Ashfield DC 2008 housing_needs_assessment_and_analysis

Ashfield District Council

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

2008

Final Report December 2008

B. Line Housing Information Telephone 0116 270 6441 E mail [email protected] www.blinehousing.info

i

Ashfield Housing Needs Assessment and Analysis 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Housing Needs Assessment 2008 follows on from extensive research and strategy formulation to look in more detail at the nature and extent of housing need in Ashfield. It develops housing needs models at different spatial scales which can be monitored and updated on a regular basis, and which give an insight into the different causes, types and locations of need within the district. KEY POINTS SUMMARY • Needs modelling outputs provide evidence that need for social housing in Ashfield

currently stands at around 270 lets per year (or 50% of new supply). If house prices continue to fall as generally predicted, this figure falls to around 150 lets per year (or 30% of new supply). These figures do not account for the viability of providing this level of social housing.

• Need is present across all areas of Ashfield. The Rural market shows a particularly

high level of need as a proportion of supply, due to the limited capacity to provide new social housing in those less populated areas.

• Demand overall is generated mainly from the Northern markets of Sutton-in-Ashfield

and Kirkby-in-Ashfield. • New provision should consist mainly of 3 bed family housing, and 2 bed flats and

houses suitable for downsizing older households and single parent families. • The lower quartile entry price for housing in Ashfield is estimated to be

approximately £85,000 (based on prices between April 2006 to March 2008, representing a cost of approximately £500 per month). There is clear evidence that it is possible to buy property in Ashfield for this price or lower (particularly terraced housing). The lower quartile is likely to have dropped somewhat since March 2008.

• Needs modelling outputs suggest that at the latest lower quartile entry level price,

approximately 41% of people in Ashfield are unable to afford to purchase their own home. Average incomes in the district are estimated to be approximately £350 per week (NOMIS 2008) or £15 – 20,000 per year (CACI Paycheck 2007). The rental market can meet some of the demand generated by this affordability gap, but there is some evidence to suggest that there may be some lower expectations of being able to buy, even if prices are relatively lower, due to prevailing patterns of behaviour.

ii

Context Existing policy and housing strategy documents distinguish 3 main housing market areas within Ashfield District – North (Kirkby-in-Ashfield, Sutton-in-Ashfield and surrounding settlements); South (Hucknall); and Rural (Selston, Jacksdale, Underwood and other small rural settlements). Based on stakeholder feedback and house price variations, this study has further differentiated between Kirkby-in-Ashfield and Sutton-in-Ashfield in the north, and separates the western rural settlements of Selston, Jacksdale and Underwood from other rural settlements in the district. Although there is a rural element to Ashfield, the housing markets in the rural areas are not typical (house prices are not markedly higher, and they are not particularly isolated from the more urban settlements). According to ONS urban/rural definitions, the majority of Ashfield is urban and in fact is shown as an extension of the larger urban centres of Nottingham and Mansfield. Figure 1 ONS/Defra urban/rural definitions – Ashfield District and surrounding area

© Crown Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. Licence Number: 100018986 The breakdown of stock in Ashfield shows a majority of semi detached houses, which were the most common property type sold between March 2006 and April 2008 (based on Land Registry sales data). Around a fifth of properties at the 2001 Census were terraced houses. Many of these terraces contribute to the lowest rung of the housing ladder in Ashfield, accounting for the largest proportion of sales below the average lower quartile price. Although there were few flats at the 2001 Census, there have been a number of new developments since that time.

iii

The social, demographic and economic profile of Ashfield shows a strong working class culture with much evidence of the legacy of pit closures with regard to the skill, income and employment profile of much of the northern district. A highly significant proportion of the population works in routine or semi routine occupations, or lower managerial or technical positions. This profile is generally accompanied by a lower than average income. Ashfield shows slightly higher unemployment levels than the national and regional averages but this appears to be improving. In line with national trends, Ashfield shows evidence of a growing elderly population and shrinking average household size. Most of this shrinkage is attributable to a growing number of single elderly households. Figure 2 Ashfield Population change (2006-2026)

Population Change (2006-2026)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

% aged 20-64% pensionable age% over 80

Source: DCLG March 2007

iv

Key Findings The housing market in Ashfield, operates largely on a micro level. Although migrations data and local knowledge suggests people in Ashfield do not generally move between the three main housing areas (North, South and West), within these areas sales, rent levels, and demand for social housing can be differentiated down to street level. Prices can vary widely within a very small area, making the identification of more detailed submarkets in Ashfield particularly difficult. Strong links between Ashfield, Nottingham and Mansfield are well documented in existing research and documentation, and the finding is reiterated here. There is positive evidence that the introduction of the Nottingham Express Transit System and the Mansfield and Ashfield Regeneration Route (A617) have had an upward impact on the local housing market. The impact of the tram is notable on house prices and number of sales along the line, whereas the impact of the new route appears to have been to level out prices across the district. In the private owner-occupier market, most property sales in Ashfield between 2006 and 2008 were between £80,000 and £125,000, although a very wide range of prices is evident across the district. Although most sales were of semi detached houses, there were a significant number of sales of terraced houses which predominantly make up the lower end of the market. There is no clear link between low prices and area, or proximity to social housing as is sometimes argued, although at street level there are some patches with a slightly higher proportion of low cost sales, which should be monitored as being at risk of low demand. The price profile in Ashfield is most similar to that of nearby Mansfield. Figure 3 Comparison of average house prices: Nottingham Outer SHMA Local Authorities

Average Property Price Comparison

£0

£50,000

£100,000

£150,000

£200,000

£250,000

£300,000

£350,000

Overall Detached Flat Semi Terrace

Ashfield Mansfield Nottingham Amber Valley Newark & Sherwood

Source: Land Registry (2007-8)

v

Figure 4 Ashfield District: House Prices by Property Type

Source: Land Registry In the private rental sector, most of the supply is made up of 2 and 3 bed houses. There are a particularly high number of 2 bed flats being advertised for rent in Hucknall, several of which are newly built. The asking rent for 2 bed flats competes directly with the lower to middle section of the rental market for 3 bed houses across much of the district. Figure 5 Rental property advertised on www.rightmove.co.uk on 16 October 2008 Property search on rightmove No. advertised to rent Average asking price 1 Bed Flats 18 £ 366 2 Bed Flats 46 £ 386 3 Bed Flats 3 £ 400 4+ Bed Flats 2 £ 413 1 Bed Bungalows 1 £ 450 2 Bed Bungalows 10 £ 480 3 Bed Bungalows 4 £ 518 4+ Bed Bungalows 2 £ 850 1 Bed Houses 0 no data 2 Bed Houses 58 £ 433 3 Bed Houses 83 £ 504 4+ Bed Houses 24 £ 823

vi

Most of the demand for social housing is split between singles, lone parents and couples with children. The proportion of lone parents within Ashfield is relatively high compared to other surrounding local authorities, though similar to Mansfield, and lower than Nottingham. Most of the emerging need within Ashfield (70%) originates from the Northern settlements of Sutton-in-Ashfield and Kirkby-in-Ashfield. The majority of current demand for affordable housing has developed over the past 3 to 4 years, over which time the number on the waiting list has more than tripled. Within the social housing sector, lone parents are more likely to accept offers of affordable housing and are most often housed in 2 bed flats or houses. There is a clear shortage of affordable 2 bed houses in the district. CORE data shows most general needs lettings of social housing in Ashfield go to single adults and lone parent families. Single households are spread broadly across all age ranges, suggesting a wide range of housing needs. Single over 50 households are particularly prominent. A key finding in the CORE data is that a large proportion (40%) of people leaving the social sector are moving into private rented housing, suggesting that social housing forms a valid part of the local housing ladder. Figure 6 CORE General Needs Lettings (2006-08) by age and household type

General needs lets by age and household type

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

16 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 thru 70 over 70

1 adult

2 adults

1 adult & 1+ children

2+ adults & 1+ children

1 elder

2 elders

Other

Source: CORE 2006-8 Stakeholder feedback suggests that key issues in the market include an over supply of flats, especially new build apartments which are seen as poor value for money, and are difficult to rent or sell. Initiatives to assist with access to private rental housing for applicants on benefits would boost the market, as many prospective tenants are not

vii

accepted by private landlords because of difficulties with the process for paying rent. In particular, a deposit assistance scheme could benefit the housing market. Intermediate rent schemes are felt to lack a specific model – more guidance regarding this process would be beneficial. Although intermediate home ownership schemes had been selling relatively well according to local RSL sources, the need for this form of housing is likely to disappear should there be a further drop in house prices (this is detailed in the section on housing need). Housing need The estimates indicate that there is currently considerable housing need in Ashfield of up to 270 affordable lets a year, and that an increase in affordable supply of about a third over current levels is required to meet it. This represents up to 50% of new supply, but this proportion is unlikely to be either viable for sites to deliver or sensible in helping to achieve more balanced communities and mixed housing markets. The housing market is also changing and prices falling, and if households can in time access mortgages to buy at these lower prices then need could fall to some 150 a year, an increase of about a fifth on current levels of annual lets, or just under 30% of new supply. Figure 7 Summary of whole local authority needs model Needs estimate model Ashfield - whole LA lower quartile entry level price £ 85,000 deposit 10% balance to fund 90% income: mortgage multiplier 3.5 Policy period 7 resources from other sources 5% Backlog need - Housing register 4,217 emergers aged under 35 per year 835 Proportion unable to afford 41% So need from emergers 340 backlog need per year over policy period (7 years) 602 new need from owners losing their homes 79 Total need 1,022 Supply side Lettings & sales LA lettings gross 705 LA transfers 98 LA lettings net of transfers 607 RSL net lets 127 RSL sales 18 Net supply 751 Net shortfall per year 271

Source: Ashfield housing needs model.

viii

Intermediate housing The modelling suggests that if past entry level prices which give the higher needs estimates are used, then up to a third of the affordable housing provided could be intermediate such as shared ownership or submarket rental, always provided that these products are attractive and good value. However if prices fall to levels indicated by Estate Agents then the justification for intermediate housing in Ashfield disappears almost completely, and households falling into that income group will buy outright rather than take up intermediate affordable products. Needs in different areas Gross need generated in Ashfield is highest in the larger settlements. But because of low levels of supply of affordable lets in the rural areas these have a relatively much higher net need after taking supply into account. There is therefore a need for small scale additional supply in these areas every few years to meet the local shortfalls. Figure 8 Gross needs estimates by settlement

Settlement HUCKNALL JACKSDALE KIRKBY

SELSTON/ UNDERWOOD/ BRIMSLEY SUTTON

Average Price £ 125,000 £ 120,000 £ 111,000 £ 148,000 £ 105,000 Lower Quartile Price £ 95,000 £ 87,000 £ 80,000 £ 107,000 £ 74,000 % can't afford 54% 42% 45% 63% 45% emergers 171 18 144 52 226 emergers can't afford 92 8 64 33 101 housing register 1066 127 991 295 1745 over policy period 152 18 142 42 249 owners in problems 17 1 12 5 21 gross need 262 27 218 80 371 Source: Ashfield sub area needs model Figure 9 Net need by settlement

HUCK NALL

JACKS DALE KIRKBY


LA lets 174 8 154 33 261 RSL lets 21 41 66 Intermediate 8 8 Total supply 203 8 195 33 335 Proportion of net need 59 20 23 47 36 Need % applied to overall LA total 86 29 34 69 53 Sources: HSSA, CORE In the larger settlements needs pressures appear to be greater from young people leaving their parental home to go into one bedroom flats, and from single parents, who go mainly into two bedroom properties, including about a third of them into flats. There appears to be a tendency for families to leave social housing and go into private renting when they require a larger house.

ix

Type and size of housing required The optimum shape of the overall housing market can be estimated from projections and other data if households live in the type and size of housing likely to be suitable and acceptable for them taking account of their likely current housing, lifestage and lifestyle circumstances. Figure 10 Future demand by type and size – whole market Type and size number % of total 1beds flats 2927 5% 2 bed upsizing flats 3332 6% 2 bed houses 10151 18% 3 bed houses 21062 38% 3 bed flats/cluster 446 1% 2 bed downsizing flats/bungalows 13112 24% 1 /2 bed elderly/care 4234 8% Total 55264 100%

Source: CLG 2004 based household projections and HNS survey However this is only likely to happen to a limited extent, and many older, empty nester household do, and will continue to, ‘under-occupy’ in the crude sense that they have unused bedrooms. More family housing therefore needs to be provided to offset this under-utilisation of housing stock, until increased supply and natural causes improve the balance of supply and demand and functioning of the market. Using household projections for future need, and the housing register for backlog need, the type and size of affordable housing can be estimated. Figure 11 Type and size of housing required – future and backlog split

Needs by type & size future & backlog gross future need* gross backlog need component of need 98 173 1bed flats 5 9 2 bed upsizing flats 6 25 2 bed houses 18 101 3 bed houses 37 38 3 bed flats/cluster 1 2 bed downsizing flats/bungalows 23 0 1 /2 bed elderly/care 7 0 total 98 173

Source: derived from needs model, household projections, housing register. However these estimates should be carefully considered in the light of local circumstances and supply when any new development, scheme or intervention is considered. Front line knowledge may show that there is a particular local need, or there may be higher turnover of lettings which would meet the need for a particular type at that time. The emphasis should be on provision of properties which will help to create local housing ladders and improve the stability and functioning of the housing market system in general.

x

Housing Needs and Market Dynamics Data from the waiting list in Ashfield and CORE lettings data suggests a quite traditional approach to social housing by some sections. The Northern district in particular has a strong respectable working class culture, but which is now often linked to lower than average incomes and skills, after the demise in the 80’s and 90’s of traditional industries and mining. Aspiration to own may be limited by an assumption by some that this is out of reach - although indeed it has become so over recent years. The issues are wider than just housing, as is widely recognised in all social research in Ashfield. If a combination of measures can help to increase the opportunities for home ownership, for example through rent-to-buy schemes or other forms of financial assistance, and more stable employment, this could help further enhance social capital, wealth and independence. Innovative strategies to increase skill levels and therefore earning potential are also important in helping to reduce pressure on the social housing sector. Though the factors considered above clearly need to be addressed over the long term, the introduction of choice based lettings in Ashfield could help to establish target areas for policy development and attention in the shorter term. Ashfield Homes data on offers reveals a number of properties which were either unsatisfactory with respect to their type, size or condition; or in an unpopular location where most applicants prefer not to live. Local housing staff will probably already be very aware of which particular properties are unpopular or difficult to let, but the data presented in this report, and interpretations which emerge following the introduction of choice based lettings as well as from front line local knowledge, should provide Ashfield District Council with the necessary evidence to target such properties and deal with them accordingly. In some extreme cases a few properties may have become so stigmatised that the best approach could eventually be demolition, replacement and renewal. To reduce pressures on the waiting list it remains important that housing providers can offer accommodation that is suitable for households in need, in an area where they feel at home, by building local housing ladders in all tenures.

Ashfield housing needs assessment and analysis 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) Ashfield District Council: Area Profile ....................................................................................1-1

Figure 1:1 Ashfield Output Areas with Defra/ONS Urban/Rural Definitions ...........................1-1 Figure 1:2 Ashfield District Council: Internal settlements and as part of wider urban areas...1-2

1.2. House Prices and Affordability........................................................................................1-2 Figure 1:3 Ashfield District Council - Overall average house prices 2006 to 2008.................1-2 Figure 1:4 Ashfield District Council - Average and Lower Quartile Price by Property Type (2008 data only).....................................................................................................................1-3 Figure 1:5 Ashfield District Council - Owner-occupier entry level and affordability ................1-3

2) Demographic, Economic and Social Trends ..........................................................................2-5 2.1. Population.......................................................................................................................2-5

Figure 2:1 Population Change (based on Mid Year Estimates) Ashfield 2001 - 2007 ...........2-5 Figure 2:2 Chelmer 2004 based household projections to 2026 - Age breakdown (Ashfield LA)...............................................................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2:3 Ashfield Population change (2006-2026)..............................................................2-6 Figure 2:4 Under-occupation levels among over 50s by tenure/ward (Ashfield District) ........2-6

2.2. Household Trends ..........................................................................................................2-7 Figure 2:5 Chelmer 2004 based Household Projections - Summary of main household types2-7 Figure 2:6 Household Projections - Main Household Types (2006-2026)..............................2-7 Figure 2:7 Conceptions under 18 (2005) by local authority....................................................2-7

2.3. Migrations .......................................................................................................................2-8 Figure 2:8 Net annual flows to/from Ashfield District (main interactions) 2001 to 2007 .........2-8 Figure 2:9 Movers to Ashfield from Nottingham City (2001) ..................................................2-9 Figure 2:10 Net flows to/from Ashfield District by Age Group (2001 – 2007).........................2-9 Figure 2:11 Travel to work flows (2001)...............................................................................2-10 Figure 2:12 House Price and Number of Sales – NET System Route/Hucknall (2001 – 2008).............................................................................................................................................2-10 Figure 2:13 House Sales and Price Differentials – NET System Route/Hucknall (2001 – 2008).............................................................................................................................................2-11 Figure 2:14 10 minute drive zone from A617.......................................................................2-11 Figure 2:15 House Price Comparison: Ashfield – Mansfield Regeneration Route/Ashfield Settlements..........................................................................................................................2-12 Figure 2:16 House Price Comparison, Mansfield – Ashfield Regeneration Route (2001 – 2008)....................................................................................................................................2-12

2.4. Incomes ........................................................................................................................2-13 Figure 2:17 Ashfield District Incomes Profile (Overall).........................................................2-13 Figure 2:18 Income Profile by sub-area...............................................................................2-14

2.5. Socio-economic factors ................................................................................................2-14 Figure 2:19 Ashfield District - Socio-economic profile by settlement (2001) ........................2-15 Figure 2:20 Ashfield Gross Weekly Pay (compared to regional/national median average) .2-16 Figure 2:21 Ashfield Labour Market Profile - Extract from NOMIS.......................................2-16 Figure 2:22 Ashfield Economic/Employment Summary (derived from local authority profile) ..2-17

2.6. Summary and Conclusions...........................................................................................2-18 3) House Price Trends .............................................................................................................3-19

3.1. Ashfield in the wider market..........................................................................................3-19

Figure 3:1 Comparison of average house prices - Nottingham Outer SHMA Local Authorities.............................................................................................................................................3-19

3.2. Price Variation within Ashfield District...........................................................................3-20 Figure 3:2 House Price Data (2007) – All Ashfield District...................................................3-20 Figure 3:3 Ashfield District - House Prices by Property Type ..............................................3-21 Figure 3:4 Settlement property price differentials ................................................................3-21 Figure 3:5 Property price comparisons by settlement (higher/middle/lower bands).............3-22 Figure 3:6 Comparison of highest/medium/lowest prices against overall district average ...3-22 Figure 3:7 Average prices by local housing market .............................................................3-23 Figure 3:8 Average price by local market.............................................................................3-23

3.3. Low Cost Property Sales ..............................................................................................3-24 Figure 3:9 Sales under £60,000 – All Ashfield with higher density patches.........................3-24 Figure 3:10 Sales under £60,000 with estate boundaries....................................................3-25 Figure 3:11 Example of sales and resales in low cost areas, Institute Street, Skegby ........3-26 Figure 3:12 Example of sales and resales in low cost areas, Chatsworth Street, Sutton-in-Ashfield ................................................................................................................................3-26

3.4. Right to Buy Sales ........................................................................................................3-27 Figure 3:13 Right to Buy sales in Ashfield – 2001 to 2008...................................................3-27 Figure 3:14 Right to Buy Sales by Estate since 2001 ..........................................................3-28

3.5. Summary and Conclusions...........................................................................................3-28 4) Housing Need ......................................................................................................................4-29

4.1. The Social Housing Sector ...........................................................................................4-29 4.2. Waiting List analysis .....................................................................................................4-29

Figure 4:1 Number of households on the waiting list in Ashfield District (2005-2008) ........4-29 Figure 4:2 Ashfield Homes waiting list applications by category..........................................4-30 Figure 4:3 Waiting list applicant categories..........................................................................4-30 Figure 4:4 Ashfield Homes Waiting List distribution by household type...............................4-31 Figure 4:5 Ashfield Waiting List - Breakdown of household types .......................................4-31 Figure 4:6 Transfer and waiting list applicants by year of application ..................................4-32

4.3. CORE data ...................................................................................................................4-33 Figure 4:7 CORE data overview (2006 – 2008) ...................................................................4-33 Figure 4:8 Social Lettings/Sale activity – breakdown by settlement/local housing area.......4-33 Figure 4:9 Stock/Lettings proportions by settlement/local housing area ..............................4-34 Figure 4:10 Previous addresses of social housing tenants – lettings recorded 2006-8 .......4-34 Figure 4:11 Profile of lettings (2006 – 2008) by household type for each settlement (%) ....4-35 Figure 4:12 Profile of lettings (2006 – 2008) by household type for each settlement...........4-35 Figure 4:13 General Needs Lets (including transfers) by age and household type (2006-8) ...4-36 Figure 4:14 Ashfield Council sub-areas and estate boundaries...........................................4-37 Figure 4:15 Overall turnover by settlement (relets/total stock).............................................4-37 Figure 4:16 Turnover by estate (2007-08) ...........................................................................4-38 Figure 4:17 Turnover (Ashfield overall) based on HSSA data .............................................4-40 Figure 4:18 Reason for Vacancy (all Ashfield).....................................................................4-40 Figure 4:19 Reason for vacancy – comparison of RSL and LA lets.....................................4-41 Figure 4:20 Household types in RSL and LA lets (2006-8)..................................................4-41 Figure 4:21 Household type and nominations to RSLs........................................................4-42

4.4. Offers of social housing ................................................................................................4-43 Figure 4:22 Location of properties in offer database............................................................4-43 Figure 4:23 Average Offers per property (2007-8)...............................................................4-43 Figure 4:24 Offers by settlement..........................................................................................4-44 Figure 4:25 Lettings and average points by area - 1st May 08 to 31st July 08 ......................4-44 Figure 4:26 Most common reasons for refusal of offers.......................................................4-45

Figure 4:27 Proportion of offers declined and reasons for refusal by sub-area (main settlements) .........................................................................................................................4-46 Figure 4:28 Acceptance/Rejection levels across sub-areas with offer count .......................4-46 Figure 4:29 Sub-areas with high proportions of offers being declined with most common property type in stock/declined; number of beds and most common reason for declining ...4-47 Figure 4:30 Offers by property type (all Ashfield).................................................................4-48 Figure 4:31 Offers declined and accepted by number of bedrooms ....................................4-48 Figure 4:32 Applicants accepting offers of 1 bedroom property...........................................4-49 Figure 4:33 Applicants rejecting offers of 1 bedroom property.............................................4-50 Figure 4:34 Summary of offer responses by property and household type..........................4-50

4.5. Supported Housing.......................................................................................................4-53 Figure 4:35 Supported Housing Lets 2006-2008 .................................................................4-53 Figure 4:36 Breakdown of client groups in supported housing by age (2006-8) ..................4-53 Figure 4:37 Breakdown of client groups overall in supported housing.................................4-54 Figure 4:38 Age groups and household types in supported housing ...................................4-54 Figure 4:39 Intended Stay of tenants in social housing........................................................4-54 Figure 4:40 Source of referral by client group......................................................................4-55 Figure 4:41 Supported Housing Lets - Unit Types and age ranges .....................................4-55 Figure 4:42 Supported Housing - Vacancy period and unit types ........................................4-56

4.6. Sales of Intermediate Housing (Source: CORE)...........................................................4-56 Figure 4:43 Intermediate Housing Sales (2006-8) ...............................................................4-56 Figure 4:44 IH Sales by household type (2006-8)................................................................4-56 Figure 4:45 IH Sales by area (2006-8).................................................................................4-56 Figure 4:46 Intermediate Housing Sales by household type and property size ...................4-57

4.7. The Private Rental Sector.............................................................................................4-57 Figure 4:47 Cross tenure affordability (All Ashfield).............................................................4-57 Figure 4:48 Property to rent (extracted from www.rightmove.co.uk )...................................4-59

4.8. Houses in Multiple Occupation .....................................................................................4-60 Figure 4:49 HMOs in Ashfield ..............................................................................................4-60

4.9. Stock Condition.............................................................................................................4-61 Figure 4:50 BRE Stock Model outputs by ward ...................................................................4-61

4.10. Homelessness...........................................................................................................4-61 Figure 4:51 Homelessness Cases Accepted (2007-08) from P1E returns...........................4-62

4.11. Supply and Demand..................................................................................................4-63 Figure 4:52 Demand for property types by area ..................................................................4-63 Figure 4:53 Total demand by area.......................................................................................4-63 Figure 4:54 Social Housing Lets as a proportion of demand ...............................................4-64 Figure 4:55 Demand and Stock Figures ..............................................................................4-64

