A: I NT RODUCT I ON SECTION A: INTRODUCTION This section sets out the background and scope of the work.
P a g e 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t P a g e 2
1 . Ru r al Ea st An gl i a a n d t h e Br i ef f o r t h e wo r k 1. Rural East Anglia and the Brief for the work Introduction 1.1 This report addresses the three districts of the sub­market that make up the Rural East Anglia Partnership (REAP): Breckland District Council, North Norfolk District Council and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. The general location of the Sub­Region is shown in the following map: Figure 1.1 Location of REAP © Crown Copyright
Source: mapData and Ordinance Survey 1.2 DEFRA/DCLG have defined 6 broad categories to use to classify the extent to which districts are rural or urban (three urban and three rural). The three Local Authorities in REAP are classed as follows: Breckland Kings’ Lynn and West Norfolk North Norfolk 1.3 R80 (the most rural of the three rural categories) R50 (the 5 th class: second most rural) R80 (most rural category again) Thus REAP as a whole could hardly be more rural: only the presence of Kings Lynn itself prevents the area from being wholly at the extreme end of the rural spectrum. Over half (53%) of the population of REAP live in a rural area; this is in the context of the English average in which only 19% of the population is classed as rural. This makes the point that REAP is an exceptional area. REAP is also spatially large, covering more than half of Norfolk. P a g e 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Figure 1.2 Districts within REAP © Crown Copyright
Source: mapData and Ordinance Survey Initial description of the area 1.4 The sub­region is about as rural as a reasonably well populated part of Britain can be. It covers the whole of the coast of northern Norfolk and a large part of its inland agricultural area too. The Brief cites the statistic that 53% of the population live in rural areas, while the 43% who are technically urban are still living in market towns which are dominated by their rural hinterland, rather than the other way round as is the case for most of England. Like many rural areas, the sub­region contains extremes of material wealth and poverty rather greater than more urban areas do. 1.5 There are 12 recognised towns in the sub­region, of which Kings Lynn, Thetford, Dereham and North Walsham are the largest. They serve mainly as foci for the rural hinterland, providing commercial, employment and social functions. As befits a long established agricultural area, each urban centre has developed its own character. The area is of great attraction to tourists and second home buyers as well as to longer term in­migrants. 1.6 Some further background description is provided in Chapter 3, which summarises the initial discussions with local stakeholders. The next topic is the primary data gathering that was required to enable the study adequately to address the housing market. Fieldwork 1.7 P a g e 4 The primary fieldwork on which this SHMA rests was carried out by postal survey of random households across the area. The results were weighted, and experience shows that the results of analysis based upon this type of data is robust. The following table provides the raw or un­weighted sample return data: 1 . Ru r al Ea st An gl i a a n d t h e Br i ef f o r t h e wo r k Table 1.1: Raw sample returns REAP Kings Lynn & Breckland North Norfolk area WN Owner – occupied no mort 2175 662 693 820 Owner – occupied with mort 1472 584 480 408 RSL 620 226 208 186 Private rented 382 112 112 158 Rented from a friend/relative 34 6 12 16 Tied 60 20 28 12 Shared Ownership 14 5 5 4 4,757 1,615 1,538 1,604 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Tenure 1.8 In terms of the general statement in Guidance that there should be at least 1,000 responses for key areas (in this case the districts) the sample returns are clearly more than adequate. Overall requirements for the study: the Brief 1.9 The Brief sets out detailed requirements for an overall SHMA report and three district level HNS reports. The methodology is consistent with the DCLG Guidance, both as regards the housing needs element and the housing market element. This report provides the information required for the application of that methodology. 1.10 In addition the Brief contains various particular requirements, which are also met. They include: a. Primary data to be collected by postal survey b. Production of data for 10 sub­district areas within each district c. Analysis of new EC workers 1.11 In general the work reported here is intended to meet in full the Brief requirements, apart from the specific housing needs and related analysis which is contained in the three associated district level HNS. Background history of data collection by Fordham Research 1.12 Fordham Research has also carried out the most recent HNS in each of the three districts (and in the case of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk involvement goes back as far as a HNS in 1994). As a result it is possible to set the HNS analysis into a strong context, and it permits a historical analysis of the levels of housing need. The comparison is made in chapter 18 of this report. Conclusion 1.13 The REAP consists of three rural districts in the north of Norfolk. They have combined to require a SHMA for the sub­region and HNS for each of the three districts involved. The Brief sets out detailed requirements, and also requires conformity to (draft) Government Guidance. One feature of this was to gather primary data as the first element of the evidence base. This work has been done and a sample of 1,604 collected.
P a g e 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 2. What is an SHMA? Introduction 2.1 This report is designed as an assessment which will provide a robust evidence base in the spirit of the guidance in PPS3 (November 2006) and related Practice Guidance of March 2007. Compliance with the Guidance is formally examined in the last chapter of this report. What is an SHMA? 2.2 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) is a new idea. Government guidance has for some time been moving towards the view that the ‘evidence base’ required for the good planning of an area should be the product of a process, rather than a technical exercise. Although the Government Guidance on the topic is only in draft form currently, the general principles are quite clearly established. 2.3 An SHMA contains four key elements: i) Involvement of a group of local authorities representing a meaningful market area ii) A process in which key stakeholders are involved in the production of the evidence as well as being consumers of it iii) Inclusion in the process of all tenures of housing, not just the affordable ones as in the old Housing Needs Surveys (HNS) iv) Higher standards of quality: the tests of rigour are more strict than before PPS3: Housing (November 2006) 2.4 PPS3 is a striking document, which puts the role of the ‘evidence base’ provided by the SHMA in a much more prominent role than ever before. It also contains much more specific and challenging requirements for the evidence base, as can be seen from the following summary extracts: 2.5 Para 22 of the PPS says: ‘based on the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other local evidence, Local Planning Authorities should set out in Local Development Documents: 2.6 (i) the likely overall proportions of households that require market or affordable housing, for example, x% market housing and y% affordable housing (ii) The likely profile of household types requiring market housing e.g. multi­person, including families and children (x %), single persons (y %), couples (z %) (iii) The size and type of affordable housing required’ None of these requirements was in previous Guidance: only a part of item (iii) was stated in it. The PPS is also much more demanding as to the role of stakeholders such as developers. In para 23 it says: ‘Developers should put forward proposals for market housing which reflect demand and the profile of households requiring market housing, in order to sustain mixed communities’.
P a g e 6 2 . Wh a t i s a n S HM A? Sources of data for an SHMA 2.7 For this purpose there is a twofold definition: secondary data refers to existing sources such as Census and Land Registry data. Primary data refers to survey data gathered for this specific SHMA. The issue, having apparently been resolved at the end of the last century, has become more controversial recently. 2.8 The Housing Needs Survey (HNS) Guidance of 2000 was fairly clear that primary and secondary data was required to permit effective analysis. ‘Primary’ in this context refers to household data collected specifically for this SHMA, normally by questionnaires administered by post or by personal calls on the households in question. ‘Secondary’ refers to information that has already been gathered: typically the Census, Land Registry and much information obtained by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). Secondary data sources are reviewed more fully in connection with updating and monitoring in the penultimate chapter of this report. 2.9 The Practice Guidance stresses the use of secondary data, but allows for the use of primary data for critical variables. This is sensible, as a secondary data only SHMA is not robust or transparent, and does not produce the key requirements of PPS3. 2.10 The most obvious reasons for this statement are that no secondary sources contain: i) Household income data in combination with housing characteristics that permit analysis of housing market flows. The 2001 Census did not even contain an income question, but much more financial information and housing information is needed to model housing markets. ii) In the present stage of evolution of the ‘property owning democracy’ income is no longer the sole indicator of ability to afford different tenures of housing. Savings and equity are about equally as important. No secondary sources of this information exist. Fordham Research has developed the notion of ‘financial capacity’ to refer to the total ability to afford types of housing. iii) Even if there were both income and financial capacity information of the relevant quality at the relevant geographical levels, competent SHMA analysis would be impossible unless the same (sample) household information also contained the key housing information: housing history, current housing and future housing intentions and aspirations. 2.11 Only by combining all these sources can the flows of households within and between housing market areas and between tenures and sub­areas be understood and projected. This is why the present SHMA is based on new primary fieldwork as well as all relevant secondary data sources. 2.12 The whole SHMA field is quite new, and in order to address the issues and produce coherent results, a new set of key concepts has had to be developed. A summary of these concepts is provided below: Summary of key terms and concepts 2.13 This subsection provides an introduction to the new ideas required to study housing markets. Some are in the Guidance and some have been developed specifically by Fordham Research. 2.14 The two basic terms are as follows (a fuller Glossary will be found at the end of the report): SHMA: refers to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment: the process describing the nature and possible futures of housing markets. PPS3 has emphasised the strategic nature of market assessments incorporated into the acronym and summarised above. HMA: refers to the housing market areas which are used as the basis for particular SHMA analysis. Previous to the publication of PPS3 in November 2006 confusion had existed, whereby HMA could stand for both Housing Market Area, and Housing Market Assessment. Fortunately the publication of PPS3 has removed that confusion. 2.15 Key concepts in approaching SHMA work include:
P a g e 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t i) Financial capacity. Where a few decades ago, it was possible to look at household incomes and predict what households could afford in terms of housing, that is not the case any more. With a national average of 70% of owner occupiers, many of long standing, owned equity is a major driver of housing market activity. The term ‘financial capacity’ was developed some years ago by Fordham Research to cover income, savings and equity, which are the financial controllers of what happens in the market. ii) Housing market balance. There is a line of the Government Guidance requiring attention to be paid to the mix and balance of tenures both at small scale, and at district level. This concept is not defined in Guidance. However a traditional approach to deciding on the types of new housing required in an area implies a view of balance. If the household projections are examined to see what extra types of household appear in future decades, and that change is used to decide what types of additional housing are required, the approach implies that the present situation is one of balance. This is rarely true. The normal situation is one of imbalance: under and over occupation are the norm. Relatively few households are exactly matched in size to the dwellings they occupy. iii) Balanced housing market analysis. This is what led Fordham Research to develop the Balancing Hosing Markets (BHM) model, which examines the present balance in order to suggest what additional types of dwelling are required to house the present and predicted future populations. The BHM model is discussed in Chapter 15. iv) Annual flows of moves. As part of the study of the housing market, an average of recent housing moves is examined, and displayed (in Chapter 13 below). This provides a useful summary of the character of each housing sub­market. v) Intermediate housing. PPS3, for the first time in national guidance, requires a statement of how many households could afford something more than a social rent, but not the market (normally private rent rather than purchase). This means that the output of an SHMA has to examine a much more elaborate range of tenure options than before (to meet the third point from PPS3 in para 2.5 above). The PPS also requires identification of ‘low cost market’ housing targets in the market sector. Both these issues are discussed in the Policy section at the end of this report. Summary 2.16 An SHMA is intended to cover all tenures and to be a process involving stakeholders covering a market area usually wider than a single district. The approach raises many issues that go beyond the scope of the familiar Housing Needs Survey (HNS). 2.17 A new set of definitions and concepts (such as SHMA and HMA, as well as concepts addressing market behaviour (such as annual flows of moves) are now necessary to understand the housing market effectively.
P a g e 8 2 . Wh a t i s a n S HM A? P a g e 9
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 3. Local perceptions and evidence The perceptions of stakeholders 3.1 This chapter is intended to provide impressions of the sub­region as gained from interviews and discussions with stakeholders. Throughout the production of this SHMA regular consultations have been arranged with stakeholders to enable the report to be orientated toward local issues and ensure it reflects the broader context as understood by those living and working in the area. For this purpose the stakeholder group was made up of a range of interested parties including employment agents, house builders, RSLs, Council officers, education bodies and land owners. Further interviews were conducted with local estate and letting agents and these are presented in chapter eight which discusses in more detail local housing costs and the topography of the housing market. 3.2 This chapter summarises the discussions in the first two stakeholder events. As a result of its sources, the nature of this chapter is discursive: the evidence comes in notes of conversations containing often very interesting insights into the workings of the housing market. As a result it is rather kaleidoscopic and cannot be expected to show the structure which would be expected of more analytical parts of this report. Extent of the housing market 3.3 Some stakeholders suggested that it was a single market, strongly influenced by Norwich and also influenced by Cambridge, Peterborough and London. It was felt by some stakeholders that the idea that REAP was part of the London travel to work area was more myth than substance. Generally it was agreed that the coastal strip within REAP is heavily influenced by in­migration from households moving from the wider housing market of the South East looking to acquire a second home or moving to retire in the area. Local economy 3.4 The economy was viewed as one of the principle drivers of the housing market along with in­migration. The development of Norwich is the focal point for economic growth in Norfolk, with the hope that the benefits will spread across the County. 3.5 Within REAP there is lots of lower paid work such as food processing, tourism and agriculture (although agriculture does not employ many people), some of which is seasonal. Bernard Matthews is an important local employer but also a landowner. They are unusual in that they have the land available on which they have the potential to provide the affordable housing required by their employees. 3.6 Although the educational achievement in the local population was thought not to be great, it was noted that there are not many opportunities for highly skilled individuals within REAP. An example was given of someone with an MSc not being able to obtain suitable employment in the area forcing them to live and work outside the region. 3.7 Stakeholders thought that there is a need for the local economy to diversify and become highly adaptable. Concern was raised however that land use in REAP was becoming increasingly residential at the expense of land designated for employment. 3.8 Stakeholders felt that wider issues could effect employment patterns in the future with environmental concerns meaning that people may choose to travel less and farmers may diversify into bio fuels.
P a g e 1 0 3 . L o c al p er c ep t i o n s a n d ev i d en c e Demography 3.9 One of the most significant groups of in­migrants are households moving to retire and the stakeholders raised concerns about the impact of the growth in this age group. The area is sought after for this group of households because of the large coastline, low density population, the housing stock and relatively cheap cost of ownership compared to South East England. The housing stock includes a relatively large proportion of bungalows compared to other parts of the country. It was speculated whether developing fewer bungalows in the future may reduce the in­migration of older people, but it was felt that it would have a limited affect. 3.10 Concern was raised as to the impact of older in­migrants on healthcare services, both now and in the future. Whilst many of those retirees moving into REAP are fit and healthy 55 plus year olds whom are likely to put pressure on services locally in the future, some are brining their 75+ parents providing immediate healthcare implications. It was speculated that if this trend continued then in twenty years time when the retired in­ migrants reached the age where they may require significant support there may be a need for them to out­ migrate if local healthcare services are unable to support them. 3.11 The impact of this in­migration also affected the dynamics of the local housing market with the market now operating at two levels – those on lower income and the very wealthy, which are mainly in­migrants. The in­ migrants are pricing local families out of the market. Examples were given of multiple generations staying in the same village, but where the youngest family members are unable to afford to stay there now. Stakeholders were concerned that a significant increase in interest rates would result in problems for recent young buyers whilst the rich retirement households would be able to ride it out. Another group identified as being priced out of the market was key workers, particularly health care staff. 3.12 One stakeholder commented on the ‘insatiable demand for retirement homes’. This has led to the development of properties aimed specifically at this market, which are larger executive homes out of the reach of young local families. Furthermore concern was raised that many of these new retirement properties were not necessarily meeting mobility/support standards. Housing balance 3.13 The other significant group of in­migrants are economic migrants moving from elsewhere in the EU. The majority of these households move into the private rented sector, sometimes ‘crammed into HMOs’. This group have increased demand within this sector, which may be vulnerable if the jobs were lost and the migrant workers returned to their country of origin. 3.14 Right to Buy was perceived to have had a massive impact on the availability of affordable housing in REAP. However, even with the maximum discount of £34,000, rising house prices mean that Right to Buy is no longer affordable to many, which has meant that the loss of the affordable stock through this mechanism has reduced. 3.15 In terms of accommodation size, several stakeholders indicated that changing expectations means that there is reduced demand for one bedroom accommodation across all tenures, with households wanting more space and the ability to expand without moving. Within the social rented sector the emphasis on moving towards more sustainable communities is also driving the decision to build fewer one bedroom properties. Other stakeholders however identified a shortfall of smaller homes. 3.16 The stakeholders differed in their views of shared ownership. Whilst there was agreement that it needs to become more accessible there was no consensus as to whether it should be social housing led, with access via the Council or RSLs, or home ownership led with access via estate agents.
P a g e 1 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Provision of affordable housing 3.17 It was acknowledged that there is a shortage of affordable housing in REAP, although some stakeholders felt that the Housing Register is a poor measure of need for affordable housing and an unreliable guide to any demand for shared ownership housing. Whilst the percentage targets of affordable housing from section 106 sites have been increasing over the last 15 years as they are based on general viability rather than site specific viability, they are not always achievable. It was suggested that because of the limited amount of feasible intermediate housing schemes available in REAP an intermediate housing target of 10% for these schemes was more realistic. 3.18 It is recognised that extra affordable housing is most likely to be provided on the edges of larger villages and towns, but smaller villages need it to allow younger people to remain and sustain the existing community. It will also help raise rural wages. However, affordable housing provision in villages is difficult to acquire, particularly when it could form one of three properties being developed on a site. In addition, in some villages there is opposition to affordable housing, with the recent movers­in and retired people tending to be the strongest NIMBYS. It was suggested that better design of affordable housing would help to minimise this response, with the conversion of redundant farm buildings given as an example. Rurality 3.19 The rural nature of the housing market area has an affect on how the market functions and makes the provision of services, such as health care and public transport more difficult. 3.20 Stakeholders indicated that there was a high dependence on cars, with public transport within the area not comprehensive and the rail link from Norwich to London unreliable. It was felt that new housing should be built with car parking, due to difficulties with on­street parking, although efforts should be made to agree bus schedules that provide the most assistance to rural dwellers within what is commercially feasible. It was recognised that broadband internet may remove some of the accessibility problems but provision is ‘patchy and unreliable in places’. 3.21 It was commented that despite the inherent difficulties it is important that there is growth at village level and not towns. Topics identified for further research 3.22 Areas of research that the stakeholders were interested in for further information:
· · · · Key workers
In migrants
Role of intermediate housing
Financial capacity of households including debt Summary 3.23 The stakeholders whose views are included here paint a picture of a diverse rural and tourist economy: the agricultural one does not emerge strongly. There is a noticeable in­migration of workers in various processing industries often from other EU countries and a strong retirement and second home market. The housing markets were generally seen as self contained, though pressure from the cities of Norwich and further field are recognised.
P a g e 1 2 3 . L o c al p er c ep t i o n s a n d ev i d en c e P a g e 1 3
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 4. General issues for the REAP SHMA Introduction 4.1 This chapter considers the degree to which there are particular overriding issues which should be addressed through the SHMA process. General issues 4.2 What are the appropriate sub­markets to consider within REAP? This has been answered at the initial stage in the previous chapter, in the consideration of the coastal strip and the rest of the area. It is arguable that further subdivisions could be made, but purely in housing market terms it is not obvious that there are further sub­ markets. Clearly Kings Lynn itself is different from the rural area, but in price terms the outstanding difference is between the north west corner of REAP and the rest. 4.3 There is an overall issue concerning the influence of the nearby large city of Norwich, and the further away cities of Cambridge and London, but these issues were seen by the agents as somewhat overplayed. They deserve to be considered. 4.4 The main issues, however, are likely to be those of rurality: access to services and the level of rural housing need being two of the main ones. These issues are given full attention in what follows, and in the accompanying HNS.
P a g e 1 4 4 . Gen er a l i s s u es f o r t h e REAP S HM A P a g e 1 5
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t SECTION B: CONTEXT FOR THE SHMA This section summarises the existing secondary evidence base. It is supported by a substantial appendix (Appendix A) which contains detailed secondary material. It begins with the planning context, proceeds with the socio­economic context, housing stock and employment and migration information. Where the secondary data permits it projections of both population and employment are considered. The latter is the main current driver of the housing market.
P a g e 1 6 S ECT I ON B: CONT EXT FOR T HE S HM A P a g e 1 7
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 5. The planning context Introduction 5.1 What follows provides a review of the main policy context within which to consider housing demand and supply in the Rural East Anglia housing market area (HMA). Policy guidance is provided at a number of spatial levels, from national policy downwards. This system of policy guidance is in a process of transition, following the major changes formally introduced in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (though anticipated, to some extent, in the period prior to then). The process of change is not entirely complete, and indeed this SHMA is subject to Guidance which as yet is only in draft. The pre 2004 situation 5.2 Prior to the changes instituted in 2004, housing demand and supply issues in the area under study were developed in the context of:
· · · Regional policy as set out in Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia
County level policies in the approved Structure Plan for Norfolk
District level policies in individual Local Plans for the three individual Council areas. 5.3 Regional Planning Guidance was published in November 2000. 5.4 The approved Norfolk Structure Plan was adopted in October 1999. It covers the period 1993­2011. The policies it contains will continue to represent the formal approved Development Plan until at least September 2007. 5.5 The Local Plan situation is summarised in the Table below: Table 5.1 Local Plans developed prior to 2004 Act Council Breckland Kings Lynn & West Norfolk North Norfolk Plan title Status Breckland District Local Plan 1996­2006 Adopted September 1999 Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan Adopted November 1998 North Norfolk Local Plan Adopted April 1998 Source: Individual Council’s Local Plans 2004 changes 5.6 The alterations adopted in 2004 made for a significant adjustment to the existing process. The key changes involved replacing what was mostly a three tier system with a two tier system of regional spatial guidance, including the sub­regional level, and Local Development Frameworks. The latter includes core policies formerly within the structure plans, but were envisaged as more flexible packages of component documents which could be individually replaced or updated without the need for a more general, comprehensive review of the whole Plan. Regional planning context 5.7 Formal planning guidance for the Rural East Anglia Market area in respect of housing demand and supply issues is now being provided in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England.
P a g e 1 8 5 . T h e p l a n ni n g c o n t ex t 5.8 A Draft East of England RSS was published for consultation in November 2004. This Draft Plan was subject to Examination in Public in late 2005/early 2006. The Panel published its Report in late July 2006 but further progress on finalizing the RSS has now been halted pending resolution of concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure funding. Draft Regional Spatial Strategy 5.9 The Draft Regional Plan document provides a general review of spatial strategy and policies for the region. This identifies provision policies and guidance in respect of various sub­areas, with a 2021 end date. The Table below sets out the dwelling targets proposed for the three Districts as in Draft Policy H1 and as proposed in the Panel’s report. The Panel also proposed an indicative 5 year phasing breakdown for these totals. Table 5.2: Draft RSS/Regional Plan 2006: dwelling targets Breckland Kings Lynn & West Norfolk North Norfolk East of England Region Total Draft RSS – no of dwgs 2001­21 no p.a. % 15,200 760 3.2% 11,000 550 2.3% 8,000 400 1.7% 478,000 23,900 100% Source: Individual Council’s Local Plans Panel Report – no of dwgs 2001­21 no p.a. % 15,200 760 3.0% 12,000 600 2.4% 8,000 400 1.6% 505,000 25,250 100% 5.10 It can be seen that the Panel confirmed the Breckland and North Norfolk target figure, but proposed a small increase for Kings Lynn & West Norfolk. This is in the context of an overall increase in the regional housing target, from 478,800 to 505,000 dwellings. 5.11 In respect of Affordable Housing, the Draft RSS suggested (SS13) that on average at least 7,200 of the 23,900 annual provision, 30%, should be social rented, with a further 760 dwellings pa at least as key worker housing. To achieve this it suggested that at least 30% of housing supply in all areas should be affordable, though an aspiration to secure 40% would apply where housing stresses merited that. 5.12 Mindful of the substantial overhang of housing committed but yet to complete, where much lower affordable proportions commonly applied, the Panel proposed an overall regional target of 35% affordable housing for sites committed from the present time. The Panel noted that this would allow a relatively broad definition of affordable housing, including the key worker target. 5.13 Policy H2 also referred to the need to produce a range of dwelling types and sizes to meet the assessed needs of all sectors of the community. The Panel did not suggest any alteration. Local Development Frameworks 5.14 Progress is being made to establish Local Development Frameworks for all three districts, in order both to meet the requirements in the 2004 Act, and to replace Plans which generally run to an end date of its shelf life. As Table 5.1 showed, the three existing Local Plans were all adopted in the late 1990s, and are now coming to the point where they need to be replaced. 5.15 Table 5.3 below sets out for each of the existing and emerging Local Plan documents, the level of housing requirement they are designed to deliver, and the supply capacity based upon the most recent capacity assessment. Key data is also mapped:
P a g e 1 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 5.3 Housing provision targets in individual District Plan documents Area Breckland Kings Lynn & West Norfolk North Norfolk Total Housing requirement: Local Plan 6,337 (95­06) =576 pa 6,580 (98­06) = 823 pa 1,725 (05­11) =288 pa Housing requirement: LDF Recent completions Available supply As RSS = 760 pa 01­05 ave: 850 pa n/a As RSS = 600 pa n/a n/a As RSS =400 pa 93­05 ave: 487 pa n/a n/a n/a 1,687 1,760 Source: Information provided by individual Councils Affordable housing 5.16 In all three Districts it is policy to seek the provision of affordable housing from developers on suitable sites. However, as might be expected the individual policy and target parameters vary, reflecting the disparate individual history, circumstances, and evolving strategic framework, in each case. The current situation in relation to affordable targets is summarised below: Table 5.4 Affordable housing targets District Breckland Kings Lynn & W Norfolk North Norfolk Adopted Plan No % target in adopted Plan Emerging LDF policy Target “at least” 30% 2006 Preferred Options Paper Target 30% affordable suggests 30% target, tenure split “in Tenure split 25% social rented: most circumstances” 70% social 3­4% equity share rented: 30% shared equity 2006 Core Strategy Consultation proposes “at least” 45% in principle No % target in adopted Plan and secondary settlements, 50% in service villages Source: Information provided by individual Councils Summary 5.17 The planning framework for the Rural East Anglia sub­region is in transition from the previous system to the more flexible one introduced by the 2004 Act. Regional guidance has emerged in draft form. The evidence of this study is used in the final chapter to propose various changes to the existing targets set out in this chapter.
P a g e 2 0 6 . S o ci o ­ ec o n o mi c c o n t ex t 6. Socio­economic context Introduction 6.1 This chapter uses material provided in more detail in Appendix A1, to which there are references, and some extracted illustrations are included here. Population 6.2 The following table provides a summary of the structure of the current population of each district:
Table 6.1: Mid 2003 estimates of population: percentage in age band
Age group
Under 5
5 to 15
16 to 44
45 to retirement age
Retirement age & over
6.3 Breckland
5.2%
13.5%
35.3%
23.5%
22.5%
King’s
North
Lynn & W
Norfolk
Norfolk
5.1%
4.0%
12.9%
11.8%
33.7%
29.5%
23.6%
25.2%
24.8%
29.6%
Source: Table A2.2 Rural East
Anglia
East of
England
England &
Wales
4.8%
12.8%
33.1%
24.0%
25.3%
5.7%
14.0%
38.7%
22.3%
19.2%
5.7%
14.0%
40.4%
21.5%
18.4% As can be seen from this table, the overall age structure of East of England is older than the national profile, but the REAP age structure is much older. About 49% of the population is older than 45, as compared with 40% nationally. It is conspicuous that North Norfolk has much the oldest age profile of the three districts, which is consistent with its higher profile as a retirement location. BME fraction of population 6.4 Only some 1.2% of the population (Table A2.3) is non white. Whilst this is markedly different from the national or regional picture it reflects the rural nature of the area. Councils in the DEFRA Rural 50 category (as Kings Lynn & W Norfolk) have an average figure of 1.8%, whilst in the Rural 80 group (including Breckland and North Norfolk) the average is 1.4%. So Rural East Anglia is a little lower than average. Health 6.5 Health levels are below average. Good general health is found in only 65.4% of the population, compared with 70.4% regionally and 68.6% nationally (Table A2.5), this may be explained by the age profile of the area. Earnings 6.6 Earnings are much lower in the sub­region than either the average for the East of England or for England:
Table 6.2 Full­time earnings (ASHE 2005)
Breckland
Mean income
Kings Lynn
& W Norfolk
North
Norfolk
Rural East
Anglia
£22,399
£22,683
£20,766
£22,123
Source: Annual survey of hours and earnings – 2005
East of
England
England
£30,640
£28,988 P a g e 2 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 6.7 As can be seen from the detailed figures, all three Districts are well below the average for the East as a whole: at the REAP level about 76% of the national average. 6.8 The earnings figures can be compared as between the incomes of those who work and who live in the area. This is an instructive comparison: Table 6.1: Annual Gross Pay (2005) £35,000 £28,941 £28,988 £30,000 £24,812 £25,000 £21,271 £25,829 £22,123 £20,000 £15,000 £10,000 £5,000 £0 Study Area Region Workplace based England Residence based Source: Figure A7.2. Please note that the figures are for individual, not households. 6.9 The fact that workplace pay in Rural East Anglia is somewhat lower than the residence pay suggests two influences:
· · Those who live in the area are relatively wealthy and significant numbers commuting to work outside the area are in relatively highly paid jobs
Those who commute into the area have incomes that are relatively lower than those of area residents, and presumably commute into jobs that are relatively lower paid. Table 6.3 Annual gross pay (2005) Workplace based Residence based Breckland £20,659 King’s Lynn & W. Norfolk £22,296 North Norfolk £20,302 Rural East Anglia £21,271 East of England £27,866 England £28,941 Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2005 6.10 £22,399 £22,683 £20,766 £22,123 £30,640 £28,988 The effect seems to be greatest in Breckland, from where significant numbers commute into Norwich, or to other destinations to the south such as Cambridge.
P a g e 2 2 6 . S o ci o ­ ec o n o mi c c o n t ex t Population projection 6.11 The following table provides a household projection for REAP. This suggests that the population of REAP will increase by 25.9% over the next 20 years. Within REAP it is estimated that Breckland will increase by the largest proportion with an increase of 30.2%, North Norfolk and Kings Lynn and West Norfolk’s population is estimated to increase by 24.4% and 23.3% respectively. Table 6.4: Projected household numbers (thousands) Breckland North Norfolk King's Lynn and West Norfolk Rural East Anglia 2006 2011 2016 53 55 60 45 46 49 60 62 66 158 163 175 Source: DCLG national projections 2003 based 2021 64 53 70 187 2026 69 56 74 199 Summary 6.12 It is notable that the age structure of the REAP population is much older than the national average (49% over 45 years old compared with 40% nationally). Only a very small fraction (1.2%) come from BME backgrounds. Despite the older age structure, the population is projected to rise considerably over the next 20 years: to about 26% of the present level. 6.13 Earnings are relatively low, as would be expected from the largely rural nature of the area: earnings are about 76% of the national average. When workplace based pay is compared with residence based pay (the latter being for people living within and working outside the HMA) there is not much difference except in Breckland, where the residence based figure is noticeably higher. This suggests a substantial travel to work to better paid jobs, mainly to Norwich, outside the area.
P a g e 2 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 7. Housing stock Introduction 7.1 This chapter draws upon material examined in more detail in Appendix A3, to which there are references, and some extracted illustrations are included here. Tenure 7.2 The table below presents the tenure profile recorded by the 2001 Census in the three Local Authority areas in comparison to regional and national averages. The table indicates that there is high owner occupation in the East of England generally, when compared to the national picture. Rural East Anglia has a higher proportion of owner occupied accommodation than is recorded both regionally and nationally, although unusually there are more owners who have paid off their mortgage and fewer who are still paying.
Table 7.1 Tenure (Census 2001)
Tenure category
Owns outright
Owns with a mortgage or loan
Shared ownership
Council (local authority)
Housing Association/RSL
Private landlord or letting
agency
Other
Total
7.3 36.7%
38.4%
0.4%
2.2%
12.7%
Kings
Lynn & W.
Norfolk
38.5%
35.6%
0.3%
12.1%
3.2%
8.1%
8.4%
Brecklan
d
43.5%
30.1%
0.3%
11.3%
2.9%
Rural
East
Anglia
39.3%
35.0%
0.3%
8.6%
6.3%
10.1%
8.8%
North
Norfolk
1.5%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: ONS neighbourhood statistics – 2006 East of
England
England
31.3%
42.4%
0.5%
11.8%
5.0%
29.5%
38.8%
0.6%
13.2%
6.0%
7.7%
8.7%
1.3%
100.0%
3.2%
100.0% The social rented fraction is somewhat lower than either regional or national averages. The private rented fraction is a little higher than the regional average, in line with the national average. When looked at in broad terms, though, the Rural East Anglia profile is more typical of its region than of other parts of the country. Dwelling types 7.4 There is a high fraction of detached and semi­detached dwellings in Rural East Anglia. This is only partly explained by the higher proportion of owner occupied housing. There are also significantly fewer flats. The sub­region’s terraced housing fraction is well below the regional as well as the national proportions.
P a g e 2 4 50% 31.2% 40% 31.6% 7 . Ho u si n g st o c k 30% Figure 7.1 Dwelling Types (2001) 45.4% 20% 30.2% 22.5% 10% 0% Rural East Anglia Detached Semi­detached East of England Terraced Flat/maisonette England Caravan/Mobile Home Source: ONS neighbourhood statistics – 2006 7.5 The differences between the individual Districts are all very slight. Table 7.2 Dwellings Types (2001) Breckland King’s Lynn & W. Norfolk North Norfolk Rural East Anglia East of England England Detached 47.0% 44.2% 45.4% 45.4% 30.2% 22.5% Semi­detached 28.7% 30.6% 29.2% 29.6% 31.2% 31.6% Terraced 17.6% 15.7% 15.9% 16.4% 23.5% 25.8% Flat/maisonette 6.0% 8.3% 9.0% 7.8% 14.3% 19.7% Caravan/Mobile Home 0.6% 1.2% 0.5% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 100.0% 100.0% Total 7.6 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: ONS neighbourhood statistics – 2006 As can be seen from the figure below, the number of rooms per dwelling is larger in the sub­region than either the national, or regional, average. This may be consistent with house type profile, with higher proportions of detached and semi­detached than elsewhere, and fewer flats.
P a g e 2 5
5.66 5.7 5.66 5.63 5.57 5.6 5.51 Ru5.5 r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 5.4 5.33 Figure 7.2 Average number of rooms per dwelling (2001)
5.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 Breckland King's Lynn & West Norfolk North Norfolk Rural East Anglia East of England England 100% 5.1% Source: 2001 Census
– Key Statistics for local authorities in England and Wales 9.0% 10.7% 7.5% 9.2% 11.1% 14.5% 80% 7.7 The data shows again, only slight differences between the three Districts. 14.9% 18.3% 70% 23.2% 60% 21.5% Council tax band
50% 27.9% 29.2% 40% 19.3% Figure 7.4 Dwellings by Council Tax Band (2001) 30% 22.4% 20% 30.3% 26.1% 10% 15.2% 0% Study Area East of England England 90% A B C D E F­H Source: ONS neighbourhood statistics – 2006 7.8 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk has a high proportion (37.4%) of dwellings in the lowest Council Tax Band, as well as few dwellings in the highest bands. Of the local authorities in Rural East Anglia, North Norfolk has the highest proportion of dwellings in the highest bands. Summary 7.9 REAP has a low proportion of affordable social rented housing: 13% compared with 16% at the East of England level and 19% at the national level. The private rented sector is about average (9%) and so there is more owner occupation than at the regional or national levels. 7.10 Within the large owner occupied sector there is much more detached housing (45%) as compared with 30% regionally and 23% nationally. This is consistent with the highly rural nature of the sub­region.