4.12. Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................4-65 5) Estimating and modelling housing need ..............................................................................5-67

5.1. Background – estimating housing need........................................................................5-67 5.2. Factors in estimating housing need ..............................................................................5-67 5.3. The Bramley method ....................................................................................................5-68 5.4. Applying the model .......................................................................................................5-69

Figure 5:1 Bramley Affordability Model ................................................................................5-69 5.5. Key inputs.....................................................................................................................5-70

Figure 5:2 Household projections and annual new household formation rate......................5-70 5.6. Ability to afford..............................................................................................................5-71

Figure 5:3 Lower quartile prices...........................................................................................5-72 5.7. Incomes – ability to buy ................................................................................................5-72

Figure 5:4 Input assumptions (income : mortgage multiplier, level of deposit).....................5-72 5.8. Lending multipliers........................................................................................................5-73 5.9. Deposits........................................................................................................................5-73

5.10. Backlog need ............................................................................................................5-74

Figure 5:5 Households on the housing register at 1st April..................................................5-75 5.11. The ‘policy period’ .....................................................................................................5-75 5.12. Need from owner occupiers ......................................................................................5-76

Figure 5:6 Mortgage repossession trends............................................................................5-76 5.13. Migration ...................................................................................................................5-77

Figure 5:7 Components of population change (thousands) 2004-5 .....................................5-77 5.14. Pulling it all together – combining the components of housing need.........................5-77

Figure 5:8 Summarised components of need ......................................................................5-77 5.15. Affordable housing supply.........................................................................................5-78 5.16. Local authority relets .................................................................................................5-78

Figure 5:9 Ashfield Homes lets 2004-2008 ..........................................................................5-79 5.17. Housing Association lets ...........................................................................................5-79

Figure 5:10 Housing association lets 2004-8 .......................................................................5-79 5.18. Intermediate housing.................................................................................................5-80

Figure 5:11 Intermediate housing sales 2005-8..................................................................5-80 Figure 5:12 Summary of whole local authority needs model................................................5-81

5.19. Numbers and percentages – relationship to overall new supply targets ...................5-82 Figure 5:13 Need numbers as percentage of RSS target for new supply ............................5-82

5.20. Intermediate Housing ................................................................................................5-83 Figure 5:14 % of Intermediate Housing justifiable at 70% of full entry level price ................5-83

5.21. Modelling need by sub area ......................................................................................5-84 Figure 5:15 Gross needs estimates by settlement...............................................................5-85 Figure 5:16 Net need by settlement.....................................................................................5-85

5.22. Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................5-86 6) Housing need and demand by type and size .......................................................................6-87

Figure 6:1 Household projections by household type and age for 2016 ..............................6-87 Figure 6:2 Number of bedrooms likely movers would like by household type......................6-88 Figure 6:3 Number of bedrooms likely movers expect by household type..........................6-88 Figure 6:4 Differences between % liking and expecting different sizes of accommodation .6-89 Figure 6:5 Future demand by type and size - whole market ................................................6-89 Figure 6:6 Housing Register type and size requirements breakdown..................................6-90 Figure 6:7 Type and size of housing required – future and backlog split .............................6-90

7) Stakeholder Consultations ...................................................................................................7-91 7.1. Estate Agents: Perception of the local housing market.................................................7-91 7.2. Key issues identified in the owner-occupier market: .....................................................7-92 7.3. Housing Consultation....................................................................................................7-93 7.4. Risks and Challenges ...................................................................................................7-93 7.5. Suggestions: How to address the problems .................................................................7-94 7.6. Data that could help to improve provision.....................................................................7-94 7.7. Discussion with Ashfield Homes...................................................................................7-95 7.8. Unpopular/problem areas: ............................................................................................7-95 7.9. Other issues .................................................................................................................7-95

Data from the Office of National Statistics is used under the terms of Click Licence No. C02W0002418. Ordnance Survey boundaries and data © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence Number 100018975 (2008) under subcontract to Ashfield DC. HM Registry data under terms of licence with B.Line Housing Information. © Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of Land Registry. This material was last updated on September 9 2008 It covers the period from June 2005 to May 2008.

CORE data provided by the Centre for Housing Research (CHR) at the University of St Andrews. Housing survey 2007 by Fordham Research as part of Strategic Housing Market Assessment.

1-1

1) Ashfield District Council: Area Profile

1.1.a. Ashfield District Council is situated between the urban areas of Mansfield and Nottingham, and adjoins to the region of Derbyshire on the West side. According to the Defra and ONS rural/urban definitions the majority of Ashfield is urban (see below).

Figure 1:1 Ashfield Output Areas with Defra/ONS Urban/Rural Definitions

© Crown Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. Licence Number: 100018986 1.1.b. Urban areas as defined by the ONS do not identify any urban centre native to Ashfield, but instead show an overlap into the district from the Mansfield Urban Area in the North, the Nottingham Urban Area in the South, and the Alfreton Urban Area to the West. 1.1.c. However, on a local scale the Ashfield District Council Core Strategy (April 2006) identifies: • 3 large urban settlements: Hucknall, Kirkby-in-Ashfield (including Annesley Woodhouse), and

Sutton-in-Ashfield (including Skegby and Huthwaite) • 3 minor settlements (largely residential), defined as rural within the Core Strategy: Jacksdale,

Selston, and Underwood • Other, smaller rural settlements including Bagthorpe and New Brinsley

1-2

Figure 1:2 Ashfield District Council: Internal settlements and as part of wider urban areas

© Crown Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. Licence Number: 100018986

1.2. House Prices and Affordability

1.2.a. A price profile using Land Registry data for Ashfield District overall shows a fairly low level of affordability in relation to owner-occupation. The initial indication from CACI incomes and Land Registry data is that around 40% of households in the area cannot afford to purchase a typical lower quartile property if borrowing 3.5 times their household income with a 10% deposit. 1.2.b. Other indications of initial analysis include: • An overall reduction in average house prices between 2006 and 2008 (of 4%) • Evidence that lower quartile terraces are cheaper than lower quartile flats • Comparatively much larger price gaps between semi detached and detached houses,

suggesting that these are the most desirable forms of housing with the most competitive (buyers) market.

• Relatively low cost market housing (compared to the wider UK market), but still displaying a marked discrepancy between local incomes and house prices (examining 2006-08 Land Registry house price data and 2006 incomes data from CACI).

• An income profile which is skewed towards the lower ranges, showing average earnings of between £15-25,000 (CACI 2006).

Figure 1:3 Ashfield District Council - Overall average house prices 2006 to 2008

Average 2006 Average 2007 Average 2008 2008 Q1 House Prices £123,389 £125,260 £120,417 £118,811 Number of Sales 1424 2603 395 325 Annual Change 2% -4% -1% Overall Change -4%

1-3

Figure 1:4 Ashfield District Council - Average and Lower Quartile Price by Property Type (2008 data only)

Price Profile 2008 Flat Terrace Semi Detached All Average Price £87,117 £95,354 £116,304 £162,410 £120,417 % gap to next prop type 9% 18% 28% Lower Quartile Price £74,875 £70,750 £94,612 £135,000 £85,000 % gap to next prop type -6% 25% 30% Total Sales Jan-April 2008 12 128 154 101 395 % Sales 3% 32% 39% 26% 100% estimated lower quartile entry level £85,000

Source: Land Registry (2008) Figure 1:5 Ashfield District Council - Owner-occupier entry level and affordability

Entry Level (based on 2008 sale prices) Loan to value Income: Mortgage Multiplier

£ 85,000 90% 3.50 £ 21,857 income required to buy £ 420.33 per week % households unable to afford1 41%

Source: Land Registry (2008) and CACI (2006) 1.2.c. A look at the profile of the district as at the 2001 Census gives the following picture: • Older households are the most prominent household type, though this description

encompasses wide ranging incomes and resources. The number of prospering households is also significant2.

• A similar picture to the national tenure profile with around 70% owner-occupation. Almost 19% of households are living in social housing.

• A property profile showing mostly semi detached (44%) and detached (28%) housing, one fifth (20%) terraced housing and the remaining 8% as flats.

• A skew in socio-economic terms towards semi routine and routine occupations and logically proportionate numbers of lower supervisory, managerial and technical occupations. Low proportions of higher managerial and professional occupations.

• A large, though ageing working population (58.9%) with more people approaching retirement than approaching working age (20.2% under 16; 25% aged 45 to 64).

• A predominantly White British population with other ethnic minorities accounting for around 2%. The largest ethnic minority group (at 2001) was “White: Other”.

• A fairly even split of household types between pensioners, and couples with and without children (accounting for around a fifth each of the population). The average household size in 2001 was 2.39.

1.2.d. Data from the 2001 Census helps to provide an initial idea of the profile for Ashfield district. The following sources could help to gain an understanding of whether and to what extent this profile has changed since 2001:

1 Based on Land Registry House Price data (January to April 2008) and CACI Paycheck incomes data (2006). 2 Based on Output Area Classifications: http://www.areaclassification.org.uk/

1-4

1.2.e. Population: ONS population statistics/migration indicators; Mid Year Estimates; NHS Central Register. The Census remains the best indicator of Black and Minority Ethnic populations, though it is possible to gauge some more up to date information from the Nottingham Outer SHMA primary survey3. 1.2.f. Household types: Household Projections from DCLG; Local Authority commissioned research; The Projecting Older People Population Information System (POPPI4) 1.2.g. House Prices: Land Registry data is probably the best source for this, though up to date information on asking prices and area price differentials can also be indicated circumspectly by property websites such as Rightmove. The Hometrack Housing Intelligence System (http://www.hometrack.co.uk/ ) also provides up to date information about property valuations and other market indicators. 1.2.h. Incomes and Earnings: CACI Paycheck provides localised data on incomes. The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) can also help to give an idea of economic indicators in the area (though it should be noted that incomes are not the same as earnings, since income can include other sources such as inheritance, savings, investments etc.) 1.2.i. Tenure: The annual Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) provides estimated figures which give the split between social and market housing. Information about social housing can be obtained through examination of Council and RSL stock databases (including CORE data5). Owner occupation trends (though not absolute proportions) may be indicated by Land Registry data on number of sales. Right to buy sales will also impact the number of owner occupiers (and the proportion of social housing) - this information is recorded within Council stock databases. The Private Rental Sector: By far the most difficult tenure to examine is privately rented housing, which in the current climate is an increasingly important factor in housing markets. A survey was carried out by Fordham Research in relation to the Nottingham Outer Strategic Housing Market Assessment from which the primary data could give an indication of the size of the private rental market. Information from sources such as a Private Sector Stock Condition survey or other commissioned research could help provide some insights. Information on Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and Buy to Let mortgages may also indicate trends in the sector6. In this area in particular it is likely that stakeholder input will be a key factor in determining local trends. 1.2.j. Property Types: Planning and completions data, if available, can give an idea of how the property profile has changed since the 2001 Census. Data on demolitions and adaptations is also relevant. Land Registry data provides information on new build housing, and Local Authority research and strategic publications often contain information about current or future development. Unfortunately often the specifics are lost within the reporting, so that only numbers are available as opposed to property types and sizes. 1.2.k. Socio-economic and Employment trends: Although Census data remains the best localised source on socio-economic profiles, other updated information can be obtained through NOMIS; EMDA/Experian forecasts; Local authority monitoring reports.

3 Fordham Research (2007). 4 http://www.poppi.org.uk 5 The Continuous Recording System: http://www.core.ac.uk/ 6 There is no localised data publicly available regarding Buy to Let mortgages in Ashfield. This would be a useful source of information if it were made accessible.

2-5

2) Demographic, Economic and Social Trends

2.1. Population

2.1.a. Based on ONS Mid Year Estimates, the population of Ashfield District in Mid 2007 was approximately 115,900. This is an increase of 200 since Mid 2006. The population trend generally shows gentle growth, though there are some marked fluctuations. On average the population of Ashfield has grown by around 700 people per year. Figure 2:1 Population Change (based on Mid Year Estimates) Ashfield 2001 - 2007

Population Change (MYEs) Ashfield 2001-2007

109000

110000

111000

112000

113000

114000

115000

116000

117000

Mid 2001 Mid 2002 Mid 2003 Mid 2004 Mid 2005 Mid 2006 Mid 2007

Source: DCLG (2008) 2.1.b. Existing research on the Population structure in Ashfield predicts an increasing number of older people (and by association, an increasing number of smaller households) in the district. According to the Ashfield District Council Housing Strategy (2005/6 – 9/10); “the number of people over 65 years of age is predicted to increase by 32% by 2021 to a total of 21% of the Ashfield population. There is a large increase in the very old population (those aged 70 and over) with the over 85 age group increasing by 1,037, an increase of 55%.” This change to the make-up of society in the district will clearly impact on the types of housing and support needed. 2.1.c. According to DCLG household projections, by 2026 the average household size in Ashfield will be 2.081. It is expected that the proportion of the population who have reached retirement age will continue to increase. Though this will increase the number of single person and couple households, this is unlikely to be synonymous with an increased demand for smaller dwellings, given the nature of this group, their lifestage, preferences and needs. Instead older person households, likely often to be ‘empty nesters’ are generally much more inclined to remain in their family homes after all children have left. This trend is particularly prominent among owner occupiers, and can be observed on a nationwide scale.

2-6

Figure 2:2 Chelmer 2004 based household projections to 2026 - Age breakdown (Ashfield LA)

Year Average hhld size

No. aged 20-64 No. over 65

No. over 80

Total Pop

2006 2.304 75847 18506 4877 114836 2011 2.237 70002 20946 5101 118094 2016 2.172 71024 23896 5664 121503 2021 2.119 72131 25961 6724 124781 2026 2.081 72214 28497 8354 127517

Source: DCLG March 2007 (n.b. projections become less robust the further into the future they are taken) Figure 2:3 Ashfield Population change (2006-2026)

Population Change (2006-2026)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

% aged 20-64% pensionable age% over 80

Source: DCLG March 2007 Figure 2:4 Under-occupation levels among over 50s by tenure/ward (Ashfield District) Owner Occupiers Social Tenants Private Rental Tenants Hucknall Central 49% 3% 2% Hucknall East 34% 4% 1% Hucknall North 42% 3% 2% Hucknall West 43% 3% 1% Jacksdale 42% 2% 2% Kirkby in Ashfield Central 50% 2% 3% Kirkby in Ashfield East 36% 7% 2% Kirkby in Ashfield West 35% 6% 2% Selston 42% 8% 2% Sutton in Ashfield Central 38% 6% 3% Sutton in Ashfield East 36% 4% 2% Sutton in Ashfield North 41% 5% 3% Sutton in Ashfield West 45% 2% 2% Underwood 56% 1% 2% Woodhouse 47% 4% 3%

Source: ONS Census 2001 Commissioned Table CO619. N.B. Though this study has not used ward boundaries in other analysis, the table used for this output is only available at ward level. Under-occupation in this analysis is defined as having 2 or more spare rooms in the home.

2-7

2.2. Household Trends

2.2.a. The Chelmer 2004 based household projections show the relative growth of one person households. There is also a comparatively significant number of lone parent households, which is an important demographic and social factor in relation to housing provision. Figure 2:5 Chelmer 2004 based Household Projections - Summary of main household types Household Type Projections 2006 2011 2016 2021 Married Couple 23385 23176 23166 23157 Cohabiting Couple 5645 6654 7454 8050 Lone Parent 3783 4070 4273 4438 Other Multiperson 2375 2497 2684 2862 One Person 14035 15752 17692 19605 Total population 114836 118094 121503 124781

Source: DCLG 2008 Figure 2:6 Household Projections - Main Household Types (2006-2026)

Household Projections

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2006 2011 2016 2021

Married CoupleCohabiting CoupleLone ParentOther MultipersonOne Person

Source: DCLG (2008) 2.2.b. Lone parent families are of many diverse economic and social backgrounds, and it is important to avoid attaching any stigma or assumptions. However, a significant proportion of lone parent households in Ashfield emerge as a result of teenage pregnancy (compared to other nearby local authority statistics), as shown in the table below. Figure 2:7 Conceptions under 18 (2005) by local authority Local Authority Under 18 conceptions (rate per 1000 people) Nottingham 72 Ashfield 50 Mansfield 49 Bassetlaw 40 Broxtowe 36 Newark and Sherwood 33 Gedling 23 Rushcliffe 21

Source: DCLG (2008)

2-8

2.2.c. In later sections, it has been found that a fairly high level of need for social housing within Ashfield (15%) is attributable to lone parent families. As a result this group needs to be given sufficient attention with regard to affordable housing provision and lettings policies.

2.3. Migrations

2.3.a. People moving in and out of the district will have a demographic impact, particularly where this affects the structure of the working population. For example, urban cities like Nottingham suffer from ‘City Flight’, where those with the financial means (typically those working in the more highly skilled sectors) move away from the city to outer, suburban, more desirable and more expensive areas, leaving those with fewer choices to occupy the centre and thus exacerbating polarisation within the urban area. The Nottingham Core SHMA study7 found that Ashfield was a factor in the city flight problem in Nottingham, drawing many people of working age out of the city. 2.3.b. The chart below shows significant inflows from Nottingham, Gedling and Broxtowe. Interestingly, Mansfield was losing numbers to Ashfield in 2001 and 2002, but then shows a substantial turnaround to gain population from Ashfield, particularly in 2003 and 2005. Newark and Sherwood also looks to be a popular destination for people moving from Ashfield, generally showing a net inflow of people. Figure 2:8 Net annual flows to/from Ashfield District (main interactions) 2001 to 2007

Net Flows to/from Ashfield District

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Nottingham UA

Gedling

Bolsover

Broxtowe

Amber Valley

Derby UA

Rushcliffe

Erewash

Mansfield

Newark and Sherwood

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Source: NHS Central Register (Migration Statistics Unit, ONS) 2.3.c. The extent of movement from Nottingham can be seen clearly. This output is based on NHS central register data on migrations, which does not include internal movements, and tends to

7 http://www.blinehousing.info/Nottingham_core-SHMA.htm

2-9

under-represent specific groups such as young single men, who are less likely to register with a local GP when moving to a new area. 2.3.d. Where exactly people move to when coming from Nottingham is difficult to measure, though Census data from 2001 shows that migrations are more focused on Hucknall, with over half of movers from Nottingham settling in that area, and the remainder spread relatively evenly elsewhere in Ashfield. Figure 2:9 Movers to Ashfield from Nottingham City (2001) Census Flows from Nottingham No. people % JACKSDALE 33 3% HUCKNALL 691 57% KIRKBY IN ASHFIELD 198 16% SUTTON IN ASHFIELD 168 14% SELSTON/UNDERWOOD/BRIMSLEY 113 9% TOTAL 1203 100%

Source: ONS Census 2001 Table MG301 Migrations 2.3.e. Examining migrations by age group shows a high net gain of people of all ages from Nottingham, particularly those in the 25-44 age group (those in the youngest band are most likely the children of this group). Ashfield also shows a net gain from almost all the wider Nottingham Core SHMA local authorities over all years (with the exception of Erewash and Rushcliffe which show some small inflows from Ashfield). Some of the working age population is being lost to Mansfield, and Newark and Sherwood looks to be attracting a number of families and older households. Figure 2:10 Net flows to/from Ashfield District by Age Group (2001 – 2007)

Net Flows by Age Group 2001-2007

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Derby UA

Nottingham UA

Amber Valley

Bolsover

Erewash

Broxtowe

Gedling

Mansfield

Newark and Sherwood

Rushcliffe

0-15 16-24 25-44 45-64 65+

Source: NHS Central Register (Migration Statistics Unit, ONS)

2-10

2.3.f. Most research has established that Ashfield has strong migration and employment links with Nottingham (particularly Hucknall) and Mansfield. This finding is well documented in existing local government publications for the district. It is therefore sensible to examine the work-related flows between Ashfield, Nottingham and Mansfield. The extent to which residents travel out of Ashfield to work is shown below as at the 2001 Census, when around half the working population worked outside of the District. Figure 2:11 Travel to work flows (2001)

Travel to Work Flows from Ashfield No. people % total

Workers in Ashfield 24880 50% Workers in Nottingham 7882 16% (From Hucknall) 4782 61% Workers in Mansfield 4249 9% Workers elsewhere 12832 26% Total 49843 100%

Source: ONS Census 2001, Table TV301 Travel to Work 2.3.g. In response to the links between Ashfield, Nottingham and Mansfield, Ashfield District Council introduced measures to improve the connection between the two areas, and comment as follows in their current housing strategy: The Nottingham Express Transit System was opened in the spring of 2004 and provides a tram link between Hucknall and the city of Nottingham. This represents a multi-million pound investment in Hucknall and initial evidence suggests that this tram link is starting to increase the numbers of commuters to Nottingham and increase house values along the transport corridor. In 2005 work was completed on the Mansfield and Ashfield Regeneration Route. This cuts across the North of the district and provides easy access from the M1 to the A1. Whilst it is too early to establish the full impact of this new route it is expected this will contribute to the creation of around 9,000 jobs impacting on the local housing market. Both of these new transport links are expected to open up the housing market in the North of Ashfield, not only through the creation of businesses and therefore jobs in the area, but also by increasing the number of commuters to the surrounding major cities and towns.

Source: ADC Housing Strategy (2005/6-2009/10) 2.3.h. The Housing Strategy was published in 2006 and it may now be possible to see whether there has been an impact on demand along the new commuter routes. The following data experiment examines number of sales and average price, comparing properties along the new tram route (up to approximately half a mile away – assuming this is a fairly comfortable distance to walk to the tram stop), to the same data for the whole of Hucknall. Figure 2:12 House Price and Number of Sales – NET System Route/Hucknall (2001 – 2008)

Nottingham Express Transit System Route All Hucknall

Proportion of total sales/ Percentage difference in price

2001 Count of Sales 315 692 46% Average Price £55,571 £61,137 -9% 2003 Count of Sales 240 555 43% Average Price £80,829 £93,172 -13% 2006 Count of Sales 172 338 51% Average Price £140,302 £129,417 8% 2007 Count of Sales 375 739 51% Average Price £125,849 £123,917 2% 2008 Count of Sales 57 99 58% Average Price £128,989 £120,798 7%

2-11

Figure 2:13 House Sales and Price Differentials – NET System Route/Hucknall (2001 – 2008)

Price Change - NET Route

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

2001 2003 2006 2007 2008

Pri

ce

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

% d

iffe

renc

e in

pri

ce

Nottingham Express Transit System Route All Hucknall Percentage difference in price

Source: Land Registry 2.3.i. The data suggests that the introduction of the Nottingham Express Transit System has driven both demand for housing and prices in the area upwards. Comparing the area along the tram route to Hucknall overall, house prices have gone from being around 10% cheaper to around 6% more expensive within the vicinity of the tram stops. 2.3.j. The effects of the Mansfield and Ashfield Regeneration Route (A617) are harder to measure, since people who drive to work have a much wider search radius than people who use public transport. For the purposes of this analysis, a 10 minute drive zone around the route has been taken as a border to compare against house prices across Ashfield (the data selected excludes sales outside Ashfield as some of these are rural areas and could distort the results). Figure 2:14 10 minute drive zone from A617

2-12

2.3.k. The difference made by the completion of the A617 is much harder to measure. Though there is a clear increase in prices after 2003, this is across the district, and fluctuations between price differentials across the settlements suggest that the increase is not easily attributable to the route itself. In fact, if anything the data indicates the introduction of the route has reduced disparity between house prices across settlements. This could suggest that the improved access to Mansfield has provided people with a wider search radius, having a widespread effect on the housing market. However, the extent of the rise in prices (peaking at an increase of 140% in Kirkby-in-Ashfield) seems much more an effect of the general boom than any infrastructure developments. Figure 2:15 House Price Comparison: Ashfield – Mansfield Regeneration Route/Ashfield Settlements

House Price Changes

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

2001-2003 38% 50% 54% 45%

2003-2006 50% 59% 57% 43%

2006-2007 1% 4% 0% 6%

2007-2008 -6% -10% -1% 0%

Overall 97% 124% 139% 119%

Regeneration Route Area Sutton-in-Ashfield Kirkby-in-Ashfield West Ashfield

Source: Land Registry Figure 2:16 House Price Comparison, Mansfield – Ashfield Regeneration Route (2001 – 2008)

Regeneration Route Area Sutton-in-Ashfield Kirkby-in-Ashfield West Ashfield 2001 Count of Sales 1,229 1,024 645 399 Average Price £59,693 £51,921 £49,932 £59,350 % price difference to Route Area 13% 16% 1% 2003 Count of Sales 1,041 875 629 303 Average Price £82,106 £77,876 £77,040 £85,950 % price difference to Route Area 5% 6% -5% 2006 Count of Sales 597 546 334 195 Average Price £123,382 £123,956 £120,703 £122,642 % price difference to Route Area 0% 2% 1% 2007 Count of Sales 1,045 866 639 331 Average Price £125,158 £129,259 £120,572 £130,356 % price difference to Route Area -3% 4% -4% 2008 Count of Sales 150 172 66 62 Average Price £117,328 £116,466 £119,367 £130,174 % price difference to Route Area 1% -2% -11%

Source: Land Registry

2-13

2.4. Incomes

2.4.a. As a result of numerous historical, cultural and socio-economic factors (discussed elsewhere in this report), some areas of Ashfield demonstrate income levels that are significantly lower than average compared to neighbouring areas or regional figures. The following section examines incomes within the district. 2.4.b. The overall income profile for the whole of Ashfield is shown below. The curve is skewed towards the lower end of the scale. Figure 2:17 Ashfield District Incomes Profile (Overall)

Incomes Profile - Ashfield District

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0-10k 10-20k 20-30k 30-40k 40-50k 50-60k 60-70k 70-80k 80-90k +90k

All Ashfield

Source: CACI Paycheck 2007 2.4.c. However as other data and research has shown, there are marked differences between different areas within the district, as documented within the Ashfield District Council Housing Strategy: Ashfield is effectively several functional housing market areas:- • a southern housing market based around Hucknall and strongly linked to the Nottingham

city urban area. • a northern housing market based around the old mining areas of Sutton-in-Ashfield and

Kirkby-in-Ashfield. • The rural housing market which is made up of the rural areas around and including the

villages of Jacksdale, Selston and Underwood. Source: Ashfield District Council Housing Strategy (2005/6 to 2009/10)

2.4.d. Though this disaggregation creates a useful distinction between the different areas of Ashfield, within these groupings there is a degree of variation, as shown on the chart below:

2-14

Figure 2:18 Income Profile by sub-area

Income comparison

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All Ashfield

Ashfield_Rural

Hucknall

Kirkby

Sutton

West Notts

0-10k 10-20k 20-30k 30-40k 40-50k 50-60k

Source: CACI Paycheck 2007 2.4.e. This chart compares the following areas: • Ashfield District overall • Hucknall • Kirkby-in-Ashfield • Sutton-in-Ashfield • West Notts (Selston, Jacksdale and Underwood) • Rural areas excluding Selston, Jacksdale and Underwood 2.4.f. Though for some purposes the breakdown of Ashfield into 3 housing markets as defined in the Housing Strategy is more practical, at a more detailed level it seems sensible to separate Selston, Jacksdale and Underwood from the other rural areas (due to a pronounced difference in incomes). Also, despite the fact that Kirkby-in-Ashfield and Sutton-in-Ashfield have very similar profiles, feedback from stakeholders suggests that they are seen by local residents as separate settlements, so it makes sense to approach them on an individual basis.