P a g e 2 6
8 . Ho u s e p ri c es 8. House prices Introduction 8.1 This chapter sets out the results of an analysis of housing market prices and rents in Rural East Anglia. Information was collected from two sources:
· · Land Registry
Survey of local estate and letting agents 8.2 This chapter uses Land Registry information to provide the context for the property price situation in REAP. A full analysis of Land Registry material is presented in Appendix A4 with some extracted illustrations included here. 8.3 Interviews were conducted with estate and letting agents, to inform the understanding of the local housing market, and a summary of these discussions are presented in this chapter. Finally this chapter also includes data from our survey of estate and letting agents on the cost of entry­level market housing in REAP. General price levels 8.4 The table below shows average prices in the 2nd quarter of 2006 for each of England and Wales, East of England, Rural East Anglia and the three constituent Local Authorities. The table indicates that price levels in the Rural East Anglia sub­region are somewhat lower than the national average: 86% of the England and Wales average. Within REAP, North Norfolk is the area with the highest average price. Table 8.1 Land Registry average prices (2nd quarter 2006) As % of England and Area Average price Wales England & Wales £199,184 100.0% East of England £181,925 91.3% Rural East Anglia £172,051 86.4% Breckland £166,553 83.6% King’s Lynn & W. Norfolk £167,439 84.1% North Norfolk £186,607 93.7% Source: Land Registry – 2006 8.5 The figure below presents information from the Land Registry on the change in average property prices between the 1st quarter of 2001 and the 1st quarter of 2006. Over the period as a whole, prices have increased in REAP at the same rate as regionally and nationally.
P a g e 2 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Figure 8.1 Land Registry price changes 2001 ­ 2006 (1st quarters) £200,000 £180,000 £160,000 Average price £140,000 £120,000 £100,000 England & Wales East of England Rural East Anglia £80,000 £60,000 £40,000 £20,000 £0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Source: Land Registry 2001 – 2006 8.6 The table below indicates that property prices have risen at a similar rate across the REAP area, although prices may have dropped back a little during the last twelve months, with the exception of North Norfolk. Table 8.2 Land Registry price changes 2001 ­ 2006 (1st quarters) Area Breckland King’s Lynn & W. Norfolk North Norfolk 2001 2002 2003 2004 £81,317 £103,689 £124,929 £145,993 £81,051 £103,065 £124,473 £149,770 £91,560 £111,351 £150,731 £161,098 Source: Land Registry 2001 – 2006 2005 £166,156 £163,195 £181,889 2006 £163,060 £161,260 £189,375 Survey of estate and letting agents 8.7 During September 2006 a number of estate and letting agencies were contacted in order to obtain detailed information about the local housing market across the REAP area. Agents were contacted across the housing market area in order to capture localised variations. 8.8 The discussions with estate agents alongside an analysis of the cost of housing at the local level revealed four distinct markets for owner­occupation across the housing market area. The map below illustrates the four individual areas and the following commentary indicates the main towns in each area and how each individual market was described by the estate agents.
P a g e 2 8 8 . Ho u s e p ri c es Figure 8.2 REAP Housing Market Areas © Crown Copyright
Source: mapData and Ordinance Survey Breckland 8.9 The research showed that although there were variations across the District, prices in Breckland were relatively consistent. The main towns of Swaffham, Dereham and Thetford and Watton were viewed to be fairly self­ contained, with estate agents usually working within 10 miles of the town centre. The distribution of the towns across the District means that these catchment areas overlap and the difference in prices recorded between the towns was fairly small, although Swaffham was the most expensive area and Thetford the cheapest. Prices in some of the villages between the towns were however more expensive. 8.10 The size of the letting market was identified as growing across the District, with agents in Dereham stating that around 10% to 20% of homes are being bought for buy to let. The growth in the letting market was being driven by the increasing number of young couples unable to buy in the area as well as by migrant workers. In Swaffham demand for rented property was also coming from servicemen and families from the airbase. 8.11 Property prices were identified for different sized accommodation (in terms of bedrooms) at two levels – minimum and average. These results are presented in the figure below. The minimum price recorded equates the cheapest cost of housing in good repair of which there is a reasonable supply. 8.12 The figure shows that estimated entry­level prices ranged from £86,500 for a one bedroom property up to £167,500 for four bedrooms. Average prices were generally around 20% higher than the minimums. P a g e 2 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Figure 8.3 Property prices by size in Breckland £300,000 £247,500 £250,000 Minimum Average £200,000 £159,500 £167,500 £150,000 £101,000 £100,000 £118,500 £106,000 £121,500 £86,500 £50,000 £0 1 bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006) Western Coastal 8.13 The North Western part of the REAP area, centred around Hunstanton and Wells­next­the sea, was identified as being notably more expensive than other areas in REAP. According to estate agents this coastal area which coincides with much of the Norfolk Area of Natural Beauty is particularly sort after by households looking to retire in the area and second home owners. 8.14 The low population density in the area means that there are a particularly large proportion of bungalows, helping make the area a popular retirement destination. Agents said that in the towns of Hunstanton, Wells­ next­the sea and Holt there was a lot of interest from builders to convert large houses into retirement apartments as the demand for such properties was unfulfilled. 8.15 Again minimum and average property prices were identified for one, two, three and four bedroom homes. These results are presented in the figure below. 8.16 The figure shows that estimated entry­level prices ranged from £133,000 for a one bedroom property up to £224,000 for four bedrooms. Average prices were generally around 25% higher than the minimums.
P a g e 3 0 8 . Ho u s e p ri c es Figure 8.4 Property prices in Western Coastal £400,000 £391,500 £350,000 Minimum Average £300,000 £250,000 £221,000 £200,000 £150,000 £149,000 £133,000 £169,500 £146,000 £224,000 £173,000 £100,000 £50,000 £0 1 bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006) King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (southern part) 8.17 The area of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk south of the Western Coastal housing market area is dominated by the two towns of King’s Lynn and Downham Market. King’s Lynn is the largest town within REAP and has the best public transport connections with London although agents indicated that there was only a limited number of London commuters looking to purchase in the town. In fact agents identified the market as being largely self­contained even if more open than many in REAP. 8.18 Agents identified a strong rental market in King’s Lynn with up to 40% of the demand in the area being from buy to let purchasers. This demand is being driven by growth in the number of migrant workers in the area, particularly from Poland and Portugal, who are quickly bringing relatives across once they have secured employment – even extended families. Estate agents said that there was demand for apartment accommodation from these migrant workers although few were currently being built. 8.19 Downham Market has a smaller catchment than King’s Lynn, although it is well connected to it via the A10. Property prices in Downham Market are more expensive than those in King ’s Lynn, although the difference was quite small, except for larger properties (four or more bedrooms). 8.20 The figure below shows that entry­level and average prices in the southern part of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk. The figure indicates that entry­level prices ranged from £82,500 for a one bedroom property up to £161,500 for four bedrooms. Average prices were generally around 25% higher than the minimums. This is the cheapest housing market in REAP.
P a g e 3 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Figure 8.5 Property prices in areas of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk £300,000 £248,500 £250,000 Minimum Average £200,000 £150,500 £161,500 £150,000 £111,500 £100,000 £96,500 £117,000 £97,000 £82,500 £50,000 £0 1 bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006) North Norfolk (excluding North West) 8.21 Although more expensive than Breckland and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk the rest of North Norfolk is notably cheaper than the Western Coastal housing market area. The District of North Norfolk contains a long coastline and many of the towns are located near the coast. The largest of these is Cromer. 8.22 Cromer has the hall marks of a traditional seaside resort. Agents differed on the degree of self containment of Cromer, opinions ranging from 70% of home purchases being from households already within the area, to just 30%, with second home purchases forming a significant proportion of the demand. It was generally recognised by agents that the recent house price growth had priced many local families out of the market and some were concerned that this may not be sustainable. 8.23 Although not as large, the towns to the East of North Walsham and Stalham have property prices similar to those found in Cromer. It was noted that North Walsham was generally less sort after than neighbouring towns, but was becoming gentrified. 8.24 The town of Fakenham, is located in the south western corner of the District of North Norfolk, south of the western coastal housing market area. It is almost equidistant to King’s Lynn and Norwich and is connected to both via a good road so it is popular place of residence for people working in these larger towns. The stakeholders suggested that although it was formerly a relatively cheap area it has become gentrified over the last 10­15 years as the prosperity of the Western Coastal area has spread. Analysis of property prices indicated that they are now similar to those in Cromer, if not a little more expensive. 8.25 The figure below shows that entry­level and average prices in the remaining part of North Norfolk. The figure shows that estimated entry­level prices ranged from £99,000 for a one bedroom property up to £179,000 for four bedrooms. Average prices were generally around 20% higher than the minimums.
P a g e 3 2 8 . Ho u s e p ri c es Figure 8.6 Entry level property prices in North Norfolk £300,000 £277,500 £250,000 Minimum Average £200,000 £172,500 £150,000 £99,000 £109,500 £132,000 £116,000 £179,000 £138,000 £100,000 £50,000 £0 1 bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006) 8.26 Average and minimum rents were also collected from agents and the internet. Whilst there were four distinct markets for owner­occupation, there are relatively few properties available for rent in the Western Coastal area, so only three markets were identified for private rent, which corresponded to the individual local authority boundaries. 8.27 The table below shows the average and minimum rents in Breckland. The table indicates that minimum monthly rents varied from £410 (one bed) to £775 (four beds) with average rents around 15% more expensive than this. Table 8.3 Minimum and average private rents in Breckland Minimum rent Average rent (monthly) (monthly) £410 £450 £490 £555 £575 £670 £775 £910 Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006) Property size 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 8.28 The table below shows the average and minimum rents in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk. The table indicates that minimum monthly rents varied from £400 (one bed) to £750 (four beds) with average rents around 15% more expensive than this. Table 8.4 Minimum and average private rents in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Minimum rent Average rent (monthly) (monthly) £400 £450 £475 £545 £575 £690 £750 £865 Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006)
Property size 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms P a g e 3 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 8.29 The table below shows the average and minimum rents in North Norfolk. The table indicates that minimum monthly rents varied from £425 (one bed) to £625 (three beds) with average rents around 10­20% more expensive than this. Rental properties with four or more bedrooms were in short supply so a price hasn’t been included for such properties. Table 8.5 Minimum and average private rents in North Norfolk Minimum rent Average rent (monthly) (monthly) 1 bedroom £425 £470 2 bedrooms £485 £580 3 bedrooms £625 £740 Source: Survey of Estate and Lettings Agents (2006) Property size Affordable housing 8.30 To complete the housing cost profile in the local market it is necessary to present information on the cost of affordable housing. The cost of social rented properties by dwelling size can be obtained from CORE. The cost of intermediate housing is calculated as that halfway between the cost of social rent and the cost of entry­level market housing. This is termed the ‘usefully affordable point’ and is discussed more fully in chapter 11. 8.31 The table below shows the minimum cost of market housing in Breckland, and new social rent levels. The estimated cost of intermediate housing is also presented. The outgoings for private rented housing have been used for all sizes for the minimum price of market housing as these are cheaper than those for owner­ occupation (in terms of outgoings). Table 8.6 The cost of affordable housing in Breckland Minimum priced second­ Social rent Intermediate Size requirement hand market housing (£/week)* housing (£/week)** 1 bedroom £53 £74 £95 2 bedrooms £60 £87 £113 3 bedrooms £65 £99 £133 4+ bedrooms £70 £125 £179 *CORE Data **Survey of Estate and Letting Agents 2006 8.32 The table below shows the minimum cost of market housing in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, and new social rent levels. Again the estimated cost of intermediate housing is also presented. The outgoings for private rented housing have been used for all sizes for the minimum price of market housing as these are cheaper than those for owner­occupation (in terms of outgoings). Table 8.7 The cost of affordable housing in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Social rent Intermediate Minimum priced private Size requirement (£/week)* housing rented housing (£/week)** 1 bedroom £53 £73 £92 2 bedrooms £61 £85 £110 3 bedrooms £66 £99 £133 4+ bedrooms £71 £122 £173 *CORE Data **Survey of Estate and Letting Agents 2006
P a g e 3 4 8 . Ho u s e p ri c es 8.33 The table below shows our estimates of the minimum cost of market housing in North Norfolk, and new social rent levels. The estimated cost of intermediate housing is also presented. The outgoings for private rented housing have been used for all sizes for the minimum price of market housing as these are cheaper than those for owner­occupation (in terms of outgoings), with the exception of four bedroom properties of which there is very little private rented supply. Table 8.8 The cost of affordable housing on North Norfolk Intermediate Entry­level market Size requirement Social rent (£/week)* housing housing (£/week)** 1 bedroom £54 £76 £98 2 bedrooms £63 £87 £112 3 bedrooms £69 £107 £144 4+ bedrooms £76 £174 £273 *CORE Data **Survey of Estate and Letting Agents 2006 Summary of housing costs in REAP 8.34 The following table summarise the entry level costs for rent and buying in REAP as obtained by a combination of internet search and telephone and personal survey of sales and letting agents across the area. The minimum price recorded equates the cheapest cost of housing in good repair of which there is a reasonable supply. Table 8.9 Comparative outgoings by tenure Social rent Intermediate Min private rent £ weekly Min price sale Min price sale £ weekly £ weekly £ weekly £price Breckland 1 bed 53 74 95 132 86,500 2 bed 60 87 113 161 106,000 3 bed 65 99 133 185 121,500 4 bed 70 125 179 255 167,500 Kings Lynn & W Norfolk 1 bed 53 73 92 126 82,500 2 bed 61 85 110 148 97,000 3 bed 66 99 133 178 117,000 4 bed 71 122 173 246 161,500 North Norfolk 1 bed 54 76 98 150 99,000 2 bed 63 87 112 177 116,000 3 bed 69 107 144 210 138,000 4 bed 76 189 302 273 179,000 Western Coastal 1 bed 53/54 73/76 92/98 202 133,000 2 bed 61/63 85/87 110/112 222 146,000 3 bed 66/69 99/107 133/144 263 173,000 4 bed 71/76 122/189 173/302 341 224,000 Note: Outgoings for purchase options assume variable rate 25 yr repayment mortgage. With interest only payments outgoings would reduce by approx 20% though benefits of ownership would be lost as the property would not be owned outright at the end of the mortgage term. Data for this table comes partly from the survey of estate and letting agents but mainly from a survey of website prices (mainly Rightmove).Both were carried out in 2006.
P a g e 3 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Summary 8.35 House prices in the sub­region are 86% of the national average, which is quite high for places outside the South of England, but lower than the East of England average (91%) as the latter contains substantial parts of the London hinterland. North Norfolk is by far the highest (94%) with both the other council areas about 10% less in terms of the national average. At the same time, prices in the sub­region have roughly doubled in the last half dozen years. 8.36 As is common across the country, there is now a big gap between entry level private rental and entry level purchase prices: for a 2 bed the private rental figure is only about 70% of the entry level purchase price. At the other end of the spectrum, what is known as the ‘intermediate’ gap, between social rent and private rent, is also very wide now. Social rents are about £60 per week for a 2­bed, compared with £110 for private rent. These gaps put great pressure especially upon newly forming households and those wishing to buy.
P a g e 3 6 8 . Ho u s e p ri c es P a g e 3 7
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 9. Employment Introduction 9.1 This chapter uses material provided in more detail in Appendix A1, to which there are references, and some extracted illustrations are included here. Role of employment 9.2 It has just been discussed (and is discussed further in the technical appendix) that house price increase is likely to have been driven by in­migration of better paid households from outside the area. However, employment (the main driver of change) is also very important. Current employment structure 9.3 The table below, though rather detailed, contains interesting information. Table 9.1 Occupation groups (all people aged 16­74 in employment) Breckland K Lynn & W Norfolk North Norfolk Rural E Anglia East of England England & Wales Managers and senior officials 11.4% 10.0% 12.6% 11.2% 15.6% 14.9% Professional occupations 10.6% 8.9% 8.5% 9.4% 12.7% 12.5% Associate professional and technical occupations 13.3% 13.8% 10.7% 12.8% 14.0% 14.2% Administrative and secretarial occ’s 12.1% 10.2% 11.9% 11.3% 12.7% 12.6% Skilled trades occupations 10.6% 14.4% 12.1% 12.4% 11.8% 11.0% Personal service occupations 8.3% 7.7% 10.2% 8.5% 7.5% 7.8% Sales and customer service occ’s 10.3% 6.7% 9.0% 8.6% 7.4% 7.7% Process, plant and machine ops 10.1% 11.6% 12.6% 11.3% 7.2% 7.5% Elementary occupations 13.3% 16.9% 12.4% 14.4% 10.9% 11.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: ONS neighbourhood statistics – 2006 100.0% 100.0% Total Table 9.2 Employment types by broad sector (2004)
Employment category
Breckland
K Lynn &
W. Norfolk
North
Norfolk
Manufacturing
21.8%
15.2%
13.6%
Construction
6.4%
6.0%
8.0%
Distribution, hotels & restaurants
24.1%
25.3%
30.2%
Transport & communications
6.7%
4.0%
3.6%
Finance, IT, other business activities
11.5%
9.3%
9.1%
Public administration, education &
20.1%
29.1%
26.3%
health
Other services
3.8%
3.3%
4.8%
Agriculture, fishing, energy & water
5.5%
7.9%
4.5%
TOTAL
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: Office of National Statistics (from 2004 ABI)
P a g e 3 8 Rural East
Anglia
East of
England
17.1%
6.6%
26.1%
4.8%
10.0%
12.0%
5.1%
26.1%
6.4%
19.5%
25.3%
24.3%
3.8%
6.2%
100.0%
4.8%
1.8%
100.0% 17.2% 60% 17.3% 17.9% 9 . Emp l o y men t 50% 21.8% 20.6% 40% 18.4% Educational attainment
30% 21.2% 16.0% Figure 9.1 Educational attainment of current workforce 14.5% (2003­04) 20% 10% 14.0% 14.8% 15.1% Rural East Anglia East of England England & Wales 0% No qualifications Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4+ Other Source: local area labour force survey (Mar 2003­Feb 2004) 9.4 Rural East Anglia has a lower proportion of the workforce qualified at NVQ4+ (degree level). The proportion with no qualification is no higher than the regional or national average. However there are more with only a Level 1 qualification. Table 9.3 Educational attainment (2003­04) Breckland King’s Lynn & W. Norfolk North Norfolk Rural East Anglia East of England England & Wales No qualifications 16.1% 10.3% 16.4% 14.0% 14.8% 15.1% Level 1 21.4% 22.7% 19.0% 21.2% 16.0% 14.5% Level 2 21.8% 21.6% 22.0% 21.8% 20.6% 18.4% Level 3 16.5% 19.4% 15.1% 17.2% 17.3% 17.9% Level 4+ 13.7% 14.8% 21.2% 16.1% 23.2% 25.2% Other 10.6% 11.2% 6.3% 9.7% 8.2% 8.8% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: local area labour force survey (Mar 2003­Feb 2004) 9.5 Looking at the areas individually, North Norfolk appears to have the best qualified workforce, with 21% attaining Degree level, close to the regional average. 9.6 Looking at current qualifications, today’s students in Rural East Anglia are not performing quite as well as in the rest of the region, though the proportion of students with no GCSE passes is no higher. Summary 9.7 REAP has only about 11% of its employees in managerial jobs, as compared with 16% for Eastern Region and 15% for England and Wales. This is not surprising for a largely rural sub­region. There are compensatingly high proportions of employees with low paid jobs in occupations such as agriculture and food processing. 9.8 Educational attainments matches this pattern: 16% of the population having the highest level of qualification, as compared with 23% regionally and 25% nationally.
P a g e 3 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t P a g e 4 0
1 0 . M i g ra t i on a n d T r a v el t o Wo r k 10. Migration and Travel to Work Introduction 10.1 This chapter looks at the connection between the housing market area (HMA) and other areas and the relationship between the constituent parts of the HMA through the published migration and Travel to Work (TTW) data. Comparisons are then made with what is recorded in the primary survey to establish how patterns have changed in the last five years. An understanding of in­migration is crucial as it is a key driver of change for the HMA. Migration 10.2 The most comprehensive migration data available is from the 2001 Census. This is the main source of information used in the current chapter. However, it has to be recognised that it is only a snap­shot of the situation 6 years ago and can no longer be regarded as a firm indication of current trends. However, it provides a useful starting point. 10.3 The following four tables show two sets of data derived from the Census: i) The migration flows within the three districts, followed by the net flows in and out of the three districts The flows between the three districts and the main neighbouring urban centres (Norwich and Cambridge), followed again by the net differences in flows ii) Table 10.1 Migration flows between the three REAP districts (people) Previous residence Residence Breckland King's Lynn & W. Norfolk North Norfolk Total Breckland King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 4,758 296 296 5,926 176 175 5,230 6,397 Source: 2001 Census North Norfolk Total 213 144 3,753 4,110 5,267 6,366 4,104 15,737 Table 10.2: Net migration flows between the three REAP districts (people) Previous residence Residence Breckland King's Lynn & W. Norfolk North Norfolk 10.4 Breckland King’s Lynn & West Norfolk N/A 0 ­37 Source: 2001 Census 0 N/A 31 North Norfolk 37 ­31 N/A Tables 10.1 and 10.2 indicate that in 2001, limited migration occurred between the Council areas within REAP. The most significant patterns are: i) ii) iii) The largest migration flow is between Breckland and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (the flow between the two areas is exactly balanced with 296 people moving both ways) The smallest migration flow is people moving from North Norfolk to King’s Lynn & West Norfolk The largest net gain is to Breckland from North Norfolk, with 37 more people moving in this direction than in the opposite direction.
P a g e 4 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 10.5 Table 10.2 supports the above findings by indicating that there is very limited net population loss or gain in each Council area, due to internal migration within the REAP area. Moves between the HMA and other areas 10.6 When looking at the wider relationship between REAP and neighbouring urban areas, it is clear from Table 10.3 that Norwich is the dominant neighbour. There are also minor flows of migrants to and from Cambridge. Into Total From Total From King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Into King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 347 52 103 39 53 58 386 105 161 Source: 2001 Census From North Norfolk 228 21 249 Into North Norfolk Norwich Cambridge Total From Breckland Adjacent urban centres Into Breckland Table 10.3 Migration flows between REAP districts and neighbouring urban centres (people) 242 24 266 380 13 393 522 98 620 830 110 940 Table 10.4 Net migration flows between adjacent urban areas and REAP (people) Adjacent urban centres Norwich Cambridge Total 10.7 Breckland 119 18 137 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 51 5 56 Source: 2001 Census North Norfolk Total 138 ­11 127 308 12 320 Turning to Table 10.4, it can be seen that in 2001 there was a relatively small net migrant flow out of the REAP area to its surrounding urban areas. The overall situation is: i) ii) iii) 10.8 P a g e 4 2 Norwich remains the main net importer of migrants from the REAP area, with Cambridge playing a lesser role Breckland and North Norfolk record a greater flow of people between themselves and Norwich, whilst King’s Lynn & West Norfolk interacts equally with Cambridge and Norwich. There is a net inflow of people from Cambridge to North Norfolk To summarise, the Census 2001 data suggests that, in terms of both in and out­migration, the REAP area was fairly well balanced with little internal net population loss or gain and only limited population loss to neighbouring urban areas.
1 0 . M i g ra t i on a n d T r a v el t o Wo r k Comparison with present survey 10.9 In terms of movement into, out of and within REAP, the following table shows that there is a definite net in­ movement. Overall, migration into the REAP area during 2006 led to a net population gain of 0.14% with most gain occurring in Breckland and North Norfolk. As subsequent analysis using the survey data in chapter 13 will show, this is strongly influenced by the better off and older households seeking a retirement home. However, comparison with 2001 census derived migration data suggests that the rate of in­migration may have slowed slightly since between 2001 and 2006. Table 10.5 Housing Migration 2001 and 2006 Moved into area (%) All people Moved within area (%) Moved out of area (%) Net change (%) 2001 2006 106581 124904 2001 6.94% 2006 4.93% 2001 6.23% 2006 5.09% 2001 4.82% 2006 4.23% 2001 2006 +2.21% +0.60% King’s Lynn and West Norfolk 119783 144232 5.44% 3.36% 6.91% 5.03% 4.12% 4.27% +1.32% ­0.91% North Norfolk 87363 5.74% 4.50% 6.24% 5.66% 4.05% 3.64% +1.69% +0.86% Total 313727 370122 6.03% 4.19% 6.49% 5.23% 4.34% Sources: Census 2001 and REAP SHMA 2006 4.05% +1.69% +0.14% Breckland 10.10 100986 The table below (Table 10.6) shows the previous location of households that moved to a home in the HMA in the last two years, based on survey information. The figures have then been annualised. In comparison to what was recorded by the Census, the survey suggests there has been a decrease in in­migrant households in all three council areas. The table again identifies the close relationship of Norwich with Breckland and North Norfolk and the close relationship of Cambridgeshire with King’s Lynn & West Norfolk. Importantly, the table suggests that around 60% of all household migration originated from outside of the REAP area. Table 10.6 Previous location of households that moved in the HMA (annualised) Current location Previous location Breckland Breckland Kings Lynn & WN North Norfolk Total Total Total Percentage Percentage Percentage Households Households Households 2,700 50.8% 192 3.6% 151 3.2% Kings Lynn & WN 178 3.3% 3,184 59.9% 81 1.7% North Norfolk 145 2.7% 164 3.1% 2,602 55.7% Broadland 101 1.9% 0 0.0% 157 3.3% Norwich 289 5.4% 0 0.0% 255 5.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 32 0.7% South Norfolk 250 4.7% 0 0.0% 105 2.2% Suffolk 322 6.1% 46 0.9% 41 0.9% 0 0.0% 19 0.4% 61 1.3% Cambridgeshire 158 3.0% 412 7.8% 116 2.5% London 220 4.1% 259 4.9% 144 3.1% Leicestershire 21 0.4% 132 2.5% 70 1.5% Essex 250 4.7% 90 1.7% 195 4.2% 585 81 4,672 12.5% 1.7% 100.0% Great Yarmouth Lincolnshire Elsewhere in UK Abroad Total 493 189 5,314 9.3% 621 11.7% 3.5% 196 3.7% 100.0% 5,313 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
P a g e 4 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Travel to Work 10.11 In terms of journey to work, Table 10.7 makes it clear that in a rural area like this, with little access to rail transport, most travel to work is either by car (about 73%), on foot (12%) or bicycle (4%). Table 10.7 Travel to work All household heads in employment Breckland King's Lynn & W. Norfolk North Norfolk Total 10.12 Work mainly On foot from home Bicycle Car Motor cycle Bus Over­ ground train Other 29,323 8.7% 12.0% 3.6% 72.9% 0.3% 1.2% 0.2% 1.1% 32,222 8.1% 9.7% 5.7% 72.5% 0.8% 0.5% 1.0% 1.8% 21,380 29,323 10.5% 12.7% 4.7% 66.0% 0.8% 8.7% 12.0% 3.6% 72.9% 0.3% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 2.3% 1.2% 1.4% 0.2% 1.5% 1.1% The following four tables show two data on TTW patterns derived from the Census: i) ii) The travel to work flows within the three districts, followed by the net flows in and out of the three The flows between the three districts and the main neighbouring urban centres (Norwich and Cambridge), followed again by the net differences in flows 10.13 Table 10.8 suggests that there are considerable worker flows between the three REAP areas. The largest flow is residents of Breckland working in King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. The smallest flow is residents of North Norfolk working in Breckland. However, there are worker flows between all areas with a total of 7,061 workers commuting between districts at any one time. 10.14 Table 10.9 supports the above findings by suggesting that King’s Lynn & West Norfolk is a large net importer of workers from the other two Council areas, whilst North Norfolk is a small net importer of workers and Breckland is a large exporter of workers. Table 10.8 Travel to work flows between the three REAP districts (people) Residence Workplace Breckland King's Lynn & W. Norfolk North Norfolk Total Breckland King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 35,762 1,332 2,262 47,942 1,043 871 39,067 50,145 Source: 2001 Census North Norfolk Total 655 898 30,317 31,870 37,749 51,102 32,231 121,082 Table 10.9: Net travel to work flows between the 3 REAP districts (people) Residence Workplace Breckland King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Breckland N/A King's Lynn & W. Norfolk 930 North Norfolk 388 Source: 2001 Census
P a g e 4 4 ­930 N/A ­27 North Norfolk ­388 27 N/A 1 0 . M i g ra t i on a n d T r a v el t o Wo r k 10.15 Turning to Travel to Work areas outside the HMA, Norwich again is, unsurprisingly, the dominant partner with a net inflow of 7,151. Most workers travelling there originate from Breckland and North Norfolk. Cambridge also plays a role as a destination for commuters, but does not generate as many trips in either direction. Again it is linked most closely to King’s Lynn & West Norfolk. 921 9 930 Work in Total 3,992 33 4,025 Live in Total Work in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Live in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 926 561 127 15 403 48 941 964 175 Source: 2001 Census Work in North Norfolk 4,572 231 4,803 Live in North Norfolk Norwich Cambridge Total Work in Breckland Adjacent urban centres Live in Breckland Table 10.10 Travel to work flows between REAP districts and neighbouring urban centres (people) 9,125 1,974 667 72 9,792 2,046 Table 10.11 Net travel to work flows between adjacent urban areas and REAP (people) Adjacent urban centres Norwich Cambridge Total 10.16 Breckland 3,646 216 3,862 King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 434 355 789 Source: 2001 Census North Norfolk Total 3,071 24 3,095 7,151 595 7,746 In terms of the net travel to work situation, there are notable imbalances: i) There is a net outflow of 7,746 workers from the REAP area to Norwich and Cambridge ii) In both Breckland and North Norfolk there is a net outflow of over 3,000 workers to Norwich whilst the outflow is only 434 from King’s Lynn & West Norfolk iii) Cambridge mirrors Norwich as a destination for REAP workers, but at a somewhat lower level. Summary 10.17 In terms of migration, the 2001 census data suggests that the situation is fairly static with a relatively low level of migration between the three REAP Council areas. The largest migration flow is between Breckland and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, although the flow between the two areas is exactly balanced with the same number of people moving both ways. Also, there is a net outflow of people migrating from REAP to the surrounding urban areas, although again, the 2001 data suggests that this was fairly limited. 10.18 The travel to work data suggests significant patterns of commuting both within and outside of the REAP area. Internally, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk is the main importer of workers, although there are flows of workers between all three Council areas. The Census data also shows that the flows of workers to Norwich are greater then those between REAP Councils. 10.19 It can therefore be seen that REAP has at present some dormitory function ­ more people of working age live in the sub­region than work in it. At the same time there is a net inflow of households into the Sub­region, particularly in the Breckland and North Norfolk areas. This suggests that as well as having a dormitory
P a g e 4 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t function, there is also evidence to suggest that the REAP area is becoming an increasingly attractive destination, especially for older and wealthier in­migrants.
P a g e 4 6 1 0 . M i g ra t i on a n d T r a v el t o Wo r k P a g e 4 7
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t SECTION C: RURAL EAST ANGLIA HOUSING MARKETS This section considers the nature of the housing tenures involved, and how their interaction produces the dynamics of the sub­region’s housing market. That process is analysed in terms of its future change, as indicated by the levels of demand/need.
P a g e 4 8 S ECT I ON C: RURAL EAS T ANGL I A HOUS I NG M ARKET S P a g e 4 9
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 11. Key housing information by tenure Introduction 11.1 This chapter introduces the four main tenure types in Rural East Anglia before going on to examine the differences in the types of stock in each. The chapter also profiles variations in the type of households resident in each tenure to provide a greater understanding of the role each plays in the housing market area and how they interact. This chapter exclusively uses information from the dataset as it provides more detail about the nature of households in each tenure. 11.2 Initially it is appropriate to establish the size of the four main tenure groups across the housing market area. This is presented in the table below. It shows that over three­quarters of households in Rural East Anglia are owner­occupiers. A further 13.6% reside in social rented accommodation, 11.4% are private rented tenants and 0.4% live in intermediate housing. The results in this table differ from those presented in table 7.1, because the dataset has been weighted against the most recent tenure profile available. This includes information on the number of Council and RSL households in each Local Authority recorded by the 2006 HSSA as well as the tenure distribution recorded across the market housing stock by the Census, but with an adjustment to take into account recent changes. Table 11.1 Number of households in each tenure group Tenure Total number of households % of households Owner occupied 121,152 74.6% Private rented 18,564 11.4% Intermediate 632 0.4% Social rented 22,042 13.6% TOTAL 162,390 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 The four tenures 11.3 Each of the four tenures are described below. The owner­occupied sector 11.4 An owner­occupied property is one that is occupied by the household that has purchased the property either outright or with the help of a mortgage. The level of owner­occupation in Rural East Anglia, at 74.6%, is higher than that recorded nationally (68.2%). Although changes in house prices have historically been cyclical, with a housing market crash acting as a check to the market when house prices increase too rapidly, house prices have still increased at a much faster rate than inflation over the long­term. Although there have been recent increases in interest rates, the market remains stable. 11.5 The idea that owning your home may provide a good investment in addition to accommodation for the household has resulted in owner­occupation increasingly becoming the tenure of choice for households. This pattern alongside a reduction in the availability of social rented accommodation led to a more households aspiring to owner­occupation.
P a g e 5 0 1 1 . Key h o u si n g i n f or ma t i o n b y t en u r e The private rented sector 11.6 The private rented sector is an important part of the housing spectrum in an area. In British conditions it is not often a long­term choice but is an important transitional tenure. In many cases the private rented sector is a stage in the progress of a household moving into owner­occupation, but can also be a stage in the move of a household into social rented housing. The latter is not such a satisfactory stage, since the shortage of social rented housing may mean that households remain in it for much longer than is desirable. 11.7 In more detail, and as a market sector, the private rented sector plays an important role. It meets the needs of:
· · · 11.8 Business people who have short term reasons for staying in a place (e.g. for six months or a year, when it would not be worth the time and transactional cost of buying property)
Those planning entry to the owner occupied market but who have not had time either to find suitable property or accumulated a sufficient deposit to do so.
Those who cannot afford to purchase, but who do not want or cannot access the social rented sector. The 2001 Census has revealed a considerable growth in the private rented sector over the past decade or so. This has been particularly driven by ‘buy to let’ mortgages, which allow purchasers a cheaper mortgage on account of the rental stream which will follow purchase. Affordable intermediate housing 11.9 For at least a decade there has been recognition that ‘affordable housing’ could refer to tenures other than social rented housing. With the arrival of Circular 13/96 on affordable housing, Fordham Research provided analysis of tenures such as ‘low cost market’ housing to check which ones were actually cheaper than market housing. 11.10 By 2000 the gap between social rent and market entry (whether rented or purchased) was so wide in London that the term ‘intermediate’ housing was coined in the London Plan to describe a new sector of the housing market. The definition referred to housing that is cheaper than market entry but available to those who can afford more than a social rent. 11.11 In 2005 the DCLG defined affordable housing as consisting of two sectors: social rented and intermediate. In 2006 Fordham Research added the refinement of ‘usefully affordable housing’. This term refers to the midpoint between social rent and the market. 11.12 This is often above market entry level. Where an intermediate housing product is produced at a cost below market entry level, whilst it is ‘technically affordable’, the cost is normally only fractionally below the market and accessible for very few, if any, of those households in housing need who can afford the ‘intermediate range’. The mid point in the range ensures that a reasonable proportion of those in housing need can afford the price in question. That is the level at which it is suggested that Intermediate housing must be provided if it is to be genuinely affordable, and a real step on the housing ladder. The social rented sector 11.13 Social rented is the most highly subsidised and cheapest generally available housing. The large drop in the construction of social rented properties since the mid­70s (around 150,000 social rented units were completed in 1976 in comparison to around 20,000 currently) and the introduction of the right­to­buy has led to a rapid decrease in the availability of social rented stock. This means that demand for this tenure far exceeds supply in most areas of Britain. Accommodation typology 11.14 Information from the survey will be used to inform the discussion of the roles of each tenure for the remainder of the chapter. As the sample of households resident in intermediate housing is insufficient to provide reliable information at the required level of detail, this tenure will be combined with the social rented sector to create a wider affordable housing sector.
P a g e 5 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 11.15 The figure below shows the type of properties in each of the three broad tenures in Rural East Anglia. The figure indicates that less than 4% of owner­occupied properties are flats, whilst this dwelling type constitutes almost a fifth of properties in the private rented sector and almost a quarter of affordable accommodation. More than half of owner­occupied homes are detached houses, much higher than the proportion recorded in the other tenures. Figure 11.2 Dwelling type by tenure 100% 3.3% 90% 14.6% 18.1% 26.0% 23.3% 23.3% 80% 70% 20.5% 60% 50% 29.1% 40% 30% 49.7% 56.2% 20% 29.4% 10% 6.6% 0% Owner­occupied Private rented Detached Semi­detached Affordable housing Terraced Flat Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 11.16 The table below shows the size profile of the housing stock in Rural East Anglia. The data suggests that over 70% of the owner­occupied stock contains three or more bedrooms compared to less than half of the stock in the other two tenures. The private rented sector contains a large proportion of two and three bedroom dwellings, whilst the affordable housing sector contains the highest proportion of one bedroom homes. The affordable housing sector contains significantly lower levels of 4+ bedrooms. Table 11.2 Size of dwellings (number of bedrooms) by tenure Number of bedrooms 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms TOTAL 11.17 Tenure Owner­occupied Private rented 2.8% 14.2% 25.3% 36.5% 46.4% 40.7% 25.6% 8.6% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Affordable housing 24.0% 40.9% 33.6% 1.4% 100.0% The table below uses information on household moves over the last two years to establish an annual turnover rate for each dwelling size in the three tenure groups.
P a g e 5 2 1 1 . Key h o u si n g i n f or ma t i o n b y t en u r e Table 11.3 Turnover of dwellings by size of dwelling and tenure Tenure Owner­occupied Private rented 11.2% 28.4% 9.0% 20.8% 6.2% 22.3% 7.6% 21.9% 7.4% 22.6% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Number of bedrooms 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms TOTAL 11.18 Affordable housing 14.7% 8.9% 6.1% 10.6% 9.4% The recent mover data points to an overall turnover rate of 7.4% in the owner­occupied sector, 22.6% in the private rented sector and 9.4% in the affordable sector, although this will be a slight underestimation of total turnover for the dwellings concerned (given that there may have been multiple moves in the two­year period). This information suggests that private rented households are three times more likely to move than owner­ occupied residents. The turnover of one bedroom dwellings is greater than for larger property sizes in all three sectors. Household composition 11.19 The table below shows the size of households in each of the three broad tenures. The table shows that 45.1% of households in affordable housing contain only one person compared to 29.1% of households in the private rented sector and 24.9% of owner­occupiers. The average household size is highest in the private rented sector, closely followed by the owner­occupied sector, and lowest in the affordable sector. Table 11.4 Size of households in each tenure Number of persons in household One Two Three Four Five Six or more TOTAL Average household size 11.20 Tenure Owner­occupied Private rented 24.9% 29.1% 43.3% 35.7% 14.0% 15.9% 12.8% 11.9% 3.9% 4.7% 1.1% 2.6% 100.0% 100.0% 2.31 2.35 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Affordable housing 45.1% 28.9% 11.9% 8.5% 4.1% 1.5% 100.0% 2.02 The table below shows the age of the household heads in each of the three broad tenures. The table shows that almost 40% of households in the private rented sector are headed by someone under 40 compared to just 16.1% of owner­occupiers and 24.9% of residents of affordable housing. Some 34.6% of households in affordable housing are headed by someone aged 70 or over, compared to 24.9% of owner­occupiers and just 12.7% of households renting privately. Age of household head Less than 30 30­39 40­49 50­59 60­69 70­79 80 and over TOTAL Table 11.5 Age of heads of household in each tenure Tenure Owner­occupied Private rented 3.4% 20.0% 12.7% 19.3% 16.5% 19.8% 21.9% 15.7% 20.7% 12.4% 16.1% 7.8% 8.8% 4.9% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
Affordable housing 11.4% 13.5% 12.2% 13.1% 15.1% 18.8% 15.8% 100.0% P a g e 5 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 11.21 The figure below shows the type of households’ resident in each of the three broad tenures in Rural East Anglia. The figure indicates that the affordable sector contains the highest proportion of single pensioners and relatively few households with two or more adults and no children. The private rented sector contains the largest proportion of single non­pensioner households and relatively few pensioner households. The owner­ occupied sector contains the largest proportion of two or more pensioner households and two or more adults with no children households. This sector also contains relatively few single non­pensioner and lone parent households. Figure 11.3 Type of households in each tenure 100% 11.1% 14.5% 9.3% 1.9% 7.8% 90% 80% 9.2% 5.3% 11.6% 11.2% 70% 17.7% 60% 36.5% 30.1% 50% 40% 9.9% 30% 20% 10% 15.8% 16.3% 10.3% 19.3% 30.1% 7.3% 15.0% 9.9% 0% Owner­occupied Single pensioners 2 or more adults ­ no kids 2+ adults 2+children Private rented 2 or more pensioners Lone parent Affordable housing Single non­pensioners 2+ adults 1 child Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 11.22 The table below presents the level of overcrowding and under­occupation in each of the tenures. The table indicates that 49.6% of owner­occupied households under­occupy their dwellings and only 0.6% are overcrowded. The private rented sector displays the highest level of overcrowding, at 3.6% of dwellings, whilst the affordable sector contains the lowest level of under­occupation, at 12.7%. Table 11.6 Overcrowded and under­occupying households by tenure Tenure Overcrowded/under­occupied Owner­occupied Private rented Affordable housing Overcrowded 0.6% 3.6% 3.2% Neither overcrowded nor under­occupied 49.8% 74.5% 84.0% Under­occupied 49.6% 21.9% 12.7% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Socio­economic and financial status 11.23 The table below shows the working status of the head of household by tenure. The table indicates that private rented households are most likely to be headed by someone in employment, although over half of owner­ occupied households are also headed by an employed person. In comparison just over a quarter of the household heads in the affordable sector are employed, and just 17.8% work full time.
P a g e 5 4 1 1 . Key h o u si n g i n f or ma t i o n b y t en u r e 11.24 The affordable sector records the highest proportion of retired, unemployed and long term sick or disabled household heads (68.7% in total). The private rented sector also contains a notable proportion of household heads that are unemployed, long term sick or disabled. In comparison there are very few households in the owner­occupied sector that are not headed by someone that is either employed or retired. 11.25 The table also shows the proportion of households with at least one employed household member in each tenure. The data indicates that more than 60% of owner­occupied and private rented households contain at least one employed person, whilst this is true for just a third of households in affordable housing. Table 11.7 Economic status of heads of households in each tenure Employment Status of Head of Tenure Household Owner­occupied Private rented Affordable housing Full­time employment 43.7% 50.6% 17.8% Part­time employment 10.2% 11.4% 8.4% Migrant worker 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% Retired 39.4% 20.0% 43.8% Unemployed 1.5% 6.0% 11.7% Long term sick or disabled 2.1% 6.2% 13.2% Student 16 or over or trainee 0.1% 1.6% 0.3% Other 2.9% 3.2% 4.7% TOTAL 43.7% 50.6% 17.8% With at least one employed 61.9% 68.2% 33.3% household member Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 11.26 A further question asked in the survey was car ownership/availability. Although partly related to the rurality of the household’s location, it is a useful variable as it can provide some indication of wealth. The table below shows the number of cars households have available for use by tenure. 11.27 Over half of all households in affordable housing have no access to a car or van, this compares with only 11.0% of owner­occupied households. The average household has 1.24 cars; this figure varies from 0.57 in the affordable sector to 1.38 for owner­occupiers. Number of cars/vans available for use 0 1 2 3+ TOTAL Average number of cars/vans 11.28 Table 11.8 Car ownership and tenure Tenure Owner­occupied Private rented 11.0% 20.9% 48.7% 49.8% 31.2% 24.9% 9.1% 4.4% 100.0% 100.0% 1.38 1.13 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Affordable housing 52.2% 39.9% 6.8% 1.1% 100.0% 0.57 The table below shows how car ownership varies by tenure for households resident in the rural part of the housing market area. The table indicates that, although rural households in all tenures are more likely to own cars, the figures do not vary greatly. Table 11.9 Car ownership of rural households and tenure Number of cars/vans Tenure available for use Owner­occupied Private rented 0 10.7% 20.8% 1 46.6% 47.5% 2 32.2% 26.5% 3+ 10.6% 5.2% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% Average number of cars/vans 1.43 1.16 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
Affordable housing 50.6% 40.2% 7.9% 1.3% 100.0% 0.60 P a g e 5 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 11.29 The table below shows how car ownership varies by tenure for non­elderly households. The data indicates that non­elderly residents in the owner­occupied and social rented sectors are much more likely to be car owners. Table 11.10 Car ownership of non­older households and tenure Number of cars/vans available for Tenure use Owner­occupied Private rented 0 3.8% 17.0% 1 42.2% 49.0% 2 41.1% 28.7% 3+ 12.9% 5.3% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% Average number of cars/vans 1.63 1.22 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 11.30 Affordable housing 38.7% 48.1% 11.3% 1.9% 100.0% 0.76 The table below shows average income and savings by tenure. The table indicates that the average income of owner­occupiers is nearly three times that of residents of affordable accommodation and over 50% higher than households renting privately. Average savings levels display an even more polarised trend, with owner­ occupiers having on average nearly 10 times the level of savings as those in housed in affordable accommodation. Financial information Average annual gross household income Average savings Table 11.11 Financial information by tenure Tenure Owner­occupied Private rented £28,404 Affordable housing £18,213 £9,898 £37,256 £9,537 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 £3,748 11.31 Finally in this section we examine the extent of households claiming financial assistance with their housing costs (housing benefit and income support) and the number of households paying more for housing than is recommended by the affordability test described in the DCLG guidance. 11.32 The survey data suggests that 3.3% of households with a mortgage receive income support towards their mortgage payments. This figure represents 1.5% of all owners. Additionally, it is estimated that 28.1% of owner occupiers with a mortgage are paying more for housing than is recommended by guidance (The guidance recommends that households should not spend more than a quarter of their gross income on the cost of their mortgage/rent.) In comparison 27.8% of private rented households are in receipt of housing benefit with a further 32.5% paying more for their accommodation than is recommended by guidance, whilst in the affordable sector 63.9% of households are recorded as receiving housing benefit. Movement between sectors 11.33 Whilst the characteristics of the three tenures are quite different they do not operate in isolation. The table below looks at the previous and current tenure of households that have moved in the last two years to establish the extent of inter­tenure movement. The table shows a relative lack of inter­tenure movement, although 38.5% of privately rented households moved into owner­occupation. Newly forming households were most likely to go into private rented accommodation, followed by owner occupation.
P a g e 5 6 1 1 . Key h o u si n g i n f or ma t i o n b y t en u r e Table 11.12 Previous and current tenure Previous tenure Current tenure Owner­ occ’d Private rented Affordable housing Newly forming TOTAL Owner­occupied 13,047 2,741 387 1,791 17,966 Private rented 1,963 3,634 586 2,204 8,387 302 752 1,813 1,378 4,245 5,373 30,598 Affordable housing TOTAL 15,312 7,127 2,786 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Summary 11.34 This chapter has examined the nature of the dwelling stock and resident households in each of the three principle tenures in Rural East Anglia. The survey showed:
· · · · The owner­occupied sector has the lowest turnover of stock and is characterised by the largest properties. Households in this sector display the most affluent profile with the highest incomes and the highest level of car ownership. This sector has the lowest proportion of single person households suggesting it is hard to access for one person alone. Although the proportion of households in the tenure on income support is low, over a quarter of owner­occupiers with a mortgage spend more of their income on their housing costs than is recommended.
The private rented sector records the highest turnover, three times greater than that of the owner­ occupied sector. It contains a larger proportion of single non­pensioner households. Despite recording levels of employment that are similar to those in the owner­occupied sector, incomes and savings levels are much lower than these households. Over a quarter of households in the tenure are on housing benefit with a further quarter paying more for their accommodation than is recommended.
The social rented sector displays the smallest housing stock and the lowest level of under­occupation. The tenure houses a relatively high proportion of single pensioner households. The financial profile of these households is much worse than households in the other two tenures with average incomes little over a third of those in the owner­occupied sector. Almost two­thirds of social rented households are in receipt of housing benefit.
There is relatively little inter­tenure movement by households although there is a notable movement from the private rented sector to owner­occupation.
P a g e 5 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t P a g e 5 8
1 2 . Fi r s t­ ti me b u y er s 12. First­time buyers Introduction 12.1 The rapid increase in house prices that has been witnessed across most of Britain in the last decade or so has made it harder for households to become owner­occupiers, the most common tenure of choice. This has particularly affected younger people, who are attempting to access the housing market at a time when house price to income ratios are some of the highest in history and they have not had time to accumulate significant savings. It is important that there is adequate housing provision for young people in Rural East Anglia sub­ region to ensure that the local economy is balanced and to encourage the economy’s growth. 12.2 This chapter seeks to inform on both the nature of first­time buyers in the area and the wider situation of young people. It presents information on the housing situation of all young people, before discussing the character of recent first­time buyers using past­trend information from the survey. It then looks in more detail at those hoping to move on to the property owning ladder in the next two years. Situation of younger people 12.3 For the purpose of this study younger people are defined as those aged between 21 and 35 as this is the age range expected for the majority of first­time buyers. The survey records that there are 45,814 younger people in the Rural East Anglia sub­region area. 12.4 The table below presents the working status of younger people in the housing market area. The table indicates that almost four­fifths of younger people are employed, with the overwhelming majority of these in full­time employment. However there are some 9.6% of younger people that are unemployed. Table 12.1 Working status of younger people Number of % of all people people Full­time employment 27,977 61.1% Part­time employment 7,946 17.3% Unemployed 4,388 9.6% Long term sick or disabled 1,469 3.2% Student or trainee 842 1.8% Other 3,191 7.0% TOTAL 45,814 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Working status 12.5 Further investigation reveals that only 8.3% of households that contain an unemployed younger person state that access to appropriate employment centres are a problem or serious problem. 12.6 The table below indicates the type of households these younger people live in. The table shows that over a third of younger people live in a home as a family with their own children, a quarter share their home with other younger people, 7.6% live alone and 28.4% live with their parents or others.
P a g e 5 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 12.2 Type of household younger people reside in Household reside in Number of people On own 3,494 Sharing house with others the same age 12,097 Live in family with own children 17,233 Live with parents/others 12,990 TOTAL 45,814 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 12.7 % of all people 7.6% 26.4% 37.6% 28.4% 100.0% It is possible to examine the housing circumstances of the three clearly defined groupings of younger households; those living on their own, those sharing with other younger people and those living with their own family. This is presented in the following section. The housing implications of the young people living with parents/others are discussed in paragraphs 12.22 to 12.23. Housing circumstances of existing younger households 12.8 The figure below shows the type of properties in which the three groups of younger households live. The equivalent information is presented for all other households in the housing market area for comparison. The figure indicates that younger households are less likely than other households in the housing market area to live in detached houses and are more likely to live in terraced accommodation. Almost half of young people living on their own reside in a flat. Figure 12.1 Dwelling type and younger person households 100% 80% 5.8% 13.5% 90% 6.5% 14.1% 32.5% 48.0% 70% 33.6% 29.3% 60% 50% 40% 23.3% 39.4% 31.8% 30% 20% 10% 50.2% 10.5% 18.2% 21.1% 22.3% On own Sharing With own family 0% Detached Semi­detached Terraced Other households Flat Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 12.9 The table below shows the size of accommodation in which the three groups of younger households live. Again the equivalent information is presented for all other households for comparison. The data suggests young single households are particularly likely to live in one bedroom accommodation with almost half resident in a home this size. All younger households are less likely to live in accommodation with four or more bedrooms than other households in Rural East Anglia sub­region.
P a g e 6 0 1 2 . Fi r s t­ ti me b u y er s Table 12.3 Size of dwellings (number of bedrooms) and young person households Household type Number of bedrooms Young with own Young on own Young sharing Other households family 1 bedroom 47.2% 8.5% 1.7% 6.3% 2 bedrooms 28.0% 33.7% 38.1% 27.8% 3 bedrooms 22.7% 45.4% 50.0% 44.0% 4+ bedrooms 2.1% 12.3% 10.3% 21.9% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 12.10 The table below presents the level of overcrowding and under­occupation for younger person households. The table indicates that 40.7% of young sharing households under­occupy their dwellings and younger persons with their own family are more likely than average to be overcrowded, although only 5.4% of these households are classified as overcrowded. Table 12.4 Overcrowded and under­occupying younger households Household type Young with Young on own Young sharing own family Overcrowded 0.0% 1.9% 5.4% Neither overcrowded nor under­occupied 75.2% 57.4% 87.5% Under­occupied 24.8% 40.7% 7.1% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Overcrowded/under­occupied 12.11 Other households 1.0% 54.5% 44.5% 100.0% The table below shows the tenure of the three groups of younger households. The data indicates that all three groups of younger households are less likely than average to own their own home and are more likely than average to be resident in private rented accommodation. Younger persons living with their own family and young single households are more likely than average to live in the social rented sector. Further analysis reveals that of the young sharing households that are owner­occupiers, some 88.6% bought the house as a couple, whilst 11.4% bought the property with friends. Tenure Owner­occupied (no mortgage) Owner­occupied (with mortgage) RSL Private rented TOTAL Table 12.5 Tenure of younger households Household type Young with own Young on own Young sharing family 3.4% 4.1% 2.7% 46.2% 61.7% 45.8% 23.9% 7.8% 25.0% 26.4% 26.4% 26.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Other households 45.3% 33.0% 12.7% 9.1% 100.0% Characteristics of first­time buyer households 12.12 The survey identifies households that have moved into owner­occupied accommodation from a different tenure in the last two years. It is assumed that all of these households are first­time buyers although a few may have owned a home at some stage previously before a spell of renting. 12.13 The survey records that there are 4,918 households that have become first­time buyers in the Rural East Anglia sub­region in the last two years. The table below shows the size of first­time buyer households. It shows that 39.7% of first­time buyer households contain two people and almost a further 35.6% contain three or more people. The number of people in the household includes children.
P a g e 6 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 12.6 Size of first­time buyer households Household size 1 person 2 people Number of households 1,217 % of all households 24.8% 1,953 39.7% 3 people 1,184 24.1% 4 people 392 8.0% 5 people 171 3.5% 6 or more people 0 0.0% TOTAL 4,918 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 12.14 The table below shows the age of the respondent in first­time buyer households. It shows that 37.3% of respondents are between 20 and 29, whilst 25.7% are between 30 and 39. The average age of respondents in first­time buyer households is 38.0 years old. Table 12.7 Age of respondent in first­time buyer households Number of % of all households households 20­29 1,834 37.3% 30­39 1,263 25.7% 40­49 786 16.0% 50 and over 1,036 21.1% TOTAL 4,918 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Respondent age 12.15 The average annual income of first­time buyer households is £31,609 which is significantly higher than the average for the housing market area of £24,655. The survey also suggests that first­time buyer households required average savings of around £24,500. The financial situation of those households that have become first­time buyers suggests that households have to be on a high income before they can access owner­ occupation and implies that the number of first­time buyers in Rural East Anglia sub­region is being restricted by the cost of housing. 12.16 Finally the survey indicates that some 41.9% of first­time buyers are using a higher proportion of their income to pay for their housing costs than is recommended by DCLG guidance. This indicates that many first­time buyer households are prepared to spend a significant proportion of their income on entering the property ladder rather than waiting until they could more easily afford to buy. Existing younger households aspiring to own 12.17 Although the level of owner­occupation amongst young households is quite high there are likely to be many more younger households that aspire to become owners. The survey indicates that amongst the three groups of younger households analysed above, there are 1,564 households that would like to become owner­occupiers in the next two years. That is about 7.1% of all younger households in the HMA. 12.18 The survey suggests that these 1,564 households have an average annual income of £23,390 and average savings of £6,950, which are both below the average across the housing market area. 12.19 The ability of these potential first­time buyer households to afford owner­occupation in Rural East Anglia sub­ region is now examined. The data suggest that just 401 (25.6%) of these households would be able to purchase an appropriately sized home if they were to move now.
P a g e 6 2 1 2 . Fi r s t­ ti me b u y er s 12.20 It is likely that a significant discount from entry­level prices would be required for the low cost home ownership scheme to be affordable to those potential first­time buyers unable to afford current entry­level costs. This is because further analysis reveals that a 20% discount from entry­level market prices would only make owner­occupation affordable for 32.3% of this group. 12.21 The data does reveal that intermediate housing provided at the usefully affordable point would allow many of these younger households to access a form of owner­occupation. The dataset indicates that 74.2% of this group would be able to afford intermediate housing. Concealed younger households aspiring to own 12.22 The survey data reveals that 9,661 younger households currently living with a host household (commonly parents/relatives) are likely to form within Rural East Anglia in the next two years. The fact that this figure is so large suggests that it includes suppressed demand: households that would have formed previously but were not able to afford/access appropriate accommodation. Some 3,182 of these households would like to become owner­occupiers in the next two years. 12.23 The survey indicates that these 3,182 concealed households have an average annual income of £8,609, which is significantly below the average across the housing market area. Further analysis reveals that just 9.4% of these households would be able to afford to purchase a home in the REAP area if they were to move now. Financial capacity of first time buyers 12.24 First time buyers do not have equity of their own, though of course they will quite often borrow or be given capital by relatives. The measurable financial capacity of the actual first time buyers, and those who hope to be, is as follows: Financial capacity of households that have bought in last two years Average income Average savings and equity Financial capacity £31,609 £24,500_ £119,327 Financial capacity of existing households that would like to buy in next two years Average income Average savings Financial capacity 12.25 £23,390 £6,950 £77,120 As can be seen, the difference is stark: at present the would­be buyers cannot raise enough cash to buy much in Rural East Anglia sub­region. They would need either to obtain higher paid jobs, or to borrow/be given capital by others in order to achieve a purchase. Implications of this analysis 12.26 This chapter has considered the ability of younger households to access owner­occupation. Information on recent first­time buyers indicates that these households have average income and savings levels above the average for Rural East Anglia sub­region, yet over 40% still spend a larger proportion of their income on their housing costs than is recommended by guidance. They are also older than would be expected at an average age of 38.0 years old. 12.27 In a typical housing market it would be expected that the majority of first time buyers would be aged between 21 and 35. The survey revealed that despite an employment rate of around 80% there are still a large number of younger people who wish to purchase a first home but are unable to do so. These comprise two groups: those currently in existing households and those currently part of another household that wish to form their own household.
P a g e 6 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 12.28 The size and type of accommodation inhabited by existing younger person households is smaller than other households in the housing market area. Whilst the level of owner­occupation amongst existing younger households is fairly high it is still below that recorded for other households in Rural East Anglia sub­region and there are further younger households that would like to purchase their first home in the next two years. However only 25.6% of these potential first­time buyers would be able to afford owner­occupation in Rural East Anglia sub­region were they to move now. 12.29 The large number of young people that expect to form their own household in the next two years indicates that housing costs have limited the rate of household formation in the housing market area. In total here are some 3,182 concealed households that would like to become owner­occupiers over the next two years. Summary 12.30 Overall the survey provides strong evidence that the level of house prices in comparison to the incomes of younger households, are limiting the number of first­time buyers. The prices are not high in absolute terms, but they obviously are relative to pay. 12.31 It is likely that only a quarter of potential first­time buyers will be able to afford to become owner­occupiers while spending an appropriate proportion of income on housing costs, with a further group likely to purchase a home by spending more than the recommended proportion. 12.32 There will remain a large number of aspirational owners amongst younger households that will be unable to afford to purchase a home that would be suitable for low cost ownership schemes offered with a substantial discount.
P a g e 6 4 1 2 . Fi r s t­ ti me b u y er s P a g e 6 5
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 13. Characteristics of moving households Introduction 13.1 One of the key features of a housing market is the pattern of movement. Fordham Research has developed the concept of the ‘annual cycle of moves’. This involves looking at the past few years of reported moves to arrive at a ‘standardised’ annual cycle. This provides a more reliable guide to the current patterns of movement than any specific year would. The cycle has three principal components: i) Moves within the HMA ii) Moves out of the HMA iii) Moves into the HMA 13.2 The purpose of the calculation, which is illustrated below, is to indicate the character of the movements in a HMA. The flows of movers can be distinguished in as much detail as the data and the graphical display will allow. 13.3 The main distinctions used here are between: 13.4 i) Concealed households (typically young adults) ‘revealing’ themselves by moving into their first independent home ii) Existing households with children iii) Existing households without children There are further distinctions which can be pursued, but the key aspects of many home moves can be captured by this three­way split. It is important to note that one group is different from the rest:
· 13.5 Concealed households revealing themselves by moving out of the area do not free up a residential unit as existing households moving out of the area do. Both concealed households moving within the area, and incoming ones, represent a net demand for a further unit of accommodation All this information is based on the primary survey, as no other source provides the necessary socio­economic detail. Annual cycle of moves 13.6 The following diagrams show the annual cycle of moves for the Rural East Anglia HMA. It represents an attempt to depict key elements of the dynamics of the local housing markets, through the key types of households involved.
P a g e 6 6 1 3 . Ch a r ac t er i st i c s o f mo v i n g h o u s eh o l ds Figure 13.1 Annual cycle of moves Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 13.7 The following table summarises the flows into and out of the housing market area: Table 13.1 Movements into & out of Rural East Anglia Moving Moving Moving in within out Existing households no children 4,537 2,519 3,797 Existing households with children 2,655 963 1,622 Newly forming households 2,203 1,822 483 Total 9,395 5,304 5,902 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 13.8 Net movement 1,278 659 ­1,339 598 There are some striking features of these movements: Table 13.2: Features of household movements Type of household Nature of flows Existing: no children The biggest flows, both within and in/out. At the HMA level there is a large inflow of these households. Existing: with children Smaller flows than recorded for households without children. Again a notable net inflow of households. Newly forming Large net outflow of households, particularly as a percentage of moves within this group. Many of these households will be going to university or to continue studying, others maybe going to seek a wider variety of job opportunities. Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
P a g e 6 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 13.9 It is encouraging in principle that there is a net inflow of both families with and without children as these are likely to be relatively affluent. There is a large inflow of households without children, and so this pattern is likely to reflect the retirement trend into REAP. This is borne out by the household income figures below. Socio­economic characteristics of movers by tenure 13.10 It is of considerable value to understand in more detail the character of movers into and within the area. The following tables provide such detail: Table 13.3 Characteristics of moving households in Rural East Anglia Income Average households size Average age of head Proportion with employed household member In­migrant £33,568 2.40 50.1 72.2% Existing £32,644 2.43 46.0 82.7% In­migrant £21,618 2.62 39.5 71.4% Existing £18,215 2.31 38.4 76.3% Destination tenure and origin of mover Owner occupation Private renting Affordable (mainly social rented) In­migrant £11,367 2.07 54.1 19.8% Existing £8,853 2.08 47.4 38.7% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 13.11 The main features are:
· · · · 13.12 Higher incomes of in­migrants in all three tenure categories. However the income gap between internal movers and incomers is not as large as usual. Typically the gap is about £5k, but in this case it is only about £1k for owner occupiers,
Although income alone will not predict ability to buy (as per financial capacity) it is clear that the incoming buyers have much higher incomes than incoming private renters or social renters: about a £12k and £22k gap in each case.
Incoming buyers about a decade older than incoming private renters, which suggests that the incoming private renters are on the way up the housing ladder. However the incoming buyers are on the whole older than we have found elsewhere: normally they would be early to mid­40’s, but here they average 50.
Incoming social renters four years older than incoming buyers and much less likely to be in employment than the other two groups Thus the picture is of better off incomers to REAP, which is a common pattern, but in this case the incoming buyers are older than usual and their average incomes are not as much higher than the internally moving buyers than is usually found. Socio­economic characteristics of movers by household type 13.13 The following table casts some further light on the nature of movers, both internal and in­migrant, according to broad household type:
P a g e 6 8 1 3 . Ch a r ac t er i st i c s o f mo v i n g h o u s eh o l ds Table 13.4 Characteristics of moving households in REAP Type of household and origin of mover Average Average households age of size head Proportion with employed household member Proportion moving to owner­ occupation Proportion able to afford owner­ occupation Income Savings In­migrant £18,310 ­£221 1.97 32.3 73.0% 38.6% 38.6% Existing £18,731 £53 1.95 31.4 74.9% 35.9% 34.8% Concealed Existing no child In­migrant £28,436 £40,214 1.92 53.9 62.7% 76.6% 83.6% Existing £24,203 £39,907 1.72 53.7 62.5% 58.8% 64.1% Existing with child In­migrant £35,403 £15,956 3.79 37.5 85.1% 64.0% 70.6% Existing £27,367 £3,610 3.68 38.3 86.6% 56.2% 58.3% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 13.14 13.15 There are several notable features when the data is viewed in this dimension: i) In­migrant concealed households show a noticeably higher level of owner occupation, despite having the same income as internal ones. This implies that the in­migrants had access to some source of equity (e.g. relatives) to a greater extent than did the internal movers. Existing concealed households also show higher levels of owner occupation than their affordability supports which suggests some are obtaining mortgages at income multipliers higher than that suggested by guidance (i.e. more than 3.5 times income). ii) The existing households with no children are 15+ years older than existing households with children. The concealed households are about five years younger than the households with children: in their early rather than late 30’s. iii) All three groups of in­migrants are notably more able to buy than the internal movers iv) Both sets of existing households are much higher paid when in­migrant, though the (much younger) families with children have a substantially greater employed percentage whether in­migrant or internal movers. This information complements the general picture provided by the tenure related data. Summary 13.16 There is a large inflow of existing households, although there is a net outflow of newly forming households. The pattern is unusual in that there is large net inflow of existing households without children at home (normally older ones) and this is likely to be reflected by the attractions of the area for retirement purposes. This is confirmed by the unusually low fraction of employed households (73%) among the incoming buyers (and also renters).
P a g e 6 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t P a g e 7 0
1 4 . Fi n a n c i al ca p a c it y 14. Financial capacity Introduction 14.1 Traditionally it has been assumed that (household) incomes could reasonably accurately predict ability to afford house prices. This has gradually ceased to be true. Although a comparison of average incomes to local house prices can provide a general indication as to the affordability of an area in comparison to another one, when constructing a detailed assessment of the ability to afford of the local population it is necessary to obtain information on the complete financial capacity of individual households. 14.2 That is because of the evolution of the British housing market over several decades of high and largely rising prices. The two additional factors required to make up ‘financial capacity’ are:
· Equity: whether earned by the household in question from previous home ownership, or passed on from one generation to the next
Savings. This is now an important part of many households’ financial capacity. Even the poorest general group (the RSL sector households shown in Table 14.1 below) have a tangible level of savings and the other groups have a substantial value. · 14.3 These additional sources of finance have always existed, but now they have become generally applicable to many owner occupiers, and would be owner occupiers. As a result, in studies carried out by Fordham Research over the past few years, it has become clear that household incomes cannot predict house prices. To summarise this discussion in a definition: 14.4 Financial capacity refers to the overall ability of a household to purchase housing (whether for sale or to (part) rent). The term includes income, owned equity and savings. 14.5 The savings levels collected for an individual household are net of any debt. Further analysis shows that 9.6% of households in the housing market area have negative savings (are in debt). Financial capacity in Rural East Anglia 14.6 The concept of financial capacity can be related to Rural East Anglia, as shown in the table below. This is taken from the fuller analysis to be found in Appendix C2 to this SHMA report. Table 14.1: Financial capacity by tenure Average annual gross household income Average savings Average equity Owner­occupied (no mortgage) £22,850 £58,268 £193,574 Owner­occupied (with mortgage) £34,477 £13,925 £112,053 RSL £9,682 £2,531 ­ Private rented £18,213 £9,537 ­ Tenure £24,655 £29,409 £155,031 AVERAGE Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006. This table also appears as Table A3.16 14.7 This makes clear the very large amounts of savings and equity held by Rural East Anglia households, especially of course those who are already owner occupiers. In order to evaluate the ability of households in and entering Rural East Anglia to afford different types and tenures of housing it is essential to consider financial capacity. The remainder of this chapter addresses the question of how it should be done.
P a g e 7 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 14.8 To measure the combined value of ‘capital’ and ‘income’ it is necessary to put them on the same basis. It is possible to ‘annualise’ a capital sum (as for example valuers do when assessing the capital value of offices that are rented) or ‘capitalise’ the annual sums (as for example mortgage lenders do when applying multiples to income to work out how much a household can afford). Since this discussion looks at housing, and normally mainly to buy, we adopt the latter approach. 14.9 Of the various flows of buyers and renters in Rural East Anglia, one of the most interesting is to examine the incoming ones to Rural East Anglia. This provides an indication of the types of household that are attracted into the area. The following table shows the annual incomes times three, to provide a guide to the overall financial capacity to buy of the different groups of households. Income is multiplied by three in this instance so that the results can be transparently presented. The income multiplier used to assess the ability of households in REAP to afford owner­occupation depends on the particular household characteristics in line with the CLG guidance. Table 14.2 Financial capacity on the basis of average household income Topic 1. Mean income 2. Mean savings 5. Mean equity Financial capacity to buy 14.10 Incoming private renters £22k pa x 3 = £66k £10k ­ Incoming buyers £34k pa x 3 = £102k £39k £154k £76k £295k Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Although this table is based on average figures, and in practice the evaluations are all carried out at the individual sample household level, the table clearly demonstrates the major difference that the financial capacity perspective brings to the evaluation of affordability. Conclusion 14.11 It is clear that a conclusion regarding housing choices based on income alone would be misleading and wrong. At this point it is not possible to obtain a reliable indication of households’ ability to buy/rent without considering financial capacity. This is particularly true in the REAP case. 14.12 Comparing REAP with a typical pattern, the difference is that while income is normally about half of total financial capacity, in this case it is nearer to 33%. This again must reflect the retirement bias among the in­ migrant buyers. Not only are they older, but also less likely to be working, on lower average salary than usual but they do have much higher proportionate levels of equity. The pattern is therefore a coherent one and points to the unusual character of the average in­migrant buyer in REAP.