2.5. Socio-economic factors

2.5.a. The socio-economic profile of the district is weighted towards skilled and unskilled manual trades such as manufacturing and construction (evolving as a natural progression of a post-coalmining community). The working culture of the district, particularly in the North (Sutton and Kirkby) has been impacted profoundly by the economic depression caused by the closure of the coal pits in the 1980s8.

8 See for example the Nottingham Outer HMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment; “Coalfield communities ‘still blighted ten years after pit closures” (http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/170400.asp), Ashfield District Council

2-15

2.5.b. Though many positive measures and strategies have been employed effectively in improving the post-mining economies of the Northern settlements, the effects are enduring and to some extent culturally entrenched. The socio-economic profile of Ashfield District by settlement, (including the rural areas) demonstrates this. All areas are dominated by lower managerial/professional; semi-routine and routine workers. Figure 2:19 Ashfield District - Socio-economic profile by settlement (2001)

Socio-economic profile by settlement

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Hucknall West Ashfield Kirkby-in-Ashfield Sutton-in-Ashfield Rural Ashfield

Large employers/Higher MgrialHigher ProfessionalLower Mgrial/ProfessionalIntermediateSmall employers/own account wkrsLower supervisory & technicalSemi routineRoutineNever workedLong term unemployedFT Students

Source: Census 2001 Table KS14 Socio-economic groups N.B. The category ‘Not Classifiable for other reasons’ accounts for around 20% of each area – however, as it contains numerous groups which cannot be identified in this analysis, it has been omitted from the graph. 2.5.c. There are some differences between the settlements. For example: • Rural Ashfield has a greater proportion of full time students, and more higher managerial

and professional workers. The rural areas have the highest proportion of lower managerial and professional workers.

• Sutton and Kirkby-in-Ashfield have lower proportions of lower managerial and professional workers, and the highest proportions of workers in routine employment.

• Only Hucknall has more people in the semi-routine than routine category • West Notts (Jacksdale, Selston and Underwood) and Rural Ashfield have greater numbers

of small employers and own account workers. 2.5.d. The result of the semi-routine and routine employment culture in Ashfield (particularly in the Northern area) is generally a lower than average wage level. As shown below, Nomis figures find median earnings in Ashfield to be consistently below the regional and national average.

Housing Strategy (2005-10); Ashfield Sustainability Appraisal (April 2006), Ashfield District Council Annual Monitoring Report (December 2007)

2-16

Figure 2:20 Ashfield Gross Weekly Pay (compared to regional/national median average)

Source: NOMIS (ONS) 2008 2.5.e. NOMIS data also shows a higher proportionate number of people working in manufacturing and construction, and lower numbers working in finance, IT and other business activities, reflecting the documented skill base of the district population. Figure 2:21 Ashfield Labour Market Profile - Extract from NOMIS

Source: NOMIS (ONS) 2008 2.5.f. Economic activity in Ashfield is historically lower than the regional and national averages, though this gap has been lessening progressively over recent years. For the period January 2006 – December 2007 NOMIS (ONS) found the economically active proportion of Ashfield to be 1.5% lower than the regional average and only 0.1% lower than the national average.

2-17

Figure 2:22 Ashfield Economic/Employment Summary (derived from local authority profile) Ashfield Economic/Employment Summary Category Figures Total Population 115,700 Working Age Population 71,600 Economically Active 56,600 Economically Inactive 15,400 Wanting a job 3,900 Not wanting a job 11,500 Managers and senior officials 6,200 Professional occupations 2,900 Associate professional & technical 5,300 Administrative & secretarial 6,200 Skilled trades occupations 7,400 Personal service occupations 4,100 Sales and customer service occs 4,800 Process plant & machine operatives 5,500 Elementary occupations 9,900 Jobseekers Allowance Claimants (18-50+) 1,670 Incapacity Benefit Claimants 6,580 Lone Parents 1,540 Carers 1,040 Other income related benefits 300 Job density (total jobs: working age population) 0.71

Source: NOMIS (ONS) 2008

2-18

2.6. Summary and Conclusions

2.6.a. Key demographic, economic and social factors influencing housing need and demand in Ashfield District include: • Shrinking, often elderly households occupying large properties – increasing levels of under-

occupation, particularly among owner-occupiers aged over 50. • Migration from Nottingham has a significant impact, particularly in Hucknall. The majority of

people who move from Nottingham are in the 25-44 age group, often moving with young children. This will increase the level of demand for family homes.

• Actions by local government to improve transport links between Ashfield, Nottingham and Mansfield appear to have had an effect on both local and wider housing markets, both increasing house prices along the NET System Route and levelling out prices around the Mansfield to Ashfield Regeneration Route (A617).

• Incomes are generally skewed towards the lower end of the earnings scale. The most common (mode) income in the district is between £10,000 and £20,000pa. Within the overall picture there is variation between the different settlements, where rural areas show typically higher incomes and the Northern settlements of Kirkby and Sutton show the lowest.

• The socio-economic profile of the district is dominated by lower managerial/professional; semi-routine and routine workers. Rural areas show a greater mix of socio-economic groups. The economically active proportion of the population in the district is slightly below the national and regional average.

2.6.b. The historic economic and cultural development of Ashfield District as an ex-mining community, as widely confirmed in local government publications, has led to a generally lower wage level, and higher levels of unemployment (particularly in the Northern areas of Sutton-in-Ashfield and Kirkby-in-Ashfield). The result of historic depression within the local economy is increased pressure on the welfare system, causing a strain on resources and perpetuating the social and economic effects caused by unemployment9.

9 This is a complex topic and the subject of much research, see for example: “Social housing and worklessness: Qualitative research findings”, DWP Research Report No.521, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University (2008)

3-19

3) House Price Trends

3.1. Ashfield in the wider market

3.1.a. Looking at prices in the wider SHMA area, Ashfield is most closely comparable to

Mansfield, where aside from detached houses, properties look to be reaching similar sale prices. A distinction can easily be drawn between Ashfield, Mansfield and the more rural areas of Amber Valley and Newark and Sherwood, and the Nottingham price profile lies somewhere in between.

3.1.b. As Ashfield and Mansfield are both ex-mining areas, with similar property profiles, and being so close geographically speaking, they share many economic, social and cultural links, and would benefit from shared input and expertise when developing policies and strategies for their housing markets. In fact, as discussed in the area overview, the Mansfield Urban Area as defined by ONS stretches well into the district of Ashfield, the Northern part of which at least can be argued to be part of a wider housing area – integrally with Mansfield in terms of work, commerce and migration. This linkage can also be found between Hucknall and Nottingham, as is well documented elsewhere.10

Figure 3:1 Comparison of average house prices - Nottingham Outer SHMA Local Authorities

Average Property Price Comparison

£0

£50,000

£100,000

£150,000

£200,000

£250,000

£300,000

£350,000

Overall Detached Flat Semi Terrace

Ashfield Mansfield Nottingham Amber Valley Newark & Sherwood

Source: Land Registry (2007-8)

10 The Nottingham-Hucknall and Mansfield-North Ashfield links are documented in numerous related publications See for example: Nottingham Core SHMA (2006/7) (B.Line Housing Information Ltd); Ashfield District Council Housing Strategy 2005 – 2010; Ashfield District Council Housing Market Study and Needs Assessment (2002/3) (B.Line Housing Information Ltd); Ashfield District Council Annual Monitoring Report (2007); Ashfield District Council Core Strategy (2007).

3-20

3.2. Price Variation within Ashfield District

3.2.a. Prior research in Ashfield has used numerous geographical distinctions with which to break

up and examine data. These include wards, output areas, urban settlements, as well as data aggregated to local authority level. As outlined in the area profile, Ashfield is typically split into 3 main markets: North (Sutton-in-Ashfield including Skegby and Huthwaite, and Kirkby-in-Ashfield including Annesley Woodhouse); South (Hucknall); and Rural (Selston, Jacksdale and Underwood and other smaller rural settlements including Bagthorpe and New Brinsley). House price data will be examined at a variety of scales to look for any emerging patterns, bearing this distinction in mind.

3.2.b. Between July 2006 and May 2008, the Land Registry recorded a total of 4,422 property sales in Ashfield District. The map below shows all sales by price in 2007, which is more or less representative of the geographical sale patterns in other years.

Figure 3:2 House Price Data (2007) – All Ashfield District

© Crown Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. Licence Number: 100018986 Source: Land Registry (the map outlines the 3 main settlements and the western rural settlements of Jacksdale, Selston and Underwood)

3.2.c. There is a fair mixture of housing across the district, and the data does not indicate one

area that is exceptionally more expensive than others, or vice versa. The most common price (mode average) paid for property over the period was £105,000 (accounting for 16% of all properties sold), but over 42% of sales were for less than this amount. Most properties sold for between £80,000 and £125,000. In the chart below this range encompasses the bulk of semi-detached sales (clearly the most popular/available property type). Terraced properties peak at a lower price (about £70,000), appearing to be far cheaper than flats which, though there are fewer, sold most commonly at around £105,000 – a third as much again. In fact, terraces account for over two thirds of the properties selling at under £60,000.

3-21

Figure 3:3 Ashfield District - House Prices by Property Type


3.2.d. In some cases, geographical price differentials (i.e. the same property type has a very different price in two different areas) can provide a basis for interpreting housing market functions. The table below shows each settlement with the average price of each property type. The lowest (green), middle range (yellow) and highest (red) price of each property type is highlighted to compare with the average price for the overall district. It seems there are no really marked variations between average prices in different areas.

Figure 3:4 Settlement property price differentials Area Detached Semi Terrace Flat Ashfield DC 176974 114080 91750 103512 Skegby 158767 115806 92480 99998 Sutton-in-Ashfield 183177 114382 90227 101961 Kirkby-in-Ashfield 180777 116137 90138 103523 Kirkby-in-Ashfield East 173474 112510 91539 97516 Kirkby-in-Ashfield West 192659 119495 88527 109905 Annesley Woodhouse 166111 113996 101537 122734 North Ashfield Overall 179197 114972 91536 105785 Selston, Underwood & Brimsley 170981 111884 90360 97662 Jacksdale 167303 104957 86154 117962 West Ashfield Overall 169905 110033 89666 101722 Hucknall East 178136 115698 92990 95698 Hucknall West 167013 109379 91827 104071 Hucknall Overall 175615 114297 92750 97094

3-22

Figure 3:5 Property price comparisons by settlement (higher/middle/lower bands)

Figure 3:6 Comparison of highest/medium/lowest prices against overall district average Property Type Overall Low Medium High Detached £176,974 £158,767 £173,474 £192,659 Semi £114,080 £104,957 £114,382 £119,495 Terrace £91,750 £86,154 £91,539 £101,537 Flat £103,512 £95,698 £101,961 £122,734 Difference from Average % diff % diff % diff Detached -11% -2% 8% Semi -9% 0% 5% Terrace -6% 0% 10% Flat -8% -2% 16%


3.2.e. Though the differences between property prices across the different settlements in Ashfield District are not marked enough to suggest housing submarkets, the variations do show that it is not sensible to rely on use of an overall average to describe house prices in the area.

3.2.f. The section on demographic, economic and social trends found differences between incomes across the 3 market areas, which suggests the evidence to be gained from available data could benefit from further separation. Following the groups determined by incomes data and stakeholder input, the house price data has been aggregated to average by property type for the 2 main Northern settlements (Sutton and Kirkby), the Western (rural) settlements of Selston, Jacksdale and Underwood, the Southern settlement of Hucknall, and the other, more separate rural settlements. The results are given in the table and chart below.

3-23

Figure 3:7 Average prices by local housing market Average Price 2007 Detached Semi Terrace Flat Rural £168,075 £112,545 £80,991 £65,983 Hucknall £173,629 £117,168 £96,198 £103,233 West Notts £181,102 £118,888 £92,894 £90,672 Sutton-in-Ashfield £188,470 £114,618 £91,762 £108,101 Kirkby-in-Ashfield £169,938 £113,567 £91,450 £105,804

Figure 3:8 Average price by local market

Breakdown of average price by local market

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

Detached Semi Terrace Flat

RuralHucknallWest NottsSutton-in-AshfieldKirkby-in-Ashfield

Source: Land Registry 2007

3.2.g. Breaking up the data in this way suggests again that overall there is little to differentiate prices between the different areas in Ashfield District, though there is most variation among flat prices. Where often prices in rural areas far outstrip those in more built up places, this is not the case for rural parts of Ashfield.

3-24

3.3. Low Cost Property Sales

3.3.a. The map below shows only those properties which sold for below £60,000 – considerably

cheaper than most11 – with graduated symbols where there has been more than one of these lower end sales. Where there are several low cost sales, this could be an indication of the beginning of low demand12 in an area – where properties are dropping in value and the neighbourhood is failing to attract new residents. The map also shows that zooming in on data dramatically changes the impression given – looking at the LA as a whole suggests the problem is more severe than looking at each specific patch in turn. It is very hard to identify focus areas for prevention of low demand based on sales alone.

Figure 3:9 Sales under £60,000 – All Ashfield with higher density patches


11 Around 5% of all properties sold for less than £60,000 within the period 2006-2008 12 See http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/foundations/739.asp

3-25

Figure 3:10 Sales under £60,000 with estate boundaries


3.3.b. Proximity to council estates goes some way in explaining these patches of low cost housing, though there are a good number of these lower cost houses which do not appear close enough to any estate for it to have a downward impact on their market value.

3.3.c. Despite these (mostly terraced) patches being considerably cheaper than elsewhere in the district, examining a couple of the streets identified shows that by and large people have been profiting from (in several cases quite substantially) and perhaps improving these properties during the housing boom. Examples given below are Institute Street in Skegby and Chatsworth Street in Sutton-in-Ashfield (derived from www.houseprices.co.uk ). So even though these areas are cheaper than elsewhere, this does not seem to have discouraged buyers – on the contrary, it may well have acted as an incentive to buy.

3.3.d. All the examples given in the tables below are of properties which were bought and sold again within a 5 year period (since 2001). There are several clear examples of properties being bought and sold within a very short period for a substantial profit.

3-26

Figure 3:11 Example of sales and resales in low cost areas, Institute Street, Skegby Institute Street, Skegby Price 1 Year Bought Price 2 Year Sold Increase Time Gap (years) £59,950 2004 £62,600 2007 4% 2 £46,950 2004 £50,500 2006 8% 2 £58,000 2004 £62,950 2006 9% 2 £56,000 2005 £60,950 2007 9% 1.5 £51,000 2004 £62,000 2006 22% 2 £29,950 2003 £39,000 2007 30% 4.5 £35,500 2003 £62,000 2006 75% 3 £12,000 2001 £23,500 2002 96% 0.5 £24,000 2003 £48,000 2006 100% 3.5 £19,500 2002 £42,000 2004 115% 2 £19,500 2002 £44,000 2003 126% 1.5 £23,500 2002 £75,000 2007 219% 5 £18,000 2002 £65,500 2007 264% 5

Figure 3:12 Example of sales and resales in low cost areas, Chatsworth Street, Sutton-in-Ashfield Chatsworth Street, Sutton-in-Ashfield Price 1 Year Bought Price 2 Year Sold Increase Time Gap (years) £23,000 23/12/2002 £18,000 28/02/2003 -21.74% 1 £74,000 02/03/2007 £73,995 07/03/2008 -0.01% 1 £62,000 20/03/2006 £64,950 04/08/2006 4.76% 0.5 £47,500 15/10/2004 £50,000 25/05/2006 5.26% 2 £51,500 13/06/2005 £55,000 19/01/2007 6.80% 1.5 £43,000 29/08/2006 £47,000 13/10/2006 9.30% 0.2 £58,500 17/02/2006 £64,000 04/07/2008 9.40% 2 £43,000 27/08/2004 £62,700 24/12/2004 45.81% 0.5 £28,000 12/06/2002 £43,000 29/08/2006 53.57% 4 £18,000 30/01/2002 £29,000 28/03/2002 61.11% 0.2 £38,000 20/02/2004 £64,950 24/06/2005 70.92% 1 £18,000 28/02/2003 £31,500 27/10/2003 75.00% 0.5 £16,000 28/09/2001 £30,500 26/09/2003 90.63% 2 £26,000 12/05/2000 £51,500 13/06/2005 98.08% 5 £35,000 06/12/2002 £74,000 02/03/2007 111.43% 5 £30,500 26/09/2003 £65,000 13/05/2004 113.11% 1 £26,500 24/06/2002 £58,500 17/02/2006 120.75% 4 £27,000 16/05/2003 £65,000 14/05/2004 140.74% 1 £14,000 22/01/2003 £34,000 10/10/2003 142.86% 0.5 £24,000 14/11/2003 £62,500 21/08/2006 160.42% 3 £14,000 22/01/2003 £52,750 16/06/2004 276.79% 1.5 £13,000 18/08/2000 £57,000 12/07/2005 338.46% 5

Derived from http://www.houseprices.co.uk/

3.3.e. However, with a predicted economic downturn, the potential risk arises that these areas will cease to attract any would-be investors, buyers or renters. In some cases, where homes cannot be let or sold and remain empty, the impact can trigger low demand. It would therefore be prudent to monitor the condition of properties in these potentially high risk areas, and to consider the best course of action should this trend continue. Ashfield District Council is already aware of these issues and is working on bringing empty homes back into use13. Other

13 http://www.ashfield-dc.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/environment/building-control/dangerous-structures/open-and-derelict-properties/empty-properties/empty-homes-campaign/

3-27

measures to prevent low demand can include community schemes, or in extreme cases demolition.14 .

3.3.f. Another finding worth mentioning is a seeming abundance of low cost commercial property for sale and rent in and around Ashfield District. Though several advertisements (in www.rightmove.co.uk ) specify price on application, the lower end of the listings are on the market at below £7,000.00. It is probably advisable to do some local research into the status and condition of commercial property in the district, as this may be indicative of another area which requires attention and support.

3.4. Right to Buy Sales

3.4.a. Since sales of existing Social Housing stock to tenants under the Right to Buy scheme are

not always recorded within Land Registry data, but may have markedly altered the shape of the market (particularly as regards resales into the private sector and gentrification), data from Ashfield Homes (Ashfield District Council ALMO) is examined below. There have been a total of 641 right to buy sales since 2001. At the time of the Census, this was around 8% of social housing stock in Ashfield. The majority of these sales were on the Carsic estate. Most properties sold were semi-detached houses, the biggest proportion of which had 3 bedrooms. Although 3 bed semi detached houses still account for a large proportion of stock, they remain highly popular among applicants and their depletion is likely to have affected the ability of applicants to obtain their property of choice.

Figure 3:13 Right to Buy sales in Ashfield – 2001 to 2008

Source: Ashfield Homes (2008) © Crown Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. Licence Number: 100018986

14 See http://www.mvmp.co.uk/ for an example of work in low demand areas

3-28

Figure 3:14 Right to Buy Sales by Estate since 2001 Estate No. sales Estate No. sales

Carsic 109 Croft Avenue / Chatsworth Drive 9

Greenwood Drive 61 Central Avenue 8 Upper Coxmoor 55 Washdyke 7 Nabbs Lane / Salterford 42 Stanton Hill / Meden Bank 7 Healdswood 40 Alfreton Road / Mapplewells 6 Welbeck 30 Bannerman Road 5 Kingsway 29 Jacksdale / Westwood 5 Ruffs 27 St Helens 5 Lower Coxmoor / Upper Coxmoor 24

Astral Close (Former RAF Site) 4

Leamington 23 Station Road Area 4 Hill Crescent 22 Brookside 4 Huthwaite 19 Wighay Estate 3 Spring Road 16 Cherry Avenue 2 Garden Road 16 Underwood 1 Eastfield Side 15 Annesley 1 Forest Road / Beechwood 14 George Street 1 White City 14 Beauvale 1 Butlers Hill 12 TOTAL RTB Sales since 2001 641


3.5.a. Land Registry and online data on house prices within the Ashfield District suggests the

following initial findings:

• Though Ashfield contains a number of identifiable settlements due to urban morphology15, there are few clear price differentials between them. Each patch of housing shows an array of prices within its sales data.

• Semi-detached housing is the most commonly sold property type and, during the housing boom, typically sold at around £90-100,000. • Terraced houses have accounted for a significant proportion of sales in Ashfield (just under 30%) and are the cheapest property type, with most selling at around £70,000. Around

10% of terraces sold for below £60,000 between 2006 and 2008. Though these low cost terraces are fairly spread out across the district, some streets in particular are showing clusters of these lower cost houses, and should be monitored as being at higher risk of low demand.

• There are a significant number of commercial properties being advertised for sale at low cost which may become an issue of itself. • Right to Buy purchases have been most common on the Carsic Estate since 2001. Proximity to council estates provides some explanation for the frequency of lower cost properties in Ashfield, but this cannot be used consistently to account for lower prices. • Despite being relatively less expensive than elsewhere, prices in Ashfield have still risen enough to outstrip the ability to buy of many residents (see chapter on demographic, economic and social trends).

15 Physical factors like roads, railway lines, green spaces etc

4-29

4) Housing Need

4.1. The Social Housing Sector 4.1.a. The following section examines data from within the social and private sector,

including:

• Social housing applicant waiting list • CORE lettings data (General Needs, Intermediate Housing and Supported Housing) • Local authority lettings data • Private Sector Stock condition • Private Rental Properties • Houses in Multiple Occupation • Homelessness

4.2. Waiting List analysis

4.2.a. According to the 2008 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix return for Ashfield District, the number of households on the waiting list at 1st April 2008 was 4,462. The most common requirement is for 2 bedroom properties. The proportionate demand for 2 bedroom properties has increased since 2005. This may be because the eligibility criteria for 3 bedroom properties have changed; meaning people who previously would have taken 3 bedrooms must now accept 2.

Figure 4:1 Number of households on the waiting list in Ashfield District (2005-2008) Households on the waiting list 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total 3829 4364 4602 4462 Requiring 1 bedroom 140 145 214 328 % 4% 3% 5% 7% Requiring 2 bedrooms 2216 3402 3586 3340 % 58% 78% 78% 75% Requiring 3 bedrooms 1285 677 669 653 % 34% 16% 15% 15% Requiring +3 bedrooms 175 138 133 141 % 5% 3% 3% 3% Unspecified no. bedrooms 13 2 0 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% Households in reasonable preference category # # 1763 1790 % 38% 40%

Source: HSSA (DCLG 2007), Ashfield District Council

4.2.b. Data extracted from the current waiting list for Ashfield District has kindly been made available by Ashfield Homes. The entries provided date to 18th August 2008, when the total number of households on the waiting list (live applications, excluding garages and garage plots) was 4,391. Just over half of these have been nominated to a Registered Social Landlord, and around 15% are transfers. Two thirds of the waiting list is made up of applicants coming from within Ashfield.