P a g e 7 2 1 4 . Fi n a n c i al ca p a c it y P a g e 7 3
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 15. Balanced housing market model outputs Introduction 15.1 This chapter contains key information on the supply and demand situation for the Rural East Anglia Sub­ region. It addresses the changes to supply and demand which provide the basis for a modelling exercise comparing the supply and demand for different types and sizes of housing across different areas and for specific groups. 15.2 Unlike the preceding chapters, which have looked at issues either from primary or secondary data, this one combines primary and secondary data. That is because when analysing housing demand it is not possible to produce robust and policy relevant conclusions without information from a range of sources. Relationship of BHM, CLG Needs Model and Policy implications Key requirements of Guidance 15.3 The Guidance (PPS3: Housing, Nov 2006) makes very specific requirements of Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs). It goes much further and into more detail than any previous guidance on the evidence base. For the reader’s convenience the key requirements repeated here:
· · · 15.4 The likely overall proportions of households that require market or affordable housing, for example, x% market housing and y% affordable housing.
The likely profile of household types requiring market housing e.g. multi­person, including families and children (x%), single persons (y%), couples (z%).
The size and type of affordable housing required’ [PPS3, para 22] The Practice Guidance issued by CLG to support PPS3 (March 2007) sets out a slightly revised method for estimating housing need (the original is in the 2000 Guide to Local Housing Needs Assessment), but is quite relaxed about the technical methods that may be used to achieve the PPS3 outputs: ‘No one methodological approach or use of a particular dataset(s) will result in a definitive assessment of housing need and demand’ (Practice Guidance, page11) The CLG Needs Model 15.5 The CLG Needs Model produces a number for the annual amount of extra affordable housing which would, after a period, mean that there is no further need for affordable housing in an area. The presence of households living in unsuitable housing, or in the private rented sector on housing benefit, would stop. Since in most parts of Britain it is clear that housing need will exist for many decades (at the present rate of production of new affordable housing) it can be seen that this model is geared to an ideal state of affairs not the day to day real world. 15.6 One particular assumption that affects the estimates is that no more than 25% of income should be spent on housing. However the reality is that many households will be spending more like 50% of their income on housing (whether low or high income), sometimes because they are forced to, but sometimes because they prefer to achieve a particular type or location of housing and are prepared to make sacrifices to achieve it 15.7 Many households will be found in the private rented sector who cannot afford market rents at 25% of income on housing. Of these a proportion will be on Housing Benefit, but a substantial proportion will not be. In both cases, the private rented sector on shorthold does not provide affordable housing in the CLG definition, and does not provide long term security for often vulnerable households. 15.8 Fordham Research has carried out some 300 Housing Needs Assessments over the past decade and a half, and in all regions of Britain. We have developed an index which standardises the level of housing need by dividing
P a g e 7 4 1 5 . Bal a n c ed h o u si n g ma r k et mo d el o u t p ut s the numbers of affordable dwellings required per annum (according to the CLG Needs Model) by the numbers of thousands of households in the district in question. As can be seen from the figure, the average for England is about 16. If there are 40,000 households in a typical district, this means that 40 x 16 = 640 new affordable dwellings needed per annum 15.9 In reality most districts are producing less than 100 new affordable units per annum, and so it can be seen that the needs estimates based on the CLG model are a long way away from being realised. 15.10 The CLG model is an important part of Guidance and so the calculation must be done as part of any SHMA. In order to provide realistic outputs for the three key PPS3 requirements stated above, it is necessary to use a different and more pragmatic approach to analysing the housing market. Balancing Housing Markets model (BHM) 15.11 A ‘Balancing Housing Markets’ (BHM) assessment looks at the whole local housing market, considering the extent to which supply and demand are ‘balanced’ across tenure and property size. The notion has been brought into prominence by the work of the Audit Commission in assessing councils’ performance (Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) of District authorities). 15.12 Over the past 4 years Fordham Research has developed the BHM as a practical tool to show what sizes, tenures and types of housing are most needed to balance the housing market of an area. The following box summarises the way in which it works Figure 15.1 Summary of the BHM process The BHM process involves matching size, type and tenure of dwelling supply against both housing demand (i.e. housing that the household involved can afford) and housing need (in cases where the household cannot afford the size/location of housing that it requires). So far as possible expectations of future moves are used. The main area where this is not possible is net in­migration, since clearly future in­migrants are not surveyed. Hence in­migration is estimated from recorded recent in­migrants. The process of arriving at an allocation of sizes and tenures of housing, matching supply with demand, is complex. It typically involves upwards of 20 iterations. The combination of technical analysis and judgement involved is informed by the stakeholder comments gathered at the start of the SHMA, and by secondary data on the area. However the process cannot, if it is to be a reliable guide to that market, be based on a simple formula. The nature of the interactions between supply and demand across five subgroups of tenures and 4 sizes of dwelling cannot be made into a mechanical analysis without losing practical relevance to the market(s) in question. The combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis in one calculation process is a novel one. It is prompted by the complexity of the task. As a result of its origin, the process cannot be made completely transparent (as can an arithmetic calculation) but enough cross checking can be done to reassure a detached observer. In most cases the obvious cross­ check for the affordable part of the calculation is the CLG Needs Model discussed above. The market side of the calculation is more easily checked against stakeholder evidence. Source: REAP SHMA Fordham Research 2007 15.13 Using the combination of primary data (for financial capacity, flows between tenures, and movement histories and intentions) and secondary data (for general context data on housing stock and populations, and for migration and population forecasts) a good approximation can be gained to the direction of a housing market. 15.14 There are still difficulties: in particular although the overall tenure mix and type of dwelling can be forecast using the BHM, it is very hard to get the size mix right. That is because upwards of half of most populations can afford to buy more housing than their household size actually requires. The outcome does not match any logical size related requirements. Hence there is a problem about forecasting the size mix. This is not resolved by using household projections. The household projections do not contain any allowance for the housing market dynamics that, for example, control levels of in­ and out­migration and also affect future household sizes.
P a g e 7 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 15.15 The BHM model produces the three key outputs listed in PPS3. Its outputs produce policy relevant figures which can then be subject to wider policy debate. The CLG Guidance emphasises that SHMAs should not produce direct policy statement, but rather evidence which enables an informed policy debate and policy making. Aspirations vs. Expectations 15.16 As the BHM analysis is based partly upon expectations, rather than past trends, it is worth showing the pattern of difference between aspiration and expectation from the survey (both questions are asked). It serves as an introduction to the point that expectations expressed in such surveys are, in our fairly extensive experience, quite realistic. They are expressions of opinion, but should be taken seriously. Table 15.1: Future tenure intentions by household type WOULD LIKE Newly forming HH Retirement aged HH (60+) Remaining HH Buy own home 63.4% 66.7% 64.6% Social rented 17.5% 27.3% 29.6% Shared ownership 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% Private rent 17.7% 6.0% 4.9% House/flat share 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% Buy own home 25.2% 59.6% 49.6% Social rented 24.1% 29.3% 32.0% Shared ownership 2.6% 0.0% 1.2% Private rent 43.5% 11.2% 17.2% House/flat share 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% EXPECT Total moves in next two 9,661 4,298 years Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 20,270 15.17 This table suggests a good degree of rationality in the postal survey responses: some 63% of the newly forming households would like to own, but only 25% or so expect to do so (with most of the rest expecting to private rent). On the other hand the older retirement aged households show a similar proportion wanting to own, and most expecting to do so. Of those retirement aged households there is a greater emphasis on social renting, which again would be expected for those older households without substantial assets. 15.18 Overall, the pattern of realism in the ‘expected’ figures as compared with the ‘aspiration’ figures is comforting evidence for the view that these reflect realism rather than wishes. Methodology 15.19 In essence it balances the likely demand from three sources:
· · · 15.20 Newly forming households
In­migrant households
Existing households moving within the area With the supply from three sources:
· P a g e 7 6 Household dissolution
1 5 . Bal a n c ed h o u si n g ma r k et mo d el o u t p ut s · · Out­migrant households
Existing households moving within the area 15.21 This leads to an imbalance between the demands of moving households against the supply of dwellings likely to become available. Information on the nature of the dwellings supplied and demanded is collected within the postal survey. The balancing housing market methodology is based principally on household’s future intentions, with the exception of in­migrant households which must be based on past trend information. Information is collected from households that need and or would like to move in the next two years about their expected location, the size and type of home they expect, their expected tenure and the tenure, type and size of their current home. The financial information collected in the survey is used to inform household’s affordability assessments. 15.22 The six stages in detail are:
· Stage 1. Supply from household dissolution: Assessing the size, type and tenure of dwellings likely to become available from household dissolution (using national mortality rates).
· Stage 2. Supply from out­migrant households: Assessing the size, type and tenure of dwellings existing households that expect to move elsewhere in the HMA are going to make available.
· Stage 3. Supply from existing households: Assessing the size, type and tenure of existing households that expect to move out of the HMA are going to make available.
· Stage 4. Demand from in­migrant households: Assessing the size, type and tenure of accommodation secured by households that recently moved into the HMA. Information on the household’s current financial capacity is used to assess whether any of these moves would have resulted in a different current tenure where they to have taken place now.
· Stage 5. Demand from newly forming households: Assessing whether concealed households that expect to move elsewhere in the HMA can afford their expected tenure, type and size of accommodation using the methodology described below.
· Stage 6. Demand from existing households: Assessing whether existing households that expect to move elsewhere in the HMA can afford their expected tenure, type and size of accommodation using the methodology described below. Methodology for assessing demand from newly forming and existing households 15.23 The following table outlines the methodology used to initially assess the tenure demand from these households. The first affordability test used is that recommended in the draft practice guidance and described in chapter 4. Table 15.2 Information used to determine appropriate tenure household will require Tenure expectation Owner­occupation Private rent Intermediate housing Social rented Able to afford market housing? Yes Able to afford intermediate housing? NA Yes No No Yes NA No NA Yes NA Yes No No Yes NA Yes No No Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
Outcome Owner­occupation Intermediate housing Social rented Private rented Social rented Owner­occupation Intermediate housing Social rented Private rented Intermediate housing Social rented P a g e 7 7
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 15.24 A model based solely on the affordability test recommended by the guidance would produce results that would imply major restructuring of the requirement would be required. In reality the supply of housing available for households to move into affects their choices and there is substantial evidence that households are currently paying more than a quarter of their income on rent or are able to obtain mortgages at higher income multiples than 2.9/3.5. Therefore the demand from households is re­assessed using the same methodology described in the table above but using a range of different affordability scenarios. Account is also made of how the role of the private rented sector in housing those that would otherwise be in affordable housing (those on housing benefit). 15.25 The production of results based on different scenarios becomes an iterative process which is continued until the average variance of the difference between the proportional distribution of demand and supply is less than 2%. This is chosen because the Council are limited in their ability to modify the market and at 2% the results highlight the imbalances that require the most acute action and identify the balance of new housing the Council should pursue over the next few years. Results of unconstrained BHM Analysis 15.26 The following tables show a range of results (annually) deriving from the balancing housing markets analysis. They are driven by demand/need and are not constrained by any target, such as that in the draft RSS. Table 15.3 Total annual shortfall or surplus for Rural East Anglia Tenure Owner­occupation Private rented Intermediate Social rented TOTAL Accommodation requirement 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed flat 2 bed flat house house 53 323 468 607 677 32 ­115 ­16 0 55 280 41 138 240 310 ­137 867 649 942 494 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 4 bed house 196 ­13 ­8 81 256 TOTAL 1,645 564 367 632 3,208 Table 15.4 Total annual shortfall or surplus for Breckland Tenure Owner­occupation Private rented Intermediate Social rented TOTAL Accommodation requirement 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed flat 2 bed flat house house 18 185 83 162 124 52 ­154 155 0 0 76 16 53 142 98 ­58 195 379 104 275 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 4 bed house 166 23 ­8 46 228 TOTAL 615 199 85 281 1,180 Table 15.5 Total annual shortfall or surplus for King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Tenure Owner­occupation Private rented Intermediate Social rented TOTAL P a g e 7 8 Accommodation requirement 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed flat 2 bed flat house house 1 125 0 111 381 20 ­151 ­119 0 55 138 0 102 67 107 ­99 484 267 94 ­106 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
4 bed house 57 24 0 11 93 TOTAL 294 155 192 188 830 1 5 . Bal a n c ed h o u si n g ma r k et mo d el o u t p ut s Table 15.6 Total annual shortfall or surplus for North Norfolk Tenure Owner­occupation Private rented Intermediate Social rented TOTAL Accommodation requirement 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed flat 2 bed flat house house 34 13 383 331 173 ­41 191 ­52 0 0 66 24 ­16 30 106 19 190 2 746 323 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 4 bed house ­27 ­62 0 25 ­64 TOTAL 734 210 90 163 1,197 15.27 It is important to note that the two affordable tenure estimates are different to those recorded in the DCLG’s affordable housing requirement model presented in the next chapter. It is important to note however that the more robust methodology of the DCLG Model means that this provides a more accurate estimate of the annual need requirement. 15.28 These results do not directly show what newbuild is feasible in REAP. That issue is addressed in the last chapter of this report. BHM results constrained to the RSS target 15.29 After presenting the unconstrained version of BHM it is worth considering what emerges when the results are constrained to the current draft RSS total: this process effectively means excluding many of the would be (on current trends) in­migrants to the area. They are wealthier, and so this process normally reduces the amount of owner occupied housing by more than the affordable. Table 15.7 BHM Results for Rural East Anglia RSS target Tenure Owner­occupation Private rented Intermediate Social rented TOTAL 15.30 Accommodation requirement 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed flat 2 bed flat house house 38 306 208 104 623 ­11 ­183 ­160 0 55 280 40 119 231 296 ­167 781 580 602 ­183 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 4 bed house ­52 ­41 ­8 82 ­19 TOTAL 604 228 367 561 1,760 This shows the market as only 47% of the total, and this is clearly far from being capable of paying for this level of total. The table below shows the effect of constraining the BHM by reducing the number of newly forming internally generated households, who are much less capable of house purchase than the in­migrants. Table 15.8: BHM Results for Rural East Anglia RSS target constraining newly forming households Tenure Owner­occupation Private rented Intermediate Social rented TOTAL Accommodation requirement 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed flat 2 bed flat house house ­4 220 279 551 301 ­73 ­223 ­74 0 55 241 41 22 117 195 ­137 319 318 493 380 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
4 bed house 189 ­13 ­8 81 249 TOTAL 1,236 ­83 328 279 1,760 P a g e 7 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 15.31 In this case some 66% of the total is market housing, and by using the same logic, this is a perfectly feasible scenario. 15.32 If, therefore, a policy were adopted of building what the in­migrant flow demanded, it would be possible to fund the necessary proportion of affordable housing quite easily. It would, on the evidence of the unconstrained results above, be possible to go some way beyond this figure, as it only assumes 34% of affordable housing, which is average by modern standards. Summary 15.33 The key findings are that almost twice the regional plan level of house building could be supported by the sub regional housing market (Table 15.3). 15.34 It is clear that a higher level of house building could be supported by the sub­regional housing market, from 1,760 up to about 3,200 new dwellings per annum. There are many policy considerations which might make this undesirable: it is merely a market fact. 15.35 The market demand is very unequal between the three districts, being very high in North Norfolk, low in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, and intermediate in Breckland.
P a g e 8 0 S ECT I ON D: RURAL I S S UES SECTION D: RURAL ISSUES REAP is an extremely rural area: it is therefore important to consider the rural dimension of its housing markets. The analysis is supported by Appendix D1 which reviews the policy context for rural areas. Since each of the three districts is substantially rural, each is detailed this chapter. The district level information is reproduced in the associated HNS. The section begins with a discussion of a key issue for an attractive rural area: second homes.
P a g e 8 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t P a g e 8 2
1 6 . T h e s ec o n d h o mes is s u e 16. The second homes issue Introduction 16.1 Second homes are typically homes bought by households whose main residence is elsewhere, typically in a town or city. Increasing affluence has meant that the numbers of such homes, especially in attractive rural areas such as REAP, has greatly increased. In itself the second home may not be a problem, but it may be a problem if the social cohesion of a small rural community is damaged by the fact that a significant proportion of its homes are only occasionally occupied, and even then by a household with little functional involvement in the rural economy. 16.2 The view of the Rural Affordable Housing Commission was that the second home phenomenon was not in practice as important as often claimed, but was locally important in a few areas. The data from the survey was examined to test the situation for REAP. 16.3 The 2001 Census provides basic data on second homes, but since second homes are of various kinds (e.g. just used for holidays by the ‘first home’ household; used by other family members as well; used for part of the year as a first residence etc) it is difficult to study the issue without primary survey. However at the headline level, the 2001 Census shows 6,209 second homes (3,467 in North Norfolk, 2,376 in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, and 366 in Breckland). This is a small fraction of the 162,000 or so households in REAP (4%) and perhaps smaller than the public perception of the issue. Survey information 16.4 The survey obtained 87 responses from households’ resident in their second home at the time of the survey (September/October 2006). The dataset estimates that they represent some: 2,749 second homes across the housing market area 16.5 However this is a significant under­estimation of the number of second homes as many will have been empty at the time of the survey. Clearly a postal survey can only obtain information from those second homes which were occupied during the period of the fieldwork in Autumn 2006. As the Census figure quoted will suggest (and it is likely to have grown since 2001) only about half of the second home owners responded to the survey. However the survey response was sufficient to permit analysis. Character of second home households and housing 16.6 The survey can provide further detail on the nature of these second homes. The data indicates that second homes are more likely to be terraced houses or flats/maisonettes than other occupied homes in Rural East Anglia. Conversely they are less likely to be detached. Table 16.1 Accommodation type and second homes Accommodation type Detached Semi­detached Terraced Flat/maisonette TOTAL 16.7 Second home 36.8% 25.3% 25.3% 12.6% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Non­second home 45.8% 29.8% 16.6% 7.8% 100.0% The table below shows that second homes are more likely to contain four or more bedrooms than other occupied dwellings in Rural East Anglia.
P a g e 8 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 16.2 Accommodation size and second homes Accommodation size Second home Non­second home One bedroom 3.4% 7.1% Two bedrooms 39.1% 28.8% Three bedrooms 29.9% 43.9% Four or more bedrooms 27.6% 20.2% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 16.8 The table below shows the location of second homes. The data indicates that some 64.4% of second homes are located in North Norfolk compared with less than a third of other homes in the housing market. Table 16.3 Location of second homes Local Authority Second home Breckland 16.1% Kings Lynn & West Norfolk 19.5% North Norfolk 64.4% TOTAL 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 16.9 Non­second home 31.1% 37.1% 31.8% 100.0% The survey also indicates that the second home owners spend an average of 3.6 months at their second home each year and that over half (56.3%) intend to permanently occupy their home in the future. Summary 16.10 The survey, which is necessarily partial as unoccupied second homes were excluded, showed just under 3,000 second homes in REAP: about 1.6% of the stock. Since the fieldwork was done in the Autumn of 2006, there will have been a significant number excluded from the sample by not being occupied during the currency of the postal survey. 16.11 The pattern of dwelling types shows that second homes tend to be terraced rather than detached, and either smaller (2­bed) or large (4­bed) rather than the average 3­bed size of dwelling. 16.12 The distribution across the three districts was unequal: North Norfolk containing nearly 65% of all second homes found, and the remainder split about equally between the other two districts. 16.13 The occupation of those second homes identified was quite long: 3.6 months, but that must be influenced by the date of survey, since that would tend to catch more people who use their second home most (as it was done in Autumn rather than the holiday period of July/August) and, most encouragingly from the point of view of social cohesion, that more than 55% of this group of second home owners planned to live there permanently at some point in the future.
P a g e 8 4 1 6 . T h e s ec o n d h o mes is s u e P a g e 8 5
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 17. Rural issues in Rural East Anglia Introduction 17.1 In order to produce a meaningful database for analysis the sub­region was subdivided. This was done by assigning each household an urban or rural classification, based on the National Statistics Rural and Urban Classification of Output Areas (July 2004). This classification was the result of joint work between the Countryside Agency, the Department for Environment, the Department for Food and Rural Affairs, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the National Assembly for Wales and the Office for National Statistics. 17.2 Households were assigned one of four categories based on their postcode. The postcode is considered to be ‘Urban’ when the majority of the Output Area live within settlements with a population of 10,000 or more. The remaining three categories comprise the rural area, which is divided into ‘Towns and Fringe’, ‘Villages’ and ‘Hamlets’, the latter including isolated dwellings. A full explanation of the derivation of these terms can be found in Appendix D1. General characteristics 17.3 The table below indicates the urban and rural classification that each household in Rural East Anglia is recorded in. The data shows that just over a quarter of households in the housing market area are urban, with 30% classified as ‘town and fringe’, and a third live in a village, with less than 10% of households found in hamlets or smaller settlements. There are some differences by local authority with North Norfolk containing a much smaller proportion of urban households, but the largest proportion of households living in ‘town and fringe’. King’s Lynn & West Norfolk contain the smallest proportion of households living in a hamlet. Table 17.1: Urban/rural classification of households (based on 4 categories) Classification Urban Town and Fringe Village Hamlet Total 17.4 Local Authority King’s Lynn & North Breckland West Norfolk Norfolk 18,054 19,536 5,426 13,943 16,386 17,874 16,217 22,737 18,505 4,827 4,691 4,194 53,041 63,350 45,999 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Rural East Anglia HMA 43,016 48,203 57,459 13,712 162,390 The National Statistics Rural and Urban Classification indicates that all classifications listed above other than urban can be considered rural. As the housing market area is predominantly rural, however a distinction will be made between ‘town and fringe’ and other rural areas. This will allow a more detailed analysis of differences between the more populated and less populated parts of the rural area. The table below shows the distribution of households in each of these categories for the three local authorities in Rural East Anglia. Table 17.2: Urban/rural classification of households (based on 3 categories) Category Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total P a g e 8 6 Local Authority King’s Lynn & North Breckland West Norfolk Norfolk 18,054 19,536 5,426 13,943 16,386 17,875 21,043 27,428 22,699 53,040 63,350 46,000 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
Rural East Anglia HMA 43,016 48,204 71,170 162,390 1 7 . Ru r al i s s u es i n Ru ra l Eas t An g l ia 17.5 At the REAP level only around a quarter of the population is urban: almost the opposite of the overall English situation, where only 19% is rural. 17.6 About another 30% of the REAP population lives in smaller towns and fringes of settlements. This population would be regarded as rural in the DEFRA classification, but is somewhat different from the remaining 45% of the overall population which is unqualifiedly rural. 17.7 At the broad level of income, it is clear from Table 17.3 that in all three authorities household income is highest amongst households living in other rural areas and lowest in households resident in the ‘town and fringe’. Incomes of households living in the urban area are closest to those living in the ‘town and fringe’. Income does not vary radically by district, although Breckland’s average income level is about 5% higher than that of North Norfolk. Table 17.3: Variations in household income Category Rural East Anglia North Norfolk King’s Lynn & WN Breckland Area Average annual income Urban £24,081 Town and Fringe £22,495 Other rural £28,978 Total £25,598 Urban £22,977 Town and Fringe £22,018 Other rural £26,205 Total £24,127 Urban £22,582 Town and Fringe £20,622 Other rural £27,581 Total £24,287 Urban £23,392 Town and Fringe £21,638 Other rural £27,461 Total £24,652 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 17.8 The table above shows that the ‘truly rural’ population has much higher incomes than the other two categories, and that the biggest gap shows ‘town and fringe’ residents earning only 80% or so of the average rural income. This points to the presence of higher earners in the most rural areas who are likely to be commuting to better paid jobs outside the HMA. 17.9 The table below emphasises the distinction between the types of area. It shows that across the housing market area, 51.8% of other rural households have income over £20,000, which compares to 43.8% of urban households and 38.8% of households living in the ‘town and fringe’.
P a g e 8 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 17.4: Household income bands by area classification King’s Lynn & WN North Norfolk Rural East Anglia 17.10 Household Household income up to income more £20k than £20k Urban 54.6% 45.4% Town and Fringe 60.9% 39.1% Other rural 45.3% 54.7% Total 52.6% 47.4% Urban 57.9% 42.1% Town and Fringe 62.4% 37.6% Other rural 50.5% 49.5% Total 55.8% 44.2% Urban 55.1% 44.9% Town and Fringe 60.4% 39.6% Other rural 48.1% 51.9% Total 53.7% 46.3% Urban 56.2% 43.8% Town and Fringe 61.2% 38.8% Other rural 48.2% 51.8% Total 54.2% 45.8% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Category Breckland Area Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% The type of housing in each category varies as would be expected with urban households in the housing market area most likely to live in semi­detached or terraced accommodation and other rural households most likely to reside in a detached property. Table 17.5: Type of housing by area classification Category Breckland Area Rural East Anglia North Norfolk King’s Lynn & WN Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total 17.11 Accommodation type Semi­ Detached Terraced detached 29.5% 28.7% 32.7% 49.9% 28.3% 12.4% 61.0% 29.2% 8.5% 47.3% 28.8% 17.8% 28.2% 31.3% 25.5% 48.2% 25.9% 16.3% 55.5% 33.2% 8.5% 45.2% 30.7% 15.7% 35.5% 34.4% 16.8% 35.9% 26.3% 20.9% 56.8% 30.1% 11.5% 46.2% 29.1% 15.8% 29.7% 30.6% 27.4% 44.1% 26.7% 16.9% 57.5% 31.0% 9.5% 46.2% 29.6% 16.4% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Flat Total 9.1% 9.4% 1.3% 6.1% 15.0% 9.7% 2.8% 8.4% 13.3% 16.9% 1.6% 8.9% 12.3% 12.3% 2.0% 7.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% The financial situation is partially reflected in the tenure profile of the different types of area. The highest proportion of owner occupation is in ‘other rural’ areas, at 78.2%, compared with 72.1% in urban areas. There are few differences between districts, although North Norfolk has a higher proportion of owner occupied properties without mortgages.
P a g e 8 8 1 7 . Ru r al i s s u es i n Ru ra l Eas t An g l ia Table 17.6: Tenure breakdown by area classification Category Rural East North King’s Anglia Norfolk Lynn & WN Breckland Area 17.12 Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Tenure Owner­ Owner­ occupied occupied (no RSL (with mortgage) mortgage) 24.9% 47.6% 17.4% 42.1% 30.7% 17.1% 43.5% 36.9% 8.7% 36.8% 38.9% 13.9% 31.4% 39.2% 19.8% 46.8% 31.5% 12.0% 39.0% 36.5% 10.6% 38.6% 36.0% 13.8% 38.1% 38.0% 14.5% 41.8% 26.3% 16.3% 47.1% 32.3% 9.9% 43.9% 30.7% 12.9% 29.5% 42.6% 18.1% 43.6% 29.3% 15.1% 42.9% 35.3% 9.8% 39.5% 35.5% 13.6% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Private rented Total 10.1% 10.1% 10.9% 10.4% 9.7% 9.8% 13.9% 11.6% 9.5% 15.5% 10.7% 12.4% 9.8% 12.0% 12.0% 11.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% The table below shows the type of household in each area. The table indicates that the ‘town and fringe’ contains the highest proportion of pensioner households and the urban area is most likely to contain households with children. Table 17.7: Household type by area classification Rural East Anglia North Norfolk King’s Lynn & WN Breckland Area 17.13 Category Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Household type Single 2 or more 2+ adults 2+ adults Single 2 or more Lone non­ adults no 1 2+ Total pensioners pensioners parent pensioners kids children children 10.5% 11.3% 15.6% 30.6% 7.4% 12.5% 12.3% 100.0% 22.1% 17.0% 10.2% 28.6% 4.6% 5.9% 11.7% 100.0% 14.9% 11.0% 10.3% 38.4% 2.5% 8.8% 14.0% 100.0% 15.3% 12.7% 12.1% 33.2% 4.7% 9.3% 12.8% 100.0% 12.7% 9.5% 16.9% 36.0% 5.2% 9.1% 10.6% 100.0% 21.8% 18.9% 9.9% 31.6% 3.5% 8.1% 6.2% 100.0% 14.9% 15.0% 9.5% 35.1% 3.2% 8.5% 13.8% 100.0% 16.0% 14.3% 11.9% 34.5% 3.9% 8.6% 10.9% 100.0% 18.4% 9.4% 9.4% 32.0% 6.7% 15.2% 8.9% 100.0% 23.1% 16.4% 13.9% 25.7% 6.4% 7.0% 7.6% 100.0% 14.9% 18.6% 9.6% 36.3% 2.3% 6.6% 11.8% 100.0% 18.5% 16.7% 11.2% 31.6% 4.4% 7.7% 9.8% 100.0% 12.5% 10.2% 15.4% 33.2% 6.3% 11.3% 11.1% 100.0% 22.4% 17.5% 11.5% 28.5% 4.9% 7.0% 8.3% 100.0% 14.9% 14.9% 9.8% 36.5% 2.7% 8.0% 13.2% 100.0% 16.5% 14.4% 11.8% 33.2% 4.3% 8.6% 11.2% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Household size shows fewer single person households in the richer ‘other rural’ area, and more three bedroom households in urban areas. In all areas, two bedroom houses were the most common. Houses tended to be larger in Breckland, by a small margin.
P a g e 8 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 17.8: Household size by area classification Household size Category Breckland Area North Norfolk King’s Lynn & WN Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Rural East Anglia 17.14 One Two Three Four 26.0% 37.1% 18.1% 13.2% 32.3% 40.0% 12.6% 9.1% 25.2% 39.2% 12.5% 16.6% 27.3% 38.7% 14.4% 13.5% 29.5% 37.2% 16.1% 13.0% 31.7% 45.5% 12.2% 8.3% 24.4% 40.2% 14.0% 13.6% 27.9% 40.6% 14.1% 12.0% 27.8% 37.6% 21.4% 11.9% 37.0% 39.5% 11.2% 7.0% 24.5% 45.3% 12.5% 12.9% 29.7% 42.1% 13.0% 10.5% 27.8% 37.2% 17.6% 12.9% 33.8% 41.7% 11.9% 8.1% 24.6% 41.6% 13.1% 14.2% 28.2% 40.4% 13.9% 12.1% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Five 5.3% 3.1% 4.6% 4.5% 3.3% 1.3% 6.3% 4.1% 1.3% 4.4% 3.4% 3.6% 3.9% 3.0% 4.9% 4.1% Six or more 0.3% 3.0% 1.8% 1.6% 0.9% 0.9% 1.6% 1.2% 0.0% 1.0% 1.4% 1.1% 0.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% This general description makes it clear that by most measures, the ‘other rural’ area is different to both the ‘urban’ area and the ‘town and fringe’ area. Access to services 17.15 One of the key measures used by the Affordable Rural Housing Commission related to access to services. Before detail is presented on the accessibility of various services, it is of use to establish variations in car ownership patterns. The table below shows that households in the ‘town and fringe’ area are least likely to own a car, whilst households in the ‘other rural’ area are most likely to have two or more cars. Table 17.9: Car ownership by area classification Car ownership Rural East North King’s Anglia Norfolk Lynn & WN Breckland Area P a g e 9 0 Category Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total No cars One care Two cars 20.0% 51.1% 24.2% 24.6% 44.8% 25.8% 9.4% 44.1% 34.3% 17.0% 46.7% 28.6% 23.2% 50.6% 23.2% 21.9% 51.4% 22.0% 13.3% 42.1% 32.1% 18.6% 47.1% 26.8% 16.7% 61.9% 18.4% 25.3% 53.8% 16.9% 12.6% 42.7% 34.4% 18.1% 49.3% 25.7% 21.0% 52.2% 23.0% 23.9% 50.4% 21.2% 11.9% 42.9% 33.5% 17.9% 47.6% 27.1% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
Three or more cars 4.8% 4.9% 12.2% 7.8% 2.9% 4.7% 12.5% 7.6% 3.0% 3.9% 10.3% 6.9% 3.7% 4.5% 11.7% 7.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1 7 . Ru r al i s s u es i n Ru ra l Eas t An g l ia 17.16 The data collected by the primary survey included a set of questions on access to services, and any difficulties found. 17.17 The services asked about included access to:
· grocery, post office, bank etc, leisure, doctor, and hospital services. 17.18 In some cases (notable access to doctors) there was little marked difference between the areas. On others there was, and this summary will deal with those cases. 17.19 In the case of grocery shopping it is clear that other rural dwellers have more difficulty with shopping than urban ones. It is also clear that the other rural area produces much greater problems for poorer households than richer ones. Clearly the lesser ability to travel (whether or not cars are owned) means that access to towns is more of a problem. 17.20 It is worth noting, however, that poorer urban households, though by no means as disadvantaged as poorer rural ones, have significant difficulties compared with richer ones. 17.21 The more purely rural households express much greater difficulty than urban ones regardless of income, but the proportions expressing difficulty are two to three times greater for the lower income households in Breckland and Kings Lynn, but only about 7% more in the case of North Norfolk. The rural households clearly experience a lot more difficulty, and that situation is greatly worse for the poorer ones. Table 17.10: Access Quite/Very Difficult to Grocery Shops Rural East Anglia North Norfolk King’s Lynn & WN Brecklan d Area 17.22 Household income Household income up to £20k more than £20k Urban 6.8% 2.2% Town and Fringe 19.1% 3.6% Other rural 37.0% 14.0% Total 20.8% 7.9% Urban 12.4% 5.4% Town and Fringe 13.6% 6.3% Other rural 41.6% 15.8% Total 24.1% 10.7% Urban 17.5% 1.3% Town and Fringe 10.2% 3.4% Other rural 27.4% 18.8% Total 18.7% 11.6% Urban 10.7% 3.5% Town and Fringe 13.9% 4.4% Other rural 35.8% 16.2% Total 21.6% 10.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Category Total 4.7% 13.1% 24.4% 14.7% 9.4% 10.8% 28.8% 18.2% 10.2% 7.5% 22.9% 15.4% 7.6% 10.2% 25.6% 16.3% In the case of banks a similar pattern is shown, but here the overall figure shows much higher levels of difficulty: over 30% of the population find access difficult. In the rural area, two­fifths of residents have difficulty. When poorer dwellers in this area are considered, the proportion finding a difficulty rises to over half.
P a g e 9 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 17.11: Access quite/very difficult to bank/building society Rural East Anglia North Norfolk King’s Lynn & WN Brecklan d Area 17.23 Household income Household income up to £20k more than £20k Urban 11.1% 11.1% Town and Fringe 30.7% 15.7% Other rural 53.1% 29.4% Total 31.3% 20.4% Urban 23.6% 20.2% Town and Fringe 40.8% 28.2% Other rural 58.4% 36.3% Total 42.2% 29.8% Urban 15.4% 2.6% Town and Fringe 17.7% 11.9% Other rural 42.8% 33.3% Total 28.5% 22.7% Urban 17.5% 14.0% Town and Fringe 29.4% 18.4% Other rural 51.9% 33.2% Total 34.9% 24.6% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Category Total 11.1% 24.9% 40.1% 26.2% 22.2% 36.0% 47.4% 36.7% 9.7% 15.4% 37.9% 25.8% 15.9% 25.1% 42.2% 30.2% Leisure facilities again show a similar pattern, but with even higher levels of difficulty. Some 47.3% of all other rural households record difficulty in accessing leisure services compared to a third of households in the ‘town and fringe’ and a fifth of urban households. In all areas the situation for poorer households is more extreme. Again North Norfolk shows a lower differential as between richer and poorer purely rural households. Table 17.12: Access quite/very difficult to leisure facilities Rural East Anglia North Norfolk King’s Lynn & WN Brecklan d Area 17.24 Household income Household income up to £20k more than £20k Urban 22.9% 15.6% Town and Fringe 46.4% 34.0% Other rural 60.2% 37.7% Total 42.7% 29.6% Urban 30.0% 18.9% Town and Fringe 43.2% 22.6% Other rural 57.8% 36.5% Total 44.7% 28.2% Urban 23.1% 3.8% Town and Fringe 35.1% 23.3% Other rural 52.8% 44.1% Total 41.4% 32.6% Urban 26.2% 15.5% Town and Fringe 41.1% 26.2% Other rural 56.9% 39.3% Total 43.2% 30.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Category Total 19.6% 41.5% 47.9% 36.5% 25.3% 35.4% 47.2% 37.4% 14.4% 30.4% 48.3% 37.3% 21.5% 35.3% 47.8% 37.1% For the remaining three categories (access to post office, doctors and hospital) the differences between the two areas were less marked. However, other rural households reported somewhat more difficulty in accessing these three services than ‘town and fringe’ households who in turn reported more difficulty than urban households. In all instances poorer households had more difficulty than richer households, though poorer urban households had as much difficulty as richer other rural households in accessing the hospital, suggesting that income may be as significant a factor in accessing this service as where the dwelling is located.
P a g e 9 2 1 7 . Ru r al i s s u es i n Ru ra l Eas t An g l ia 17.25 Access to broadband was also considered. There were no serious problems implied by the responses. Some 38.2% of all households have access to broadband; the proportion is slightly lower in the ‘town and fringe’ area than the other two, though it does not vary greatly. It does however vary considerably by income with 54.4% of households earning £20k plus having broadband compared to 24.5% of households earning less than £20k. The proportion reporting no access to broadband due to unavailability was 14.0% in the other rural area in comparison to 9.3% in the ‘town and fringe’ and 8.1% in the urban area. This evidence goes against the more informal opinion expressed by a stakeholder before the analysis, and summarised in Chapter 3 above, which was that broadband access was a serious problem. It appears in general not to be. Future housing intentions 17.26 When considering future housing intentions it is necessary to present results for the variations by type of area for the housing market as a whole as the sample is insufficient to complete the analysis for the individual Council areas as well. 17.27 It is useful to consider the reasons for moves among the three areas, as these often provide clues as to the types of housing pressure that the households in question are under. If the top three reasons for moves are examined, for those planning to move within the next two years, the picture is as follows: Table 17.13: Reasons for moves of existing households Area Household income Top three reasons for move Under £20k Buy own home (37%) Home too small (33%) Move to a better environment (26%) Over £20k Home too small (40%) Move to a better environment (29%) To live closer to employment or other facilities (11%) Under £20k Home too small (25%) Buy own home (24%) Home too large (18%) Over £20k Home too small (29%) To live closer to employment or other facilities (20%) Home too large (16%) Under £20k To move closer to shops and services (38%) Buy own home (27%) To move closer to transport links (26%) Urban Town and fringe Other rural Home too small (29%) To move closer to shops and services (18%) To live closer to employment or other facilities (17%) Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Over £20k 17.28 The features of this table are:
· · The main reason for moves in most cases is ‘home too small’; the exception being poorer other rural households who wish to move to closer to shops and services and poorer urban households that would like to become home­owners
To move to a better environment was also stated as a one of the main reasons by households in both income groups in urban areas, whilst accessibility was a motivation for all households living in the rural area
P a g e 9 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t · To move closer to employment and other facilities was a common reason amongst the households in the higher income bracket in all areas. Further analysis reveals that these households travel on average 22 miles to work, compared to an average of just 3 miles for employed households in the lower income bracket. The survey also indicates that households in the higher income bracket stating this reason are particularly likely to have children. In total 81.5% of these households have children 17.29 It is likely that ‘home too small’ means different things to richer and poorer households. In the case of poorer households the reason is likely to be overcrowding, while it is likely to be more of an aspirational matter for the richer households. 17.30 When compared with other cases of this analysis, there is more prominence given to two reasons: to move closer to shops etc and to move closer to employment. These reasons are more evidence in the ‘other rural’ case and must reflect the burden of remoteness in such areas, and its influence on planned moves. Newly emerging (concealed) households 17.31 The expectations of future households are examined in order to see what effects the rural context as well as financial differences may have. Table 17.14: Rural vs. urban rates of ‘emergence’ Plan to emerge? Urban Town and fringe Other rural Total Yes 15.1% 9.9% 15.3% 13.7% No 84.9% 90.1% 84.7% 86.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 100.0% Total 17.32 These figures suggest that the main difference between the rate of ‘emergence’ of concealed households is between ‘town and fringe’ households and other households. This is likely to be related to the higher income of the more rural households. The table below therefore considers how the rate of emergence varies by household income as well as type of location. Table 17.15: Rates of move by household income £20k+ Up to £20k Concealed h’hold member planning to move? Yes Urban Town and Fringe Other rural Total 10.7% 5.8% 8.4% 8.2% No 89.3% 94.2% 91.6% 91.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Yes 20.8% 16.4% 21.7% 20.1% No 79.2% 83.6% 78.3% 79.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 100.0% Total 17.33 The table indicates that wealthier households are much more likely to have a concealed household member planning to move out. 17.34 The implication is that the children of richer household have more chance of setting up home independently. This is likely to be due to some combination of having better earnings themselves, and having some financial support from their parents. 17.35 These results can also be seen to show a level of suppression of ‘emergence’ due to lack of financial capacity. It underlines the level of rural housing need.
P a g e 9 4
1 7 . Ru r al i s s u es i n Ru ra l Eas t An g l ia Balanced Housing Markets analysis 17.36 The BHM model is used in the main analysis to examine the overall balance in the housing markets of the HMA. In this context it is being used to examine the overall need for various sizes/types and tenures of housing across the three different area types. Table 17.16: Urban BHM Tenure Owner­occupation Private rented Intermediate Social rented TOTAL 17.37 Accommodation requirement 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed flat 2 bed flat house house 41 227 128 38 314 ­70 ­132 240 0 55 170 0 148 105 156 ­88 503 316 323 190 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 4 bed house 87 63 0 22 171 TOTAL 521 415 225 343 1,504 The table above shows the BHM results for the urban area, and the ones below the equivalent for the town and fringe and for the other rural area. The three tables sum to the same figures as the overall REAP BHM. Table 17.17: Town and fringe BHM Tenure Owner­occupation Private rented Intermediate Social rented TOTAL Accommodation requirement 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed flat 2 bed flat house house ­28 ­24 130 126 170 ­11 25 ­79 0 0 62 24 ­90 89 206 ­17 52 53 422 52 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 4 bed house ­22 ­24 0 59 12 TOTAL 4 bed house 131 ­51 ­8 2 73 TOTAL 181 79 85 245 590 Table 17.18: Other rural BHM Tenure Owner­occupation Private rented Intermediate Social rented TOTAL Accommodation requirement 2 bed 3 bed 1 bed flat 2 bed flat house house 39 120 208 445 193 113 ­7 ­175 0 0 49 17 81 47 ­52 ­32 313 280 197 254 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 943 72 57 45 1,117 Comments on BHM findings 17.38 When the outputs of the three tables are considered, there are the following key features:
· · · The growth in the other rural and urban areas is likely to be notably larger than that in the town and fringe
A significant net need for market housing in the other rural area with a relatively low demand for affordable housing
A notable demand for intermediate housing in all three areas, demand is largest in the urban area however
P a g e 9 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t · A relatively high demand for private rented accommodation in the urban, compared to the other two areas
A larger proportion of owner­occupied demand for four bedroom units in the urban area than recorded in the other two areas · 17.39 The proportion of owner occupied demand varies strikingly across these three categories: Table 17.19: Comparison of owner occupied demand in the overall BHM Area Proportion of owner occupied demand Urban 35% Town and fringe 31% Other rural 84% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 17.40 These are very striking differences. They to some extent reflect the relative wealth of the three areas. Considering the Western Coastal area 17.41 This chapter on rural issues is complemented by a discussion of the Western Coastal housing market, an area identified as notably more expensive than others in REAP in chapter 8 on the housing market topography. The Western Coastal area is a particularly desirable rural area centred around the towns of Hunstanton and Wells next the Sea and includes a notable amount of the Area of Natural Beauty in Norfolk. The situation in the Western Coastal area is compared in this section against the rest of REAP. 17.42 In the first place tenure, accommodation type and household type are compared: Table 17.20: Tenure Coastal split Western Coastal Rest of REAP Owner­occupied (no mortgage) 49.5% 38.0% Owner­occupied (with mortgage) 23.4% 37.3% RSL 13.1% 13.7% Private rented Total 14.1% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 11.0% 100.0% Table 17.21: Accommodation type Coastal split Western Coastal Rest of REAP Detached 49.2% 45.7% Semi­detached 28.4% 29.8% Terraced 15.1% 16.6% Flat Total P a g e 9 6
7.3% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
7.8% 100.0% 1 7 . Ru r al i s s u es i n Ru ra l Eas t An g l ia Table 17.22: Household type Coastal split Western Coastal Single Pensioner 21.7% 2 or more pensioners 23.2% Single non­pensioner 10.0% 2 or more adults, no children 32.3% Lone parent 1.0% 2+ adults, 1 or more children 5.3% 2+ adults, 2+ children 6.6% Total 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Rest of REAP 14.0% 15.3% 9.9% 37.1% 2.1% 9.9% 11.7% 100.0% 17.43 The figures show many more detached dwellings and many more pensioners in the Western Coastal. It also shows higher private rented tenure, which is also common in coastal towns. 17.44 From the point of view of income, the residents of the Western Coastal show lower actual incomes (having more retired people) but much higher savings and higher equity: the first being a corollary of the higher retired fraction, and the second being due to the attractive nature of the housing in that area. Table 17.23: Financial capacity Coastal split Western Coastal Rest of REAP Average annual gross household income £23,283 £24,863 Average savings £48,123 £26,539 Average equity £166,518 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 £153,303 17.45 Analysis of the location of second homes in REAP reveals that an estimated 43.4% are located in the Western Coastal area, which compares to 13.3% of the resident population. 17.46 If the data is examined to show levels of movement, the following are the results: Moved to their home within the last 2 years: Western Coastal: 27.7% Rest of REAP: 30.3% Planning a move in the next 2 years: Western Coastal: 13.1% Rest of REAP: 15.5% 17.47 In short the Western Coastal shows a more stable population. This is entirely consistent with its being an attractive area in which a much higher than usual proportion of retired people are living. Summary 17.48 This analysis of rural issues can only be seen as touching on many of the issues involved. There is much more analysis to be done in learning about the differences uncovered here. However the differences are striking. There is a major income difference, in favour of the more purely rural areas: the fringe areas are poorer than the urban ones. 17.49 The different experiences of access to services and the different housing aspirations are very sharply shown as between the urban and two rural categories established for the analysis. The three districts are broadly similar in their responses across these categories, although North Norfolk generally reported less difficulty in the rural areas as regards access to services.
P a g e 9 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 17.50 A short examination of the Western Coastal housing market shows a more affluent and settled population with a high proportion of retired people, having much larger savings than the average. The area also contains around a 40% of the second homes in REAP.
P a g e 9 8 S ECT I ON E: PART I CUL AR HOUS I NG NEEDS SECTION E: PARTICULAR HOUSING NEEDS This section addresses both the formal need for affordable housing, calculated according to DCLG draft Guidance, and particular needs such as those of BME households and those requiring various forms of support for their housing.
P a g e 9 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t P a g e 1 0 0
1 8 . Cu r r en t a n d f u t ur e h o u s i n g n eed s 18. Current and future housing needs Introduction 18.1 Within this report we have so far studied the overall housing market. This included looking at the demand for affordable housing and the likely supply to meet this demand. In this section we concentrate on the need for affordable housing. The method used here is different to that used in the Balancing Housing Markets Model (although complimentary) in that it concentrates much of the analysis on past trends – the BHM analysis looks at future aspirations and expectations. 18.2 The analysis is supported by detailed figures provided in Appendix C3 to C6 and we begin by considering some of the key terms and definitions used in the analysis. Key Terms and Definitions Housing need 18.3 The December 2005 draft DCLG guide defines housing need as ‘households who lack their own housing or live in unsuitable housing and who cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the market’. The aim within this section is to exclude from assessment households who would like affordable housing but are not in need but to include those who have a need but have not expressed any expectation of securing such housing (possibly due to knowledge about the likelihood of being able to secure such housing). Unsuitable housing 18.4 A key element of housing need is an assessment of the suitability of a household’s current housing. The draft DCLG guide sets out a series of nine criteria for unsuitable housing under four main headings. The main headings are shown below (the number in (brackets) is the number of subdivisions in each category). In this report we have studied all nine of the categories set out in the draft guide.
· · · · Homeless households or with insecure tenure (2)
Mismatch of housing need and dwellings (4)
Dwelling amenities and condition (2)
Social needs (1) Affordable housing 18.5 The draft DCLG guide sets out definitions of types of affordable housing (split between social rent and intermediate). Below we replicate these broad definitions along with notes about how these relate to our assessment.
· · Social rented housing: rented housing owned by local authorities or RSLs, for which guideline target rents are determined through national rent setting regimes. Other properties provided under equivalent rental agreements are also included as social rented. In this study we take average CORE rents for properties let in the past year as an indication of a typical social rent by size of dwelling.
Intermediate housing: housing at prices or rents above those of social rent but below market prices or rents. We have studied intermediate housing in terms of the cost of outgoings. For analytical purposes the cost of intermediate housing is set at the midpoint between social rents and market prices/rents (whichever the cheaper). This intermediate level represents a housing cost which might be referred to as ‘usefully’ affordable (i.e. is sufficiently below market prices for a reasonable proportion of households to be able to afford such housing). Assessing affordability
P a g e 1 0 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 18.6 All households who are potentially in need whether as part of the backlog of need or newly arising (projected) need are subject to an affordability test. Full details of the test applied can be found in appendix C1. Broadly speaking the assessment takes account of individual household’s current financial situation in relation to the entry­level cost of housing of a suitable size (to buy or rent). 18.7 The affordability tests are based on the ability to secure a mortgage for purchases (based on typical mortgage lending procedures) and for renting figures are based on a proportion of income to be spent on housing (set at 25% of gross income). Households are tested against the prices and rents in the area in which they currently live. Sub­area price and rent information is set out in chapter 8 of the report. Housing Needs Assessment 18.8 The table below sets out the outline housing needs assessment model set out in the DCLG draft Housing Market Assessments guide of December 2005. There are four broad analytical stages which lead to an overall estimate of the net shortfall (or surplus) of affordable housing. The model is essentially a development of the model used in previous guidance (of July 2000) and is therefore consistent with general practice in housing needs assessments over the past few years. Table 18.1 Outline of housing needs assessment model CURRENT NEED Minus AVAILABLE STOCK Plus NEWLY ARISING NEED Minus FUTURE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Equals NET SHORTFALL (OR SURPLUS) of affordable units Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 18.9 Within each of the four broad stages set out in the table above there are a number of detailed calculations (19 in total) many of which themselves have a number of steps. We therefore move on to look at the detailed calculation for Rural East Anglia. Each of the nineteen stages are set out with a broad description of the required output before moving on to the locally available data. The data sources used are based on a combination of primary survey data and other secondary data (notably about the supply of affordable housing). 18.10 Key data relating to the issues of unsuitable housing, in­situ solutions, affordability, projecting housing need and the supply of affordable housing can be found in Appendix C3 to C6. STAGE 1: Current need (gross) STEP 1.1 – Current occupiers of affordable housing in need 18.11 This stage considers the number of households currently living in some form of affordable housing (mainly social rented housing) who are in housing need (i.e. are living in unsuitable housing) do not have an in­situ solution and are unable to afford market housing. Step 1.1 – 1,552 STEP 1.2 – Households from other tenures in need 18.12 This is similar to the previous step in terms of assessing whether or not a household is in need. However, in this instance we only include households currently not living in affordable housing. Appendix C3 provides a detailed breakdown of the stages of calculation and in summary it is estimated that there are 2,430 households in need in this step. An estimated 95.7% of these households currently live in private rented accommodation. Step 1.2 – 2,430 STEP 1.3 – households without self­contained accommodation
P a g e 1 0 2 1 8 . Cu r r en t a n d f u t ur e h o u s i n g n eed s 18.13 This step deals with homeless households whose needs would not have been picked up as part of the household survey process (e.g. those living in bed & breakfast accommodation). The draft guide also suggests that households sharing facilities should be included here. However, as such households have been included at step 1.1 they are not included here (to avoid double counting). The figure to be inserted in the model at step 1.3 is therefore those homeless households in temporary accommodation who are not included within the survey fieldwork. This information is based on data collected from the Council’s P1 (E) homelessness return as explained in Appendix C3. Step 1.3 – 58 STEP 1.4 – total current housing needs (gross) 18.14 Step 1.4 is the sum of the previous number of households identified in steps 1.1 to 1.3. The total current (gross) housing need is therefore calculated as 4,037 (1,552+2,430+58). Step 1.4 – 4,040 STAGE 2: Available stock to offset need STEP 2.1 – current occupiers of affordable housing in need 18.15 It is important when considering net need levels to discount households already living in affordable housing. This is because the movement of such households within affordable housing will have an overall nil effect in terms of housing need. The figure to be used in this section is therefore the same as found in Step 1.1. Step 2.1 – 1,552 STEP 2.2 – surplus stock 18.16 A certain level of vacant dwellings is normal as this allows for transfers and for work on properties to be carried out. The DCLG draft guide suggests that if the vacancy rate in the affordable stock is in excess of 3% then these should be considered as surplus stock which can be included within the supply to offset needs. All three authorities record vacancy rates in the social rented sector below 2%, which is considered a low frictional vacancy rate and there is no scope to bring vacant homes back into use. Step 2.2 – 0 STEP 2.3 – committed supply of new affordable units 18.17 The DCLG draft guide recommends that this part of the assessment includes ‘new social rented and intermediate housing which are committed to be built over the period of the assessment’. For the purposes of analysis we have taken HSSA data about the number of planned and proposed affordable units for the period 2006­2008 as a guide to new provision. Appendix C4 provides a further explanation of this process. These figures are then annualised and multiplied by five to make an estimate of the likely supply over the next five years (see step 2.7 for rationale behind a five year period). 18.18 Overall the 2006 HSSA data suggests that there are an average of 750 affordable dwellings planned or proposed for this two year period. Over a five year period these would amount to a supply of 1,875 units of affordable housing. Step 2.3 – 1,875 STEP 2.4 – units to be taken out of management 18.19 The draft guide states that this stage ‘involves estimating the numbers of social rented or intermediate units that will be taken out of management’. The main component of this step will be properties which are expected to be demolished (or replacement schemes that lead to net losses of stock). The three Councils have indicated that no affordable dwellings are planned to be ‘taken out of management’ in the foreseeable future and hence a figure of zero has been used in this step of the model.
P a g e 1 0 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Step 2.4 – 0 STEP 2.5 – total stock available to meet current need 18.20 The total stock available to meet current needs is therefore the sum of steps 2.1 to 2.4. Overall it is estimated that this figure will be 3,427 (1,552+0+1,875­0). Step 2.5 – 3,427 STEP 2.6 – total current unmet housing need 18.21 This is the sum of step 1.4 (total current gross housing need) minus step 2.5 (total available stock to meet current need). The figure for this stage is therefore 613 (4,040­3,427). Step 2.6 – 613 STEP 2.7 – quota to reduce levels of need 18.22 Since the current available stock to offset need is estimated over a five year time period, the figure arrived at in Step 2.6 needs to be divided by five so that an annual stock figure is produced. Step 2.7 – 20% STEP 2.8 – annual requirement to reduce the level of unmet need 18.23 Step 2.8 is the number of affordable units that are available each year to address levels of unmet housing need. The figure is simply calculated as the figure at step 2.6 multiplied by the figure at step 2.7. Step 2.8 – 123 STAGE 3: Newly arising need STEP 3.1 – new household formation 18.24 This step requires an estimate of the number of new households likely to form per annum in the future. The balancing housing markets model presented earlier in this report sets out estimates of expected future household formation along with tenure and size requirements. For the purposes of the projection of housing need from this group of households we have used information about past trends in households forming for the first time (over the past two years). Appendix C5 set out the full details of the calculation. The method used is in line with advice given in the 2000 guide to housing needs assessments and is considered to be most robust as we are able to accurately profile the financial and household situation of newly forming households. 18.25 The figures used include newly forming households who form from households currently living in the Sub­ region and in­migrant households (newly forming only). Additional in­migrating existing households are included in step 3.3 below. In addition it is worth noting that some newly forming households will be expected to out­migrate (and do not therefore need to be considered as part of this assessment). Step 3.1 – 2,853 STEP 3.2 – proportion of newly forming households unable to buy or rent in the market 18.26 This step assesses the proportion of newly forming households who are unable to access market housing without the need for some form of subsidy. Again this information is based on the past trend data about households who have recently formed in the Sub­region. In assessing affordability we assume that households who have been able to secure owner­occupied housing can afford the market and that households accessing tied accommodation do not require affordable housing.
P a g e 1 0 4 1 8 . Cu r r en t a n d f u t ur e h o u s i n g n eed s 18.27 The standard affordability test (see Appendix C1) is then applied to the remaining households to test their ability to afford market housing. This takes account of the full range of financial information along with property price/rent data and information about household’s size requirements. Overall it is estimated that 52.8% of the 2,853 newly forming households are unable to afford market housing without some form of subsidy. This is 1,508 households per annum. Step 3.2 – 1,506 or 2853*52.8% STEP 3.3 – existing households falling into need 18.28 An estimate of existing households falling into need is made by looking at past trends in households moving within or into the Sub­region (in­migration). Figures exclude households who recently formed (dealt with in steps 3.1 and 3.2). A full explanation of the households included here can be found in Appendix C5. It is estimated that the number of existing households falling into need is 2,491 per annum. Step 3.3 – 2,491 STEP 3.4 – total newly arising housing need (gross per year) 18.29 This is simply the figures from step 3.2 and step 3.3 added together. These figures are 1,506 and 2,491 and sum to give an annual gross figure for future households in need. Step 3.4 – 3,997 STAGE 4: Future supply of affordable housing STEP 4.1 – annual supply of social re­lets (net) 18.30 Step 4.1 of the model is an estimate of likely future re­lets from the social rented stock. The draft guidance suggest that this should be based on past trend data which can be taken as a prediction for the future. The guide also suggests the use of a three year average. However in this instance we have looked at trend data for the past two years only. This is done simply to allow consistency with the projected needs section (Stage 3) where figures were all calculated on an annual basis based on trends over the past two years. Transfers are not included within the supply figures. Full calculations are found in Appendix C6 and have been based on information from the HSSA data and CORE. Step 4.1 – 1,411 STEP 4.2 – annual supply of intermediate housing 18.31 In addition to the supply of social rented housing it is necessary to look at the supply of intermediate housing. In Rural East Anglia we have based these estimates on the likely availability of shared ownership re­sales (see Appendix C6 for the derivation). Overall the supply of intermediate housing from the current stock of dwellings is relatively small. Step 4.2 – 27 STEP 4.3 – annual supply of affordable housing units 18.32 Step 4.3 brings together the data from the previous two steps to provide an estimate of the overall supply of affordable housing expected in the future. This is therefore 1,411 plus 27. Step 4.3 – 1,438
P a g e 1 0 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Net Shortfall or Surplus of Affordable Housing 18.33 Having followed all the steps of analysis set out in the draft DCLG guidance of December 2005 we are now able to estimate the overall shortfall or surplus of affordable housing. The following table summarises all of the above stages. As can be seen the analysis suggests that over the next five years there is expected to be a shortfall of affordable housing of 2,682 units per annum. Table 18.2 Detailed needs assessment table for Rural East Anglia Stage and step in calculation STAGE 1: CURRENT NEED (Gross) 1.1 Current occupiers of affordable housing in need 1.2 plus Households from other tenures in need 1.3 plus Households without self­contained accommodation 1.4 equals Total current housing need (gross) STAGE 2: AVAILABLE STOCK TO OFFSET NEED 2.1 Current occupiers of affordable housing in need 2.2 plus Surplus stock 2.3 plus Committed supply of new affordable units 2.4 minus Units to be taken out of management 2.5 equals Total stock available to meet current need 2.6 equals Total current unmet housing need 2.7 times annual quota for the reduction of current need 2.8 equals annual requirement of units to reduce current need STAGE 3: NEWLY ARISING NEED 3.1 New household formation (gross per year) 3.2 times Proportion of new households unable to buy or rent in the market 3.3 plus Existing households falling into need 3.4 equals Total newly arising housing need (gross per year) STAGE 4: FUTURE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE UNITS 4.1 Annual supply of social re­lets (net) 4.2 plus Annual supply of intermediate housing available for re­let or resale at sub­market levels 4.3 equals Annual supply of affordable units NET SHORTFALL OR SURPLUS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Overall shortfall or surplus Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Notes Output 1.1+1.2+1.3 1,552 2,430 58 4,040 2.1+2.2+2.3+2.4 1.4–2.5 2.6×2.7 1,552 0 1,875 0 3,427 613 20.0% 123 2,853 52.8% (3.1×3.2)+3.3 2,491 3,997 1,411 27 4.1+4.2 1,438 2.8+3.4–4.3 2,682 18.34 Following the CLG model for assessing affordable housing requirements it is clear that Rural East Anglia is likely to face a significant pressure on its affordable stock over the next five years. As mentioned when discussing the BHM model outputs, this result cannot be directly compared with the BHM output, but as far as affordable housing is concerned must be considered more precise as it follows the methodology for obtaining such an estimate described in the guide. 18.35 The final strategic housing market assessment guidance, proposes a slightly different approach to calculating the affordable housing requirement than the draft guidance. It uses the same information but it orders the calculation in a different way. It presents the two needs stages first and then all the supply information as a final stage whilst the draft guidance considered the stock of need and supply as the initial two stages followed by the flow of need and supply as the latter two stages. The table below shows how the results presented above fit into the model proposed in the final guidance.
P a g e 1 0 6 1 8 . Cu r r en t a n d f u t ur e h o u s i n g n eed s Table 18.3 Detailed needs assessment table for Rural East Anglia ­ following final guidance approach Stage and step in calculation STAGE 1: CURRENT NEED (Gross) 1.1 Households without self­contained accommodation 1.2 Current occupiers of affordable housing in need 1.3 plus Households from other tenures in need 1.4 equals Total current housing need (gross) STAGE 2: FUTURE NEED 2.1 New household formation (gross per year) 2.2 times Proportion of new households unable to buy of rent in the market 2.3 plus Existing households falling into need 2.4 equals Total newly arising housing need (gross per year) STAGE 3: AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY 3.1 Current occupiers of affordable housing in need 3.2 plus Surplus stock 3.3 plus Committed supply of new affordable units 3.4 minus Units to be taken out of management 3.5 equals Total stock available to meet current need 3.6 Annual supply of social re­lets (net) 3.7 plus Annual supply of intermediate housing available for re­let or resale at sub­market levels 3.8 equals Annual supply of affordable units NET SHORTFALL OR SURPLUS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Total current unmet housing need Times annual quota for the reduction of current need Equals annual requirement of units to reduce current need Overall shortfall or surplus Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 18.36 Notes Output 1.1+1.2+1.3 58 1,552 2,430 4,040 2,853 52.8% (2.1×2.2)+2.3 3.1+3.2+3.3­3.4 2,491 3,997 1,552 0 1,875 0 3,427 1,411 27 3.6+3.7 1,438 1.4–3.5 613 20.0% 123 2,682 123+3,997­1,438 This model produces the same annual requirement for 2,682 affordable housing units per year. Findings in context 18.37 The net shortfall of 2,681 can be related to the Fordham Research Affordable Housing Index, which is the result of standardising the finding by dividing it by the number of thousands of households: 2,681 / 162 = 17
P a g e 1 0 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Figure 18.1 Typical levels of need for new affordable housing Inner London 35 Outer London 27 South West 17 Rural East Anglia 17 England 16 South East 16 East 14 Scotland & Wales 9 West Midlands 9 North 8 East Midlands 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Affordable housing requiremement/000 households 40 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 18.38 This Index figure is slightly higher than the national average (of 16) and is quite high for the Eastern region. In other words the level of housing need is more severe in REAP than would be expected on the basis of regional evidence alone. Status of intermediate housing 18.39 We can take the data produced by the above model to make an estimate of how much need can theoretically be met through intermediate housing. The table below shows an estimate of the numbers able to afford such housing. In all cases figures are based on survey data although a number of assumptions have been made. Firstly, it is assumed that all homeless households will require social rented housing, secondly households in need currently living in the social rented sector are not included in figures for intermediate housing unless they have expressed a desire to move out of the social rented sector and are able to afford intermediate housing. 18.40 All figures in the table are on an annual basis (i.e. the current need and available stock figures have been divided by five). Table 18.4 Social rented and intermediate housing requirements in Rural East Anglia (following DCLG guide) Current need Available stock Newly arising need Future supply Net shortfall or surplus % of net shortfall Gross annual need Gross annual supply Net annual need 18.41 Social rented Intermediate housing 694 114 604 81 3,386 612 1,411 27 2,065 617 77.0% 23.0% 4,080 725 2,015 108 2,065 617 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Total 808 685 3,997 1,438 2,682 100.0% 4,805 2,123 2,682 The table shows that of the total gross need for affordable housing (4,805 per annum) only 725 households (15.1%) can afford intermediate housing priced at the usefully affordable point. The table also shows that the vast majority of affordable supply comes from the social rented sector (94.9% of supply) meaning that it is more likely that a household requiring social rent will have their needs met than one who can afford intermediate housing.
P a g e 1 0 8 1 8 . Cu r r en t a n d f u t ur e h o u s i n g n eed s 18.42 Overall just under a quarter of the net need could be met through some form of intermediate housing. A figure of 23% intermediate housing is on the high side of the likely outcomes, but is supported by the financial capacity of those in intermediate need. The figure of 23% is dependent on intermediate housing being priced at the usefully affordable point ­ halfway between a social rent level and market entry. If it is not possible to produce intermediate housing priced at the usefully affordable point then that need will have to be met via social rented housing. The private rented sector 18.43 The final strategic housing market assessment guidance indicates that the number of households in the private rented sector on housing benefit should be recorded. Overall in REAP the survey data suggests that 5,201 private tenants (28.0%) are in receipt of housing benefit. The table below shows the size and type of accommodation these households reside in. The table indicates that over 60% of these households live in accommodation with one or two bedrooms. Table 18.5 Number of housing benefit supported private rented tenants (by size and type of accommodation) Percentage of Accommodation type Number of households households 1 bedroom flat 690 13.3% 2 bedroom flat 493 9.5% 2 bedroom house 2,131 41.0% 3 bedroom house 1,662 32.0% 4+ bedroom house 225 4.3% TOTAL 5,201 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 18.44 This however does not reflect the likely supply of such housing in the future. To make this estimate we have looked at the number of households who have moved to a housing benefit supported private tenancy over the past two years. 18.45 Overall, 8,386 households have moved to a private rented dwelling over the past two years, of which, 1,822 (21.7%) are supported by housing benefit. Therefore the estimated supply of private rented accommodation which is being used to meet affordable needs is 1,882 over two years (or 911 per annum). 18.46 The table below shows the size and type of private rented accommodation supported by housing benefits available for let each year. As can be seen the majority of housing benefit supported private rented lets are two or three bedroom houses. Table 18.6 Annual supply of housing benefit supported private rented dwellings (by size and type of accommodation) Accommodation type Number of dwellings Percentage of dwellings 1 bedroom flat 71 7.8% 2 bedroom flat 48 5.3% 2 bedroom house 414 45.4% 3 bedroom house 327 35.9% 4+ bedroom house 51 5.6% TOTAL 911 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Comparison with previous HNS 18.47 Although the above calculation is done at the HMA level, the statutory requirement is for district level calculations which can then form the basis for LDF targets. In terms of the evidence across the three districts of REAP, the following is the situation:
P a g e 1 0 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 18.7 Comparison of current and previous HNS results Nature of figures Breckland King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Needs level in previous survey (2002, 2002, 600 2003 respectively) Fordham Research Index in previous survey 12 (2002, 2002, 2003 respectively) Current needs level 964 Current Fordham Research Index 18 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 North Norfolk 466 509 8 12 797 13 921 20 18.48 These results make sense: since the previous surveys prices and rents have risen faster than incomes and there has been relatively little affordable housing built in all three districts in relation to the level of annual need. 18.49 At the same time it is notable that the relative situation is least severe in Kings Lynn, and that North Norfolk has now got the most acute level of need, its housing needs problem having increased more rapidly than that of Breckland. Both Breckland and North Norfolk, however, have now reached levels of housing need noticeably higher than the regional average. Summary 18.50 There is a significant level of housing need in the HMA. It is average by national standards, but very high for the Eastern Region. The assessment shows that almost a quarter of the net need is for intermediate housing provided it is priced at the usefully affordable point. 18.51 North Norfolk now has marginally the highest indexed level of need, having been equal with Breckland in 2002/3. Both have noticeably higher need levels than King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. 18.52 However in all three cases the levels of housing need are far above any likely capacity to meet them, and so the practical difference between them is slight: in all cases the districts involved need all the affordable housing they can get. 18.53 In terms of tenure, just over a fifth of the affordable need is for intermediate housing, and therefore four fifths of it is for social rented housing. This will not be good news for house builders and landowners, since the subsidy involved in providing social rented housing is much higher.