4-30

Figure 4:2 Ashfield Homes waiting list applications by category Waiting List Category No. applicants Percent of total Nominated to RSL Care Leavers Scheme 4 0.1% Homeless 7 0.2% Transfer 680 15.5% 312 Waiting List - outside Ashfield 836 19.0% 515 Waiting List - within Ashfield 2864 65.2% 1601 Total 4391 100.0% 2428 Percentage nominated to RSL 55%

Source: Ashfield Homes 4.2.c. In total there are 32 categories used to describe waiting list applicants within the

database used by Ashfield Homes (shown below).

Figure 4:3 Waiting list applicant categories Household Type Sub categories Couple Cohabiting couple (no children) Married couple (no children) Elderly couple Elderly couple with no dependents Couple with children Cohabiting couple - pregnant Cohabiting couple with 1 child Cohabiting couple with 2 children Cohabiting couple with 3 children Cohabiting couple with 4 or more children Man & Wife - Pregnant Man & Wife with 1 child Man & Wife with 2 children Man & Wife with 3 children Man & Wife with 4 or more children Elderly with dependants Elderly couple with dependant/s Elderly Man with dependant/s Elderly Woman with dependant/s Lone Parents Single Man with 1 child Single Man with 2 children Single Man with 3 children Single Man with 4 or more children Single Woman - pregnant Single Woman with 1 Child Single Woman with 2 children Single Woman with 3 children Single Woman with 4 or more children Singles Single Man - no children Single Woman - no children Elderly singles Elderly Man with no dependants Elderly Woman with no dependants Other Other Two or more relatives/friends Applicant type code no longer exists Garage Garage/plot applicant

Source: Ashfield Homes (2008) 4.2.d. Based on the summary groups on the left hand side of the above table, the waiting

list is divided up as follows:

4-31

Figure 4:4 Ashfield Homes Waiting List distribution by household type Household Type Total Percent of total Couple 477 10% Elderly couple 268 6% Couple with children 671 15% Elderly with dependants 53 1% Lone Parents 1041 23% Singles 1394 31% Elderly singles 381 8% Other 108 2% Garage 173 4% Total 4566 100%

Source: Ashfield Homes (2008)

Figure 4:5 Ashfield Waiting List - Breakdown of household types

Waiting list applicants

CoupleElderly coupleCouple with childrenElderly with dependantsLone ParentsSinglesElderly singlesOtherGarage


4.2.e. The largest groups coming through the waiting list are singles (around a third), lone parent families (around a quarter), and couples with children (15%). The general impression given by the data is that young people are leaving the family home to go straight into social housing. CORE16 data will be examined later in this section, and may help to reveal more about the people being housed.

4.2.f. Entries on the waiting list date back as far as 1973. Ashfield Homes has confirmed

that these applicants are often waiting for specific properties, and accumulate points by staying on the waiting list, effectively ‘saving’ points for future use, when their preferred property becomes available. However, most of the waiting list is made up of applicants who have been added within the last 3 to 4 years.

16 The Continuous Recording System; www.core.ac.uk

4-32

Figure 4:6 Transfer and waiting list applicants by year of application Year Transfer Waiting List - outside Ashfield Waiting List - within Ashfield 1975 1 1983 1 1985 1 1986 1 1 1987 4 1990 2 1991 2 1992 2 1993 1 1 1994 1 5 1995 2 1996 1 4 1997 2 1 5 1998 4 1 12 1999 6 4 10 2000 16 1 19 2001 22 1 37 2002 21 6 43 2003 17 12 76 2004 26 20 84 2005 43 40 202 2006 89 96 324 2007 202 331 1012 2008 229 321 1015 TOTAL 680 836 2864

Source: Ashfield Homes 4.2.g. Note that when an applicant’s status has been updated, their application has been

counted in this table from the year of the update. There is a substantial increase in the number of applicants on the waiting list (particularly within but also outside Ashfield) between 2006 and 2007. This was around the time policies were being introduced to deal with the national housing affordability crisis, and evidence of the shortage of affordable housing seems to present itself in the growing backlog of need.

4-33

4.3. CORE data

4.3.a. The Continuous Recording System (CORE) is a useful source for deriving information about who is moving into social housing, from where, and why. This data source records a variety of information about new lets, supported housing and sales of intermediate housing products, and transfer information. Most Registered Social Landlords provide data for CORE, and more recently local authorities have been providing data also. CORE data will not reveal much about existing tenants, but will be useful in furthering analysis of the waiting list. CORE data will be examined from 2006-7 to 2007-8.

4.3.b. The table below shows an overview of the data being examined. Initially the data

suggests:

• Most social housing in Ashfield is procured through the local authority ALMO. • A significant proportion of the housing provided by RSLs (Housing Associations) during this

period was supported housing. • There have been relatively few sales of intermediate housing products in Ashfield over the

period (although feedback from RSLs suggests they were popular until the recent economic downturn).

Figure 4:7 CORE data overview (2006 – 2008) Type of housing No. lets recorded between April 2006 and March 2008 General Needs (Housing Associations) 294 General Needs (Local Authority) 1,295 Supported Housing (Housing Association) 138 Supported Housing (Local Authority) no data New Sales (Housing Associations) 29 Total Lets/Sales 1,756

Source: CORE 4.3.c. Looking at an overview of the data within each local housing area17, most activity

appears to be in Sutton-in-Ashfield, at least over the past couple of years. Fewest lets are recorded in West Notts and other rural areas (this is unlikely to be a reflection of demand or need, but more a suggestion that there are fewer properties available in those areas).

Figure 4:8 Social Lettings/Sale activity – breakdown by settlement/local housing area

Breakdown by settlement

No. general needs lets (LA+HA)

No. supported housing lets

No. sales

Total lets/sales

Sutton-in-Ashfield 662 42 15 719 Kirkby-in-Ashfield 425 38 2 465 Hucknall 384 27 5 416 West Notts 85 7 0 92 Rural 1 0 0 1

Source: CORE 4.3.d. Details on the current RSL stock has not been made available, so data from 2003-4

is shown below along with the breakdown of local authority (Ashfield Homes) stock by settlement:

17 N.B. This is derived from geocoded data. Some addresses have not been successfully geocoded, so numbers will not match exactly with the original overview.

4-34

Figure 4:9 Stock/Lettings proportions by settlement/local housing area Stock numbers

Total Stock by settlement/local market LA

RSL (as recorded in 2003-4) Combined

% of overall stock Total Lets As % of lets

Sutton-in-Ashfield 3,082 309 3,391 42.4% 662 42.5% Kirkby-in-Ashfield 1,834 213 2,047 25.6% 425 27.3% Hucknall 1,737 226 1,963 24.5% 384 24.6% West Notts 527 64 591 7.4% 85 5.5% Rural 7 0 7 0.1% 3 0.2% TOTAL 7,187 812 7,999 100.0% 1,559 100.0% Source: CORE/Ashfield Homes

4.3.e. Apparently, the distribution of lettings is strongly related to the distribution of stock.

Lettings viewed proportionately across each local housing area match almost exactly with the stock held in the corresponding area18. There are very few properties available in the rural parts of Ashfield, so there are few lets. Many properties are available in Sutton-in-Ashfield, so more of them are let. It is difficult to say how far this stock distribution is a reflection of demand, cost factors or otherwise.

4.3.f. The next table shows a breakdown of where demand (or need) for social housing is

emerging from. Almost a half of all tenants moving into council or RSL properties between 2006 and 2008 were from Sutton-in-Ashfield or Kirkby-in-Ashfield (and in terms of people moving within the district, over 70% were from the Northern area). Just under a fifth of people letting in the district over this period had come from further afield (outside all of the neighbouring local authority boundaries). People moving to Hucknall account for around 16% of all new lets over the period, (and around 22% of movers from within the district). A number of people are applying in Ashfield from Nottingham, Mansfield and Gedling.

Figure 4:10 Previous addresses of social housing tenants – lettings recorded 2006-8

Previous address Number general needs tenants

Proportion of lets 2006-8

Sutton-in-Ashfield 450 28.3% Kirkby-in-Ashfield 369 23.2% Further afield 292 18.4% Hucknall 256 16.1% West Notts 60 3.8% Mansfield 45 2.8% Nottingham 34 2.1% Gedling 26 1.6% Bolsover 18 1.1% Broxtowe 14 0.9% Amber Valley 11 0.7% Rural 5 0.3% Newark and Sherwood 5 0.3% NE Derbyshire 4 0.3% Total 1589 100.0%

Source: CORE

18 Note that data on RSL stock is not available after 2003-4 – it has not been provided for this study

4-35

4.3.g. Lets in 2006 – 2008 by household type within each settlement are shown in the chart below. The majority groups of singles and lone parent families are clearly visible, though each local area has a different profile. Hucknall and Sutton both have proportionately more singles than other areas, where Kirkby and West Notts have more lone and two parent families. West Notts has higher proportionate numbers of older households (both singles and couples). The rural data has not been included in the chart, as there are only 3 lets recorded by CORE in the period, all to lone parent families.

Figure 4:11 Profile of lettings (2006 – 2008) by household type for each settlement (%)

Lets by Household Type

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Hucknall Kirkby Sutton West Notts Total

1 adult1 adult & 1+ children1 elder2 adults2 elders2+ adults & 1+ childrenOther

Source: CORE

Figure 4:12 Profile of lettings (2006 – 2008) by household type for each settlement Settlement/Area Household Type Hucknall Kirkby Rural Sutton West Notts Total 1 adult 145 85 0 175 12 417 1 adult & 1+ children 85 120 3 137 21 366 1 elder 75 65 0 115 20 275 2 adults 14 29 0 36 3 82 2 elders 24 27 0 62 7 120 2+ adults & 1+ children 25 78 0 74 17 194 Other 16 21 0 63 5 105 384 425 3 662 85 1559 Source: CORE

4-36

Figure 4:13 General Needs Lets (including transfers) by age and household type (2006-8)

General needs lets by age and household type

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

16 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 thru 70 over 70

1 adult

2 adults

1 adult & 1+ children

2+ adults & 1+ children

1 elder

2 elders

Other

Source: CORE

4.3.h. The age profile of different household types coming into new general needs lets in Ashfield shows a number of patterns. Single households are the largest group in the 16 to 20 age range (which suggests young adults are leaving the family home to go straight into social housing), but are then overtaken by lone parent applicants up to the 30 to 40 age group, when again the single applicants are the most common. Families with children seem most commonly to apply at around 25 to 40 (as would be expected). The most common household types to be housed (as discussed previously) are singles, lone parent families, and single elderly applicants.

4.3.i. The majority of social stock held in Ashfield is within council estate boundaries.

Ashfield Homes sub-areas encompass these estate boundaries, which are then split into secondary sub-areas (sub-sub areas) to enable further distinction and choice to the applicant. Sub-areas as detailed by Ashfield Homes are shown in the map below and full details are included in the appendix. There are a total of 47 sub-areas and 427 sub-sub areas – sub-sub areas are mainly identified as street/road names.

4-37

Figure 4:14 Ashfield Council sub-areas and estate boundaries


4.3.j. To determine something about the nature of the different local housing markets from a social housing perspective the following outputs examine turnover. Turnover is determined as the number of relets as a proportion of total stock. If the resulting figure is high, this could be taken to suggest that an area struggles to retain residents – experiencing high levels of ‘churning’19. An area with a high turnover could indicate a target for policy focus.

Figure 4:15 Overall turnover by settlement (relets/total stock) Housing area All Ashfield Hucknall Kirkby-in-Ashfield Sutton-in-Ashfield West Notts Rural LA Stock Held 7082 1737 1732 3081 527 5 HA Stock Held 824 226 212 322 64 0 Total Stock Held 7906 1963 1944 3403 591 5 LA Lets 626 169 159 255 42 1 of which transfers 91 32 19 34 6 0 Net LA lets 535 137 140 221 36 1 HA lets 123 15 41 67 0 0 of which transfers 10 0 8 2 0 0 Net HA Lets 113 15 33 65 0 0 Total net lets 648 152 173 286 36 1 Turnover (lets as % of stock) 8% 8% 9% 8% 6% 20% Source: CORE (2007-8). N.B. The rural figure seems high but only includes 5 lets in total

19 Where properties have a high number of relets due to tenants frequently moving in and out of an area

4-38

4.3.k. The turnover rate for Ashfield as a whole is approximately 8%. Overall there is not much difference between each area – except that West Notts has a lower turnover percentage than the other areas. The numbers in the rural areas are too low to draw any meaningful conclusions. However, it is probably prudent to mention here that prices in the rural areas of Ashfield are not markedly different from those in other areas, so the normal assumptions about demand and affordability in rural areas cannot be easily applied to Ashfield. The reasons recorded for each relet are discussed below.

4.3.l. The following table shows turnover by estate according to the boundaries provided

by Ashfield District Council. This does not include stock located outside of the estate boundaries so totals will not match those for Ashfield overall. At this level there is more variation, with turnover rates ranging from zero to 11%. Those estates with a higher turnover may contain properties which are difficult to let or unpopular with applicants. The areas with a turnover rate higher than Ashfield overall (excluding transfers) are:

• Beauvale Estate (Hucknall): 11% turnover rate • Butlers Hill Estate (Hucknall): 11% turnover rate • Eastfield Side (Sutton): 10% turnover rate • Bannerman Road (Kirkby): 9% turnover rate • Lower Coxmoor/Upper Coxmoor (Kirkby): 9% turnover rate

4.3.m. Feedback from local housing professionals has suggested that Coxmoor is perceived as an unpopular area, and local knowledge will confirm whether this is also true for the other areas with higher turnover levels. However, overall the level of turnover within Ashfield does not give too much cause for concern.

Figure 4:16 Turnover by estate (2007-08)

Housing area

LA Stock Held

HA Stock Held

Total Stock Held

LA Lets

of which transfers

Net LA lets

HA lets

of which transfers

Net HA Lets

Total net lets

Turnover (lets as % of stock)

Beauvale 104 1 105 14 2 12 0 0 0 12 11% Butlers Hill 291 0 291 39 8 31 0 0 0 31 11% Eastfield Side 128 0 128 7 0 7 6 0 6 13 10% Bannerman Road 183 0 183 16 0 16 0 0 0 16 9% Lower Coxmoor / Upper Coxmoor 374 2 376 38 6 32 0 0 0 32 9% Central Avenue 21 3 24 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 8% Carsic 923 32 955 85 8 77 0 0 0 77 8% Palmer Avenue 40 0 40 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 8% Astral Close (Former RAF Site) 37 17 54 5 1 4 0 0 0 4 7% Upper Coxmoor 337 15 352 28 2 26 0 0 0 26 7% Jacksdale / Westwood 87 0 87 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 7% George Street 207 0 207 16 2 14 0 0 0 14 7% Alfreton Road / Mapplewells 101 3 104 11 4 7 0 0 0 7 7% Healdswood 217 6 223 16 1 15 0 0 0 15 7% Nuncargate 93 0 93 9 3 6 0 0 0 6 6% Greenwood Drive 387 1 388 26 3 23 0 0 0 23 6%

4-39

Welbeck 284 20 304 20 4 16 2 0 2 18 6% Croft Avenue / Chatsworth Drive 206 60 266 17 4 13 2 0 2 15 6% Forest Road / Beechwood 107 0 107 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 6% Leamington 657 8 665 40 5 35 1 0 1 36 5% St Helens 117 0 117 6 1 5 0 0 0 5 4% Kirkby Woodhouse 118 0 118 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 3% Ruffs 142 10 152 5 2 3 2 0 2 5 3% Hill Crescent 131 0 131 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 3% White City 253 0 253 9 2 7 0 0 0 7 3% Garden Road 40 0 40 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3% Spring Road 122 1 123 5 2 3 0 0 0 3 2% Nabbs Lane / Salterford 230 2 232 6 1 5 0 0 0 5 2% Kingsway 142 0 142 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 2% Annesley Woodhouse 61 0 61 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2% Huthwaite 319 4 323 5 1 4 0 0 0 4 1% Annesley 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Brookside 27 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Cherry Avenue 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Edward Close / Farm Avenue 24 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Kingsway2 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Linby Road 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Moor Road, Bestwood 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% New Cross 79 9 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Pond Street 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Stanton Hill / Meden Bank 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Station Road Area 83 1 84 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% Town Centre 85 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Underwood 56 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Washdyke 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Wighay Estate 49 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Source: CORE 2006-8 4.3.n. Applying the same calculation to the HSSA data gives a turnover rate for Ashfield

overall of 6.5%. The discrepancy between the two outputs is probably down to the calculation above excluding data on lettings of supported housing, and the table below excluding RSL lets that are not through LA referrals. Since supported housing is a different form of social housing with different tenant groups and requirements, it will be examined separately in this section.

4-40

Figure 4:17 Turnover (Ashfield overall) based on HSSA data Local authority LA % of stock Total stock gross lets 2004-5 746 10.1% 7357 gross lets 2005-6 586 8.1% 7268 gross lets 2006-7 841 11.7% 7203 gross lets 2007-8 646 9.1% 7081 Total lets 2004-8 2819 9.8% average gross lets trend 694 gross lets average 705

transfers 2004-5 90 1.2% transfers 2005-6 89 1.2% transfers 2006-7 123 1.7% transfers 2007-8 90 transfer average 98

net lets 2004-5 656 8.9% net lets 2005-6 497 6.8% net lets 2006-7 718 10.0% net lets 2007-8 556 7.9%

Total lets net of transfers 2004-8 1871 6.5% average

Avg net lets 607

Source: HSSA 2004-8, DCLG, Ashfield District Council

Figure 4:18 Reason for Vacancy (all Ashfield)

Reason for vacancy (all Ashfield)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45% Move to PRS/otherPrevious tenant diedInternal transferProperty abandonedEvictionMove to other LAMove to other HANew letLet to occupier

Source: CORE 2006-8

4.3.o. The data shows that by far the most common reason (in almost 40% of cases) for

relet of social housing is that people have moved into the private rented sector or some other form of housing. This could be interpreted as an indication that social rented housing

4-41

is used in some cases as a temporary form of tenure while the tenant saves a deposit or searches for suitable private accommodation. Internal transfers are the second most common reason for relets (accounting for approximately 14% of cases), and abandonment and eviction combined account for around 15% of relets. Although the following analysis combines local authority and RSL general needs lettings data, there are some differences between them which can be seen in the table below.

Figure 4:19 Reason for vacancy – comparison of RSL and LA lets Reason for vacancy General Needs HA % of lets General Needs LA % of lets Total New let 36 21% 3 0% 39 Relet - internal transfer 15 9% 186 14% 201 Relet - prev tenant moved to private sector or other accom 70 41% 509 39% 579 Relet - previous tenant died 8 5% 304 23% 312 Relet - previous tenant evicted 9 5% 94 7% 103 Relet - previous tenant moved to (other) HA 1 1% 55 4% 56 Relet - previous tenant moved to (other) LA 12 7% 49 4% 61

Relet - property abandoned by previous tenant 15 9% 99 8% 114

Relet - to tenant who occupied same property as temp accom 3 2% 0% 3 Total 169 100% 1299 100% 1468

Source: CORE 2006-8 4.3.p. Housing Associations (RSLs) show a much higher number of new lets and fewer

transfers. The comparative numbers of vacancies due to the death of the previous tenant suggests that RSLs generally have a younger portfolio of tenants. Both landlord types show a significant number of tenants moving into the private sector, which is a key finding of this analysis.

Figure 4:20 Household types in RSL and LA lets (2006-8) Household Type General Needs HA % of lets General Needs LA % of lets Total 1 adult 22 13% 363 28% 385 1 adult & 1+ children 39 23% 296 23% 335 1 elder 12 7% 261 20% 273 2 adults 11 7% 63 5% 74 2 elders 17 10% 106 8% 123 2+ adults & 1+ children 27 16% 152 12% 179 Other 41 24% 58 4% 99 Total 169 100% 1299 100% 1468

Source: CORE (2006-8)

4-42

4.3.q. The main difference between the households renting from the local authority and those renting from RSLs looks to be age. It seems that the older population are more likely to apply for and obtain housing via the council, whereas younger people (assuming that the ‘other’ category is likely to contain mostly younger, less settled households) look more likely to accept referral to a housing association. Looking again at the waiting list confirms this to some extent, particularly in the case of single elderly people. Lone parents and couples with children appear to be referred to RSLs much more often than other groups. The difference across the remaining groups looks about the same (except there are probably very few garages held by RSLs).

Figure 4:21 Household type and nominations to RSLs

Household type/nomination to RSL

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Couple Couple withchildren

Elderly couple Elderly singles Elderly withdependants

Garage Lone Parents Other Singles

Nomination to RSLNot nominated to RSL

Source: CORE 2006-8

4-43

4.4. Offers of social housing 4.4.a. A database detailing offers made, accepted, declined and withdrawn has been made

available by Ashfield Homes. From this it may be possible to assess which properties are harder to let, and where, and which are more readily accepted or popular, as well as who accepts and rejects properties and why. The data examined here is offers made between 1st April 2007 and 31 March 2008, and contains multiple offers of some properties. Details on 710 properties are included in total within the dataset, with a total of 1539 offers between them. The map below shows those properties in the offer data which have geocoded (a total of 581/710).

Figure 4:22 Location of properties in offer database


4.4.b. Some properties have had several offers made to tenants, some only one. The

mean average number of offers per property is just over 2, however the mode and median averages are both 1, suggesting the norm is distorted by a couple of hard to let properties. As detailed previously, Ashfield Homes allocates a sub-area to each property. The offer data has been mapped by sub-area at which level all properties have been geocoded.

Figure 4:23 Average Offers per property (2007-8) Average number of offers per property Mode 1 Median 1 Mean 2.17 Highest 19

4-44

4.4.c. The breakdown of properties offered by settlement/housing market logically follows the distribution of stock in Ashfield, with most offers being made in Sutton. However, there is more stock in Kirkby than in Hucknall, but more offers are being made in the southern area, which may be a reflection of applicant demand, since we know that turnover rates in Hucknall and Kirkby are about the same according to earlier analysis.

Figure 4:24 Offers by settlement

Area Stock Held by LA No. properties offered Hucknall 1737 403 Kirkby 1834 341 Rural (& West Notts) 534 77 Sutton 3082 718

Source: Ashfield Homes (2008) 4.4.d. The Ashfield Homes website provides some information about area popularity,

detailing the average number of points required for each general property type by area. This confirms that properties in Hucknall generally require more points before an offer can be made (with the exception of Bungalows).

Figure 4:25 Lettings and average points by area - 1st May 08 to 31st July 08

Source: Ashfield Homes (www.ashfieldhomes.co.uk )

4.4.e. Altogether there are 32 different categories used to record why people refuse

properties. The most common (those given 10 times or more) are listed below. In the majority of cases, there is no response to the offer made, which could be interpreted as evidence that the applicant is no longer interested in social housing – that they have found their own solution. Clearly, it cannot be assumed that this is always the case, since there are many reasons why somebody might not respond to an offer, but applying for social housing is unlikely to be the only avenue a person might take in order to find somewhere to live.

4-45

Figure 4:26 Most common reasons for refusal of offers Reasons for refusal of offers Count No response to firm offer 135 Garage/Plot Refused 133 No longer interested in area 95 Not interested in property type 74 Not interested at present time 69 Prefers another empty property 52 Withdrawn - Garage let to Council Tenant 39 Failed to collect keys to view 31 Property not suitable for needs 30 Wrong size of property 23 No longer wants rehousing 20 Withdrawn - due to change of circs 19 Wrong location 16 Reasonable refusal - prop not suit needs 15 Reasonable refusal - special circs 14 Reasonable refusal - too ill to move 13 Potential ASB or safety issues 10

Source: Ashfield Homes (April 07 to March 08) 4.4.f. It is necessary here to use some more subjective assumptions to try to get some

hints from the data about the different areas and property types. Most of the circumstances given above are outside of any official level of control. However, those highlighted may give some indication about more general preferences among specific groups about certain property types or areas. The next section of analysis focuses on these categories. The following categories have been combined:

Property not suitable for needs with Reasonable refusal - prop not suit needs Wrong location with Reasonable refusal - wrong area Wrong size of property with Reasonable refusal - Wrong size of prop

4.4.g. There are some sub-areas with no refusals under the categories specified. These

are:

• Kirkby: Welbeck/Clumber (Lower Coxmoor) – 8 out of 15 refusal reasons were blank • Kirkby: Upper Coxmoor (Springfield Way) – no offers have been recorded in this area for

the period • Hucknall: Wighay Estate – only 2 offers/refusals were made and no reasons were given • Hucknall: Washdyke Lane Estate - no offers have been recorded in this area for the period • Hucknall: Garden Road Estate – only 2 offers/refusals were made and no reasons were

given • Hucknall: Astral Grove – 4 offers/refusals were made and no reasons were given

4-46

Figure 4:27 Proportion of offers declined and reasons for refusal by sub-area (main settlements)

Source: Ashfield Homes (April 07 to March 08) 4.4.h. Data previously showed that the most common reason given for declining a property

is that the applicant is no longer interested in the area. Aside from this, in most sub-areas the main issue leading to decline of an offer looks to be property type. Of the 45 sub-areas defined by Ashfield Homes, 13 of them show applicants refusing offers of social housing over 50 percent of the time. It seems fairly common for around half of offers to be accepted in most sub-areas (estates), and the data suggests that the more offers that are made in an area, the more often they will be rejected. This could be an indication of popularity, since the more popular areas where residents are settled are less likely to have any stock come available and vice versa.