P a g e 1 1 0 1 9 . Bla c k an d M i n or i ty Et hn i c h o u s eh o l d s 19. Black and Minority Ethnic households Introduction 19.1 Information was gathered in the survey to find out the ethnic origin of the head of household (and partner if applicable) for each sample household in the survey. The categories used on the survey forms were consistent with those used in the 2001 Census. Due to the small sample size of all non­white groups, these categories have been grouped, resulting in two different ethnic groups overall. The results for the Non­White group should be viewed with caution due to the small sample size. For the analysis in this chapter, the ethnic group of the survey respondent is taken to represent the head of household. The BME population 19.2 The table below shows results of the survey which shows that 99.2% of households in REAP are headed by someone who describes themselves as White. The results in this table differ from those presented in chapter 7, because the dataset has been weighted to be representative of the population in 2006 and the Census data referred to in chapter 7 was from 2001. 19.3 It is important to note that any household that described themselves as White Irish or White Other are included in the White population. This will include any migrant worker households that have moved from other EC countries that have classified themselves within these categories. Table 19.1 BME households Number of households 161,131 1,259 162,390 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Categories White Non­White TOTAL % of all households 99.2% 0.8% 100.0% Characteristics of BME households 19.4 The table below shows household size by ethnic group. The data suggests that a majority of both White and Non­White households are comprised of one or two persons only. Non­White households have a slightly larger average household size than white households, with an average of 2.41 persons compared to 2.27 in White households. Table 19.2 Size of households Number of persons Ethnic Group White Non­White TOTAL 19.5 1 28.2% 26.7% 28.2% 2 3 4 5 40.5% 13.9% 12.0% 4.1% 37.8% 12.5% 18.7% 0.0% 40.4% 13.9% 12.1% 4.1% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 6 or more Total 1.3% 4.4% 1.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Average HH size 2.27 2.41 2.27 The table below shows the housing tenures by ethnic group. It shows that White households are slightly more likely to rent from a social landlord (13.6% compared to 12.2% respectively), whilst Non­white households are more likely than White households to rent privately (17.7% compared to 11.4% respectively). Table 19.3 BME households and tenure Ethnic group Tenure
P a g e 1 1 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Owner­occupied (no Owner­occupied Social mortgage) (with mortgage) rented 63,948 56,953 21,889 256 627 153 64,204 57,580 22,042 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 White Non­White TOTAL Private rented 18,341 223 18,564 Total 161,131 1,259 162,390 Figure 19.1 BME households and tenure 100% 11.4% 17.6% 90% 13.6% 80% 12.2% 70% 60% 35.3% 50% 49.8% 40% 30% 39.7% 20% 20.3% 10% 0% White Owner­occupied no mortgage Non­White Owner­occupied with mortgage Social rent Private rent Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Household type and support needs 19.6 The table and figure below show household type by ethnic group. They show that White households are much more likely to contain pensioners than Non­White households. Non­White households are more likely to be single non­pensioners. Table 19.4 BME households and household type P a g e 1 1 2 Total Lone parent 2 or more adults, no children Single non­ pensioner 23,341 18,786 53,590 6,911 120 283 395 83 23,461 19,069 53,985 6,994 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
2+ adults, 2+ children 26,672 53 26,725 2+ adults, 1 or more children White Non­White TOTAL 2 or more pensioners Ethnic group Single Pensioner Household Type 13,783 152 13,935 18,049 173 18,222 161,132 1,259 162,391 1 9 . Bla c k an d M i n or i ty Et hn i c h o u s eh o l d s Figure 19.2 BME households and household type 100% 11.20% 13.74% 8.55% 4.29% 12.07% 90% 80% 6.59% 70% 60% 33.26% 31.37% 50% 40% 11.66% 30% 20% 10% 14.49% 22.48% 16.55% 9.53% 4.21% 0% White Single pensioners 2 or more adults ­ no kids 2+ adults 2+children Non­White 2 or more pensioners Lone parent Single non­pensioners 2+ adults 1 child Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 19.7 The table below shows that support needs households by ethnic group. It shows that Non­White households are less likely at 17.57% to contain someone with support needs. Of all support needs households 99.23% live in households headed by someone White. Table 19.5 Ethnic groups and support needs Support needs households Ethnic group White Non­White TOTAL Support needs 37,563 221 37,784 No support needs Number of h’holds % of total h’holds % of those with a with support special need needs 123,568 161,131 1,037 1,258 124,605 162,389 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 23.31% 17.57% 23.27% 99.23% 0.77% 100.00% Geographical Location 19.8 The table below shows that over half of Non­White households live in the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk housing market area. Table 19.6 Ethnic group and area Ethnic group White Non­White TOTAL Housing Market Area Breckland King’s Lynn & W. Norfolk N. Norfolk 32.7% 38.9% 28.4% 25.9% 55.1% 19.0% 32.7% 39.0% 28.3% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% P a g e 1 1 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Income and savings levels 19.9 The table below shows average income and savings levels between the ethnic groups. It shows that Non­White households have slightly higher average incomes than White households at £24,652 per annum compared to £25,056. White households however have much higher average savings levels at £29,464 compared to £22,319 for Non­White households. Table 19.7 Income and savings levels of ethnic minority households Annual gross household income Average household savings (including non­housing benefits) £24,652 £29,464 £25,056 £22,319 £24,655 £29,409 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Categories White Non­White TOTAL Unsuitable housing 19.10 The table below shows that Non­White households are much more likely to be living in unsuitable housing. Of all the households living in unsuitable housing, 97.9% are White. Table 19.8 Ethnic group and unsuitable housing levels Unsuitable housing Ethnic group White Non­White TOTAL In unsuitable housing 12,313 269 12,582 Not in unsuitable housing Number of h’holds in Housing market area % of total h’holds in unsuitable housing 148,818 161,131 989 1,258 149,807 162,389 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 7.6% 21.4% 7.7% % of those in unsuitable housing 97.9% 2.1% 100.0% Gypsy and travellers 19.11 The Housing Act 2004 requires local housing authorities to include Gypsies and Travellers in accommodation needs assessments. To comply with this requirement a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment was completed by all the local authorities in Norfolk. This used face­to­face interviews to survey the requirements of the community with the final draft published in November. In this SHMA survey 0.3% of the respondents identified themselves as a gypsy or traveller. Summary 19.12 Some 99.2% of households in the REAP Sub­region are headed by someone White, and therefore only 0.8% of households describe themselves as being non­white. 19.13 Non­White households are likely to be slightly larger than white households. They are more likely to be private renters, are less likely to contain a support needs member, on average have fewer savings and are more likely to live in unsuitable housing.
P a g e 1 1 4 2 0 . Key wo r k er h o u s eh o l d s 20. Key worker households Introduction 20.1 The term intermediate housing is often used with reference to specific groups of households such as key workers. The survey therefore analysed such households. For the purposes of analysis key workers were defined as people working in any one of 6 categories. These were:
· · · · 20.2 Teachers
Clinical healthcare staff and social workers
Emergency services
Prison and probation service staff The nature of this study means that the key workers identified within the survey are those that are resident in the housing market area. The data, therefore, includes key workers resident in the housing market area who work outside its boundaries; and excludes key workers who work in Rural East Anglia but live outside. The analysis of key workers concentrates on their current housing situation, future demands for housing and affordability. Number of key workers 20.3 In total it is estimated that there are 17,783 key workers living in Rural East Anglia. The table below shows the categories of key workers within the housing market area. The main categories of key worker are clinical healthcare staff and social workers and teachers. Table 20.1 Key worker categories Category Number of persons Teachers 6,290 Clinical healthcare staff and social workers 9,382 Emergency services 1,434 Prison and probation service staff 677 TOTAL 17,783 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 20.4 % of key workers 35.4% 52.8% 8.1% 3.8% 100.0% In total it is estimated that 12,892 households are headed by a key worker (head of household taken as survey respondent). These households are subject to further analysis in the sections below. Housing characteristics of key worker households 20.5 The table below shows various household and housing characteristics of key worker households. The results indicate that the majority of key worker households (78.3%) are currently living in owner­occupied accommodation; slightly higher than the proportion of non­key workers (74.7%), although key workers are significantly more likely to have a mortgage. Key worker households are less likely than non­key worker households to be living in the social rented sector but are more likely to live in private rented accommodation. 20.6 The table shows the geographical distribution of key worker households is very similar to non­key worker households. 20.7 In terms of household composition key worker households are more likely than non­key workers to contain children. As a result key worker households tend to live in larger dwellings with a higher proportion living in a four or more bedroom property and fewer in one or two bedroom homes. The survey includes some individuals that are over state retirement age but are continuing to work, mainly part­time, which includes a small number of pensioners working in key worker professions.
P a g e 1 1 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 20.2 Key worker households and housing/household characteristics Characteristic Tenure Owner­occupied (no mortgage) Owner­occupied (with mortgage) RSL Private rented Location Breckland King’s Lynn & West Norfolk North Norfolk Household composition Single pensioners 2 or more pensioners Single non­pensioners 2 or more adults – no children Lone parent 2+ adults 1 child 2+ adults 2+ children Size of accommodation 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms TOTAL Key worker household Number of % of households households Not key worker household Number of % of households households 2,544 7,551 909 1,889 19.7% 58.6% 7.1% 14.7% 61,661 50,029 21,133 16,675 41.2% 33.5% 14.1% 11.2% 4,218 5,240 3,433 32.7% 40.6% 26.6% 48,822 58,110 42,567 32.7% 38.9% 28.5% 199 95 3,317 4,960 851 1,440 2,030 1.5% 0.7% 25.7% 38.5% 6.6% 11.2% 15.7% 26,540 23,354 15,768 49,019 6,154 12,491 16,173 17.8% 15.6% 10.5% 32.8% 4.1% 8.4% 10.8% 10,413 43,715 66,120 29,249 149,497 7.0% 29.2% 44.2% 19.6% 100.0% 998 7.7% 2,991 23.2% 5,301 41.1% 3,602 27.9% 12,892 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Previous household moves of key worker households 20.8 The table below indicates when key worker and non­key worker households moved to their current accommodation. The results show some differences between the two groups with key worker households being more likely to have moved to their current home in the recent past. In total, 27.4% of key worker households had moved to their current accommodation within the last two years compared with 18.1% of non­key workers. Table 20.3 Key worker households and past moves Key worker household Not key worker household When moved to present home Number of % of Number of % of households households households households Within the last year 2,145 16.6% 15,467 10.3% 1 to 2 years ago 1,389 10.8% 11,603 7.8% 2 to 5 years ago 2,792 21.7% 26,845 18.0% Over 5 years ago/always lived here 6,567 50.9% 95,582 63.9% TOTAL 12,893 100.0% 149,497 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 20.9 Previous tenure and location information for households moving in the last two years is presented in the table below. The results show that 18.9% of key worker households moving in the last two years were newly forming households, slightly more than the proportion of non­key worker households. Key worker households were slightly less likely to have moved from owner­occupied accommodation than non­key worker households, whilst a greater proportion of key worker households had moved from private and social rented accommodation.
P a g e 1 1 6 2 0 . Key wo r k er h o u s eh o l d s 20.10 In terms of location, the table indicates that key worker households are less likely to have moved from outside the housing market area than non­key worker households, and also were more likely to have moved from the Breckland area than the average. Table 20.4 Previous tenure and location of households moving in last two years Key worker household Not key worker household Characteristic Number of Number of % of households % of households households households Tenure of previous home Owner­occupied 1,486 42.0% 13,833 51.1% Social rented 353 10.0% 2,433 9.0% Private rented 1,028 29.1% 6,095 22.5% Newly forming household 667 18.9% 4,710 17.4% Location of previous home Breckland 1,000 28.3% 5,086 18.8% Kings’ Lynn & West Norfolk 852 24.1% 6,034 22.3% North Norfolk 539 15.3% 5,280 19.5% Outside housing market area 1,141 32.3% 10,672 39.4% TOTAL 3,532 100.0% 27,072 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Housing aspirations of key worker households 20.11 The survey also collected information on the future aspirations of households seeking to move within the next two years. The table below indicates that of the 13,600 key worker households, just over 20.0% need or are likely to move over the next two years. This figure is higher than for non­key worker households (14.7%). When need/likely to move Now Within a year 1 to 2 years 2 to 5 years No need/not likely to move TOTAL 20.12 Table 20.5 Key worker households and future moves Key worker household Not key worker household Number of Number of % of households % of households households households 534 4.1% 5,573 3.7% 993 7.7% 7,892 5.3% 1,062 8.2% 8,526 5.7% 2,321 18.0% 16,975 11.4% 7,982 61.9% 110,532 73.9% 12,892 100.0% 149,498 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 The housing preferences of key worker households who stated they were likely or would need to move within the next two years (in terms of tenure, location and size) are presented in the table below and are compared with results for all non­key worker households wanting to move within the next two years.
P a g e 1 1 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 20.6 Housing preferences of households seeking to move in the next two years Key worker household Not key worker household Housing preferences Number of Number of % of households % of households households households Tenure Buy own home 1,952 75.4% 14,012 63.7% Social rented 244 9.4% 6,712 30.5% Private rented 295 11.4% 1,174 5.3% Shared Ownership 98 3.8% 93 0.4% Location Breckland 517 20.0% 4,340 19.7% Kings’ Lynn & West Norfolk 968 37.4% 5,761 26.2% North Norfolk 356 13.8% 5,126 23.3% Outside housing market area 748 28.9% 6,764 30.8% Stated size preference 1 bedroom 87 3.4% 925 4.2% 2 bedrooms 525 20.3% 7,464 33.9% 3 bedrooms 1,373 53.0% 7,831 35.6% 4+ bedrooms 604 23.3% 5,772 26.2% TOTAL 2,589 100.0% 21,992 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 20.13 The table indicates that owner­occupation is the preference for 75.4% of key worker households compared to 63.7% of non­key worker households. Key worker households are significantly less likely than non­key worker households to want social rented accommodation, but show a greater preference for private renting and shared ownership. In terms of location it appears that key workers are more likely than average to prefer to move into the Kings’ Lynn and West Norfolk area, and less likely to choose to move into North Norfolk. In terms of stated size preferences, key worker households are less likely to require a two bedroom property than non key worker households and are more likely to want a three bedroom home. Income and affordability of key worker households 20.14 The table below shows a comparison of income and savings levels for key worker and non­key worker households. In considering this, it should be borne in mind that ‘key workers’ are defined according to the official categories, which are broad and include people on widely different incomes. 20.15 The figure for non­key worker households has been split depending on whether or not the head of household is in employment. Figures shown are for annual gross income (including non­housing benefits). The table suggests that generally key worker households have slightly higher income levels than non­key worker households (those in employment) and a slightly lower level of savings. In comparison with all households, income levels for both key worker and employed non­key worker households are above the housing market area average although savings levels are below. This reflects the fact that the housing market area­wide figures include retired households who have no earned income but relatively high levels of savings. Table 20.7 Income and savings levels of key worker households Annual gross household Category income (including non­housing Average household savings benefits) All key worker household £36,228 £20,535 All non­key worker (in employment) £31,140 £23,312 All other households (no­one working) £14,497 £38,574 All households £24,652 £29,410 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 20.16 It is possible to consider the ability of key worker households to afford both minimum market prices and intermediate forms of housing and this is presented in the table below for all key worker households and for those key worker households that need/are likely to move in the next two years.
P a g e 1 1 8 2 0 . Key wo r k er h o u s eh o l d s Table 20.8 Key worker households and ability to afford housing All key worker households Category Social rent only Afford intermediate housing Afford market housing Total Key workers moving in next two years Number of households % of households Number of households % of households 1,734 13.4% 492 19.0% 381 3.0% 133 5.1% 10,778 83.6% 1,964 75.8% 2,589 100.0% 12,893 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 20.17 The table indicates that 83.6% of all key worker households are able to afford entry­level prices in the market in the area. It is interesting to note that of the 2,115 key worker households unable to afford minimum market prices, 82.0% can only afford social rented housing, whilst 18.0% can afford intermediate housing. 20.18 The profile of those key worker households who need/are likely to move in the next two years is a little different. A smaller proportion of these households are able to afford entry­level prices; however of those unable to afford the market, a slightly larger proportion are able to afford intermediate housing (21.3%). Summary 20.19 The term intermediate housing is often used with reference to specific groups of households such as key workers. The survey analysed such households using definitions being based on categories of employment and notably including public sector workers. 20.20 Analysis of survey data indicates that there are an estimated 17,783 people in key worker occupations and 12,892 households are headed by a key worker. These households are more likely to be owner­occupiers than non key workers, although more likely to have a mortgage; they are also less likely to live in the social rented sector. 20.21 Key worker households are more likely than non­key worker households to move in the next two years, slightly more likely to move within the HMA, and overall are more likely to require a larger property. Key workers are significantly more likely than the overall population to choose to move into the Kings’ Lynn and West Norfolk area, and less likely to move into North Norfolk. 20.22 Although key worker households have a similar average income and savings levels to non­key worker households in employment, there remain key worker households within this broad range that are excluded from the housing market. The survey indicates that nearly a quarter of key worker households that intend to move in the next two years cannot afford entry­level market costs in Rural East Anglia.
P a g e 1 1 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 21. Migrant workers 21.1 As part of the REAP Housing Market Assessment Fordham Research was commissioned to undertake an additional qualitative piece of work to research the housing needs and experiences of migrant workers in the sub­region. Due to the geographical spread of migrant workers across the sub­region, and the existence of an active support group accessed by migrant workers in King’s Lynn (discussed below), the research was arranged in two sections. These were interviews with migrant workers in King’s Lynn attending a drop­in advice session and a separate focus group to establish the situation in Breckland and North Norfolk. This second method did not prove to be an effective way of accessing migrant workers in these two districts, resulting in no attendants at the group. This may have been a result of problems with availability, transport, language, willingness to participate and a lack, particularly in North Norfolk, of direct channels of communication. 21.2 King’s Lynn – King’s Lynn Area Resettlement Support charity (KLARS) facilitated our interviewing six migrant workers attending their daytime advice and assistance session, through the use of one of their interpreters. Locally KLARS works with those primarily living, though not necessarily working, in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, not those in the districts of Breckland and North Norfolk. However, migrant workers living as far away as Southampton have come seeking help and advice. 21.3 Breckland – a lengthy interview was held with the Breckland Community Liaison Officer who was able to provide a wide perspective based on their experience and activities with migrant workers from a range of countries. 21.4 North Norfolk – a specific organisation or individual was not identified to access migrant workers for participation in a focus group. Several companies employing migrant workers were identified and the following agreed to put up a poster to publicise and encourage participation: Cromer Crab Company Ltd, Kinnerton Confectionary Ltd, Contract Personnel (based in Norwich) and The Links Country Park hotel and Golf Club. MENTER and local Citizens Advice Bureaux were also subsequently contacted but were unable to provide additional information. 21.5 Problems of accessing migrant workers in North Norfolk demonstrates that direct links into migrant worker populations or a clearly identified source of support, as exist in Breckland and King’s Lynn, are vital to establishing channels of communication with migrant workers. Demographics 21.6 A range of perspectives on the numbers of migrant workers across the sub­region, and to a certain extent their gender composition, were offered. A significant change has been that of county of origin of migrant workers in the sub­region, and their aspirations. 21.7 Prior to May 2004 and the accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, known as the A8 countries, the sub­region was felt to have mainly attracted Portuguese migrant workers. This is particularly true of Breckland. As the sub­region did not hold any National Asylum Support Service (NASS) dispersal areas, in contrast to nearby Norwich, it was felt that King’s Lynn had not previously been home to many migrant workers. This has instead been a more recent and sudden phenomenon. 21.8 Over the three year period of 2004 – 2006, KLARS has added 3,000 service users to their database. Primarily KLARS service users are Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, some Poles, some Portuguese, and some Brazilians married to Portuguese. KLARS were unsure whether Portuguese migrant workers are still coming to King’s Lynn, because the wages available to them are thought to be less good now than they were. There was some speculation that Romanians and Bulgarians would also be arriving in 2007.
P a g e 1 2 0 2 1 . M i g ra n t wo r k er s 21.9 According to National Insurance Recording System registration figures for non­UK nationals in 2005/06 there were 1,450, up from 1,120 the previous year, and a significant rate of increase from 420 in 2003/04 in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk. This change is highlighted by experiences in local schools of increasing numbers of the children of migrant workers attending whose first language is not English. Through a KLARS homework club at a school in King’s Lynn it was noted that the number of children at the school who were non­English speakers climbed from 2% in 2004 to 16% towards the end of 2006. One woman interviewed heard of KLARS through a homework club leaflet given to her nine year­old son. He did not attend the club as he was involved in a school football club at that time. 21.10 In Breckland a similar perspective was offered by the Community Liaison Officer as the perception of migrant workers themselves in the district that there are 500 Portuguese in Swaffham and 1,000 Eastern Europeans. While in Thetford there were considered to be 7,000 Portuguese and 10,000 Eastern Europeans. These figures were estimated based on a number of factories, their employees and some family members. National Insurance registration figures for non­UK nationals in Breckland had grown more steadily over the last 4 years. However, they were very similar to figures in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk at 1,470 in 2005/06. Figures in North Norfolk are much lower, with only 70 registered in 2002/03 rising to 320 registering in 2005/06. The increase in the number of NI registrations supports anecdotal evidence of increasing number of migrant workers working in North Norfolk. 21.11 A further suggested figure for Breckland, indicating the influx of migrant workers, whatever their country of origin, relates to a European Social Fund (ESF) beneficiary project. It was reported that in the last 2 years over 1,000 new people had registered through the project, which is limited to those residing at postcodes in Thetford and Swaffham. In Breckland as a whole it was considered the number of migrant workers coming in to the district is closer to 5,000. 21.12 The experiences of KLARS in terms of the gender of their service users challenges what is considered to be the stereotype of young male migrants, rather than women and/or families who are coming to work in the area. They also challenge the perception that young people come to the UK to earn money and then return home. However, it is interesting that the women interviewed had children prior to and after arriving in King’s Lynn, and happy with the borough they intended to stay there. In contrast, the two men interviewed were single and were not committed to necessarily staying in King’s Lynn. It was speculated that rural Lithuanians are drawn to rural areas such as King’s Lynn to a certain extent by familiarity with this type of setting. 21.13 Through discussions with more recent migrant workers in Breckland the impression given to the community liaison officer is that many want to remain in the UK, and to a certain extent Breckland. Life is felt to be generally better here when compared to their Eastern European countries of origin. This does not only relate to the opportunity to earn a comparably higher income. On a practical level the availability of central heating and services such as the NHS were considered to be a positive presence. Their experiences in Breckland have presented migrant workers with an environment of friendly local people, equality for women, and the safety to be openly homosexual. These are important aspects of where they are now living, in contrast to their previous home, where many feel there is nothing to go back to. Employment 21.14 The relationship between the level of qualification a migrant worker has and the employment they obtain seems to differ depending on their nationality. Polish and Brazilian workers in Breckland are considered to have higher levels of qualifications and are overqualified for the work that they are doing here. However, this does not appear to be the case for Latvians and Lithuanians, many of whom are carrying out similar work to previous employment in their country of origin. This was also reflected in the KLARS interviews with Lithuanians and Latvians in King’s Lynn. It was considered that Portuguese migrant workers in Breckland were not in the main highly qualified. 21.15 Of the three districts in the sub­region, Portuguese migrant workers had largely settled in Breckland. They are now being displaced in the local job market by Polish and Eastern European migrant workers. These more recent migrant workers, particularly the Poles, are thought to be more disciplined and more actively learning English. Concerns were raised by KLARS that migrant workers at first find employment through gang masters and can be working twelve hours a day. However, for some migrant workers in Breckland it was thought that as they become established there seems to be a change in pattern, from at first working in factories, and then moving into work at care homes and as cleaners.
P a g e 1 2 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 21.16 Migrant workers do not necessarily work in the district where they live. Of those interviewed at KLARS, and residing in King’s Lynn, they or their partners worked locally in King’s Lynn, in Cromer, and Ely. They are mainly employed in seasonal agricultural and factory work. Some migrant workers had their own transport or would travel as a group in the car of a co­worker. It was also noted by KLARS that migrant workers were being collected in white vans and taken to work in Spalding. One female migrant worker travelled to work at a carrot factory in transport organised by the Galaxy employment agency. 21.17 One woman with a toddler and baby commented that she wanted to work, but could not afford the childcare costs. Another mother with a toddler under two years old commented that if she could work, she would only be able to work as a cleaner or child carer as her English was not very good. It is difficult to assess how many migrants in the sub­region are unemployed, as records are limited to those registered for Job Seekers Allowance. It was thought that Breckland has over 800 unemployed Portuguese migrants. Housing 21.18 As migrant workers first arrive, it was commented that there is a significant problem with inadequate tied housing arranged by gang masters. It was noted that this type of accommodation is often overcrowded, with poor facilities, or a lack of facilities that migrant workers are still made to pay for. If they try to move out to better accommodation, if they are able to afford to, a further problem can then arise of losing the work to which the housing had been tied, and being black listed, preventing them from finding alternative employment and accommodation. 21.19 Access to and supply of suitable affordable housing is a problem, with the majority of migrant workers living in the private rented sector. Of those interviewed through KLARS one of the men privately rented a room alone and the other shared with only one other person. One couple, their baby and toddler privately rented a studio flat, and noted the overcrowding in all the flats in their block. They are keen to rent a larger flat from the Council as they cannot afford to rent more space privately. There are a further two children that have remained in Poland as there is no room for them to live with their parents in England. 21.20 There does seem to be some improvement for migrant workers as they become more established, after living in the area for a year or so. A Lithuanian couple in their 30s had initially rented in the private sector in a three bed property, with separate couples renting each room. They now rent a flat by themselves, directly from a landlord with a contract in place. The interviewee emphasised that this was not sub­let, viewed as an advancement in their circumstances. At this point their aspiration was to continue to rent the property, however, rather than to buy one. 21.21 Another mother with a toddler and older child had previously lived with her husband and two other people, but had succeeded in accessing social rented housing when her second child was born. Although her husband is working they are unable to afford to rent in the private sector, though they did not aspire to either. A Lithuanian family with the parents in their 40s were renting a transferred council property. Both parents are employed in seasonal work and would like to buy their property if they can. They considered that they had originally been able to access the housing because a cousin who had already moved to the area had made them aware that they could approach the Council for assistance. They appreciated the availability of an interpreter at the Council, but felt that this service had been accessed because they had known to ask for it. 21.22 At a recent meeting held with migrant workers in Breckland with the community liaison officer, houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) were identified as the most pressing housing issue. Falling prey to unscrupulous private landlords and third party agents, an example was given of an agent paying a landlord £800 a month for a house. Rather than charging rent per room, the agent would then charge £50 a week to 20 individuals, including bed sharing on a shift basis, earning a profit themselves of around £800 a week. It was noted that where this had previously been the experience of Portuguese migrant workers, this was now largely the situation for Polish migrants.
P a g e 1 2 2 2 1 . M i g ra n t wo r k er s 21.23 Changes have occurred to effectively tackle the problems faced by migrant workers in the private rented sector on a number of levels and to improve their situation. As noted above, Breckland Council have introduced a landlord licensing scheme, and have also developed a Rent Deposit Scheme. Lack of a suitable deposit prevents migrant workers from moving to accommodation let by more reputable landlords. While a valuable service, the scheme is limited to those in priority need, such as those proved homeless, with children or with disabilities. Therefore, as the majority of migrant workers are healthy and working, they cannot be assisted by the scheme and end up living in HMOs. 21.24 An associated problem is that of illegal evictions by private landlords. With no documentation to demonstrate their tenancy, if migrants did not pay the rent they were evicted. However, Breckland Council has introduced a Landlord Licensing Scheme which seems to be improving the situation. The Council fines landlords not adhering to certain standards and landlords are now required to get a court order rather than just evict tenants. Private landlords have become proactive in contacting the council as a source of tenants because of the demand for their private rental properties, and the Council in turn possesses a list of approved landlords. Estate agents have also recognised the demand and market for private rented accommodation amongst migrant workers. 21.25 Migrant workers too are now becoming more organised, getting together a group of extended family and renting directly from a private landlord. As such, where the landlord previously rented the house to an agent for £800 a month, and the tenants were charged a lot more, eight people may now only pay this amount, and for the house rather than per person. Although migrant workers in this position may still be overcrowded, they now feel that they are more in control. Renting directly from a landlord has also meant that more migrant workers receive a contract, giving them some legal protection in their accommodation. It also provides the tenants with a permanent address and the ability to open a bank account. 21.26 One housing association is encouraging tenants who have an under­occupied property to rent out a room, which would provide extra income for the main tenant and helps meet housing requirements. Community involvement and harassment 21.27 Eastern European migrant workers tend to come to the sub­region and settle more as individuals or families rather than as communities. Migrant workers interviewed noted that they have some friends but that they do not mix much with their neighbours, Eastern European or English. To some extent national cultural and geographical barriers may be transferred, with Poles and Lithuanians not particularly engaging with each other. It was commented by those supporting and advising migrant workers that the necessity of their competing for jobs to a certain extent inhibits their ability to foster community spirit. 21.28 While migrant workers may not greatly integrate with their neighbours, they did not generally report problems with neighbours or local inhabitants. Nor did they feel that their safety was threatened because of their nationality and status as a migrant worker. However, one family had been harassed living on the Fairstead estate, suffering verbal abuse and intrusions by neighbours into their garden. Incidents had been reported three times to the police but this had not improved the situation. The victim was visibly upset when explaining the circumstances, feeling trapped inside her home and fearful of letting the children play outdoors, even in the garden, because of intimidation. Access to services 21.29 For many KLARS users, this voluntary organisation is their first port of call for information and assistance. Its existence and the support and advice it provides are publicised through word of mouth, and in some cases through multi­lingual leaflets distributed through homework clubs. The example provided in the Housing section above regarding the use of a Council interpreter suggests that access to Council services can be restricted to those who already know that they can or should ask for help.
P a g e 1 2 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 21.30 In Breckland it has been noted that many A8 migrant workers now know about benefits before they come to the UK, which enables them to ask for them. However, their being proactive can present an image of migrant workers receiving more benefits and services than the local indigenous community. Earlier settled Portuguese migrant workers may also be perceived to be receiving more assistance, but it was thought that this may be because of a greater engagement with the community liaison officer based on the transferral of information more through conversation than written items such as leaflets. An interesting observation was made that a small number of local English people, felt to be unaware of how the system works, are being helped by Portuguese people who take them along to the community liaison officer to find out about benefits and access to other services. 21.31 Positive and proactive steps have been taken in Breckland with joint police and council community liaison surgeries held in Swaffham and Thetford. Breckland Council is also a third party reporting centre, but the surgeries offer more direct police involvement. English classes are being provided at a local level through Job Centres, Sure Start, schools and through Norfolk County Council and European Social Fund. Basic skills classes are also available through the job centre to introduce migrants to the British working culture to enable them to access and retain employment. 21.32 However, in the sub­region as a whole there is felt to be a lack of co­ordination of services. It was suggested that there is scope for a co­ordinating role at County level. There are concerns that services are being duplicated and may not sufficiently be joined up with other local services such as Job Centres and the correct updated information provided to enable access to services.
P a g e 1 2 4 2 1 . M i g ra n t wo r k er s P a g e 1 2 5
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 22. Households with support needs Introduction 22.1 Supporting People is a national policy initiative designed to secure a more co­ordinated approach to the provision of services to certain groups. There are groups that may, because of their condition or vulnerability, have requirements for specialised forms of housing provision, or else require support services in order to continue living an independent life in their existing home. The initiative seeks to co­ordinate the provision of individual services by housing, social services and health providers, and to produce a more unified basis for the allocation of the available funding. 22.2 Information collected through the survey enables us to identify the principal client groups who have special requirements of this kind. It is therefore possible to provide some guidance on their needs and requirements. 22.3 Some support needs are uncommon, while others are numerous. The accuracy of each figure will of course vary according to the size of the group involved and it should be noted that the range of groups covered by the survey is not fully inclusive. There are, for example, many groups for which it would not be possible to obtain results through the questionnaire type approach (either due to the small numbers or because of the nature of the special need). Examples of groups not specifically covered include drug/alcohol problems and women fleeing domestic violence. 22.4 It should also be noted that the finding of a household with a special need does not necessarily mean that the household needs to move to alternative accommodation. In many cases the special need can be catered for within the household’s current home whilst for others the issue may be the need for support rather than any specific type of accommodation. These issues are discussed in the data that follows. Support Needs: data coverage 22.5 The survey looked at whether household members fell into one or more of a range of primary client groups. Whilst these represent the larger client groups covered in the Supporting People Strategy, they are not exhaustive, and meaningful data on some other, smaller groups could not be delivered with the sample size used in the survey. 22.6 The groups covered were:
· · · · · · 22.7 Frail elderly
Persons with a physical disability
A learning difficulty
A mental health problem
Those with a severe sensory disability
Other need Each person with a special need could respond to as many of the above categories as is applicable. This means that we can differentiate between households that have more than one person with a special need and those that have people with multiple support needs. Support needs groups: overview 22.8 Overall there are an estimated 37,785 households in the REAP area with one or more members in an identified support needs group. This represents 23.3% of all households, which is higher than the average Fordham Research has found nationally (13­14%). The table below shows the numbers of households with different types of support needs. The numbers of households in each category exceed the total number of support needs households because people can have more than one category of special need.
P a g e 1 2 6 2 2 . Ho u s eh o l d s wi t h s u pp o r t n eed s 22.9 'Physically disabled' is the predominant group. There are 24,082 households with a physically disabled household member. The next largest group is ‘frail elderly’, with 17,352 households having a member in this category. These two categories represent 63.7% and 45.9% of all support needs households respectively. Table 22.1 Support needs categories Number of % of all Category households households Frail elderly 17,352 10.7% Physical disability 24,082 14.8% Learning difficulty 2,882 1.8% Mental health problem 5,743 3.5% Severe sensory disability 2,301 1.4% Other 4,423 2.7% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 22.10 % of support needs households 45.9% 63.7% 7.6% 15.2% 6.1% 11.7% In addition to the above information we are able to look at the number of people in each household with a special need and also households containing persons with multiple support needs. The results for these are shown below. Table 22.2 Number of people with support needs Households No people with support needs 124,605 One person with support needs 30,907 Two persons with support needs 5,999 Three or more persons with support needs 878 TOTAL 162,390 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 % of households 76.7% 19.0% 3.7% 0.5% 100.00% Table 22.3 Households with support needs Households No people with support needs 124,605 Single special need only 24,247 Multiple support needs 13,538 TOTAL 162,390 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 22.11 % of households 76.7% 14.9% 8.3% 100.00% The two tables above show that the majority of support needs households (81.8%) only contain one person with a special need and that the majority of households with a support needs member do not have multiple support needs (64.2%). However, some 6,877 households in the REAP area are estimated to have two or more people with a special need whilst an estimated 13,538 households contain someone with multiple needs. Characteristics of support needs households 22.12 The tables below show the characteristics of support needs households in terms of household size, age, tenure and unsuitable housing.
P a g e 1 2 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 22.4 Size of support needs households Number of persons in household One Two Three Four Five Six or more TOTAL 22.13 Support needs households No support Number of % of total h’holds Support needs needs h’holds with support needs 14,450 31,344 45,794 31.6% 15,725 49,946 65,671 23.9% 3,769 18,848 22,617 16.7% 2,140 17,456 19,596 10.9% 1,072 5,523 6,595 16.3% 628 1,489 2,117 29.7% 37,784 124,606 162,390 23.3% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 % of those with a special need 38.2% 41.6% 10.0% 5.7% 2.8% 1.7% 100.00% The table above shows that households with special need members are likely to be small, comprised of one or two persons. Support needs households are also more likely to contain older persons. Table 22.5 Support needs households with and without older people Support needs households No % of total Support Number of support h’holds with needs h’holds needs support needs 12,813 83,803 96,616 13.3% 5,564 10,024 15,588 35.7% 19,407 30,778 50,185 38.7% 37,784 124,605 162,389 23.3% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Age group No older people Both older & non older people Older people only TOTAL 22.14 % of those with a special need 33.9% 14.7% 51.4% 100.00% As the table below shows, support needs households are more likely to be living in social rented housing. 43.3% of RSL and Council households contain a support needs member. Additionally, 26.2% of owner­ occupied (no mortgage) households contain a support needs member. Table 22.6 Support needs households and tenure Tenure Owner­occupied (no mortgage) Owner­occupied (with mortgage) Council/RSL Private rented TOTAL 22.15 Support needs households No Number % of total Support support of h’holds with needs needs h’holds support needs 16,816 47,389 64,205 26.2% 7,772 49,808 57,580 13.5% 9,537 12,505 22,042 43.3% 3,660 14,903 18,563 19.7% 37,785 124,605 162,390 23.3% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 % of those with a special need 44.5% 20.6% 25.2% 9.7% 100.00% The table below indicates that support needs households are almost twice as likely to be living in unsuitable housing as non­support needs households. Some 14.0% of all support needs households are living in unsuitable housing, which compares with 7.7% of all households and 5.8% of all non­support needs households. Support needs Support needs No support needs TOTAL P a g e 1 2 8 Table 22.7 Support needs households and unsuitable housing Unsuitable housing Not in In unsuitable Number of % of total h’holds in unsuitable housing h’holds unsuitable housing housing 5,299 32,485 37,784 14.0% 7,283 117,322 124,605 5.8% 12,582 149,807 162,389 7.7% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006
% of those in unsuitable housing 42.1% 57.9% 100.0% 2 2 . Ho u s eh o l d s wi t h s u pp o r t n eed s Requirements of support needs households 22.16 Those households with a member with support needs were asked to indicate if there was a need for improvements to their current accommodation and/or services. The responses are detailed in the figure below. Figure 22.1 Support needs households: improvements to accommodation & services Level access shower unit 9,805 More support services (to help with budgeting etc.) 6,827 Other alterations to bathroom/toilet 6,276 Emergency alarm 5,663 Extra handrails 4,917 Lift/stair lift 4,558 Alterations to the kitchen 4,680 Other alterations/adaptations to improve accessibility 4,235 More support services to maintain your present home 4,127 Need to move to alternative housing with specialist adaptations 3,723 Car parking space near to front door of home 3,476 Downstairs WC 2,923 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Households Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 22.17 The results show requirements for a wide range of adaptations and improvements across the support needs households. The most commonly­sought improvements needed were:
· · · Shower Unit (9,805 households – 25.95% of all support needs households)
More support services (6,827 households – 18.1% of all support needs households)
Other alterations to bathroom/toilet (6,226 households – 16.5% of all support needs households) Analysis of specific groups 22.18 The analysis that follows below concentrates on differences between different groups of households with support needs. 22.19 The table below shows some characteristics by support needs group. The table shows a number of interesting findings. The data shows that 50.6% of frail elderly households and 33.7% of physical disability households are also single person households. On the other hand nearly half (46.3%) of households containing someone with a learning difficulty contained four or more people. Relatively few households containing someone with a learning difficulty contained older persons; this is also true of the mental health problem households.
P a g e 1 2 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 22.20 By tenure the results show that all support needs groups are less likely than non­support needs households to live in owner­occupied accommodation (with a mortgage) and all groups are more likely than average to live in social rented housing. Over half of frail elderly households live in the owner occupied (no mortgage) sector. Households containing someone with a mental health problem or a physical disability are more likely than average to be living in private rented accommodation. Frail elderly Physical disability Learning difficulty Mental Health problem Severe sensory disability Other All support needs hhs All non­ support needs hhs All hhs Table 22.8 Characteristics of support needs households by support needs group One 50.6% 33.7% 7.6% 34.2% 28.1% 31.0% 38.2% 25.2% 28.2% Two 37.7% 47.2% 18.9% 31.2% 33.3% 39.7% 41.6% 40.1% 40.4% Three 7.5% 8.4% 27.2% 14.4% 19.7% 18.9% 10.0% 15.1% 13.9% Four 1.6% 6.4% 24.0% 5.4% 8.2% 7.0% 5.7% 14.0% 12.1% Five 1.0% 2.4% 9.4% 6.6% 2.3% 0.4% 2.8% 4.4% 4.1% Six or more 1.5% Age of household members 1.8% 12.9% 8.2% 8.3% 2.9% 1.7% 1.2% 1.3% No older people 3.5%* 34.7% 71.2% 70.3% 33.9% 40.8% 33.9% 67.3% 59.5% Both older & non older people 18.2% 17.4% 21.1% 9.3% 23.6% 20.9% 14.7% 8.0% 9.6% Older people only 78.3% 47.9% 7.7% 20.4% 42.5% 38.2% 51.4% 24.7% 30.9% Owner­occupied (no mortgage) 57.9% 42.5% 23.6% 24.1% 38.3% 43.0% 44.5% 38.0% 39.5% Owner­occupied (with mortgage) 11.1% 20.1% 38.3% 25.0% 23.7% 27.2% 20.6% 40.0% 35.5% Household size Tenure Council/RSL 22.8% 26.3% 29.1% 34.2% 31.0% 20.8% 25.2% 10.0% 13.6% Private rented 8.2% 11.1% 9.1% 16.7% 7.0% 8.9% 9.7% 12.0% 11.4% * Some respondents may have classified themselves or another member of their household as being frail even if they are not an older person. Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 22.21 The figure below shows income levels for each category of support needs household. Also shown is the figure for non­support needs households. The average income of all households in the sub­region was estimated at £24,655 per annum (gross income including non­housing benefits). The figure shows that all support needs groups have average income levels noticeably below both the sub­region average and the average for non­ support needs households. Support needs households containing a member with a learning difficulty have the highest average incomes of support needs households in the sub­region at £25,571.
P a g e 1 3 0 2 2 . Ho u s eh o l d s wi t h s u pp o r t n eed s Figure 22.2 Income and support needs groups £15,453 Frail elderly £16,568 Physical disability £25,571 Learning disability £18,120 Mental Health problem Severe sensory disability £19,769 Other £16,710 All special needs hhs £16,780 All non­special needs hhs £27,043 All hhs £24,655 £0 £10,000 £20,000 £30,000 Annual gross household income (including non­housing benefits) Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 22.22 Finally we can look at levels of unsuitable housing by support needs group. The table below shows the proportion of each group estimated to be living in unsuitable housing. Households containing someone with a learning difficulty are the most likely to be in unsuitable housing (29.4%); this compares to a housing market area wide average of 7.7% and an average of 5.8% for non support needs households. Table 22.9 Proportion of support needs groups living in unsuitable housing Support needs group % of households Frail elderly 11.5% Physical disability 17.3% Learning difficulty 29.4% Mental Health problem 28.4% Severe sensory disability 25.1% Other 18.3% All support needs households 14.0% All non­support needs households 5.8% All households 7.7% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Care & repair and staying put schemes 22.23 This section studies support needs households who have stated experiencing difficulty in maintaining their home. The results are shown in the table below and are split between owner­occupiers and tenants. The table clearly shows that support needs households are more likely than other households in the housing market area to have problems with maintaining their homes. 22.24 Of all households with a problem or serious problem, a total of 31.7% have support needs. Over a quarter of these are owner­occupiers. Table 22.10 Support needs households and difficulty maintaining home A problem/ serious No problem TOTAL problem Household group Number % Number % Number % Support needs – owner­occupied 17,719 72.1% 6,867 27.9% 24,586 100.0% Support needs – tenants 11,187 84.8% 2,011 15.2% 13,198 100.0%
P a g e 1 3 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t All support needs households All households 22.25 28,906 76.5% 8,878 134,408 82.8% 27,982 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 23.5% 17.2% 37,784 162,390 100.0% 100.0% The evidence of the tables above is that there is certainly some scope for ‘staying put’ or ‘care and repair’ schemes in the housing market area. A total of 27,982 households state a problem with maintaining their homes – of these 8,878 are support needs households with an estimated 6,867 living in the owner­occupied sector. Summary 22.26 Information from the survey on support needs groups can be of assistance to authorities when contributing to detailed Supporting People Strategies. Some 23.3% of all the Housing market area’s households (37,785) contain support needs members. ‘Physically disabled’ is the largest category with support needs. There are 24,082 households containing a ‘physically disabled’ person and a further 17,352 with household members who are ‘frail elderly’. 22.27 Support needs households in the REAP area are generally smaller than average for the housing market area and are disproportionately made up of older persons only. Support needs households are more likely than households overall to be in unsuitable housing. 22.28 Support needs households in general stated a requirement for a wide range of adaptations and improvements to the home. Shower units, more support services and other adaptations to the bathroom/toilet were most commonly required. 22.29 Finally, the survey suggested there was scope for ‘care & repair’ and ‘staying put’ schemes.
P a g e 1 3 2 2 3 . Ol d er p er s o n h o u s eh o l d s 23. Older person households Introduction 23.1 Data was collected in the survey with regard to the characteristics of households with older persons. This chapter looks at the general characteristics of older person households and details some additional survey findings about such households. 23.2 Older people are defined as those over the state pension eligibility age (currently 65 for men, 60 for women). For the purpose of this chapter, households have been divided into three categories:
· · · Households without older persons
Households with both older and non­older persons
Households with only older persons The older person population 23.3 Just under a third of all households in REAP contain only older people (30.9%) and a further 9.6% contain both older and non­older people. This compares with the 2001 Census data for England, which shows 24% of older persons. This indicates how high the REAP figure is. The table below shows the number and percentage of households in each group. Table 23.1 Older person households Categories Households without older persons Number of % of all households households 96,616 Households with both older and non­older persons 15,588 Households with older persons only 50,186 TOTAL 162,390 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 59.5% 9.6% 30.9% 100.0% Characteristics of older person households 23.4 The number of occupants in older person households is shown in the table below. The data suggests that almost all households containing older persons only are comprised of one or two persons only – there are only 125 older person households containing three or more people. Almost 60% of all single person households are older person households.
P a g e 1 3 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 23.2 Size of older person only households Age group Number of persons in household Older persons only One Two Three Four Five Six or more TOTAL 26,726 23,335 125 0 0 0 50,186 % of total h’holds with older persons 19,068 45,794 58.4% 42,336 65,671 35.5% 22,492 22,617 0.6% 19,597 19,597 0.0% 6,595 6,595 0.0% 2,117 2,117 0.0% 112,205 162,391 30.9% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Other h’holds Number of h’holds % of those with older persons 53.3% 46.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 23.5 The table below shows the housing tenures of households with older persons. Almost three quarters of older person only households are owner­occupiers. The overwhelming majority of these do not have a mortgage. This finding suggests that the potential for equity release schemes in REAP is quite high. 23.6 Another significant finding is the relatively high proportion of social rented accommodation containing older people only. Some 40.4% of RSL dwellings contain only older people. This may have implications for future supply of specialised social rented accommodation. Table 23.3 Older person only households and tenure Age group Other Tenure Older house­ Total hhs persons only holds Owner­occupied (no mortgage) 35,083 29,122 64,205 Owner­occupied (with mortgage) 3,015 54,564 57,579 RSL 8,912 13,130 22,042 Private rented 3,176 15,388 18,564 TOTAL 50,186 112,204 162,390 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 23.7 % with older persons 54.6% 5.2% 40.4% 17.1% 30.9% % of older person hhs 69.9% 6.0% 17.8% 6.3% 100.0% The table below shows the geographical distribution of older person only households. All three local authorities have a fairly similar proportion of older person only households with the rate highest in North Norfolk (35.2%) and lowest in Breckland (27.9%). Table 23.4 Older person only households and Local Authority Local Authority Breckland Kings Lynn & WN North Norfolk TOTAL 23.8 Age group Older Other % with persons house­ Total hhs older only holds persons 14,813 38,227 53,040 27.9% 19,193 44,157 63,350 30.3% 16,180 29,820 46,000 35.2% 50,188 112,204 162,390 30.9% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 % of older person hhs 29.5% 38.2% 32.2% 100.0% The table below shows the number of cars owned by older person only households. The table indicates that almost two­thirds of households without a car are older person only households. However it is important to note that 64.0% of older person only households do own at least one car.
P a g e 1 3 4 2 3 . Ol d er p er s o n h o u s eh o l d s Table 23.5 Older person only households and car ownership Number of cars owned None One Two Three or more TOTAL Age group Older Other % with persons house­ Total hhs older only holds persons 18,081 10,994 29,075 62.2% 28,069 49,187 77,256 36.3% 3,791 40,174 43,965 8.6% 245 11,849 12,094 2.0% 50,186 112,204 162,390 30.9% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 % of older person hhs 36.0% 55.9% 7.6% 0.5% 100.0% Dwelling characteristics 23.9 The table below shows the type of accommodation that older person only households reside in. The data indicates that older person only households are more likely than non­older person households in the North Norfolk District Council area to be living in a detached bungalow and are less likely to be living in a terraced house. Table 23.6 Type of accommodation by older person only households % of older person % of non­older households person households Detached house 19.1% 28.0% Detached bungalow* 35.3% 14.5% Semi­detached house 11.6% 27.2% Semi­detached bungalow 14.0% 4.2% Terraced house 7.1% 18.8% Terraced bungalow 2.9% 0.5% Flat/maisonettes 9.9% 6.8% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% * Includes mobile homes Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Dwelling type 23.10 The table below shows that older person only households are more likely than non­older person households in the REAP area to be living in one and two bedroom properties. However, the results also show that 49.2% of all older person households are in three or four bedroom dwellings. Given that previous information has shown that all older person only households are comprised of almost only one or two persons, this finding suggests that there could be potential scope to free up larger units for younger families if the older households chose to move into suitable smaller units. Table 23.7 Size of dwellings (number of bedrooms) for older person only households % of older person % of non­older households person households 1 bedroom 9.8% 5.8% 2 bedrooms 41.0% 23.3% 3 bedrooms 38.0% 46.6% 4+ bedrooms 11.2% 24.3% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Number of bedrooms 23.11 This information can be further broken down by tenure (for older person households) and this is shown in the table below. The table indicates that whilst the majority of large (3+ bedroom) properties are in the owner­ occupied sector there are nearly 1,500 properties in the social rented sector which may therefore present some opportunity to reduce under­occupation.
P a g e 1 3 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 23.8 Older person only households size of accommodation and tenure Size of accommodation 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed Owner­occupied (no mortgage) 976 13,825 15,244 5,038 Owner­occupied (with mortgage) 186 988 1,403 438 Council/RSL 3,166 4,241 1,491 14 Private rented 573 1,499 954 150 TOTAL 4,901 20,553 19,092 5,640 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 Tenure TOTAL 35,083 3,015 8,912 3,176 50,186 Older person households and unsuitable housing 23.12 Some 4.7% of all older person only households (2,336 households) in the REAP area live in unsuitable housing, as defined by the DCLG guidance. This figure is lower than the figure of 7.7% for all households. Summary 23.13 Some 30.9% of households in the REAP area contain older persons only, and a further 9.6% contain a mix of both older and non­older persons. Older person only households are largely comprised of one or two persons, providing implications for future caring patterns. Although the majority of older person only households live in the private sector, it is interesting to note that over a third of social rented accommodation houses older people only.
P a g e 1 3 6 2 3 . Ol d er p er s o n h o u s eh o l d s P a g e 1 3 7
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t SECTION F: POLICY IMPLICATIONS This section considers the results of the SHMA so far in relation to the policy context. This combines the evidence base provided in this report with stakeholder opinion as to the policy implications of this evidence base.
P a g e 1 3 8 S ECT I ON F: POL I CY I M PL I CAT I ONS P a g e 1 3 9
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 24. Housing market gaps and the housing ladder Introduction 24.1 It has been a concern of Government for at least two decades that there should be a well functioning ‘housing ladder’ so that newly forming households could enter the market, and ‘climb’ towards home ownership, and then move as appropriate up the size scale. This public concern has grown more acute as house prices have risen rapidly especially over the last decade. 24.2 This has led to many initiatives to encourage access to the market, and in particular the owner occupied market. Some two decades of evolution of ‘low cost’ home ownership and partial ownership (where typically a Registered Social Landlord owns part and the occupant owns the rest) have produced the present structure of tenures encouraged by the Housing Corporation (particularly Open Market HomeBuy and New Build HomeBuy. 24.3 This chapter examines the cost of different types and tenures of housing. This is done to provided an updateable benchmark for assessing the affordability of new housing schemes. In order to decide, for instance, whether a new shared ownership (HomeBuy) scheme is intermediate housing or low cost market housing, it is simply necessary to compare the weekly equivalent cost of the proposed scheme with a (suitably updated for inflation etc) figure from the graph and table below. Housing market gaps 24.4 Housing market gaps analysis has been developed by Fordham Research to allow easy comparisons of the costs of the tenure range, in order to facilitate the testing of different newbuild proposals, and to show generally the nature of the housing ladder in a particular locality. 24.5 The following figure illustrates figures for 2­bed dwellings (the most common entry point) for the range of tenures.
P a g e 1 4 0 2 4 . Ho u si n g ma rk et g a p s a n d t h e h o u s in g la d d er Figure 24.1: Housing market gaps N.B. This is an average for 2 bed dwellings between the 3 districts 24.6 The figure shows the ‘housing ladder’ with social rents at the bottom and moving up through market rents, second hand purchase and newbuild purchase. To this figure we have added a line called ‘usefully affordable level’, this is a line drawn at the mid­point between social rents and the market and is designed to provide a broad figure for the level of outgoings which might be required to provide ‘intermediate housing’ at a level which will be affordable to a reasonable proportion of households who are unable to access the private sector housing market (without subsidy). 24.7 As can be seen from the graph, there are major gaps between the different tenures, namely: i) The Market Entry level (£100 per week), which is private rental rather than purchase, is about twice the social rent level (£63 per week): leaving an Intermediate Housing gap ii) The cost of purchasing minimum priced entry level second hand housing (£139) is about 140% of entry level private rental iii) The cost of newbuild housing (£194 per week) is also about 140% of the cost of entry level second hand housing iv) The overall gap between market entry (defined by PPS3 as being ‘to rent or buy’ (at £100) is about half the price of the entry level to buy newbuild The overall gap (newbuild to buy as a percentage of social rent) is over 300% v) 24.8 The full range of weekly costs is provided by the table below. This is an important table as it provides the key test as to whether new housing falls into a particular tenure group. This will be especially important in the case of intermediate housing.
P a g e 1 4 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 24.1 Comparative outgoings by tenure Social rent Intermediate Min private rent £ weekly Min price sale Approx min price sale £ weekly £ weekly £ weekly £ weekly Breckland 1 bed 53 74 95 132 185 2 bed 60 87 113 161 225 3 bed 65 99 133 185 259 4 bed 70 125 179 255 357 Kings Lynn & W Norfolk 1 bed 53 73 92 126 176 2 bed 61 85 110 148 207 3 bed 66 99 133 178 249 4 bed 71 122 173 246 344 North Norfolk 1 bed 54 76 98 150 210 2 bed 63 87 112 177 248 3 bed 69 107 144 210 294 4 bed 76 189 302 273 382 Western Coastal 1 bed 53/54 73/76 92/98 202 283 2 bed 61/63 85/87 110/112 222 311 3 bed 66/69 99/107 133/144 263 368 4 bed 71/76 122/189 173/302 341 477 Note Outgoings for purchase options assume variable rate 25 yr repayment mortgage. With interest only payments outgoings would reduce by approx 20% though benefits of ownership would be lost as the property would not be owned outright at the end of the mortgage term. Data for this table comes partly from the survey of estate and letting agents but mainly from a survey of website prices (mainly Rightmove).Both were carried out in 2006. Part of this table also appears as Table 8.8 above. How to fill the market gaps 24.9 The scale of the housing market gaps in REAP is modest compared with high priced parts of the country, but still daunting. It is all the more so when it is considered that newbuild housing, on a significant scale, is provided mainly in the form of:
· · Newbuild housing to buy
Social rented housing 24.10 In other words newbuild tends to be concentrated at the top and the bottom of the ladder. This has for long been the pattern, and clearly it does not help to reduce the significance of the gaps, as would provision of newbuild in the Intermediate or rent/buy gaps. The Barker Review of 2004 demonstrated that no feasible amount of newbuild is likely to reduce prices, ie to diminish the existing housing market gaps. Short of a market collapse, the main possibility is the production of newbuild housing in those two gaps. 24.11 The main source of housing between these extremes is shared equity as mentioned above (now known as New Build HomeBuy). Although this form of housing is often seen as filling the intermediate gap illustrated in the graph above, it is commonly too expensive for that, and lies instead in the rent/buy gap. This does not remove its value: it can be of great use in providing a step in equity ownership towards full scale home ownership. 24.12 Discount for sale housing would, based upon the information in Figure 19.1 above would have to be about a 50% discount to be affordable housing (based on 2­bed types). In practice the sorts of discount available are 20­30% at most, and so it is most unlikely that discount newbuild could be affordable housing in REAP. 24.13 This is confirmed by Liam Sage, an official at the CLG, who wrote (in a comment to Mansfield DC in Nottinghamshire) in January 2007 that he had not found any example of discount sale housing that was affordable:
P a g e 1 4 2 2 4 . Ho u si n g ma rk et g a p s a n d t h e h o u s in g la d d er ‘In practice I agree that discounted sale models are very unlikely to be affordable, and I have not heard of any’. 24.14 The Government has, in PPS3, said that ‘low cost market’ housing is market housing not affordable housing. It is not yet clear, however, at what point in the market section of the above graph low cost market housing is intended by CLG to be located. However it is clear in REAP that low cost market housing, to be of practical value, would need to be located in the rent buy gap. Summary 24.15 There are substantial housing market gaps in REAP, which mean that the local housing ‘ladder’ is not an easy one to climb. This is the case even though the gaps are smaller in relative terms than in many parts of the country. 24.16 At the 2­bed level newbuild to buy is over 300% of the social rent cost for that size, and similar patterns are seen for other dwelling sizes. Such gaps make the housing ladder image seem optimistic. 24.17 Newbuild housing is mainly available as for sale and as social rent, in other words at the extreme ends of the range. There is little newbuild housing in between. Shared ownership (New Build HomeBuy in Housing Corporation terminology) is the main option. The problem is that this is normally more expensive than market rental due to the newbuild purchase element. Hence it is normally to be seen as ‘low cost market’ housing in the rent/buy gap, not intermediate housing. 24.18 There is at present little prospect of any newbuild housing being made available in the Intermediate band, and even less of its being ‘usefully affordable’ at the halfway point of that range. This provides a challenge for the future, since there is a need for it. 24.19 The Housing Market Gaps analysis provides a template which, suitably updated, provides a lasting basis for testing newbuild housing options in terms of their affordability to fill the various gaps identified. The most important are the Intermediate and rent/buy gaps.
P a g e 1 4 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t P a g e 1 4 4
2 5 . Ho u si n g ma rk et s a n d n ew h o u s i n g p r o vi s io n 25. Housing markets and new housing provision Introduction 25.1 The analysis in previous chapters has set the scene for policy suggestions. Before entering the practicalities of these, it is worth considering the overall scope and nature of the housing market as it is seen by the buyers and renters who face it: that is to say as a range of products at different prices and rents. Housing market gaps 25.2 The housing market has been analysed in some detail in the report, as well as the capacity of movers and would­be movers to achieve whatever tenure aspirations they realistically could afford. Analysis has also been devoted to what types and tenures of newbuild housing would best balance the market. This is in the spirit of DCLG Guidance in PPS3 and elsewhere. 25.3 There is, however, a fundamental problem, which is illustrated by the Housing Market Gaps graph, Figure 24.1, in the preceding chapter. 25.4 The majority of newbuild housing is at either extreme of this graph, that is to say:
· · Social rental
Newbuild to buy 25.5 The only other form of newbuild that is available in noticeable quantities is ‘intermediate’ housing which is typically shared ownership (where the occupant buys part, typically half and rents half (typically from a Registered Social Landlord). The overall cost of this is normally close to or above market entry. In Table 8.3 above, we show the cost of intermediate housing as midway between the social rent and market entry rent, as that is the value which would actually be ‘usefully affordable’. There will be considerable difficulty in many part of REAP in actually providing this. At the same time, if it is provided at more than this cost, there is not much point in it, as it will assist few if any of those in (intermediate) housing need. 25.6 There is no form of newbuild housing that occupies the other two gaps at all. In other words, households who wish to buy, and cannot easily find what they need on the second hand market are unable to buy anything unless they have a very high financial capacity and can buy new: they have to ‘leap the gaps’. The Government has, in PPS3, said that ‘low cost market’ housing is market housing, but have then rather blurred the statement by saying that market housing is not constrained by anything except market demand. In that case there will be no such thing as ‘low cost market’. Clarification from DCLG is awaited on this point before policy implications can be made regarding its suitability in REAP. Summary and conclusion 25.7 It can clearly be seen from this brief discussion that the newbuild housing market is a quite limited place: either households can social rent, or buy new, while a small number may access intermediate housing. It is a polarised world. It is clearly not a housing ladder, so much as a housing cliff face that most people face. 25.8 It is to be hoped that more measures will be brought in to address the issue and produce a wider priced range of newbuild. In the meantime the following two chapters address the only practical aspects of newbuild that exist: affordable (social rented and intermediate) and newbuild for sale.
P a g e 1 4 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 26. Policy on newbuild affordable housing Introduction 26.1 Affordable housing policy, based on rigorous housing needs assessment, has been an important part of housing strategy and planning policy ever since 1991. However DCLG and its predecessors have never provided any clear mechanism for getting from an assessment of the annual requirement for new affordable housing, and a target (whether urban or rural). This can be clearly seen from the three individual district HNS, which contain an exercise from the 2000 ODPM (as it then was) Guide on how to calculate a target. 26.2 The results are 127% of the total build target as affordable (Breckland), 153% (Kings Lynn and West Norfolk) and finally 363% (North Norfolk). These results indicate that at the general level, any target would be justified in each of these Council areas. However, since the newbuild for sale cannot carry more than 50% of affordable housing in typical situations, these targets are likely to be adjusted to a more practical level. 26.3 In reality, therefore, the targets are set by custom and practice: what other councils with similar levels of housing need have proposed, and after examination by Planning Inspectors, adopted. That is the best that can be done at present, and is the approach adopted here. 26.4 The structure of this chapter is that the overall targets for urban and rural areas, and for types of affordable housing are considered first, followed by the size profile and other considerations. Affordable housing evidence base for districts 26.5 The evidence will be considered. Within the overall housing needs estimate, presented above, calculations have been carried out for the three districts of REAP. Table 26.1 Comparison of current and previous HNS results Nature of figures Breckland King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Needs level in previous survey (2002, 2002, 600 466 2003 respectively) Fordham Research Index in previous survey 12 8 (2002, 2002, 2003 respectively) Current needs level 964 797 Current Fordham Research Index 18 13 Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 26.6 North Norfolk 509 12 921 20 The following table provides figures for the types of affordable housing need: Table 26.2 Summary of need by tenure District Breckland Kings Lynn and West Norfolk North Norfolk Social rented need Intermediate need 760 204 582 215 722 199 Source: District level HNS reports 2006 Total need 964 797 921 Affordable housing targets for non­rural sites 26.7 Guidance suggests that rural sites should be treated differently from urban ones (para 30 of PPS3). This section addresses the non­rural sites which although only a small fraction of REAP's area, may well provide the bulk of the affordable housing numbers. Based on the evidence, the following targets are proposed:
P a g e 1 4 6 2 6 . Po l i c y o n n ewb u i l d a f f o r da b l e h o u si n g Table 26.3 Draft affordable housing target proposals Affordable housing Social rented Intermediate District Total Breckland 35% 10% 45% Kings Lynn and West Norfolk 30% 10% 40% North Norfolk 35% 10% 45% Source: District level HNS reports 2006 26.8 The targets for intermediate housing are dependent on it being priced at the usefully affordable point ­ halfway between a social rent level and market entry. If it is not possible to produce intermediate housing priced at the usefully affordable point then that need will have to be met via social rented housing. 26.9 It is important to re­emphasise that in practice it is very hard to produce ‘affordable intermediate housing’. Shared ownership is the commonest variety, and it commonly costs nearly as much as market entry, if not more. In the latter case it is only useful to those households which have quite high incomes but who cannot for various reasons qualify for a full mortgage (with shared ownership they typically only have to raise a 50% mortgage). A shared ownership property may be affordable for households that may be in a small amount of debt. 26.10 The analysis of ‘Usefully affordable (intermediate) housing’ above (Chapter 24) indicated that to be reasonably affordable intermediate housing should cost halfway between a social rent level and market entry. Market entry costs are to be found in Table 8.8. 26.11 In the all too possible event that the intermediate housing target cannot be met, due to the absence of genuinely affordable intermediate housing, the only solution is social rented housing. Although shared ownership can often be readily sold to those not in housing need, that is a solution to a different problem from the affordable one which the Government has identified in the long line of Guidance beginning in 2001 and currently ending with the draft PPS3 of December 2005. Affordable housing targets for rural sites (including exceptions sites) 26.12 There is justification in similar cases for seeking the same sort of level of target as shown in Table 26.3. However as rural sites often present themselves as very small, it is more realistic to assume a blanket 50% target for rural purposes. 26.13 In terms of site threshold, this is left up to councils in rural areas (formerly with settlements of 3,000 and below, and prospectively in settlements of 10,000 and below). In these cases a threshold of two or three dwellings seems sensible: the level of housing need is high, and there is very little affordable housing in the two types of rural area identified in the rural section of this report. Hence the lowest practical target is the best. 26.14 Any policy based on this evidence should, of course, encourage traditional rural exceptions housing, which depends on the subsidy of being located on cheaper (unallocated) rural land and will be 100% affordable. Size and type of affordable housing 26.15 Some of the considerations required by PPS3 (para 29) are very local and some are part of the wider planning of the area (e.g. regarding play space) but specifically the PPS requires (in the same para) guidance to be given on the size and mix of affordable housing. 26.16 Detailed evidence is presented on the size of the dwellings required according to affordable tenure (in Chapter 7 of the three REAP HNS reports, to which reference should be made for more detail). In broad terms the main requirements are as follows:
P a g e 1 4 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Breckland: One bedroom flats, two bedroom houses and four bedroom houses within the social rented sector. Three bedroom houses, one bedroom flats and four bedroom houses for intermediate accommodation. King’s Lynn and West Norfolk: All accommodation types with the exception of two bedroom flats within the social rented sector. Two bedroom houses for intermediate accommodation. North Norfolk: One bedroom flats within the social rented sector. One bedroom flats for intermediate accommodation. 26.17 There is a degree of need for most sizes, and so any policy would need to be flexible: obtaining what best suits the site and contributes towards the overall district level need as well as possible. Like all such policy it has to compromise: the whole housing need cannot be met, and it is a matter of sub­optimisation. 26.18 The table below shows the dwelling type preferences and expectations of households that both would like and expect to move to affordable accommodation. The table clearly indicates that whilst detached properties are most commonly preferred amongst existing households semi­detached properties are most commonly expected. The table also shows that flats are most appropriate for newly forming households and some retirement households. Table 26.4: Future affordable dwelling type intentions by household type Newly forming HH Retirement aged HH (60+) Remaining HH Detached 13.0% 51.6% 46.6% Semi­detached 10.0% 14.3% 36.2% Terraced 6.9% 5.9% 11.7% Flat 70.1% 28.2% 5.4% Detached 0.0% 19.3% 13.2% Semi­detached 8.7% 23.5% 30.4% Terraced 15.7% 18.4% 36.8% WOULD LIKE EXPECT Flat 26.19 75.6% 38.8% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 19.6% There is a clear preference for detached affordable housing to be built. However, density targets and the relative expense of building this form of accommodation (as opposed to terraced housing) may limit the feasibility of developers providing a large amount of detached affordable housing. The type of housing mix provided will have to be agreed by the developer and the Council on a site by site basis, although a clear indication is given in chapter 7 of the individual HNS reports as to the suitable mix of flats and houses. Other matters 26.20 PPS3 requires other matters to be addressed, such as the viability of provision and levels of public subsidy. The first of these has been indirectly addressed in the choice of proposed target levels: such levels have been tested in similar situations and found to be viable, although each site is individual and circumstances will vary. On some sites there will be circumstances that make a given target infeasible. The problem is that the developers of each site have a strong incentive to minimise the cost of affordable housing, and thus to argue for a reduction of the target and a higher provision of intermediate (which is cheaper to provide) than social rented housing. This must be borne in mind in framing policy on the matter. As far as public subsidy is concerned, this outside the scope of the present study.
P a g e 1 4 8 2 6 . Po l i c y o n n ewb u i l d a f f o r da b l e h o u si n g Size and type of market housing 26.21 It is logical at this stage to discuss the size and mix of market housing that should be sought in REAP. 26.22 Detailed evidence is presented on the size of the dwellings required according to market tenure (in Chapter 8 of the three REAP HNS reports, to which reference should be made for more detail). In broad terms the main requirements are as follows: Breckland: One and two bedroom flats and three and four bedroom houses.. King’s Lynn and West Norfolk: One and two bedroom flats. North Norfolk: One bedroom flats and two bedroom houses. 26.23 This is the demand when the requirements of the local population are prioritised. There is increased demand for larger three and four bedroom houses in all areas if new build housing growth is larger and includes further demand from in­migrant households. The type of population the Council hope to house with the new market housing in the area will affect the size breakdown of market housing they pursue from developers. 26.24 The table below shows the dwelling type preferences and expectations of households that both would like and expect to move to market accommodation. The table clearly indicates that whilst detached properties are both most commonly preferred and, in the case of existing households, most commonly expected. Table 26.5 Future market dwelling type intentions by household type Newly forming HH Retirement aged HH (60+) Remaining HH Detached 50.7% 67.7% 83.8% Semi­detached 16.1% 7.5% 8.8% Terraced 12.4% 3.0% 2.6% Flat 20.8% 21.8% 4.8% Detached 17.4% 48.2% 48.0% Semi­detached 16.8% 18.7% 31.8% Terraced 21.2% 5.4% 9.6% WOULD LIKE EXPECT Flat 26.25 44.7% 27.7% Source: Fordham Research REAP SHMA 2006 10.6% There is a clear preference for detached market housing to be built however developers are most likely to know the appropriate mix of housing types within the size guidelines provided in chapter 8 of the HNS to ensure that the properties are desirable. Summary 26.26 There is a very substantial need for affordable housing across REAP. It has risen substantially in the past half decade since the previous studies of this kind, as prices and rents have risen faster than incomes, and new supply has been very limited. There is a need for both social rented and intermediate housing in all three districts. 26.27 Bearing in mind the absolute level of need and the feasibility (in terms of viability but also housing mix and sustainability) of a given target level the targets proposed for Breckland and North Norfolk are 45% and for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk is 40%. In each case 10% of this target is proposed as intermediate, with suitable caveats about the difficulty of delivering intermediate housing that is ‘usefully affordable’. In rural areas, on small sites, a blanket target of 50% is more practical.
P a g e 1 4 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 26.28 The size of affordable accommodation required varies in each of the different Councils and guidance should be obtained directly from the individual HNS. These documents also indicate the amount of affordable housing that should be flats and houses. Although there is a preference for detached houses the appropriate mix of housing types is a matter for policy decision.
P a g e 1 5 0 2 7 . Po l i c y o n n ewb u i l d h o u s i n g o v er a l l 27. Policy on newbuild housing overall Introduction 27.1 This chapter addresses the issue of overall totals for newbuild, including the affordable housing element discussed in the previous chapter. The chapter begins by considering the overall flows into REAP. Net in­migrants to REAP 27.2 The analysis in Chapter 13, mainly from Table 13.1, provides evidence on the flows of households into and out of REAP. They permit calculation of the net in­migration to REAP in 2006. 27.3 The first step is to consider the new households coming in: 1,278 (existing households with no children) + 659 (households with children) + 483 (newly forming households) = 2,420 new in­migrant households 27.4 The full calculation has to take into account net dissolutions within REAP (mainly deaths) which are 1,887 pa for 2006) and newly forming households settling within REAP (2,203 from Table 13.1). This produces the final figure: 2,420 ­1,887 + 2,203 = 2,736 extra households settling in REAP each year at present. 27.5 This contrasts with the 2001 Census figure which is 2,770 extra households. This suggests an almost identical figure to the Census and a continued net inflow of households, which is consistent with the many attractive features of REAP from the point of view of inward migration. The present situation on overall housing targets 27.6 The draft RSS figure is for 1,760 new dwellings per annum in REAP, as has recently been confirmed. The Balancing Housing Markets (BHM) analysis done in this SHMA has indicated that there is demand for a great many more new dwellings than the current target would permit. 27.7 When due allowance is made for the proportion of non­newbuild for sale housing in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (i.e. a general assumption of 40% achieved affordable housing) the feasible overall newbuild target could be raised to 3,127 as shown in the table below. Table 27.1 Overall newbuild targets BHM overall newbuild Draft RSS target Annual newbuild 1,180 760 850 830 600 Na North Norfolk 1,197 400 487 Total for REAP 3,207 1,760 na Location Breckland Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Source: SHMA 2007, Draft RSS and related material, and Table 5.3 of the SHMA for the completions figures: no data is available for Kings Lynn and West Norfolk 27.8 This suggests that another 1,367 new dwellings could be built in REAP per annum, over and above the present draft target. However it does not support the much more even distribution across the districts proposed in the RSS. It suggests almost a reversal of the direction of the RSS targets: the highest being in North Norfolk, rather than the lowest.