Figure 4:28 Acceptance/Rejection levels across sub-areas with offer count Proportion of properties rejected No. sub-areas Total offers 0 to 20% 3 8 20 to 30% 6 94 30 to 40% 10 291 40 to 50% 13 501 50 to 60% 10 463 60 to 70% 2 96 70 to 80% 1 39

Source: Ashfield Homes (April 07 to March 08)

4-47

Figure 4:29 Sub-areas with high proportions of offers being declined with most common property type in stock/declined; number of beds and most common reason for declining

Sub-area Proportion declined

Most common recipients of offers

Most common property type in stock

Most common prop type declined

0-1 bed

2 bed

3 bed

Most common reason for declining

Huthwaite South 79%

Elderly households (singles and couples) Bungalow Bungalow 19 11 1

No longer interested in area/not interested in property type

Flat accom (Brand Crt/Lne) 69% Singles

Post 1945 Low Rise Flat Flat 36 0 0

No response/not interested

Leamington - Hardwick Lane 61% Singles

Pre-1945 Semi-Detached House Flat 24 3 0 No response

New Cross 59% Garage Bungalow Garage 15 4 0 Garage/Plot refused

Spring Bank 59% Garage Medium Rise Garage 19 0 0

Garage/Plot refused

Beauvale Estate 59% Elderly singles


Wrong size/not interested in prop type

Town Centre 58% Singles Medium Rise Flat 11 0 0

Prefers another empty property

Carsic - Oval Area 56% Singles


No interest in prop type/no response

Stanton Hill 56%

Families with children (incl. lone parents)

1965-74 House Terrace 2 1 11

No longer interested in area

Skegby 54% Singles Bungalow Bungalow 6 8 1 Not interested Bannerman Road Area 53% Elderly singles Bungalow Bungalow 20 3 0

No interest in prop type/no response

Croft and Chatsworth 53% Singles

Medium Rise Flat 47 4 6

No response/not interested in property

Central 52% Elderly singles Bungalow Bungalow 10 0 1 Wrong size/unsuitable

Eastfield Side 50% Lone parent families Bungalow Terrace 6 0 5

No response/not interested

Leamington - Twitchell Area 50% Elderly singles Bungalow Bungalow 4 16 0

No longer interested in area

Source: Ashfield Homes (April 07 to March 08) 4.4.i. Ashfield Homes have undertaken their own investigations into the different sub-areas

and published their findings online (http://www.ashfieldhomes.co.uk/files/Neighbourhood/Estate%20Evaluation%20Ratings%20Aug06.doc). The data examined here falls in fairly neatly with their conclusions.

4.4.j. Other data has indicated that single households and lone parent families are the

most common applicant type on the waiting list. The table above suggests that singles and elderly singles are more likely to reject an offer of social housing than lone parent families. Most of the rejections in each area are of accommodation with 1 bedroom, with the exception of Skegby, Stanton Hill and Leamington – Twitchell Area. The most common reason given for rejection of offers in the table above is “no interest in property type”.

4-48

4.4.k. Looking at property types in more detail, a higher proportion of refusals is particularly

noticeable with regard to flats and bungalows. First floor flats perform better than others, and semi detached houses are clearly popular, though just over a third of offers for them have been declined nonetheless.

Figure 4:30 Offers by property type (all Ashfield) Offer Status Declined Let proportion declined 1st Floor Bedsit 40 24 60% 1st Floor Flat 82 127 37% Bungalow - Detached 3 0% Bungalow - End Terrace 47 23 67% Bungalow - Semi Detached 99 61 60% Bungalow - Terrace 44 28 57% Garage 102 69 42% Garage Plot 3 3 50% Ground Floor Bedsit 21 21 47% Ground Floor Flat 177 120 58% House - End Terrace 7 6 47% House - Semi Detached 74 152 31% House - Terrace 18 26 38% Maisonette 7 4 64% Second Floor Bedsit 1 1 50% Second Floor Flat 9 17 35% Total 731 685 47%

N.B. The table does not show offers that are pending or withdrawn. Source: Ashfield Homes (April 07 to March 08)

Figure 4:31 Offers declined and accepted by number of bedrooms

Offers declined and accepted

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Declined Let

1 bed2 beds3 beds4 beds


4-49

4.4.l. There is a very clear link shown above between the number of bedrooms a property has and the likelihood of its being accepted. Most of the properties declined over the period had one bedroom, most of those accepted had three.

4.4.m. This may seem to be an obvious conclusion – however it is important to note that

even where a person may only be eligible for social housing with one bedroom, this does not guarantee that they will take it.

Figure 4:32 Applicants accepting offers of 1 bedroom property

1 bed properties accepted

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Cohab Couplewith nochildren

Elderly couplewith no

dependants

Elderly Manwith no

dependants

ElderlyWoman withdependant/s

ElderlyWoman with

nodependants

Man & Wife -no children

Single Man -no children

Single Manwith 1 child

SingleWoman - no

children

SingleWoman with 1

Child

1st Floor Bedsit

1st Floor Flat

Bungalow - End Terrace

Bungalow - Semi Detached

Bungalow - Terrace

Ground Floor Bedsit

Ground Floor Flat

Second Floor Bedsit

Second Floor Flat

4-50

Figure 4:33 Applicants rejecting offers of 1 bedroom property

1 bed properties declined

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

� � � �

��

��

��

��

��

� � � �

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

� � � �

��

��

��

��

��

� � � �

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

� � � �

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

� � � �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

� ��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

�

� ��

��

��

��

��

�

� � ��

��

��

��

� ��

��

1st Floor Bedsit

1st Floor Flat

Bungalow - End Terrace

Bungalow - Semi Detached

Bungalow - Terrace

Ground Floor Bedsit

Ground Floor Flat

Second Floor Bedsit

Second Floor Flat


4.4.n. The data shows that most offers of one bedroom properties being made and accepted are among single adults (including elderly singles), men in particular. Single men and women seem more likely to accept 1 bedroom accommodation than any other group, but almost just as likely to reject it.

Figure 4:34 Summary of offer responses by property and household type

Bsit or 1B Flat

2B Flat

3B Flat

1B Bung

2B Bung

3B Bung

4B Bung

2B Hse

3B Hse

4B Hse Gge Total

Couple Let 11 8 0 2 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 31 Declined 14 6 2 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 Elderly Couple Let 3 1 1 12 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Declined 11 2 0 26 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 Couple w. children Let 0 26 0 0 1 0 1 10 42 1 0 81 Declined 5 10 2 0 1 0 0 9 28 0 0 55 Elderly w. dependents Let 1 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Declined 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 Lone Parents Let 2 44 3 0 0 0 1 27 95 0 0 172 Declined 4 29 3 0 0 0 0 11 46 0 0 93 Singles Let 140 24 0 13 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 183 Declined 142 15 0 24 5 0 0 2 1 0 0 189 Elderly Singles Let 50 0 0 38 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 Declined 78 2 1 65 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 173

4-51

Other Let 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 Declined 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 Garage Let 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 72 Declined 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 105 Total Let 207 103 4 67 46 0 2 40 143 1 72 685 Declined 258 71 8 130 60 0 0 23 76 0 105 731 Overall 465 174 12 197 106 0 2 63 219 1 177 1416

Source: Ashfield Homes (April 07 to March 08) 4.4.o. The above table summarises the distribution of offers made by property type to each

household type, and the corresponding number of acceptances or declinations. This does not include any analysis of data on withdrawn or pending offers. The areas of the table mentioned below are highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.

Bedsits and 1 bed flats

4.4.p. These are the most commonly offered property type. They are mainly offered to

single applicants, who seem to accept them around half the time. They are also often offered to elderly single applicants, who are much less likely to accept them.

2 bed flats and maisonettes

4.4.q. There are far fewer of these being offered, though almost three times as many as 2

bed houses (Ashfield Homes have confirmed they have few 2 bed houses in their stock). They are most often offered to couples with children (either pregnant or with one child) and lone parents (mostly with 1 child but sometimes with 2). Singles are also offered these properties on occasion.

4.4.r. All groups accept 2 bed flats more often than not, but lone parents are the most

common household to accept these properties.

1 bed bungalows (all types)

4.4.s. 1 bed bungalows are most often offered to elderly singles, who have accepted them

just over a third of the time. In all instances 1 bed bungalows are rejected more often than they are accepted.

2 bed bungalows (all types)

4.4.t. There were fewer 2 bed bungalows offered to applicants, and again, these are

mostly offered to elderly singles. They were rejected 3 times out of 4 by this group. Elderly couples and couples, on the other hand, have accepted 2 bed bungalows around half the time. This seemingly selective behaviour among elderly applicants is recognised by housing workers as a tendency to go onto the waiting list in order to be housed in a specific area, often in a specific property – so these applicants will simply stay on the list waiting for their desired home to become available.

4-52

2 bed houses (all types)

4.4.u. As for 2 bed flats, the main recipients of offers for these properties are couples with

children or lone parents. Couples accept them about half the time, but the majority are offered to lone parents, who accept over 70% of offers.

3 bed houses (all types)

4.4.v. These are the second most common property type to be offered after 1 bed flats or

bedsits. They are mainly offered to couples with children or lone parents (as family homes), and are far more likely to be accepted. Twice as many have been let to lone parents, though a greater proportion of those offered to couples are accepted.

4-53

4.5. Supported Housing 4.5.a. In Ashfield from April 2006 to March 2008 there were a total of 138 lets of supported

housing. The location of the supported housing schemes looks to be fairly evenly spread between the Sutton, Kirkby and Hutton, with slightly more in the larger area of Sutton.

Figure 4:35 Supported Housing Lets 2006-2008 Supported Housing Lets: 3 April 2006 to 21 March 2008 2006 2007 2008 60 64 14 Lets by settlement (all years) Sutton-in-Ashfield 42 Kirkby-in-Ashfield 38 West Notts 7 Hucknall 27 Unmapped (no postcode) 24 Total 138

Source: CORE

Figure 4:36 Breakdown of client groups in supported housing by age (2006-8)

Client Groups in supported housing by age

0

5

10

15

20

25

under 16 16 to 25 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 to 84 over 85

Learning difficultiesMental health related problemsLeaving penal establishment or probationYoung person at risk or leaving careFrail elderly or older personSingle homeless in need of support

Source: CORE

4.5.b. The demand for supported housing in Ashfield has come mainly from 4 client groups:

“Frail elderly or older person” (the largest group); “Young person at risk or leaving care”; “Mental health related problems”; and “Leaving penal establishment or probation”. This is not surprising given the purpose of this provision.

4-54

Figure 4:37 Breakdown of client groups overall in supported housing Client Group Total % Learning difficulties 6 5% Mental health related problems 26 20% Leaving penal establishment or probation 24 18% Young person at risk or leaving care 25 19% Frail elderly or older person 46 35% Single homeless in need of support 3 2% No data 1 1% Total 131 100%

Source: CORE (2006-8) 4.5.c. Although the frail elderly or older group accounts for the largest proportion of

supported housing lets over the period, single adults account for the most common household type. This could relate to tenants fitting the category of frail elderly but aged below the threshold of what is normally considered ‘elderly’.

4.5.d. As shown in the chart above, a significant number of the ‘frail elderly or older person’

group is within the 45 to 64 years age band. The data shows that in fact tenants in this group are recorded to be as young as 43. This finding makes it difficult to make any assumptions about the specific needs of this group, as it is unlikely the needs or requirements of the younger end of the group will match those at the older end.

Figure 4:38 Age groups and household types in supported housing Household type Age of person 1 1 elder 2 elders 1 adult 2 adults Other Total under 16 0 0 5 0 0 5 16 to 25 0 0 40 0 1 41 25 to 44 0 0 30 0 0 30 45 to 64 6 7 12 1 1 27 65 to 84 18 5 0 0 0 23 over 85 5 0 0 0 0 5 Total 29 12 87 1 2 131

Source: CORE 4.5.e. In relation to the source of referral for social housing, most often applications come

directly from the tenant (in around a third of cases), particularly in the case of frail elderly or older applicants. Referrals from other sources are spread logically given the relative distribution of client groups. The second most common source of referral is social services (accounting for a little under a fifth of the total). Fewer than half of the recorded lets for supported housing over the period showed tenants intending to stay permanently. Most of those staying permanently (86%) are in the frail elderly or older client group.

Figure 4:39 Intended Stay of tenants in social housing Intended Stay of tenant Frequency Percent Medium stay 24 17% Permanent 62 45% Short stay 52 38% Total 138 100%

Source: CORE 2006-8

4-55

4.5.f. The breakdown of referrals by client group is shown in the chart below.

Figure 4:40 Source of referral by client group

Client Group & Source of Referral

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Tenantapplied for

internaltransfer

Tenantapplieddirect

Nominatedby localhousingauthority

Referred bylocal

authorityhousing

department

Voluntaryagency

SocialServices

Other sociallandlord

Police,probation

prison

Youthoffending

team

Communitymental

health team

Healthservice

Other

Learning difficultiesMental health related problemsLeaving penal establishment or probationYoung person at risk or leaving careFrail elderly or older personSingle homeless in need of support

Source: CORE 2006-8

4.5.g. Most lets of supported housing were in self contained flats with common facilities, or in a shared house or hostel. The houses and hostels tend to be occupied by the younger tenants, where the older applicants take the flats. Examining vacancy periods (the time each unit was vacant before it was let) shows that most units were empty a relatively short period before being relet. Though there is relatively little data in each category, there is some slight indication that self contained flats or bedsits are empty for a little longer than other units. It is difficult to interpret this data in terms of demand, since what people are willing to accept often differs from what they really want.

Figure 4:41 Supported Housing Lets - Unit Types and age ranges

Age Range Self-contained flat or bedsit

Self-contained flat or bedsit with common facilities

Shared house or hostel Bungalow

Self-contained house Total

under 16 0 0 5 0 0 5 16 to 25 2 2 31 0 6 41 25 to 44 4 5 16 1 4 30 45 to 64 3 16 4 4 0 27 65 to 84 1 21 1 0 0 23 over 85 0 5 0 0 0 5 10 49 57 5 10 131

Source: CORE

4-56

Figure 4:42 Supported Housing - Vacancy period and unit types

Time vacant Self-contained flat or bedsit

Self-contained flat or bedsit with common facilities

Shared house or hostel Bungalow

Self-contained house Total

Under 1 week 9 8 43 3 5 68 1 week to 1 month 4 13 1 0 3 21 1 to 3 months 2 17 7 2 2 30 3 to 6 months 2 8 1 0 0 11 over 6 months 0 3 3 0 0 6 TOTAL 17 49 55 5 10 136

Source: CORE 2006-8 4.6. Sales of Intermediate Housing (Source: CORE)

4.6.a. There were a total of 29 sales of intermediate housing products in Ashfield District

between April 2006 and March 2008. 17 of them were through shared ownership deals. Sales were mostly to families (both lone and two parent) and single adults. One buyer was a key worker.

Figure 4:43 Intermediate Housing Sales (2006-8) Type of Sale No. Sales Shared Ownership 17 Any other shared ownership 3 Right To Buy - RTB 1 New build HomeBuy 6 Open market HomeBuy 2 Total 29

Figure 4:44 IH Sales by household type (2006-8) Household Type Count 1 adult & children 7 2+ adults & children 3 Other 1 Single adult 8 Single elder 1 Two adults 1 No data 8

4.6.b. Most of the intermediate sales were in Sutton-in-Ashfield and Hucknall. 24 of the 29

sales were houses, and 5 two bed flats were sold in Sutton (in the Huthwaite area).

Figure 4:45 IH Sales by area (2006-8) Area No. Sales Sutton 15 Kirkby 2 Rural (incl. West Notts) 0 Hucknall 12 Property Type 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed Total Flat or maisonette 5 0 0 5 House 11 12 1 24 Total 16 12 1 29

4-57

4.6.c. Property values ranged from £56,000 to £170,000 and mortgages taken ranged from zero to £87,750. 17 buyers took a 50% equity stake in the property. 8 buyers purchased less than 50% of the property. All of the lower percentage stakes were deals for houses rather than flats. Monthly rental cost and service charges range from £100 to £375. The total monthly cost of the mortgage and charges combined varies from £100 to £770 (based on a standard variable mortgage with an APR of 6.6%). As a proportion of household income the cost of these properties ranged from 13% to 56%. In all of the cases where rent and mortgage costs accounted for over 50% of income the buyer was a single adult.

4.6.d. It may be, taking into account other evidence in Ashfield, that the intermediate

housing in the district appeals to or caters for a lone parent or post-separation market. It is interesting that many of the sales are either to single adults or lone parents. Also, the single adults are buying 2 and 3 bed houses. It is quite a leap to assume that these are separated parents who are buying a house with spare bedrooms for their children, but plausible given the other data about the demographics of the area. It is also more likely that this group would have some capital to access for a deposit (for example from a settlement on their previous home).

Figure 4:46 Intermediate Housing Sales by household type and property size Household Type 2 beds 3 beds 4 beds Total 1 adult & children 4 15 19 2+ adults & children 4 3 7 Other 3 3 Single adult 10 9 19 Single elder 2 2 Two adults 4 4 no data 12 6 18 Total 32 36 4 72

Source: CORE (2007-8)

4.7. The Private Rental Sector

4.7.a. In many areas across the UK private renting is increasingly seen as a secondary form of affordable housing, since the gap between the cost of renting is so considerable. However, this does not appear to be the case in Ashfield. According to data from the Hometrack Housing Intelligence System (www.housingintelligence.co.uk) it is not until you look at 3 bed properties that private renting becomes significantly cheaper than owner-occupation. It is unlikely then, that the argument for private renting as affordable housing is a strong one for many people. It may be that people who have little need or desire for social housing but are unable to access credit or savings for a mortgage are occupying much of the social housing in Ashfield.

Figure 4:47 Cross tenure affordability (All Ashfield) Cross tenure affordability (weekly cost) 1 bed property 2 bed property 3 bed property 90% mortgage £67.20 £101.40 £166.10 50% shared ownership no data £87.17 £126.36 Private renting £80.00 £99.00 £114.00 Social renting £61.30 £63.70 £63.80

Source: Hometrack Housing Intelligence System (www.housingintelligence.co.uk), CORE (2006-8)

4-58

Cross Tenure Affordability

£-

£20.00

£40.00

£60.00

£80.00

£100.00

£120.00

£140.00

£160.00

£180.00

1 bed property 2 bed property 3 bed property

90% mortgage50% shared ownershipPrivate rentingSocial renting

Source: Hometrack Housing Intelligence System. (www.housingintelligence.co.uk)

4.7.b. Searching for rental properties on www.rightmove.co.uk can help to shed some light

on the private rental sector which, as discussed in the area overview, is an increasingly important market but very difficult to obtain comprehensive data on. It should be emphasised here that the use of rightmove.co.uk is only to give an indication of the private rental sector, as the site is not comprehensive, can contain duplicates and may contain some properties which have since been let or their rental price altered. The following tentative suggestions can be made about properties currently on the rental market in Ashfield:

• There are not many 1 bed flats up for rent across Ashfield, and most look to be in Sutton or

Hucknall. It is often possible to find 2 or 3 bed flats or houses for more or less the same price.

• Hucknall has a large number of 2 bed flats available to rent, particularly in comparison to the other areas. They vary quite substantially, and a significant number of them are newly built or newly refurbished.

• There are not many bungalows to rent anywhere, and they appear slightly more expensive than houses or flats with equivalent bedrooms.

• 2 bedroom houses are fairly common across all areas, and vary quite substantially in their asking rent (particularly in Sutton).

• 3 bed houses are the most common property type up for rent everywhere except Hucknall (where there are more 2 bed apartments). The asking rent for these properties also varies widely, suggesting local preferences are relevant.

• Skegby is comparatively cheaper to rent in than the rest of Sutton, and the same can be said about Jacksdale when comparing it to Selston and Underwood. Selston shows more expensive detached houses, but the cost of other property types is fairly similar.

4-59

Figure 4:48 Property to rent (extracted from www.rightmove.co.uk ) Rightmove search for rental properties

Sutton-in-Ashfield

Kirkby-in-Ashfield Hucknall

Jacksdale/Selston/Underwood Skegby

1 Bed Flats £350 £395 £370 £350 no data No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price

7 advertised (£325-425) 1 advertised

8 advertised (£260-450)

2 advertised (£350, £350) none advertised

2 Bed Flats £400 £450 £455 £340 £285 No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price




2 advertised (£300,£375)

2 advertised (£385, £385)

3 Bed Flats no data no data no data no data £400 No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price

none advertised

none advertised

none advertised none advertised


4+ Bed Flats no data £425 £400 no data no data No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price

none advertised 1 advertised 1 advertised none advertised none advertised

1 Bed Bungalows no data no data £450 no data no data No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price

none advertised

none advertised 1 advertised none advertised none advertised

2 Bed Bungalows £510 £520 no data £465 £425 No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price

2 advertised (£495, £525)


none advertised


3 Bed Bungalows £560 £475 no data no data no data No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price


none advertised none advertised none advertised

4+ Bed Bungalows no data £950 £750 no data no data No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price

none advertised 1 advertised 1 advertised none advertised none advertised

4-60

1 Bed Houses no data no data no data no data no data No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price

none advertised

none advertised

none advertised none advertised none advertised

2 Bed Houses £440 £410 £465 £450 £400 No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price






3 Bed Houses £470 £450 £565 £640 £395 No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price





4+ Bed Houses £690 £740 £680 £1,175 no data No. advertised/Highest & Lowest Price




2 advertised (£750, £1,600) none advertised

Source: www.rightmove.co.uk

4.8. Houses in Multiple Occupation 4.8.a. There is not extensive data on Houses in Multiple Occupation in the Ashfield District,

but the collection of data on houses known to be in multiple occupation is useful in monitoring the growth of this form of household type, and for ensuring safety and quality standards are maintained. Most of these households are found in Sutton-in-Ashfield or Hucknall. The nature of these households may well be different, given the increased likelihood that Hucknall HMOs will be student households attending courses in Nottingham.

Figure 4:49 HMOs in Ashfield Settlement No. HMOs Annesley 1 Hucknall 25 Huthwaite 2 Jacksdale 1 Kirkby 9 Selston 1 Skegby 2 Stanton Hill 2 Sutton 20 Grand Total 63

Source: Ashfield District Council (2008)

4-61

4.9. Stock Condition 4.9.a. The BRE Stock Model (available at www.hi4em.org.uk) uses a number of categories

to measure the quality of homes in the private sector (including those in owner-occupation). The data is available down to ward level, and as such has been used in the Ashfield District Council Ward Profiles (July 2008). Since this work is very recent it is not necessary to repeat the analysis here. A summary of the BRE Stock Model results is provided in the table below. This data alone cannot deliver much information about the needs of households in each ward, but it could suggest where need might be likely to emerge from. The wards with the highest proportions of quality issues are highlighted.

Figure 4:50 BRE Stock Model outputs by ward

Ward No. Private sector dwellings

% non decent

% vulnerable

% fuel poverty

% cat one hazard

% disrepair

Jacksdale 1234 42-43% 21% 10% 27% 13% Sutton-in-Ashfield Central 3657 41% 25% 7% 26% 14% Hucknall Central 2507 40% 21% 7% 26% 14% Kirkby-in-Ashfield Central 2496 40% 23% 7% 26% 14% Selston 2185 40% 20% 7% 26% 12% Sutton-in-Ashfield North 3912 40% 23% 7% 26% 13% Sutton-in-Ashfield East 3579 37-39% 24% 7% 25% 13% Underwood 1195 35-36% 17% 9% 25% 11% Woodhouse 2496 35-36% 22% 8% 23-24% 11% Hucknall East 2056 33-34% 18-19% 6% 20-21% 11% Kirkby-in-Ashfield East 1871 33-34% 26% 8% 22% 11% Sutton-in-Ashfield West 3763 33-34% 21% 6% 20-21% 12% Hucknall North 2643 31-32% 18-19% 6% 20-21% 11% Kirkby-in-Ashfield West 2164 25-30% 23% 5% 15-19% 8-10% Hucknall West 3333 24% 18-19% 6% 14% 7%

Source: Hi4EM (www.hi4em.org.uk)

4.10. Homelessness 4.10.a. The Ashfield Homelessness strategy is committed to:

• Prevent homelessness by early intervention • Assist people at the point of homelessness to ensure that they have access to the correct

services • To enable people to move away from homelessness by ending the cycle through providing

support and assistance. 4.10.b. The strategy is reviewed regularly and includes a number of schemes to help

address homelessness and the causes of it, including use of housing association stock in providing temporary homes for homeless families with children; sessions in schools to educate pupils about housing options and homelessness; surveys among the public and homelessness applicants to collect information about the issue.

4-62

4.10.c. Compared to the other surrounding local authorities, Ashfield overall shows the lowest rate of homelessness apart from Rushcliffe. The 2007-8 P1E data for the area indicates that homelessness cases in Ashfield measure at around 1 household in every 1,000.

Figure 4:51 Homelessness Cases Accepted (2007-08) from P1E returns

County/LA No. quarters

No. households (2004 MYE) Total

No. per 1,000 households

Intentionally homeless in priority need

Homeless not in priority need

Not homeless

Total decisions

Ashfield 4 48 50 1.0 16 8 28 102 Nottingham city 4 121 823 6.8 64 29 37 953 Bassetlaw 4 47 75 1.6 23 10 59 167 Broxtowe 4 47 58 1.2 8 5 15 86 Gedling 4 48 70 1.4 19 8 28 125 Mansfield 4 43 250 5.9 33 22 143 448 Newark and Sherwood 4 47 103 2.2 8 4 21 136 Rushcliffe 4 45 42 0.9 5 17 1 65

Source: DCLG (2008)

4-63

4.11. Supply and Demand 4.11.a. This topic is also covered in detail in the section on Affordability. However, below is

a brief outline of the state of supply against demand for social housing in Ashfield according to the data provided by Ashfield Homes on stockholdings and lettings. The chart below shows the level of demand in each area as the proportion of people on the waiting list who have specified a property type and size. This is broken down by area but does not go to more geographic detail than the 4 main markets. Rural in this case refers to the Western settlements of Jacksdale, Selston and Underwood, not the areas to the North and East outside the main settlements (where no council stock is held). Two bedroom accommodation is most highly in demand in all areas (houses, bungalows and flats), followed by one bedroom bungalows and flats. There is little difference between settlements, except that the rural demand is more weighted towards bungalows than flats. The demand is relatively proportionate to the size of each settlement (i.e. Sutton as the largest settlement shows the highest number of applicants, followed by Hucknall, Kirkby then the Rural area).

Figure 4:52 Demand for property types by area

Demand for Property Types

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

1 bed

room

bung

alow

2 bed

room

bung

alow

3 bed

room

bung

alow

4 bed

room

bung

alow

2 bed

room

hous

e

3 bed

room

hous

e

4 bed

room

hous

e

1 bed

room

flat

2 bed

room

flat

3 bed

room

flat

1 bed

room

mais

onett

e

2 bed

room

mais

onett

e

3 bed

room

mais

onett

e

Studio

flat (

beds

it)

SuttonKirkbyHucknallRural

Figure 4:53 Total demand by area Total Demand No.

applicants Sutton 8445 Kirkby 4795 Hucknall 5161 Rural 2011

4.11.b. The ability to meet demand in each area is charted below – lets as a proportion of

demand. The chart shows the number of lets of each property type in each area as a proportion of the total demand for each property type in each area between April 2007 and March 2008.

4-64

4.11.c. Most provision meets less than 5% of demand. The rural area shows a high success rate in meeting demand for 3 bedroom houses (this reflects 16 lets and 47 applicants on the waiting list).

Figure 4:54 Social Housing Lets as a proportion of demand

Lets as a % of demand (April 2007 - March 2008)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1 bed

room

bung

alow

2 bed

room

bung

alow

3 bed

room

bung

alow

4 bed

room

bung

alow

2 bed

room

hous

e

3 bed

room

hous

e

4 bed

room

hous

e

1 bed

room

flat

2 bed

room

flat

3 bed

room

flat

1 bed

room

mais

onett

e

2 bed

room

mais

onett

e

3 bed

room

mais

onett

e

Studio

flat (

beds

it)

Sutton

Kirkby

Hucknall

Rural

Source: Ashfield Homes (2008), Ashfield District Council (2008)

Figure 4:55 Demand and Stock Figures

Sutton Kirkby Hucknall Rural Property Type Demand

Total in stock Demand Total in stock Demand

Total in stock Demand

Total in stock

1B bungalow 839 340 434 158 556 187 249 2 2B bungalow 1332 361 689 159 829 19 373 94 3B bungalow 146 2 80 4 85 1 46 0 4B bungalow 27 0 23 1 23 0 8 0 2B house 1309 267 787 76 837 222 341 18 3B house 574 1126 310 775 284 596 47 286 4B house 115 32 59 12 68 18 31 7 1B flat 1121 576 654 76 707 496 255 44 2B flat 1482 301 864 450 902 151 220 72 3B flat 104 9 62 0 43 0 25 0 1B maisonette 336 0 215 0 269 0 110 0 2B maisonette 454 14 257 0 340 0 135 0 3B maisonette 60 11 17 4 30 6 11 0 Studio flat (bedsit) 546 100 344 68 188 89 160 14

Source: Ashfield District Council, Ashfield Homes (2008)

4-65

4.11.d. An important note regarding this data should be made before any comment on it. As is the usual practice in housing applications, applicants are encouraged to select as many areas and property types as possible (other than their first choice), i.e. everywhere they would be willing to live. As a result, it is very likely that the table above contains duplicate data generated by the same applicant opting for several areas and several property types. As it has been seen in the section examining offers, the initial indication that an area/property might be acceptable does not guarantee that the applicant will accept a corresponding offer.

4.11.e. It is also probable, in addition, that applicants who are more urgently seeking social

housing would be more likely to select multiple options and show greater flexibility in what they are willing to accept (as seen earlier in relation to acceptances from single parents). In this respect, the overall proportion of demand for each property type is probably a more accurate reflection of demand than the numbers themselves (as shown in the chart ‘Demand for property types by area’ above).

4.11.f. With regard to stock numbers, the largest holdings are of 3 bed houses and 1 bed

flats, which are also popular in terms of demand. However, there appears to be an increasing demand for 2 bedroom accommodation, probably due to the change in policy (where families previously eligible for 3 beds must now accept 2 beds). This has also resulted in an increased demand for 2 bed flats, although it could be debated how far this form of accommodation is suitable for families, particularly with young children.


• Demand in Ashfield occurs very much on a micro-level, where people will specify specific

streets rather than areas where they will and won’t live. On an unpopular street properties appear to become very difficult to let.

• Much of the demand for housing is coming from two main groups; lone parents and single adults (not including elderly singles). Singles moving to social housing from their family home are unlikely to remain in their first property for long – the natural progression from that lifestage is to move to other accommodation – private rent, or as a couple, with friends or as a family.

• The majority of the backlog on the housing register has built up since 2006, and could be interpreted as symptomatic of the national affordability crisis.

• Most lettings activity is in the Northern part of the district, in Sutton-in-Ashfield and Kirkby-in-Ashfield. Although the population in Hucknall is slightly larger than in Kirkby, there were slightly fewer lettings there between April 2006 and March 2008.

• New tenants to general needs lettings in Ashfield in 2006 to 2008 came mainly from Sutton-in-Ashfield and Kirkby-in-Ashfield, although almost a fifth (18%) came from outside the district. Fewer general needs tenants are moving into properties from Hucknall (around 16%), and under 4% come from the rural area (West Notts).

• The overall level of turnover for Ashfield District is around 8%. Turnover according to the HSSA data is slightly lower, and the difference is probably attributable to differences in recording of supported housing.

• Area with the highest turnover rates are Beauvale Estate and Butlers Hill Estate in Hucknall, Eastfield Side in Sutton, and Bannerman Road and Lower Coxmoor/Upper Coxmoor in Kirkby.

• Most turnover is due to tenants moving out of the social sector to alternative forms of tenure. Internal transfers account for 14% of relets, and abandonment and eviction combined account for around 15%. There is no obvious geographical pattern to abandonment or eviction relets.

4-66

• Registered Social Landlords appear to have a younger tenant group generally speaking than the Local Authority ALMO (Ashfield Homes). Younger groups (particularly lone and two parent families) appear more readily to accept referral to an RSL.

• Most properties are offered only once before they are accepted. A few have a very high number of offers declined, however. The most popular area for choice appears to be Hucknall, which requires more points for an offer to be made as well as showing a higher number of total offers. Most commonly offers are refused on the basis that the applicant is either no longer interested in the area or is not interested in the property.

• Data suggests that areas where there is a higher number of properties being declined are more likely to have a larger number of properties available. Comparing the findings in this report with the report published by Ashfield Homes on the condition of subareas suggests that more rejections generally means the area is unpopular or in poorer comparative condition. Applicants are more likely to reject one bed accommodation, particularly flats or bungalows. The likelihood of an offer being accepted appears to be strongly related to the number of bedrooms and property type on offer. Single adults are the most likely group to accept one bedroom accommodation.

• Supported housing caters largely for single households, with the largest client group being frail elderly or older people. There is a slight indication that flats and self contained bedsits in supported housing may be harder to let, but generally voids are few and short term.

• There were 29 Intermediate housing sales between April 2006 and March 2008 in the Ashfield District. The mortgage amount payable and monthly charge on these properties varies widely. The main household types entering intermediate housing are single adults and lone parents.

• Private renting is not an affordable alternative to owner occupation in Ashfield in relation to 1 and 2 bed properties, and only becomes significantly cheaper with 3 bedroom properties or larger. There is a great deal of variation in the cost of private renting across property types, sizes and locations. Hucknall has a particularly high availability of 2 bed flats to rent, and 3 bed houses are the most common property type to rent across the district, at a wide range of prices.

• Demand is highest for 2 bedroom properties and is proportionate across the 4 main areas (Sutton-in-Ashfield, Kirkby-in-Ashfield, Rural – West Notts, and Hucknall).

5-67

5) Estimating and modelling housing need

5.1. Background – estimating housing need

5.1.a. Estimates of the need for affordable housing are required to support Section 106 negotiations for affordable housing and inform various other policies, but are difficult, complicated and controversial. It is widely recognised that current methods for estimating needs are simplistic and inadequate compared to the complex reality. Government Guidance emphasises this in several places:- “Housing markets are dynamic and complex. Because of this, strategic housing market assessments will not provide definitive estimates of housing need, demand and market conditions. However, they can provide valuable insights into how housing markets operate both now and in the future.”

Page 9, Strategic Housing Market Assessments Practice Guidance Version 2 No one methodological approach or use of a particular dataset(s) will provide a definitive assessment of housing need and demand and market conditions

Page 16, Strategic Housing Market Assessments Practice Guidance Version 2 5.1.b. Various development work is being undertaken by academics and researchers across the world that may help improve the level of understanding, because market imbalance, dysfunctionality and housing need are problems in many developed countries. 5.1.c. In the meantime policy and decisions must still be made, and current planning systems still require some fairly crude and debatable inputs. To estimate needs requires building up elements and components systematically, taking account of all the evidence as far as possible, making clear any assumptions where necessary, and allowing for different scenarios. It is also important to recognise that data alone, however good it is, simply cannot give answers by itself, but that it must be subject to interpretation and judgments.

5.2. Factors in estimating housing need

5.2.a. Affordability is clearly a key factor in both current and future housing demand and need, but it is not a simple, uncontroversial task to assess it. Housing affordability basically hinges on a number of variables, the main ones being:-

• Housing costs • Incomes • Other resources – mainly equity and savings

5.2.b. These factors are not simple to determine, as each has further detailed complexities which affect which figures and levels are used in making estimates of need. Some factors are very difficult to obtain data or information on – for example the increasingly common situation where resources are passed from parents to their young adult children to help with housing purchase. 5.2.c. How this all translates into an estimate of housing need then depends on how many households meet certain criteria with respect to affordability, which in turn depends on the overall numbers of households living in, forming, or moving to an area, and the cost of housing in that area.

5-68

5.2.d. PPS3 defines affordable housing as follows:- ‘Affordable housing includes social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Affordable housing should:

– Meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. – Include provision for the home to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households

or, if these restrictions are lifted, for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision’.

Social rented housing is: ‘Rented housing owned and managed by local authorities and registered social landlords, for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. Intermediate affordable housing is: ‘Housing at prices and rents above those of social rent, but below market price 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.’

5.3. The Bramley method

5.3.a. The method used here is based on the ‘Bramley model’. This has been adapted and adopted more widely following the Cambridge University project An Approach to Affordable Housing to Inform the East Midlands Regional Plan for the East Midlands Regional Assembly in 2006. This project used the Holman’s method to give HMA level estimates of need, but also commented:- The partial gross flows approach used in the Bramley approach is potentially one of the most robust methods that could be used at regional, HMA and local levels. However, it too is heavily dependent on incomes and prices data, so it would not be appropriate (or possible within the time frame) to use in the present study. 5.3.b. This model does not attempt to include all the detailed interactions of the housing market, or to cover all aspects of need. It is essentially a stylised, systematised and simplified model, which takes account of the major factors influencing housing need using reasonably readily available and consistent bulk or compiled secondary data. In essence it considers various key components to model and justify a minimum level of housing need. 5.3.c. However it is relatively simple to follow and understand, and can be modified easily and calibrated to capture differences between areas, and versions of it can be applied at different spatial scales, with appropriate data and caveats. It can be rerun periodically when new data becomes available. It also enables visualisation of the effects of changes in input assumptions on housing need, and hence helps to give a better understanding of the market and interactions 5.3.d. For assessing affordability housing costs it primarily includes the costs of buying and then private renting, with council and housing association renting considered affordable by definition. Other key inputs are the level of deposit, loan : income multiplier, and the policy period over which to address backlog need, each of which can affect the resulting needs estimates quite substantially.

5-69

5.3.e. It should also be noted that the model does not fully capture current difficulties in obtaining mortgages due to problems in the banking sector in 2008. This is virtually impossible to incorporate, especially as the situation and data available remains so uncertain. The model only estimates need assuming mortgage loans can be obtained if income is sufficient. 5.3.f. If the actual mortgage famine is included needs would in reality be much higher. But at the same time houses are not selling, while households still want and need them, so that this impasse basically reflects an acute, if perhaps inevitable, disruption of housing market functioning.

5.4. Applying the model

5.4.a. In this section key extracts from the summary of the Bramley affordability model are considered in turn as the model is developed. It is not possible to completely reproduce all aspects of the model, which has been developed by Professor Bramley over a number of years and which this project cannot fully replicate. Also because not all the data required is available at the spatial scales most useful for these more detailed estimates, for some variables alternative assumptions or a range of options may also be more appropriate, and where possible modifiable parameters have been included. 5.4.b. The basic format of the model is:- Figure 5:1 Bramley Affordability Model The basic model for estimating affordable housing need is:- Net Need (units per year) = Gross Household Formation x % aged under 35 unable to buy (adjusted for wealth) + proportion (33%) x net migration (household equiv) x % <35 unable to buy + proportion (0.234%) x owner occupier households (moving to social renting)

+ proportion of backlog to be housed per year, (e.g. 10% over 10 years, 20% over 5 years) x waiting list ‘backlog’ above need threshold Supply - net relets of social rented housing and Intermediate sales - Does not cover all aspects of need - e.g. homelessness, transient and transitional need, non trend in-migration 5.4.c. While the overall principles and processes of the model are adhered to as far as possible, explanation and justification is given for alternatives where these are necessary or considered more suitable. As a general principle, it is taken as more robust to use input assumptions which underestimate need - that is to err on the side of caution - because:-

• it avoids potential objections that housing need is being overstated, • households which actually can buy will probably do so, and • an excess of affordable and especially social housing in an area may cause adverse

consequences such as ‘churning’ and empty housing, which could potentially lead to low demand and even market failure.

5.4.d. The inputs and stages to the model are set out and discussed consecutively below.

5-70

5.5. Key inputs

Gross household formation aged under 35

5.5.a. Future household formation is a major input into the model, providing an estimate of new, emerging households, which largely reflect ‘young couples trying to get a foot on the housing ladder’.

5.5.b. The information sources used for this component are population growth expectations and household projections by type and age. There are several sources of these projections, most notably the government through the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG), but also the Chelmer model based at Anglia Ruskin University and ‘Housegroup’ from the Centre for Census and Survey Research at the University of Manchester. 5.5.c. Projections can also be based on different input assumptions, particularly ‘trend’ based, which use past trends in population growth and household formation, or ‘policy based’ or ’dwelling led’, which take into account additional supply of housing and how this may affect in-migration and household formation. 5.5.d. It should also be emphasised that these are projections, not predictions, and if behaviour trends change significantly any projections based on them would not happen. Predicting the future is difficult due to the number of inter-relating variables, and in any case it may not be like the past, so that unforeseen economic, social, lifestyle or behaviour changes could result in markedly different outcomes. The current financial and housing market turbulence may be exactly such circumstances, which could mean that any needs estimates should be re-assessed if and when the situation becomes clearer. 5.5.e. For these estimates the ‘controlled projections’ were used. This means that they take into account the expected growth in the number of dwellings, while also projecting household size and type changes based on past trends. 5.5.f. The total gross annual household formation for under 35 year olds is derived from the projections by:-

• Total households aged under thirty five in 2016, minus • Number of these households which already existed ten years earlier in 2006.

5.5.g. This gives an estimate of the gross number of new household that are projected to form over the ten years from 2006 to 2016. Dividing this by ten gives an annual new household formation rate for under 35 year olds. Figure 5:2 Household projections and annual new household formation rate Year 2006 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 totals Unconcealed married couple 3 99 599 1392 2093 Unconcealed cohabiting couple 62 656 1094 1031 2843 Unconcealed Lone parent 109 363 518 705 1695 Other Multi-person 22 62 75 66 225 One person 108 360 612 728 1808 Totals 304 1540 2898 3922 8664 Year 2016 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 totals

5-71

Unconcealed married couple 3 81 575 1163 1822 Unconcealed cohabiting couple 58 738 1464 1317 3577 Unconcealed Lone parent 124 444 663 846 2077 Other Multi-person 24 93 131 87 335 One person 134 449 832 968 2383 Totals 343 1805 3665 4381 10194 new household 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 total Unconcealed married couple. 3 81 572 1064 1720 Unconcealed cohabiting couple. 58 738 1402 661 2859 Unconcealed Lone parent. 124 444 554 483 1605 Other Multi-person 24 93 109 25 251 One person. 134 449 724 608 total 8350 per year over ten years 835 5.5.h. So for the whole of Ashfield some 835 new households under 35 are projected to emerge each year up to 2016. The annual figure is used to estimate an annual need, because although some of these households have already formed they will be included in backlog need if they cannot afford market housing.

5.6. Ability to afford

5.6.a. The next step is to assess how many of these new households are likely to be unable to afford market housing. This requires data and evidence based judgements on entry level house prices, incomes and deposit. 5.6.b. Guidance is now clear that “Entry-level prices should be approximated by lower-quartile house prices” (page 27). These can be obtained from Land Registry data, although they also change constantly. An up to date alternative source is through Hometrack’s Housing Information system, which uses mortgage valuations. 5.6.c. Prices also vary considerably by location20, such that a very similar house can cost much more in one area than in another even just a few streets away, and urban settlements are now generally cheaper than rural areas. Lower quartile prices can also be affected by lower ex Right to Buy resales21 , or by ‘non arms length’ transactions, for example sales between relatives. Prices have also been distorted by ‘deposit paid’ and other ‘incentives’22. While these can all distort ‘average’ figures, they are real transactions which cannot be ignored if the housing market is to be properly understood. 5.6.d. Using Land Registry data for the year up to May 2008, the lower quartile price for the whole district was £85,000, and the average just over £120,000. To compare, Hometrack gives a figure for August 2008 of £87,000. It also shows how these prices have moved over recent years.

20 This is known as the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). See for example http://www.jratcliffe.net/research/maup.htm 21 the first RTB sale is not included in the Land Registry data 22 The Council of Mortgage lenders has now introduced a requirement for disclosure of incentives

5-72

Figure 5:3 Lower quartile prices

Source: Housing Intelligence System. Hometrack © Crown Copyright 2008 www.housingintelligence.co.uk 5.6.e. However, consultations with Estate Agents suggests that prices have fallen further, so that reasonable terraced houses can now be bought for some £70,000. But they also commented that this was not yet enough of a fall to make much difference to the ability of many local households to buy.

5.7. Incomes – ability to buy

5.7.a. These prices then need to be compared to income levels. Incomes data from CACI Paycheck has been used. This gives modelled household incomes by £5,000 ranges for small geographical areas. This is a more appropriate source than the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, as many households have two earners. 5.7.b. The pattern and levels of median incomes are shown in the map below.

Actual income levels are then compared directly to entry level house prices using a ‘threshold’ formula to calculate what income is required to be able to afford to buy with a mortgage at certain levels of deposit and income : mortgage multiplier. This mirrors the process potential first time buyers make; - what deposit can be contributed and what mortgage can be raised to cover the balance of the purchase price. This requires evidence based judgments on these factors.

5.7.c. These variable factors were:- Figure 5:4 Input assumptions (income : mortgage multiplier, level of deposit) income:mortgage - couples 2.9 income:mortgage - singles 3.5 deposit 10%

Source: Guidance and consultation with local lenders and steering group.

5-73

5.7.d. It should be noted that CACI Paycheck gives a profile of all household incomes, not just for households aged under 35. Younger households tend to have lower incomes; - the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings and its predecessor the New Earnings Survey have consistently suggested that earnings in the early twenties are some 50% - 60% of adult levels, at which some 90% plus cannot afford to buy. This becomes less marked as age increases, so that households up to age 35 are more likely to have incomes which reflect the overall profile. Overall, however, it is likely to again understate the proportion of these emerging households who cannot afford.

5.8. Lending multipliers

5.8.a. The Bramley model suggests that the income needed to buy at entry level should be based on a lending multiplier of 3.5 for single earners, and 0.85 x 3.5 ( =2.97) for two earners ; subject to test that residual income after tax and housing costs exceeds 120% of Housing Benefit ‘Applicable Amount’. Guidance also suggests using 2.9 times income for couples. 5.8.b. Until recently up to seven or eight times income multipliers were available from some lenders, but these would always increase repayments to very high proportions of net income, and so are considered unaffordable in the long term – indeed the ‘credit crunch’ has confirmed this. In the current circumstances these levels of multiplier are no longer available, and so the guidance levels of 3.5 for singles and 2.9 for couples have been used.

5.9. Deposits

5.9.a. The original version of the Bramley model says: A 100% mortgage is assumed for simplicity, to indicate the maximum limit of affordability, and also to reflect the opportunity cost of savings where these are used for a deposit. 5.9.b. This is not well supported by evidence. The Council for Mortgage Lenders reports that in July 2008 the average first-time buyer had a deposit of 15%, up from 13% in June and 10% throughout 2007 and 2006. The average over 2008 so far is some 12%. 5.9.c. There is also a distinction between the average deposit paid and the total affordability capability, - that is the ‘maximum limit of affordability’. Borrowing 100% of the cost ostensibly allows more to be afforded, but in the needs model a requirement for a 100% mortgage requires a higher income level to support, and so results in fewer households being able to reach the entry level threshold based on income. Conversely, if it is assumed that a certain level of deposit will be available, then income only has to support a proportion of the purchase price, so using a figure of less than 100% actually gives a lower needs estimate. 5.9.d. The model allows a variable percentage to be included for the deposit, which can be set a typical rate based on research or lenders’ practices, and different scenarios can be run, or use the national average. Many lenders have recently set 90% as the maximum amount of the value that they will lend. 5.9.e. Since lenders’ policies now generally require a deposit of 10% or more, and since assuming this gives a more robust lower level of need anyway, a 10% deposit has been used. It should again be noted that this could understate the actual level of need.