P a g e 1 5 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 27.9 This is not altogether surprising: it is clear that North Norfolk is a high demand area and as such many more dwellings could be built than have been. That does not imply that such a course of action would be sensible in any wider view of the matter, but merely that the market demand is there. Implications for RSS target 27.10 It may well be the policy conclusion that the environmental and other capacity issues for North Norfolk could not admit of this sort of level of increase, and that is exactly the kind of policy process that is supposed to follow the SHMA. 27.11 PPS3 does say (Annex C) that SHMA’s should help to determine of the overall targets for HMA’s, but in this case the process of the RSS is well advanced and so it may be difficult to take the evidence into account at this stage for the present RSS round. Summary 27.12 The BHM analysis has shown that a target of as much as twice the 1,600 ­ 1800 level proposed by the RSS is quite feasible in REAP. However it does not support the much more even distribution across the districts proposed in the RSS. It suggests almost a reversal of the direction of the RSS targets: the highest being in North Norfolk, rather than the lowest. 27.13 The findings of the SHMA are supported in broad terms by the completions data (except for Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, where they are not available). This does not mean that the RSS target should be raised, but that the evidence of the SHMA should be borne in mind in the process of finalising the RSS targets for REAP.
P a g e 1 5 2 2 7 . Po l i c y o n n ewb u i l d h o u s i n g o v er a l l P a g e 1 5 3
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 28. Stakeholder comments on the SHMA process and outputs Introduction 28.1 This chapter summarises the results of a seminar held to discuss the results of the SHMA with stakeholders. A fuller account of that meeting will be found in the Technical Appendix at E1. The event 28.2 Various stakeholder meetings were held through the SHMA process, and a newsletter was issued to keep stakeholders informed in the periods between meetings. The final stakeholder meeting was held on 19 th April 2007. The stakeholders were provided with a ‘final draft’ of the main SHMA report. The initial step was a PowerPoint presentation containing key information from the SHMA, and this was followed by a discussion. This chapter summarises key issues which arose from the discussion. Key issues from the discussion 28.3 The relatively older profile of in­migrants to the sub­market was raised as an issue, which it undoubtedly is. However it is not one which can readily be addressed while there is free movement of those who can afford to do so. Limiting newbuild would not stop retired people from moving into the area. 28.4 The difficulty of relating the REAP SHMA to other neighbouring SHMAs was highlighted. This difficulty arises from the fact that no single procedure has been set by CLG for deriving the key results, and so apart from the timing of production of reports (REAP is the first in its area) there is difficulty in making comparisons. This said, the REAP SHMA is full in conformity with PPS3 and relevant Guidance. 28.5 It was agreed that the issue of using existing equity for either assisting children to purchase, or using it to help in adapting dwellings to support increasing frailty in old age were important issues. In neither case could the SHMA provide conclusions, but clearly these were issues for future consideration. 28.6 Concern was expressed on behalf of developers (by a major East Anglian housebuilder who is not a member of the HBF described in the paragraph below) about the issue of providing enough new housing to meet housing demand and also the requirement to provide affordable housing as part of sites which acts to reduce the amount of market housing which is provided. Neither of these issues is capable of being dealt with in an SHMA, although the SHMA will inform the policy process which does decide on levels of newbuild and affordable housing. 28.7 A further stakeholder meeting was held on 23 rd July 2007 at the request of the Home Builders Federation (HBF). This body had been unable to provide a representative at two of the three stakeholder meetings prior to this date, and requested a meeting to discuss the SHMA. The discussion served to inform the HBF of the process that had been followed, but did not raise any further substantive points Conclusions 28.8 The discussions reported here, which follow the earlier stakeholder meetings that had helped to shape the SHMA, assisted stakeholders to understand the meaning of the SHMA results. It did not identify any areas which could have been included but were not, but did suggest areas where the SHMA will be used to consider policy approaches.
P a g e 1 5 4 2 9 . Co mp li a n c e wi t h Gu i d a nc e 29. Compliance with Guidance Introduction 29.1 As discussed in the second chapter of this report, Guidance is now much more demanding and much more specific about what the evidence base should yield. It is therefore appropriate to provide an account of the output of the study in terms of the requirements. 29.2 The Practice Guidance sets out requirements for the outputs and also for the process of an SHMA. The outputs are dealt with below in relation to the PPS3 requirements, since they are the dominant Guidance. First, however, this chapter comments on fulfilment of the process requirements. Process requirements 29.3 The Practice Guidance Figure 1.2 provides a checklist of process requirements. The following list of seven items paraphrases the requirement, and then summarises the response. i) Approach to identifying the sub­market: this work was carried out by DTZPieda before the SHMA was done and was subject to its own scrutiny process ii) Housing market conditions to be assessed in the local context: the report contains local market information at many points iii) Involves stakeholders: as recounted in Chapters 3 and 27 particularly, there has been a full involvement of stakeholders in the process iv) Full technical explanation. There are technical explanations at relevant points in the text and also a separate set of Technical Appendices v) Assumptions and judgements fully justified and transparent: A Glossary of key terms is provided, and where assumptions and judgements have been made, they are explained as clearly as possible vi) Uses and reports on quality control mechanisms. This is reported on in the Appendices as regards the survey work, and via the transparent explanation of such processes as the BHM and the CLG Needs model in the text vii) Explains about monitoring and updating: the preceding chapter sets out the approach which is suggested 29.4 In this way the process requirements of the Guidance are met Output requirements of PPS3 29.5 For ease of reference (from Figure 1.2 above) the following are the key outputs of a SHMA as required by PPS3:
· · · The likely overall proportions of households that require market or affordable housing, for example, x% market housing and y% affordable housing.
The likely profile of household types requiring market housing e.g. multi­person, including families and children (x%), single persons (y%), couples (z%).
The size and type of affordable housing required’
P a g e 1 5 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Provision of the PPS3 outputs 29.6 The following table shows what the outputs are, and where they can be found in the report. Table 29.1: Meeting the PPS3 Requirements Item Source Comment a) Proportion of market and affordable housing Table 15.8 The BHM suggests a ratio of about 66% market housing and 34% affordable housing. b) Profile of households requiring market housing (and from the Practice Guidance the additional requirement for dwelling types c) Size and type of affordable housing required In terms of size: owner occupied housing of all but 1­bed size; for private renters 1­bed only; for intermediate and social rented housing mainly 2­ beds Tables 15.8 and 13.1 From the point of view of types of household: about half of the households moving are without children (usually older); about 30% have children (usually younger) and 20% are newly forming. For house types: about 28% of the requirement is for flats, mainly 1­ and 2­bed Tables 25.3 and 15.8 Overall targets of 45% (Breckland and North Norfolk) and 40% (Kings Lynn and West Norfolk) are proposed. In each case 10% would be intermediate housing (ie the social rented total targets are 35% and 30% respectively). This assumes intermediate housing at the usefully affordable level; if it cannot be provided, then the only means of meeting the target is social rented housing. In terms of size, the requirement is mainly for 2­bed houses but some 1­bed and a few 4­beds. Source: REAP SHMA Fordham Research 2007: sources as shown in the middle column Summary 29.7 This chapter summarises the way in which the process and output requirements of Guidance have been met.
P a g e 1 5 6 2 9 . Co mp li a n c e wi t h Gu i d a nc e P a g e 1 5 7
Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t 30. Monitoring and updating Introduction 30.1 One of the central features of the Guidance is that SHMAs are collaborative and continuing processes, not just production of a report. This requirement is implied by the Local Development Framework approach and the strong emphasis on flexibility in the response to changing housing market demands (eg para 60 of PPS3). This emphasis is mirrored in the Practice Guidance, where Figure 1.1 gives the key outputs but is matched by Figure 1.2 which provides a checklist of the key processes within the overall SHMA. The last of these process requirements is: ‘Explain how the assessment findings have been monitored and updated (where appropriate) since it was originally undertaken’ 30.2 The rapid movement of prices and rents, and the key importance of the checklist of (weekly) costs of different tenures/sizes of dwellings provided in this SHMA, makes it evident that monitoring and updating is an essential part of the process. 30.3 The key thing is to update the weekly costs: they are the key to most practical policy decisions on both planning and housing issues. This issue is dealt with last, after discussing the more general types of updating. Scope of this discussion 30.4 Monitoring and updating occurs at all levels from national to local. This SHMA is designed to apply at sub­ district, district and HMA level, and so the comments in this chapter are directed to that level. However the principles involved apply generally. 30.5 This section focusses upon updating rather than monitoring. Monitoring refers largely to the administrative issue of keeping change under review and developing a strategy for reviewing the SHMA and updating it, and considering what policy implications may flow from such updates. This is a matter which the SHMA Partnership will want to discuss, but it does not raise technical issues and is therefore not addressed further here. Guidance context 30.6 The SHMA exists to support a wide policy spectrum: both at the local authority and higher level (particularly the Regional Spatial Strategy and Regional Housing Strategy). In the past these strategies have tended to be almost entirely top down. However the emerging SHMA’s have meant that RSS’s are now taking aboard the local housing market results and being amended to respond to them. This process requires an updating procedure to be in place due to the periodic reviews that such policies undergo. At the same time the cycle of revision of such policies provides a key reference point for the updating of key SHMA information. 30.7 Apart from the major policy documents such as the RSS, there are regular productions such as Annual Monitoring reports and statistical returns to CLG which will require updated key statistics from the SHMA. Updating the general findings 30.8 There are a wide range of data sources from which the general (secondary data) findings of this SHMA can be updated. A useful list will be found in Annex B of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Practice Guidance. That list is very comprehensive as to sources. The following table takes it a stage further by outlining the strengths and weaknesses of the key sources. This is something which the non­professional user may not know, and so it may be useful to provide some guidance.
P a g e 1 5 8 3 0 . M o n it o r in g a n d u p d at i n g Table 30.1 Secondary data sources: strengths and weaknesses Topic and source Frequency/scale Strengths and Weaknesses (1) Survey of English Housing: a wide range of socio­ economic data on housing Annual; national and regional (sample c 20,000) Excellent contextual source on all aspects of housing. Its weakness is that no further cross­tabulation is possible and supply and demand issues are not covered. In addition its scale does not permit accurate analysis at SHMA scale (2) English House Condition Survey. Mainly useful for housing stock evidence. Due to be combined with (1). Annual; national and regional (sample 10,000) Very good for provision of housing stock numbers at regional scale; also provides much detail on the ‘decency’ and general state of housing. Not as directly relevant to housing market analysis as (1) but valuable for the overall evidence base 10 years; available at very local areas The best source for many background purposes (e.g. migration, housing stock profile, travel to work and socio­ economic data). The greatest strength of the Census is the ability to provide useful data down to small areas level (e.g. wards). The main weakness of this source for SHMA purposes is that it is now somewhat out of date and does not contain the key financial data. (4) General Household Survey (GHS). Annual; down to regional scale Excellent descriptive background source (including information about income levels). However, this source is of little practical use in SHMA analysis for similar reasons to the Survey of English Housing ((1) above). (5) NOMIS website [contains many other general data sources] Available all the time and at many scales The best ready source for most secondary data. The website holds data from a range of sources and much of the economic data (e.g. unemployment and employment growth) is very up to date. This source should however be considered mainly as providing valuable background information. (6) Population projections (ONS) Annually updated; regional and district level They are conveniently detailed, and provide information about the changing population structure (e.g. ageing) as well as overall population growth. As these are trend based from national data caution needs to be exercised where build rates (and hence population change) differs from that which has happened in the past. (7) Household projections (CLG) Due to be every 2 years; regional and usually district level availability; annual mid­year estimates are produced for districts Bi­annual; national A useful source in conjunction with the population estimates ((6) above) and a vital background series. The only commonly available projections for 15­20 year horizons. As with (6) above caution needs to be exercised where dwelling build rates are expected to differ from past trends as the projections are no policy lead. Quarterly or annual; national, regional and district Extremely useful as it is the best source for migration in between the 10 year censuses. The main limitation of this source is that data may be biased by the fact that younger men and more mobile people are less likely to register. As it is collected at an individual rather than household level there are
(3) 2001 Census (8) English Longitudinal Survey of Ageing (NCSR) (9) National Health Service (NHS) Central Register Valuable background source. Useful for health; general economic situation and quality of life. Able to put some information into context but not of any great practical value at the level of a typical SHMA P a g e 1 5 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t further limitations to its use in SHMA analysis. (10) Inland Revenue income data Annual; regional and district Valuable as background data on incomes; limited usefulness in SHMA work as it is personal (not family) and cannot be correlated with other information (such as equity, household characteristics) (11) Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) Annual; regional and some district level data The best source for individual income, but it is employment and individual, not home and household based. Moreover it is not possible to relate the data to housing and other financial data needed for SHMA analysis. (12) CORE (U of St Andrews Annual; district The best source for social rents and also provides some information about the households taking up social renting tenancies Continuous; very local By far the best source for both local house prices and rents. It is quicker to scan this than to look at other secondary sources and much more up to date. Some caution needs to be exercised when using this source (notably to check sample sizes of properties and also to note the difference between asking prices and achieved sale prices). (14) Land Registry Sales of all housing Quarterly; postcode sector By far the best background source on value of dwellings. It does not contain information on size of property nor on repair costs, and so it cannot be directly used in SHMA analysis. However it provides the only reliable dynamic source for past price changes. This information is excellent to put SHMA areas into context with regional and national data (15) Housing Strategy Statistical Annex (HSSA) CLG Annual; district A good source for current housing at district level, especially figures for the Housing Register and newbuild affordable housing. It is dependent on forms returned by district, and is of very variable accuracy. Many districts, when approached directly, produce different statistics to the HSSA. (16) Annual survey of mortgage lenders Annual; regional The most comprehensive source for overall mortgage amounts and types. It does not (and nor do those of particular lenders) provide the full range of financial capacity for the households concerned, and so is of limited direct use in SHMA analysis. (17) Valuation Office Agency: value of properties sold Quarterly; postcode sector Excellent source, now subject to a charge though; it simply provides valuation for the stock of housing and again cannot be cross­tabulated reliably with other data. Annual; district The best source for value of properties in a district; can be rendered of little value if there are wide areas of for example low priced housing, all in Band A Quarterly; district The best source for employment trends (although mainly at national and regional level). Much of the data from this survey can be accessed through the NOMIS website 4­5 years; district or lower Key reference as a general description of the circumstance of the population, with obvious focus on deprivation (income, health, education, disabilities, barriers to housing). Regular; regional and district Forecasts exist (e.g. Oxford Economic Forecasting) in considerable detail at district level showing changes in types of
(13) Rightmove (and other similar websites) (18) Council Tax Band data (from districts) (19) Labour Force Survey ONS (20) Index of multiple deprivation CLG (21) Economic forecasts Treasury P a g e 1 6 0 3 0 . M o n it o r in g a n d u p d at i n g and commercial sources employment, and migration for decades ahead. Whilst such forecasts cannot be regarded as definitive they do provide useful background to an SHMA Source: Annex B to the CLG Practice Guidance (March 2007); and Fordham Research 2007 30.9 There are many other possible sources, and the list in the Annex is longer than this one. However the other sources are more minor, and are more readily accessed through such sites as NOMIS (by topic). Primary dataset 30.10 The key primary update for a SHMA is the weekly costs aspect, addressed via the tables below. However local information on, for example, new variants of intermediate housing will no doubt be sought, and should brought into the process. Similarly with new ideas from the press that seem capable of local application. Thus there are a wide range of informal updating processes which simply require initiative, rather than detailed analysis. 30.11 At the more formal level, a convincing SHMA requires a combination of secondary (existing) and primary (specifically gather local survey) data. The sources listed above will help to update the secondary data. It is not readily possible to update the primary data without specialist analysis. That is because the dataset is very large (requiring an analytical programme called SPSS) and because the process of (re) analysing it involves a complex expertise which is not widely available. 30.12 In practice this is not a serious drawback. Market behaviour and expectations change all the time. Some of this behaviour is simply a response to changing costs of types of housing. That element of market behaviour can be readily updated using the procedure detailed in the table above. That, and a general updating using the secondary sources listed in the tables below is probably the limit of what can readily be done by stakeholders without specialist support. 30.13 However that is all that is reasonably required for a number of years after the primary data is gathered. Short term market responses will be catered for by the procedures listed in this chapter. Longer term structural changes are likely to required monitoring only at much longer intervals such as 5 yearly. In that longer perspective it is not unreasonable to expect to have to do further primary survey. Many of the households in the original survey will have changed by the time of a second one, and only new survey work can find out about them. Triggers for updating 30.14 As discussed, there are data requirements which act as triggers for updating key figures at, for instance, annual intervals. There are also regular publications such as the ONS series on economic growth, and the Land Registry, which provide context for alerting SHMA Steering Groups to the need for more frequent updating. 30.15 We would recommend fairly frequent (at least quarterly) updating of the key tabulation of weekly costs. The rate of change in this will serve as a key indicator of how frequently the core data needs to be updated. Updating weekly costs 30.16 It has been emphasised through this report that the old focus on price/income ratios is not relevant to SHMA work. Financial capacity is the appropriate measure for the ability to afford. However it has been emphasised that the main focus should be upon comparative prices and rents: what are the housing market gaps and how are they changing? That is what governs the issue of how fast people can ‘climb the housing ladder’. 30.17 The most fundamental set of data for monitoring and updating is therefore the tabulation of weekly cost equivalents for purchase and rental. That is the main focus of the updating suggestions here, as it is both (relatively) simple and central. As a first step a couple of related issues will be addressed, followed by specific instruction on the updating process.
P a g e 1 6 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Why not update incomes as well as the weekly costs of housing? 30.18 The short answer is: because it is not relevant. There is no problem with updating incomes (indices exist for doing so) but it will not help with the question of affordability and policy for newbuild housing generally. 30.19 The key point to emphasise is that the issue of affordability is about the different costs to types (and tenures) of housing. Whether a household can afford social rent or outright purchase is a financial matter, but as emphasised in this report, income is only part of the answer to that question: financial capacity is the key measure. 30.20 But from the point of view of planning and housing policy and practice the key updating issue is the relative costs of types/tenures of housing. The SHMA has indicated the ability to afford housing in general. The policy issues which will arise from day to day are of a different type, for example: 30.21 (i) A housebuilder offers what is stated to be affordable housing of 2 bedrooms at a cost of £X per week. Is it affordable? All that needs to be done is to ensure that the costs are on a comparable and complete weekly basis, and the answer takes a few moments when comparing it with the cost table below. (ii) An RSL proposes shared ownership homes at a given price. Again when reduced to an overall weekly cost (including management/service charges) by making the purchase element into a weekly cost, the comparison with the table will soon show if the product is indeed intermediate or low cost market. (iii) When negotiating S106 Agreements reference to updated versions of this table will serve the purpose of ensuring that what is agreed to be housing of a given affordability really is As can be seen, all this important operational policy information can be derived directly from the table: no need for any elaborate calculation. How to calculate the updated prices 30.22 Before putting the purchase and weekly rent costs on a common basis, as discussed in the next subsection, it is necessary to set out some points on the way in which a reasonable set of updated prices can be derived for a given (probably district) area. The following table sets out some guidance.
P a g e 1 6 2 3 0 . M o n it o r in g a n d u p d at i n g Table 30.2 Establishing new prices/rents 1. Prices/rents for each size of dwelling may vary substantially across a district (or Housing Market Area if different), often within short distances. It is therefore necessary to be careful in deriving district wide averages. 2. This tabulation sets out the issues to bear in mind when doing so, and should be treated as a general guide only. Each housing market has its individual characteristics which may suggest a somewhat different approach. 3. For social rents, the figures should be easily available within the Council’s records. The points below concern the weekly costs of other tenure groups. 4. Using Rightmove, or similar website, enter the names of the main settlements and request one of the key groupings. In each case the data should be by size of dwelling in the four main size bands indicated in the table below. (i) Market rent (ii) Second hand purchase (iii) Newbuild purchase (in this case there may be only a small sample in some cases, and so a degree of judgement will be necessary. For example there may be over­representation of one type/size of dwelling if there are only a few current housing schemes underway). A simple averaging may be misleading, if there are many sites in one part of a district and few or none in others. 5. Look for the 25 th percentile in each case: in other words the 25 th from the cheapest. Hence if there were 200 properties in a given band, the 50 th would be the chosen one 6. That rent/price is the new figure for the revised table. Where it is a price, rather than a rent, it will need to be turned into a weekly cost using the table below. Source: Fordham Research 2007 30.23 The next section describes a procedure for putting prices into a weekly cost format to enable comparison with rental information. The comparison could equally well be put into capital (ie equivalent to purchase) rather than weekly cost terms, but people are more familiar with weekly budgetting, and so weekly costs seem the more sensible approach. Putting purchase prices on a weekly cost basis 30.24 The following table explains how to put purchase prices on a weekly basis, for insertion into the table.
P a g e 1 6 3 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Table 30.3 Turning the purchase price for a house into a weekly cost 1. Procedure For interest only mortgage (which is preferable because it represents the cheapest method of entering the sector and therefore the entry level) Cost of home = C Interest rate = I Interest to be on mortgage to be paid per year = P Weekly Interest payment = W Number used to derive weekly cost of owner occupation = N C*I = P P/52 = W W/C = N 2. Example of how it works For example on a £50,000 home with an interest only mortgage rate of 5.99% the yearly payment will be £,2,995, which equates to £57.60 per week. Source: Fordham Research 2007 30.25 Once a full set of weekly costs has been obtained, this can be compared with the table in the SHMA, and rates of change in different parts of the size/tenure spectrum assessed. If the local housing market is strongly differentiated, this may need to be done for several sub­markets. Table 30.4 Comparative outgoings by tenure Social rent Intermediate Min private rent £ weekly Min price sale Approx min price sale £ weekly £ weekly £ weekly £ weekly Breckland 1 bed 53 74 95 132 185 2 bed 60 87 113 161 225 3 bed 65 99 133 185 259 4 bed 70 125 179 255 357 Kings Lynn & W Norfolk 1 bed 53 73 92 126 176 2 bed 61 85 110 148 207 3 bed 66 99 133 178 249 4 bed 71 122 173 246 344 North Norfolk 1 bed 54 76 98 150 210 2 bed 63 87 112 177 248 3 bed 69 107 144 210 294 4 bed 76 189 302 273 382 Western Coastal 1 bed 53/54 73/76 92/98 202 283 2 bed 61/63 85/87 110/112 222 311 3 bed 66/69 99/107 133/144 263 368 4 bed 71/76 122/189 173/302 341 477 Note Outgoings for purchase options assume variable rate 25 yr repayment mortgage. With interest only payments outgoings would reduce by approx 20% though benefits of ownership would be lost as the property would not be owned outright at the end of the mortgage term. Data for this table comes partly from the survey of estate and letting agents but mainly from a survey of website prices (mainly Rightmove).Both were carried out in 2006. Part of this table also appears as Table 24.1 above.
P a g e 1 6 4 3 0 . M o n it o r in g a n d u p d at i n g Policy use of the information 30.26 The revised table can be referred to in policy documents as a basic tool for assessing affordability. As emphasised above, it is not necessary to add income or financial capacity information. If the housing is cheaper than a given threshold, then it is affordable to the groups in question (those who can afford intermediate housing, or low cost market housing for example). 30.27 The revised table will, like that in this SHMA, represent a central policy tool both for the local authority to check the affordability of different types of housing (eg Intermediate or low cost market) and for private sector bodies to check the affordability of what they are offering. This tabulation should provide a neutral basis for comparison of alternative packages whether of market or affordable housing. Summary 30.28 It is a key feature of the SHMA that it be a continuing process, not a ‘one shot’ report. Updating and monitoring is therefore a key feature of that process. 30.29 Strategies are needed for regular monitoring and updating, and triggers may be added where rapid changes are noted. The procedure outlined here is addressed to the sub­market SHMA, but can be applied widely. 30.30 A listing is provided of the main secondary data sources which can be used to update the background information in the SHMA. This is valuable in conjunction with the updating of costs to provide an overall picture. 30.31 Updating the primary data is not easily carried out by SHMA Partnerships, as it is a technical exercise. This is not a serious drawback as the structure of a housing market does not usually change fundamentally in less than about 5 years. As a result, most market responses are due to changes in weekly costs of housing plus any general changes, such as net in or out migration which would be picked up through point (iv). 30.32 The key statistic is the weekly cost of different tenures/sizes of dwelling. It is not, as is still sometimes thought], price income ratios (now almost meaningless in housing market practice). It is therefore essential to be able to update the key table of weekly costs in this SHMA. A simple procedure is set out for doing this. 30.33 Thus a combination of updating the weekly costs matrix, and testing proposed new housing developments against it, plus background updating using the second and third tables in this section should enable the SHMA process to proceed constructively. The final ingredient is the commitment of the Steering Group. This cannot be made a written requirement, but clearly the will and drive of the Steering Group is in many ways the main route to successful evolution of the SHMA process.
P a g e 1 6 5 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t P a g e 1 6 6
Gl o s s a r y Glossary Affordability A measure of whether households can access and sustain the cost of private sector housing. There are two main types of affordability measure: mortgage and rental. Mortgage affordability assesses whether households would be eligible for a mortgage; rental affordability measures whether a household can afford private rental. Mortgage affordability is based on conditions set by mortgage lenders – using standard lending multipliers (2.9 times joint income or 3.5 times single income (whichever the higher)). Rental affordability is defined as the rent being less than a proportion of a household’s gross income (in this case 25% of gross income). Affordable housing Affordable housing includes social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Affordable housing should be at a cost which is below the costs of housing typically available in the open market and be available at a sub­market price in perpetuity (although there are some exceptions to this such as the Right­to­Acquire). Annual need The combination of the net future need plus an allowance to deal progressively with part of the net current need. Average The term ‘average’ when used in this report is taken to be a mean value unless otherwise stated. Current need Households whose current housing circumstances at a point in time fall below accepted minimum standards. This would include households living in overcrowded conditions, in unfit or seriously defective housing, families sharing, and homeless people living in temporary accommodation or sharing with others. Bedroom standard The bedroom standard is that used by the General Household Survey, and is calculated as follows: a separate bedroom is allocated to each co­habiting couple, any other person aged 21 or over, each pair of young persons aged 10­20 of the same sex, and each pair of children under 10 (regardless of sex). Unpaired young persons aged 10­20 are paired with a child under 10 of the same sex or, if possible, allocated a separate bedroom. Any remaining unpaired children under 10 are also allocated a separate bedroom. The calculated standard for the household is then compared with the actual number of bedrooms available for its sole use to indicate deficiencies or excesses. Bedrooms include bed­sitters, box rooms and bedrooms which are identified as such by respondents even though they may not be in use as such. Concealed household A household that currently lives within another household but has a preference to live independently and is unable to afford appropriate market housing. Disaggregation Breaking a numerical assessment of housing need and supply down, either in terms of size and/or type of housing unit, or in terms of geographical sub­areas within the District. Financial capacity This is defined as household income +savings+ equity (the value of the property owned by owner occupiers, typically the family home, net of mortgage. This provides an indication, when put on a capital basis, of the amount which the household could afford to pay for housing. Since equity is now a substantial part of the overall financial capacity of the large fraction of owner occupiers, it is essential to use this measure, rather than the old price/income ratio to measure the activity of a housing market.
P a g e 1 6 7 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t Forecast Either of housing needs or requirements is a prediction of numbers which would arise in future years based on a model of the determinants of those numbers and assumptions about (a) the behaviour of households and the market and (b) how the key determinants are likely to change. It involves understanding relationships and predicting behaviour in response to preferences and economic conditions. Grossing­up Converting the numbers of actual responses in a social survey to an estimate of the number for the whole population. This normally involves dividing the expected number in a group by the number of responses in the survey. Headship rates Measures the proportion of individuals in the population, in a particular age/sex/marital status group, who head a household. Projected headship rates are applied to projected populations to produce projected numbers of households. Household One person living alone or a group of people who have the address as their only or main residence and who either share one meal a day or share a living room. Household formation The process whereby individuals in the population form separate households. ‘Gross’ or ‘new’ household formation refers to households which form over a period of time, conventionally one year. This is equal to the number of households existing at the end of the year which did not exist as separate households at the beginning of the year (not counting ‘successor’ households, when the former head of household dies or departs). A household living within another household Is a household living as part of another household of which they are neither the head or the partner of the head. Households sharing Are households (including single people) who live in non­self­contained accommodation but do not share meals or a living room (eg 5 adults sharing a house like this constitute 5 one­person households). Housing demand The quantity of housing that households are willing and able to buy or rent. Housing market area The geographical area in which a substantial majority of the employed population both live and work, and where most of those changing home without changing employment choose to stay. In the local context the Council areas of Breckland, North Norfolk and North Norfolk have been designed as a housing market area, although sub­markets exist within this boundary. Housing need Housing need is defined as the number of households who lack their own housing or who live in unsuitable housing and who cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the market. Housing Register A database of all individuals or households who have applied to a LA or RSL for a social tenancy or access to some other form of affordable housing. Housing Registers, often called Waiting Lists, may include not only people with
P a g e 1 6 8 Gl o s s a r y general needs but people with support needs or requiring access because of special circumstances, including homelessness. Housing size Measured in terms of the number of bedrooms, habitable rooms or floorspace. This guidance uses the number of bedrooms. Housing type Refers to the type of dwelling, for example, flat, house, specialist accommodation. Intermediate Housing PPS3 defines intermediate housing as ‘housing at prices and rents above those of social rent but below market prices or rents and which meet the criteria set out above. These can include shared equity products (e.g. Homebuy), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent.’ Lending multiplier The number of times a household’s gross annual income a mortgage lender will normally be willing to lend. The most common multipliers quoted are 3.5 times income for a one­income household and 2.9 times total income for dual income households. Lower quartile The value below which one quarter of the cases falls. In relation to house prices, it means the price of the house that is one­quarter of the way up the ranking from the cheapest to the most expensive. Market housing/low cost market housing This is defined by CLG as anything not affordable. In the Housing Gaps Figure: anything above market entry. CLG has not defined ‘low cost market’ other than that it falls within the market range. Since this is very wide, it is not very helpful. The most useful kind of low cost market would be that which falls into the rent/buy gap on the Housing Gaps Figure. Shared ownership would provide a partial equity solution for those unable to afford second hand entry level purchase, for example. Mean The mean is the most common form of average used. It is calculated by dividing the sum of a distribution by the number of incidents in the distribution. Median The median is an alternative way of calculating the average. It is the middle value of the distribution when the distribution is sorted in ascending or descending order. Migration The movement of people between geographical areas, primarily defined in this context as local authority Districts. The rate of migration is usually measured as an annual number of households, living in the District at a point in time, who are not resident in that District one year earlier. Net need The difference between need and the expected supply of available affordable housing units (e.g. from the re­letting of existing social rented dwellings). Newly arising need
P a g e 1 6 9 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t New households which are expected to form over a period of time and are likely to require some form of assistance to gain suitable housing, together with other existing households whose circumstances change over the period so as to place them in a situation of need (e.g. households losing accommodation because of loss of income, relationship breakdown, eviction, or some other emergency). Non­self­contained accommodation Where households share a kitchen, bathroom or toilet with another household, or they share a hall or staircase that is needed to get from one part of their accommodation to another. Overcrowding An overcrowded dwelling is one which is below the bedroom standard. (See 'Bedroom Standard' above). Primary data Information that is collected from a bespoke data collection exercise (e.g. surveys, focus groups or interviews) and analysed to produce a new set of findings. Potential households Adult individuals, couples or lone parent families living as part of other households of which they are neither the head nor the partner of the head and who need to live in their own separate accommodation, and/or are intending to move to separate accommodation, rather than continuing to live with their ‘host’ household. Projection Either of housing needs or requirements is a calculation of numbers expected in some future year or years based on the extrapolation of existing conditions and assumptions. For example, household projections calculate the number and composition of households expected at some future date(s) given the projected number of residents, broken down by age, sex and marital status, and an extrapolation of recent trends in the propensity of different groups to form separate households. Random sample A sample in which each member of the population has an equal chance of selection. Relets Social rented housing units which are vacated during a period and become potentially available for letting to new tenants. Sample survey Collects information from a known proportion of a population, normally selected at random, in order to estimate the characteristics of the population as a whole. Sampling frame The complete list of addresses or other population units within the survey area which are the subject of the survey. Secondary data Existing information that someone else has collected. Data from administrative systems and some research projects are made available for others to summarise and analyse for their own purposes (e.g. Census, national surveys).
P a g e 1 7 0 Gl o s s a r y Shared equity schemes Provide housing that is available part to buy (usually at market value) and part to rent. Social rented housing PPS3 defines social rented housing as ‘rented housing owned by local authorities and registered social landlords, for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime, the proposals set out in the Three Year review of Rent Restructuring (July 2004) were implemented in policy in April 2006. It may also include rented housing owned or managed by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Housing Corporation as a condition of grant’ Stratified sample A sample where the population or area is divided into a number of separate sub­sectors (‘strata’) according to known characteristics, based for example on sub­areas and applying a different sampling fraction to each sub­sector. Specialised housing refers to specially designed housing (such as mobility or wheelchair accommodation, hostels or group homes) or housing specifically designated for particular groups (such as retirement housing). Under­occupation An under­occupied dwelling is one which exceeds the bedroom standard by two or more bedrooms. Unsuitably housed households All circumstances where households are living in housing which is in some way unsuitable, whether because of its size, type, design, location, condition or cost. Definitions ABI ­ Annual Business Inquiry BME ­ Black and Minority Ethnic CBL ­ Choice Based Lettings CORE ­ The Continuous Recording System (Housing association and local authority lettings/new tenants) DETR ­ Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions GIS ­ Geographical Information Systems HMO ­ Households in Multiple Occupation HSSA ­ The Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix IMD ­ Indices of Multiple Deprivation LA ­ Local Authority LCHO ­ Low Cost Home Ownership LDF ­ Local Development Framework NeSS ­ Neighbourhood Statistics Service NHSCR ­ National Health Service Central Register NOMIS ­ National On­line Manpower Information System NROSH ­ National Register of Social Housing ODPM ­ Office of the Deputy Prime Minister ONS ­ Office for National Statistics PPS ­ Planning Policy Statement RSL ­ Registered Social Landlord RSR ­ Regulatory and Statistical Return (Housing Corporation) RTB ­ Right to Buy SEH ­ Survey of English Housing
P a g e 1 7 1 Ru r a l Ea st An gl i a Pa r t n er s h i p – S tr a t eg i c Ho us i n g Ma r k et As s es s men t ­ Su b ­ Reg i o n a l Rep o r t TTWA ­ Travel to Work Area
P a g e 1 7 2