5-74

5.9.f. These affordability test criteria are then included into the model to compare entry level house prices or rents with incomes profiles. This gives a percentage of households who can and cannot afford market housing. 5.9.g. The Bramley model also includes an adjustment for wealth, because first time buyers increasingly receive or obtain resources from other sources. The extent of this is exceedingly difficult to establish but a�study from Alliance & Leicester in 2007 has shown that one in five parents help their adult children buy, with 50% in London doing so. 5.9.h. The model therefore includes an additional reduction of 5% in the number of under 35 households who cannot afford, in addition to the 10% deposit. This may be double counting of resources to some extent, but again errs on the side of lower need. 5.9.i. The model is therefore attempting to capture the overall financial capability of households. In practice the deposit and other resources make relatively little difference to the outcomes, which probably represents reality better in that those with higher incomes, who can afford on this basis, also often have greater access to resources from other sources. 5.9.j. On the basis of £85,000 entry level prices, some 41% of households in Ashfield cannot afford to buy, and at £70,000 entry level some 26% cannot afford. Applied to the annual rate of 835 emerging households this gives need components of 450 and 340 respectively.

5.10. Backlog need

5.10.a. The next component to be considered is the backlog need. In the Bramley model this is measured by using local authority waiting lists, or housing registers. While this is recognised and recommended in the guidance as a valid source, it does have its drawbacks. Strategic Housing Market Assessment guidance (2004) says:- However, it can be difficult to obtain a complete and robust estimate of backlog due to data limitations. Traditionally, local surveys have been used although these can be costly to administer and difficult to interpret. Housing registers (when well maintained and shared amongst providers) are informative but unlikely to be comprehensive since some households in need may not register and some on the register may not be classified as in need. 5.10.b. Factors affecting this include:-

• not all households in need register with a local authority. This is commonly influenced by

• the perceived chances of success – people are less likely to register if they think there is no point in doing so.

• The quality, location and popularity of the stock on offer – people are less likely to register if they think that that the properties they may be offered will not be what they want, or in an area they do not want.

• Some households on the register are there ‘just in case’ and have low current need and

relatively low priority 5.10.c. While these are offsetting distortions, it cannot be assumed that they will balance out. However, recent trends have probably made housing registers more representative than they used to be:-

5-75

• pressures on affordability mean that more household do now register only when in need, with less doing so ‘just in case’. Numbers on local authority housing registers across the whole country have increased over recent years, and continue to do so.

• Local authorities have improved their systems for reviewing their housing registers to

remove defunct applications or ‘dead wood’. 5.10.d. There is also evidence from several sources that many households in need do not register. Surveys commonly indicate that only about half of households showing as in need are on the local authority housing register, particularly for the ‘intermediate market’ of households not in need of, and not wanting, social renting, but who still cannot afford to buy. 5.10.e. This is further supported by CORE lettings logs of purchases of Intermediate Affordable housing such as shared ownership and Homebuy. Of purchasers who knew the answer to the question, around half were on local authority housing registers. A further third of the total did not know if they were or not, suggesting that up to two thirds were not on local authority waiting lists. The Ashfield CORE data suggest that less than a fifth of buyers of Intermediate Housing were on the local authority housing register. 5.10.f. Housing Corporation research in 2008 also found that - 85% of non home-owning households in this survey with incomes of under £25,000 had not applied for social housing. This is surprising, given that there are very few areas of the country where this sort of income is sufficient to purchase a home on the basis of a mortgage alone.

Moving into Social Housing, Housing Corporation 2008 5.10.g. Taken together these confirm that Housing Registers are an imperfect source of evidence of backlog need, and probably understate it quite substantially, but do reflect a key part of housing need. 5.10.h. Figures for backlog housing registers were taken from the published Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix returns (HSSA), supplemented by up to date figures from the local authority. Figure 5:5 Households on the housing register at 1st April year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 trend average Ashfield 3829 3829 4364 4602 4462 4829 4217 Source: HSSA 5.10.i. While there was a marked increase in 2005-6, there has not been a consistent trend as often happens when housing affordability worsens. The average has therefore been used rather than the higher trend figure.

5.11. The ‘policy period’

5.11.a. A key factor which must then be applied to this variable is the policy period over which the backlog need should be addressed. This can make a substantial difference to the overall need, and is clearly a political judgement, albeit evidence based. Guidance says:- The quota should be based upon meeting need over a period of five years, although longer timescales can be used…

5-76

Partnerships should avoid using a period of less than five years in which to meet unmet current need. If a five-year period is used, this means that 20 per cent of current unmet need should be addressed each year. The output of this should be an annual quota of households who should have their needs addressed. 5.11.b. A longer period is more realistic than the guidance suggestion of five years, but not as socially and politically unacceptable as ten years. It should also be emphasised that this is merely a notional target for meeting backlog need, given that numerous aspects of the estimates are likely to understate total need. If other trends continue as they have done in the past, such as high house prices and credit restrictions, then backlog needs could increase rather than be gradually reduced.

5.12. Need from owner occupiers

5.12.a. The original Bramley model also includes a small component for need from owner occupiers who have run into difficulties with their housing for various reasons. In the original model this is set as just 0.234%, based on the Survey of English Housing. While this is a very small proportion, the high proportion of owner occupiers can mean that it is not an insignificant number. 5.12.b. It should also be considered whether this small percentage figure could change if mortgage repossessions rise as a result of sub prime lending policies and the credit crunch. At present, mortgage repossessions are rising - the Council of Mortgage Lenders expects the total to reach 45,000 over 2008. This would increase the factor in the Bramley model, set at a low point in 2003/4, to some 0.35%. Figure 5:6 Mortgage repossession trends

Mortgage repossessions

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Source: Council of Mortgage Lenders 5.12.c. This 0.234% factor has not been altered in the model in the interests of a more robust, and lower, estimate of needs, but it is a factor which needs to be monitored. If the pattern of the mid 1990’s starts to be repeated the increase would be reflected mainly in more homelessness applications.

5-77

5.13. Migration

5.13.a. Migration is another variable component which is difficult to track, and especially in current circumstances in which the figures are admitted to be uncertain. It basically consists of:-

• internal UK flows - households moving from one place to another; which can be local moves, or over longer distances. This is considered in some detail in the section on migration.

• international migration, to and from the UK. The destination in the UK is then of key relevance.

5.13.b. The official source is the ONS components of population change, given for local authority areas. Net migration into Ashfield was 500 for the year shown. Figure 5:7 Components of population change (thousands) 2004-5

Local Authority

Mid-2005 population

Live births Deaths

Natural change

Net migration etc

Total change

Mid-2006 population

Ashfield 113.4 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.5 0.6 114.0 Source: Office for National Statistics 5.13.c. The Bramley model includes a factor to reduce in-migrant need to a third (33%) of its full total. The original model technical appendix justifies this as follows:- It is assumed that migrants are generally better-off financially than non-migrants, which is why the affordability factor is scaled down. However, the choice of 0.33 for this scaling factor is an arbitrary convention (as used in a number of previous studies). 5.13.d. However, a component for migration has not been included in the estimates, because the dwelling led projections already include an element for migration, even though only the under 35 element of these are included in the model. Again, in practice net in migration could add to need, although probably by a relatively small amount.

5.14. Pulling it all together – combining the components of housing need

5.14.a. The total estimated numerical need is then the sum of each of these components. It should again be emphasised that each has generally been based on conservative inputs which will give lower estimates of need. Figure 5:8 Summarised components of need Backlog need - Housing register 4,217 factor for owners falling into need 0.234% all owner occupiers 33950 in migration (not included as element in projections) 0 emergers aged under 35 per year 835 unable to afford 41% need from emergers 340 backlog need per year over policy period – 7 years 602 new need from owners 79 Total need 1,022

Source; Housing needs model

5-78

5.14.b. It is again worth emphasising that this is a data driven, stylised, summary model. It does not cover or capture all aspects and complexities of housing need. The original Bramley technical appendix comments:-

Note that this is a measure of the annual (flow) of units needed of additional affordable housing provision (including intermediate sector as well as social renting), but that it does not purport to cover all needs associated with poor house condition or unsuitability (some of these needs may be reflected in the backlog, however).

5.14.c. This is only the estimated annual need or ‘debit’ side of the ‘equation’, and the various sources of supply available to meet it must now also be considered.

5.15. Affordable housing supply 5.15.a. Supply of affordable and market housing is a key aspect of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, and is analysed in more detail in a separate section. For ease of reference a summary and brief commentary of the main components is given here to compare with the needs estimates. 5.15.b. Affordable housing supply consists basically of social rented lets

o Local authority relets o Registered Social Landlord ( housing association) relets and new lets, and o Low cost, shared ownership and Homebuy sales

5.15.c. The private rented sector is also a potential source of supply of affordable housing according to some definitions and in some circumstances; but this tenure poses particular problems and complications, especially in how it relates to the intermediate market, and an element of affordable supply from this source is not included in the estimates, in accordance with the guidance. This does not mean that private rented lets of the right quality cannot be developed as an additional source of affordable supply through private leasing, deposit schemes, and Housing Benefit support.

5.16. Local authority relets

5.16.a. This is still usually the biggest source of supply of unequivocally affordable housing within an area. However, as with all other aspects of housing needs estimation, it is often not straightforward to derive a definite figure. Future annual supply of social re-lets (net) Partnerships can calculate this on the basis of past trends. Generally, the average number of re-lets over the previous three years should be taken as the predicted annual level. This should not include transfers of tenancies to other household members – only properties that come up for re-let to a new household should be counted. In areas where the stock base of affordable housing is changing substantially (e.g. due to high levels of Right to Buy, substantial new stock being built, private landlords becoming less willing to let to social tenants), it may be appropriate to take into account the changing stock base when predicting the levels of future voids.

Strategic Housing Market Assessments Practice Guidance Version 2 5.16.b. The Housing Strategy Statistical Returns (HSSA) give local authority level totals for gross lets and transfers from which net lets can be derived.

5-79

Figure 5:9 Ashfield Homes lets 2004-2008 Local authority LA gross lets gross lets 2004-5 746 gross lets gross lets 2005-6 586 gross lets gross lets 2006-7 841 gross lets gross lets 2007-8 646 gross lets gross lets trend 694 gross lets average 705 transfers transfers 2004-5 90 transfers transfers 2005-6 89 transfers transfers 2006-7 123 transfers transfers 2007-8 90 transfer average 98 net lets net lets 2004-5 656 net lets net lets 2005-6 497 net lets net lets 2006-7 718 net lets net lets 2007-8 556 Avg net lets Average net lets 607

Source: HSSA, Ashfield DC 5.16.c. While there is variation, the number of lets is fairly stable and an average figure appears to be representative of the annual supply flow.

5.17. Housing Association lets

5.17.a. These again show some variation, but are overall are fairly stable. This element of supply includes new lets from new developments as well as relets. Ideally any expected additional new supply beyond the flow within normal programmes - for example from S106 agreements on proposed large sites - should be included, but this is impossible to predict, especially in current housing market circumstances. Figure 5:10 Housing association lets 2004-8 net lets 2004-5 151 net lets 2005-6 104 net lets 2006-7 151 net lets 2007-8 100 average 127

Source: HSSA 5.17.b. Normal variations tend to be smoothed out in larger authorities, but in smaller authorities can result in erratic patterns of new supply, which in turn can dramatically affect the housing register. If a large scheme comes through it can often virtually clear the waiting list, while housing pressures build gradually when little is being completed. 5.17.c. Another common scenario is that the housing register grows faster after a new scheme is completed and let, as applicants decide that perhaps there is some chance of their being housed and apply.

5-80

5.18. Intermediate housing

5.18.a. Intermediate housing sales make a small contribution to affordable supply. 5.18.b. There is controversy about the affordability of low cost home ownership products, which because their prices are linked to market values, often carry a new build premium, and have rent and service charge costs added, are considered by some to be too expensive overall to effectively meet housing need. Some categories are not actually new supply anyway, but all of the small numbers have been included. 5.18.c. Recent research23 shows that in effect the main competition for LCHO is private renting. This is supported by CORE data which shows that a substantial proportion of LCHO buyers are previously private tenants. Figure 5:11 Intermediate housing sales 2005-8

Ashfield Shared Ownership

New build HomeBuy

Open market HomeBuy Total

2007-8 10 5 1 16


Any other shared ownership

Right To Buy - RTB

New build HomeBuy

Open market HomeBuy Total

2006-7 7 3 1 1 1 13


Any other shared ownership

Voluntary Purchase Agreement (VPA) Home Buy Total

2005-6 17 1 1 6 25 Overall annual average 18 Source: CORE 5.18.d. These three sources of affordable supply therefore give a total annual average of just over 750 a year.

23 http://www.hometrack.co.uk/documents/Steve_Wilcox/cantbuycanrent.pdf

5-81

5.18.e. Bringing all the components of need and supply together gives the following overall position. Figure 5:12 Summary of whole local authority needs model

needs estimate model Ashfield LA

Inputs lower quartile entry level price £ 85,000 deposit 10% balance to fund 90% income: mortgage multiplier 3.5 Policy period 7 resources from other sources 5% Backlog need - Housing register or survey 4,217 factor for owners falling into need 0.234% all owner occupiers 33950 in migration 0 outputs emergers aged under 35 per year 835 unable to afford 41% need from emergers 340 backlog need per year over policy period 602 new need from owners 79 in migration additional need Total need 1,022 Input

Supply side HSSA or local sources

LA lettings gross 705 LA transfers 98 LA lettings net of transfers 607 RSL net lets 127 RSL sales 18 Net supply 751 Net shortfall per year 271

Source: Ashfield housing needs model 5.18.f. The estimated shortfall implies that on these inputs an increase of about a third in the annual level of supply of affordable housing is required to meet need over a policy period of seven years. 5.18.g. If the input on entry level price is reduced to £70,000 a year the shortfall drops to about 150 a year, requiring an increase of about a fifth on current affordable supply levels. However, this still assumes that 3.5 times income can be borrowed, and if this is reduced to 3 times, which may become more common, the shortfall figure rises to 270 again. Such needs estimates are always sensitive to these major inputs of the income multiplier and entry level price, which appear to reflect reality quite well as many households’ ability to afford or not largely depends on these key factors.

5-82

5.18.h. The policy period also has a strong influence on the shortfall. If backlog need is met over five rather than seven years the shortfall almost doubles to over 500 (at £85,000 entry level). This is similar to the needs estimates produced by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2007, which used a five year policy period for the backlog.

5.19. Numbers and percentages – relationship to overall new supply targets

5.19.a. The resulting needs figures are a numerical annual need, which would in principle be required for the seven year policy period to address the backlog, and would then need to be revised downwards so that it addressed new need only. 5.19.b. This is in reality, of course, highly unlikely, as not only is the method – indeed any method – inevitably imprecise, but many other factors may well change in future years anyway. 5.19.c. PPS3 sets out how figures should be treated in paragraphs 22 and 29. 22. Based upon the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other local evidence, Local Planning Authorities should set out in Local Development Documents: – 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. multi-person, including families and children (x%), single persons (y%), couples (z%). – The size and type of affordable housing required. 29. In Local Development Documents, Local Planning Authorities should: – Set an overall (i.e. plan-wide) target for the amount of affordable housing to be provided. The target should reflect the new definition of affordable housing in this PPS. It should also reflect an assessment of the likely economic viability of land for housing within the area, taking account of risks to delivery and drawing on informed assessments of the likely levels of finance available for affordable housing, including public subsidy and the level of developer contribution that can reasonably be secured. Local Planning Authorities should aim to ensure that provision of affordable housing meets the needs of both current and future occupiers, taking into account information from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. 5.19.d. This then requires conversion of the annual need numbers into percentages, which can be done by comparing the need figures to actual or intended supply. 5.19.e. The proposed target for new development for Ashfield in the Secretary of State proposed changes to the draft Regional Spatial Strategy is Figure 5:13 Need numbers as percentage of RSS target for new supply

Secretary of State proposed changes 2001-06 2006-11 2011-16 2016-26

Total Provision (2001-26)

Ashfield 440 490 540 610 13,450 total target 2008 to 2016 4170 average per year to 2016, over 8 years 521 Source: East Midlands Regional Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy) Schedule of Proposed Changes

5-83

5.19.f. The numerical target for affordable housing which could in principle be justified is therefore up to 52% of this total (271/521). At the lower level of need using a £70,000 entry level house price some 30% would be justifiable 5.19.g. However, it should be emphasised that research is not policy, which must be set by the local authority taking all factors into consideration as set out in PPS3 paragraph 29 above. High levels of affordable housing could be justified by the needs evidence, but these could create problems of site viability and/or not help to create or sustain mixed communities and housing markets.

5.20. Intermediate Housing

5.20.a. The model can also be used to estimate the potential need for Intermediate Housing by adjusting the entry level price to a proportion of the full lower quartile price and altering other inputs, such as deposits, as required to reflect the potential buyers’ circumstances. 5.20.b. The lower the cost of entry to Intermediate Housing the greater the number of households that can afford it. This could represent variation in either the full cost of the property, or in the equity share purchased. However lower levels of equity become less attractive to potential buyers, and there is also evidence that purchasers of small shares are more likely to run into problems of affording their total housing costs. Most Intermediate Housing buyers in the East Midlands take a 50% share. 5.20.c. Other costs such as the rental element and service charges must also be added into the equation to get a true picture of the affordability of the products, which is why the total cost of buying a 50% share is more than 50% of buying the whole property. 5.20.d. A proportion of 70% of the full cost of the open market entry level price has been used for many years as a general guideline for shared ownership in the East Midlands as the price level which is acceptable and affordable for buyers, but which has also been viable for providers. At this level 26% still cannot afford to buy, compared to 41% who cannot buy at the full entry level price. So the proportion who could in principle afford Intermediate Housing is 41 – 26 = 15. As a proportion of all who could not afford full entry level price this is 15/42 = 35%. So 35% of those who cannot afford to buy at full entry level price could in principle, other things being equal, afford Intermediate Housing at 70% of the full entry level. 5.20.e. This does not necessarily mean that they could do so in practice, or that they would want this form of tenure, or find it attractive either in terms of the products or the overall costs. 5.20.f. It is important to remember that Intermediate housing for part sale is buying a home, and the need to resell it to move on and all the transactions costs still apply, so that the decisions required and dynamics of the process are quite different to renting. 5.20.g. This means that the proportions of Intermediate Housing which can be justified with these inputs is :- Figure 5:14 % of Intermediate Housing justifiable at 70% of full entry level price LQ entry level multiplier of full entry level price 70% modified entry level (full entry level x 70%) £ 59,500 Cannot afford at full entry level price 41% cannot afford at modified entry level 26% potential need for Intermediate 35% of all new affordable housing provided

5-84

5.20.h. It should be emphasised that the success of Intermediate Housing for sale depends very much on the appeal and pricing of the products, and that the wrong type of provision, such as shared ownership apartments and flats for example, have often not sold well, and may fail to meet either need or demand. 5.20.i. Indeed, if the entry level price falls to the £70,000 as indicated by Estate Agents, the competitive advantage of Intermediate Housing disappears virtually completely. Households will buy cheaper houses outright rather than shared ownership. 5.20.j. This is particularly relevant in the ‘credit crunch’ in 2008, and alternatives of sub market rental, linked with options such as ‘rent now, buy later’, or ‘save to buy rental’ are being put forward as better alternatives for the present circumstances. 5.20.k. These could even also be the subject of particular conditions of ‘build to rent’ in developments and provide more suitable tenure and cost alternatives as part of overall balanced housing provision, ranging from social rented through intermediate rent and/or buy to full open market for outright sale.

5.21. Modelling need by sub area

5.21.a. The needs model can be applied at different spatial scales provided that data is available at a detailed enough level, although at small scales the data can become quite volatile, for example average house prices and number of lettings can vary considerably year on year just due to natural variation, and moves between areas become more significant. Nevertheless small scale estimates can give an indication of relative need and supply in different locations based on the data. 5.21.b. The best geography through which to model need depends on the particular purpose for which it is required, but also in analysing the data and through local knowledge different geographical units often suggest themselves. In large cities the economics based concept of housing submarkets24 is useful, while in rural areas villages and parishes are the real geography through which households have preferences and needs, and make choices. 5.21.c. The Ashfield Homes allocations system uses ‘sub areas’ of Hucknall, Kirby, Sutton and Rural, and over 400 ‘sub sub areas’ within these which go down to individual street level. Sub sub areas are too small to be able to usefully model need for them, but appear to reflect other findings of this project that the housing market in Ashfield is quite varied at a very local level, so that people will want housing in one street but refuse a very similar property in the next. 5.21.d. In Ashfield the settlements therefore appear to be a reasonable basis for modelling need, with the exception that there appears to be sufficient variation in the nature of the main settlements in the ‘rural’ areas, that making a distinction between (1) Selston, Underwood& Brimsley and (2) Jacksdale, appears useful. The main reasons they are grouped together in the allocations system is probably that there is very little Ashfield Homes stock in them, so no need for a separate allocations area. 5.21.e. However, because the local level model has to use different data, for example Census age profiles rolled forward rather than household projections and so does not include

24 E.g. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/he/1999/00000008/00000002/art00246

5-85

migration, the totals are less than for the full local authority model. These estimates should therefore be considered to give an indication of the relative proportions of need only. 5.21.f. Using this geographical basis, gross needs generated (before the supply of lets are deducted) are estimated as:- Figure 5:15 Gross needs estimates by settlement

Settlement HUCKNALL JACKSDALE KIRKBY


Average Price £ 125,000 £ 120,000 £ 111,000 £ 148,000 £ 105,000 Lower Quartile Price £ 95,000 £ 87,000 £ 80,000 £ 107,000 £ 74,000 % can't afford 54% 42% 45% 63% 45% emergers 171 18 144 52 226 emergers can't afford 92 8 64 33 101 housing register 1066 127 991 295 1745 over policy period 152 18 142 42 249 owners in problems 17 1 12 5 21 gross need 262 27 218 80 371 Source: Ashfield sub area needs model 5.21.g. This indicates the greatest need in Sutton, as the largest settlement and also with relatively lower incomes; but followed by Hucknall with somewhat higher prices. Need in the ‘rural’ areas is much less, but greater in the higher priced areas of Selston, Underwood and Brimsley where affordability is more of a problem. 5.21.h. However, when the supply of affordable lets is also considered the net need is very different. Figure 5:16 Net need by settlement

HUCK NALL

JACKS DALE KIRKBY

SELSTON/ UNDERW OOD/ BRIMSLEY SUTTON

LA lets 174 8 154 33 261 RSL lets 21 41 66 Intermediate 8 8 Total supply 203 8 195 33 335 Proportionate of net need 59 20 23 47 36 Need % applied to overall LA total 86 29 34 69 53 Sources: HSSA, CORE 5.21.i. Because supply is so much higher in Sutton and Kirby their net need based only on the data is lower. While Hucknall still has the highest estimated need, the rural areas have so little affordable supply that their net need is next, and higher than both Sutton and Kirby. 5.21.j. The reality may be that households in the rural areas can solve their housing need by moving to Sutton, Kirby or Hucknall, but this would be quite unusual and the data suggests that it does not happen too often. 5.21.k. The analysis of supply, lets and offers in Sutton and Kirby also suggests that there is some rapid turnover or ‘churning’, and also a high level of refusals of some property types and

5-86

locations, although this is very localised and no clear patterns are apparent from the data, but front line staff with good local knowledge may well be very aware of these subtle differences.


5.22.a. The estimates suggest that there is currently substantial housing need in Ashfield, and that an increase in affordable supply of between a fifth and a third is required to meet it. This represents up to 50% of new supply, but this proportion is unlikely to be either viable to deliver or sensible in helping to achieve more balanced communities and mixed housing markets. 5.22.b. However the situation may be changing as the housing market changes, and if entry level prices fall the level of need for affordable housing could also be reduced. 5.22.c. At present the housing market is in a turbulent and uncertain state, and even if prices are falling households cannot obtain mortgages. But if this settles more households will be able to afford to buy in Ashfield, and fewer will require affordable housing. 5.22.d. There appears to be a relatively high level of net need in the ‘rural areas’ because the affordable supply in these areas is so low. To create more balanced markets and provision in the district these areas need more affordable housing of various forms. This should not be large schemes, but small developments commensurate with the size of and extent of need in the villages. Work on rural housing needs in 2005 by Ashfield District Council25 Housing Strategy team confirms this, and analyses in some detail the nature of housing need in these areas. 5.22.e. Housing need and how it interacts with supply in the larger settlements of Sutton, Kirby and Hucknall is quite complex. While most properties are let after one or two offers, there are high levels of refusal on a few properties. The allocations system allows preferences to be expressed at very detailed local street level, but in practice applicants are encouraged to tick as many of these as possible so that they do not exclude themselves from offers, and as a result refusals maybe increased. 5.22.f. The introduction of a Choice Based Lettings system will probably further highlight issues with particular property types and/or specific areas, and Ashfield DC will need to consider and be prepared to develop effective policy responses to these signals.

25 http://www.ashfield-dc.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/;jsessionid=FD2100B27D059507185C9C370F1992D2?asset_id=2800001&

6-87

6) Housing need and demand by type and size 6.1.a. The more detailed version of household projections by household type and age band gives an indication of the potential future demand for housing, and indicates the likely demographic profile at various stages in the future. 6.1.b. The table below shows the projection for 2016. Figure 6:1 Household projections by household type and age for 2016

all married states

Unconcealed married couple house hold

Unconcealed cohabiting couple house hold

Unconcealed lone parent house hold

Other multi person house hold

One person house hold

Total uncon cealed house holds

% of total by age band

2016 UMCR UCCR ULPR OMPR OPR 15-19 3 58 124 24 134 343 1% 20-24 81 738 444 93 449 1805 3% 25-29 575 1464 663 131 832 3665 7% 30-34 1163 1317 846 87 968 4381 8% 35-39 1460 951 814 111 957 4293 8% 40-44 1931 791 670 141 1040 4573 8% 45-49 2789 730 456 262 1377 5614 10% 50-54 2957 574 147 325 1470 5473 10% 55-59 2613 367 45 310 1370 4705 9% 60-64 2360 204 28 218 1413 4223 8% 65-69 2582 139 7 256 1657 4641 8% 70-74 2186 53 9 308 1714 4270 8% 75-79 1379 21 9 175 1644 3228 6% 80-84 787 19 3 155 1330 2294 4% 85+ 300 27 5 87 1337 1756 3% Total 23166 7454 4273 2684 17692 55264 100

% hhold type 42% 13% 8% 5% 32% 100% Source: CLG 2004 based household projections 6.1.c. This shows, for example, that some 37% of households in Ashfield in 2016 will be represented by a person aged over 60 by 2016, while just 18% will be under 35. 6.1.d. The majority household type will be ‘unconcealed’ (i.e. living in their own home), married couples at 42%, while 13% will be cohabiting, 8% single parents, 5% other types of multiperson households, (such as sharers), and 32% singles. 6.1.e. However it is vital to think carefully about the housing needs, aspirations and expectations of these different groupings. In particular it should not be assumed, as has been done by some, that single person households will live in smaller sized accommodation. In particular, account must be taken of the likely housing position and what might be termed the ‘bargaining power’ of each group.

6-88

6.1.f. It can be seen from the above table that many single people are actually older – just over 50% of them will be aged over 60. These households are most likely to be already living in family housing and to be ‘empty nesters’, whose offspring have grown up and left26. They will not easily move to one bedroom flats. Lifestage and lifestyle are the most useful composite concepts to help understand this. 6.1.g. Many factors affect this groups willingness or ability to move, including strong attachments to their family home; the cost, quality and location of alternatives; and even the difficulties their children face in obtaining housing, which means they stay longer or return from time to time. Moving is a conscious decision and effort, while staying put is a much easier continuation of the status quo – or ‘less upheaval’ as it is often put. 6.1.h. Recent ‘ New Horizons’ research for CLG added useful qualitative findings to this picture:

However some older participants stressed the importance of considering housing options, and if necessary moving, when you are young enough to cope with moving. Those few people who had moved said they had been determined to make a deliberate choice to move to a particular place, rather than be forced to move when they might not have the capacity to look at different alternatives and make a considered decision as to what was best for them. For those who were moving, finding suitable properties either to buy or to rent was not always easy.

6.1.i. So to make estimates of the type and size of housing required it is necessary to consider what type of housing these different types and ages of household need, want and will accept taking account of their current circumstances. This is difficult to evidence, because much data simply reflects existing circumstances. The survey carried out for the SHMA in 2007 asks how many bedrooms households who expect to move would both like and expect. Figure 6:2 Number of bedrooms likely movers would like by household type

Beds wanted 2 or more adults - no kids Lone parent

2+ adults 1 child

2+ adults 2+children Total

1 16% 0% 15% 28% 17% 2 45% 100% 65% 43% 49% 3 39% 0% 20% 23% 32% 4 0% 0% 0% 6% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: SHMA Housing Needs Survey 2007 (Fordham Research) Figure 6:3 Number of bedrooms likely movers expect by household type

Beds expected 2 or more adults - no kids Lone parent 2+ adults 1 child 2+ adults 2+children Total 1 26% 0% 38% 39% 30% 2 60% 100% 56% 55% 59% 3 14% 0% 6% 6% 11% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: SHMA Housing Needs Survey 2007 (Fordham Research) 6.1.j. It can be seen that households often want more bedrooms than they expect, so overall 17% want 1 bedroom, but 30% expect one bedroom; and 32% would like 3 bedrooms but only 11% expect this number. Two bedroom accommodation absorbs most of the discrepancy, with 49% who would like but 59% who expect 2 bedrooms. 26 Under-occupation is analysed in the section on the Area Profile

6-89

Figure 6:4 Differences between % liking and expecting different sizes of accommodation

Beds wanted 2 or more adults - no kids Lone parent 2+ adults 1 child 2+ adults 2+children Total 1 -10% 0% -22% -11% -13% 2 -15% 0% 9% -12% -9% 3 25% 0% 14% 18% 21% 4 0% 0% 0% 6% 1%

6.1.k. Two bedroom accommodation is therefore used both for upsizing families and downsizing empty nesters. 6.1.l. The colour coding in table 1 above uses this general picture, plus experience and judgment, to attribute the most likely size and type of housing to each household type and age group. From this is derived an ‘optimum’ shape of housing provision to meet this need if each household type and age moved to the property type attributed to it. Figure 6:5 Future demand by type and size - whole market Colour code Type and size number % of total 1bed flats 2927 5% 2 bed upsizing flats 3332 6% 2 bed houses 10151 18% 3 bed houses 21062 38% 3 bed flats/cluster 446 1% 2 bed downsizing flats/bungalows 13112 24% 1/2 bed elderly/care 4234 8% Total 55264 100%

6.1.m. This assumes a much more fluid and elastic market, and in reality will only happen to a limited extent. Older and more affluent households will continue to buy space and under-occupy, while younger and poorer households will live in housing which may not be ideal for them. But by having an idea of a more optimum shape it may be possible to steer provision towards this so that the market can function better locally, and older under-occupiers can find housing that is both attractive and acceptable to them when they want to move, so that they release larger housing for upsizing families. 6.1.n. This depends too on the ease of transition between different housing types at different lifestages. A very useful idea is that of local housing ladders by which households can with a smooth transition move to, or even convert into, property and accommodation types more suitable for their current lifestage and lifestyle while staying in the area they know and like if they so choose. 6.1.o. This optimised shape can then be applied to give a type and size breakdown for future need estimates. A key objective of policy therefore becomes to make the housing market function more smoothly, in private and public sectors. 6.1.p. The position for backlog need is somewhat different, as this includes more pressure that has built up over recent years. The Ashfield DC housing register and HSSA returns give a breakdown by size of home needed.

6-90

Figure 6:6 Housing Register type and size requirements breakdown

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 average % of total

Total on housing register 3289 4364 4602 4462 4179 100%

requiring 1 bedroom 140 145 214 328 207 5%

requiring 2 bedrooms 2216 3402 3586 3340 3136 73%

requiring 3 bedrooms 1285 677 669 653 821 19%

requiring more than 3 bedrooms 175 138 133 141 147 3%

requiring an unspecified number of bedrooms 13 2 0 0 4 0%

total known size required 4314 100% Source: HSSA 6.1.q. However, this will also be influenced by allocations policy and what is realistic in current circumstances, so that applicants will frequently have to take 2 bedrooms, perhaps also flats, when perhaps ideally a 3 bedroom house into which a family could grow without having to move again might be a better long term solution. 6.1.r. The proportions derived from this distribution has then been applied to the backlog needs estimate within the model. The combined result of future and backlog profiles gives a composite estimate of the type of provision required, ostensibly for the next seven years of the policy period. Figure 6:7 Type and size of housing required – future and backlog split

Needs by type & size future & backlog gross future need* gross backlog need

component of need 98 173

1bed flats 5 9

2 bed upsizing flats 6 25

2 bed houses 18 101

3 bed houses 37 38

3 bed flats/cluster 1 2 bed downsizing flats/bungalows 23 0

1 /2 bed elderly/care 7 0 total 98 173

Source: Derived from needs model, household projections, housing register 6.1.s. However these estimates should be carefully considered in the light of local circumstances and supply when any new development, scheme or intervention is considered. Front line knowledge may show that there is a particular local need, or there may be higher turnover of lettings which would meet the need for a particular type at that time. If so then the emphasis should be provision of properties which will help to create local housing ladders and improve the stability and functioning of the housing market system in general.

7-91

7) Stakeholder Consultations

7.1. Estate Agents: Perception of the local housing market

7.1.a. Estate Agents were interviewed in early September. Estate Agents feedback suggested that Ashfield is mostly perceived at a ‘micro’ level, with potential buyers or renters discriminating at street level rather than between larger submarkets or localities. On a broader scale the search area is suggested to be split by: • Hucknall; Sutton-in-Ashfield; Kirkby-in-Ashfield; Mansfield; Rural Areas which were seen to be perceived negatively included: • Coxmoor • Carsic • Brickyard Drive • Vine Terrace A rental agent identified the following areas as popular among their client group: • Hucknall Centre • Tichfield Park • William Street • Appleton Place/Bodmin Gardens (new development) 7.1.b. One agent said in some cases the popularity of an area was influenced by how well council and ex-council properties had integrated. This was re-iterated by some agents who also mentioned Right-to-buy properties and social housing acting as a deterrent. However, other agents said Right-to-buy was not a factor which influenced buyers. 7.1.c. Key issues identified in the rental market 7.1.d. The rental market was described as fairly busy at the time of interview (early September 2008) with the main issues being: • Many applicants are benefit claimants and are more difficult to house (due mainly to

landlords disliking the payment arrangement and difficulty accessing deposits). • Several properties have come up for rental recently where the owner has had to move out

(in some cases into social housing), being no longer able to afford the mortgage. • The loss of properties to the private sector through Right to Buy schemes has put a strain

on the social housing sector – there are lots of people in need and not enough houses for them.

• Some form of deposit scheme may help tenants to access private housing – they are unable to save deposits when on benefits.

7-92

7.2. Key issues identified in the owner-occupier market:

• Mixed views on the impact of Right-to-buy – in some cases buyers are thought to be put off

by ex-council homes. • Private buyers often object to living near social housing. • More people have begun to trade down to move to smaller properties, though the lower end

of the market is performing badly. • There were mixed views about shared ownership properties – they are uncommon in the

district and perceptions varied about whether or not they are worthwhile. • New build shared ownership apartments are not seen as value for money, as it is possible

to buy a terraced house for less (around £70,000). Often new build properties come with a paid deposit as an incentive.

• An increasing number of vendors are offering to pay deposits. • There are an increasing number of repossessions and far fewer mortgage approvals. • The market could be stimulated with some form of deposit assistance scheme. • There is an over-supply of flats in the market. They are generally seen as poor sellers, and

one agent had even stopped providing valuations on flats altogether. • Part exchange schemes are resulting in an increased number of vacant properties as the

previous occupiers move out and developers are then unable to sell the previous property. • The increased threshold for stamp duty is making little or no difference to sales. • Though most interest in housing comes from the local area, people are coming in to buy

from areas like Nottingham and Mansfield.

7-93

7.3. Housing Consultation

7.3.a. A consultation to discuss research findings and collect feedback on views about the current situation in Ashfield was held on Tuesday 30th September at Ashfield District Council. In attendance were representatives from: • Eastern Shires Housing Association Group • East Midlands Housing Association • Derwent Living • Meden Valley Making Places • Longhurst Group • Ashfield District Council • B.Line Housing Information 7.3.b. Following presentation of key findings, the groups discussion focussed largely on: Perceived risks and challenges in the sector Suggestions for how to address the problems Data that would help to improve provision

7.4. Risks and Challenges

7.4.a. Sales: Houses continue to sell, apartment sales have stagnated 7.4.b. Shared ownership: Income from shared ownership deals has slowed with the credit crunch. Particular difficulties were reported by Longhurst Group relating to access to mortgages for properties in rural areas with staircasing restrictions. 7.4.c. Affordable Housing subsidies: As subsidy costs per unit increase, funds are being depleted. 7.4.d. In the case of Derwent, affordable housing subsidies are supported by student lets, though if new competing lets are provided this situation will be threatened. 7.4.e. Purchase options: As a result of the market slowdown, developers are increasingly approaching RSLs offering sites for affordable housing. Buying up all the sites being offered would create monotenure patches and go against policy aims. 7.4.f. Alternative intermediate options: Intermediate rent has been examined in some cases but RSL members felt the lack of a specific model (as provided for Shared Ownership) creates problems. The idea of ‘try before you buy’ intermediate rent schemes lacks clarity – if tenants try for 3 years then don’t buy, it is not clear what happens after that. 7.4.g. Intermediate rent is seen as a product in direct competition with the private rental sector. Other intermediate rent products include: ‘Save’ rent as a deposit Rent payments build up a discount to the sale price 7.4.h. Developers are now competing directly with this, offering deals where the purchaser buys at 75% of value today, then pays the remaining 25% in 10 years (with nothing to pay in between).

7-94

7.4.i. Policy issues: The evidence of a need for 1 bedroom accommodation does not seem to reflect demand in reality. Flats are still being pushed forward for new sites but are difficult to let/sell and unpopular as long term accommodation.

7.5. Suggestions: How to address the problems

7.5.a. Flexibility needs to be built in to the planning system – requirements and how to meet them should be established on a site by site basis, with clarity about what is required alongside flexibility around how to provide it. 7.5.b. Improving inter-departmental co-operation is key to establishing viable development plans. Planners particularly should be involved throughout more of the process. Section 106 agreements and commuted sums will often destroy a sites viability but alternatives are not sought. 7.5.c. There was a discussion about the possibility of RSLs bringing private sector empty homes back into use, but this was thought by all attendees to be too expensive – the cost of assuring properties reach the required standards does not stack up against the potential return, and funding is not available for this type of scheme. 7.5.d. Improved monitoring of provision across the area could help prevent saturation, particularly in Hucknall. Experience of demand for housing generally indicates that 2 or 3 bedroom family houses are the most popular and desirable property type. 7.5.e. Though there was an awareness of rural issues, they were not considered to be at the forefront of housing market challenges in the area. Though need does exist in rural areas around Ashfield District, the nature of those areas is less typical than what is normally described – more access to goods and services, less isolation – households in need in Ashfield’s rural areas are more likely to agree to live in social housing within the nearby settlements. 7.5.f. Meden Valley Making Places commented on the changing nature of low demand:- runaway house prices have forced people into poor quality private rented accommodation which would otherwise have fallen out of use, resulting in a new problem of poor quality housing which cannot easily be regenerated.

7.6. Data that could help to improve provision

• Information about people’s housing aspirations • Perceptions of the local area (particularly as regards the stigma relating to heavy drug use) 7.6.a. There is some survey data on these subjects but as qualitative issues they can be much more difficult to measure.

7-95

7.7. Discussion with Ashfield Homes

7.7.a. As a core provider of social housing in the area, Ashfield Homes were consulted about their experiences in the area (particularly with regard to the waiting list). 7.7.b. Maintenance: Entries on the waiting list date back to 1975. This was explained to be often due to applicants staying on the list ‘just in case’, and so they can access appropriate housing when they need to. Since waiting points are allocated (1 point every 3 months), these applicants will remain on the list building up points to improve their options in the future. Ashfield Homes carries out a yearly application review to remove defunct entries – applicants are contacted and asked to confirm whether or not they wish to remain on the register, and whether their circumstances have changed. Applicants who do not respond are removed. 7.7.c. Applicant preferences: Choice based lettings has not yet been introduced within Ashfield, so currently applicant choice is expressed through the area guides (detailing all areas and sub-areas – down to street level – where Ashfield Homes stock is situated). The extent to which applicants express particular area preferences is often determined by their level of need. Cases of priority need will generally specify any and all areas as acceptable. 7.7.d. Less urgent applications may show a distinction drawn between Hucknall and Sutton/Kirkby-in-Ashfield, where applicants prefer not to move between the North and South settlements.

7.8. Unpopular/problem areas:

7.8.a. Upper Coxmoor (Warwick Close/Walesby Drive in particular), in Kirkby-in-Ashfield carries a stigma. The area contains lots of flats which tend to be occupied by young, transient tenants. There have been higher levels of anti-social behaviour/disturbance in the neighbourhood. This creates a vicious circle as families or elderly households do not want to live in the area, so the properties cannot be let to other groups. The flats have been pulled from the lettings portfolio pending a decision about how to address this problem. 7.8.b. Beacon Drive in Kirkby-in-Ashfield is split by Poplar Avenue – one side is fine but the other, containing less desirable houses, has had some problem tenants (particularly within the 1 bedroom flats, which require fewer points to access). 7.8.c. Huthwaite in Sutton-in-Ashfield is a less popular choice.

7.9. Other issues

7.9.a. Ashfield Homes confirmed that housing choice and preferences in the district operate very much at street level – people will prefer living on one street, but not the next street along. 7.9.b. Since policy on accommodation provision was changed, more lone parent families with 1 child are living in flats. Previously, this form of household could be offered a 3 bed house, but policy change has deemed they may only have 2 bed accommodation. Since there are very few 2 bed houses, the limited choice has induced more to accept flats.

ASHFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2008 APPENDIX Ashfield Homes – Sub areas and sub-sub areas. Sub areas are bold column headings – sub-sub areas are generally street or road names. Based on information provided by Ashfield Homes in September 2008. KIRKBY

Kingsway Annesley Kirkby Woodhouse Nuncargate

Welbeck/Clumber (Lower Coxmoor)

Poplar/Beacon (Lower Coxmoor)

Central Avenue Acacia Avenue Arthur Green Avenue

Cromford Road Clumber Street

Ashwood Avenue

Fairhaven Angela Avenue Beauvale Road

Derwent Drive Hazel Grove Alexandra Street

Half Moon Drive Forest Road Birds Lane James Street Laurel Grove Beacon Drive

Kingsway Fox Street Felley Avenue Mattley Avenue Low Moor Road Poplar Avenue

Manor Crescent High Close Larkfield Avenue

Nuncar Court Marlborough Road Pinewood Close

Quarry Drive High Crescent Main Road Riber Close Morven Road Rosewood Drive

The Acre Little Oak Avenue Mill Lane Mill Lane Oak Street

Sandalwood Drive

Western Avenue Park Avenue Northrowe Nuncargate Road Pond Street Spruce Grove

Priory Avenue Skegby Road Sherwood Court

Recreation Road Thorneywood Avenue Sherwood Street

The Dell Welbeck Street

Upper Coxmoor/Springfield Way

Rowan Drive/Southwell Lane Area (Old Kirkby)

Greenwood Drive Area (Old Kirkby)

Sycamore Avenue Area (Old Kirkby)

Bannerman Road Area

Glenside/Abbey (Upper Coxmoor)

Carburton Way Almond Grove Banks Avenue

Cherry Avenue Ashfield Drive Abbey Road

Rutland Elm Tree Road Berry Avenue Copeland Road Bannerman Road Chartwell Road

Springfield Way Hawthorne Crescent Box Crescent

Meadow Close Forster Street Coniston Road

The Promenade Holly Grove Elder Street Spinney Close Hartley Road Darley Avenue

Walesby Drive (steel framed) Minster Close

Greenwood Drive

Sycamore Avenue Hampden Street Farm View Road

Pine Close Highfield Avenue Harcourt Street Glenside

Privet Avenue Lawrence Avenue New Close Grange Court

Rowan Close Maple Crescent Park Street Hill View Road

Rowan Drive Sutton Middle Lane The Homesteads Richmond Road

Southwell Lane Willow Avenue Vernon Road Waverley Close

Yew Tree Avenue Victoria Road Warwick Close

Wheatley Avenue Walesby Drive (brick built)

Wollaton Road

SUTTON

Huthwaite North

Huthwaite South

Alfreton Road (Mapplewells)

Leamington Drive area

Leamington - Hardwick Lane

Leamington - Twitchell Area Healdswood

Back Lane Beech Avenue Alfreton Road Barnes Crescent Coburn Street

Cowpasture Lane Elder Street

Blackwell Road

Columbia Street Frederick Street Clare Road

Hardwick Lane Henry Street Gilcroft Street

Bonser Crescent Common Road

Mapplewells Road

Collins Avenue Jephson Road

James William Turner Avenue Hall Street

Clegg Hill Drive Cross Lane

Mapplewells Crescent

Jephson Buildings

Lansbury Road

Leamington Hall Flats Hazel Street

Little Lane Greenwood Avenue Kirkby Road

Martyn Avenue

Leamington Hall Bungalows

Healdswood Street

Pennine Close

Mill Close Court

Leamington Drive

Taylor Crescent Limb Crescent

Lime Tree Avenue

Strawberry Bank Mill Close Spa Close

Thornton Street Nesbitt Street

Mansfield Road

Summerhill Court

Oakland Avenue

Tom Wass Road

St Modwens Court Oak Street

Swanson Avenue

Roberts Avenue

Warnadene Road Stuart Street

St Andrews Street

Woodland Avenue

Springwell Street

The Homelands The Crescent

The Twitchell Ash Grove

Thompson Crescent

Barker Avenue

Twitchell View Beech Street Union Street Cedar Close Carsic - Oval Area

Carsic/Carsic Road Area

Carsic Lane Area New Cross Town Centre Spring Bank

Ashgate Brandreth Avenue Aspley Court Alfred Street

Brookhill Court

Beeley Avenue

Ashland Road

Brookfield Avenue Aspley Road

Deepdale Court Church Street

Bonser Gardens

Brierley Road Carsic Road Carsic Lane John Street Firemans Row

Garside Avenue

Carrfield Close Cowpes Close

Cavendish Avenue Lime Street

Lammas Close Kirkby Road

Caunts Crescent

Northwood Avenue Davies Avenue

Oak Tree Road Langton Court

Luther Avenue

Highfield Road

Southwood Avenue Davies Close Slater Street Spring Road

Meden Crescent Sowter Avenue Haven Close

Stoneyford Court

Stevenson Crescent

Norwood Close

Stanton Crescent Jubilee Road

West End Court

St Marys Court Northfield Close

Willowbridge Court

St Marys Road Paling Crescent

Willowbridge Lane

The Oval Percival Close Westbourne Road

Percival Crescent

Willow Crescent Priestsic Road Ridge Close

Eastfield Side Hill Crescent Station Road Stanton Hill Flat accommodation Skegby

Brookdale Road Byron Avenue Pepper Street Meden Bank Brand Court Bingham Avenue

Brown Crescent Chaucer Crescent

Sheepwash Lane

Stanton Court Brand Lane Forest Road

Burn Street Harwood Close Station Road Greenfields Charles Street Hill Crescent Young Crescent Mansfield Road

Eastfield Side Lawrence Crescent Lawn Avenue Pleasley Road

Garden Lane Mansfield Road Moorland Close

Herne Street Milton Close Stamper Crescent

Hibbert Crescent Prior Close Sylvan Crescent

Peel Street Roosevelt Road Beechwood Close

Potter Street Beechwood Court

Tudsbury Terrace

HUCKNALL Washdyke Lane Estate

Wighay Estate

Garden Road Estate Central

Butlers Hill Estate

Croft and Chatsworth

Addison Drive Barbara Square Aitchison Ave Windmill Grove Arden Close Byron Street

Greenwood Ave Ward Avenue Garden Road Central Avenue Bestwood Road Caddaw Avenue Washdyke Lane Wighay Road Hawthorn Ave Ogle Street Brickyard Drive Chatsworth Cl Moss Road Spring Street Butlers Close Chatsworth Dr

Munks Ave Linby Road Cavendish Close Croft Avenue

Plum Road Palmer Avenue Clumber Street Haddon Close Darlison Court Green Close Orchard Court Peveril Street Hankin Street Storth Avenue Nottingham Rd Truman Drive Rufford Close Titchfield Court St. Johns Cr Brookside Story Gardens Moor Road Goodall Cres Watnall Road

Beauvale Estate Astral Grove Nabbs and Salterford

George Street Area

Wellbeck Estate Ruffs Estate

Abbots Drive Astral Grove Brett Close Annesley Road Acacia Close Eastwood Close

Abbots Walk Kingsway Gdns Briar Close Eastwell Court Almond Close Edgewood Drive

Beauvale Road Lancaster Road Coppice Close George Street Broomhill Road Harrow Road

Beauvale Court Elizabeth Close St. Andrews Cl Cedar Grove Knoll Avenue Holgate Walk Elm Avenue St Marys Way Cherry Avenue Laughton Cres Rockwood Walk Felly Close Chestnut Grove Marchesi Close Godber Road Claremont Ave Norman Drive Maple Drive Elder Grove Robin Hood Dr Nabbs Lane Florence Street Ruffs Drive Rushcliffe Road Holly Close Shaw Crescent

Salterford Road Johnson Avenue Warren Road

Seymour Road Laburnum Cres Strathmore Cl Larch Close Sycamore Cl Lilac Road Edward Close Lime Tree Rd Farm Avenue Magnolia Grove Mulberry Grove Oak Grove Pine Grove Spruce Grove Thorn Grove