Burnley SHMA

Burnley SHMA Burnley Borough Council

17 May 2016

41659/MW/RHt/CRo

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners 3rd Floor One St James's Square Manchester M2 6DN nlpplanning.com

This document is formatted for double sided printing. © Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 2016. Trading as Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners. All Rights Reserved. Registered Office: 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL All plans within this document produced by NLP are based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright reserved. Licence number AL50684A

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15

Contents

1.0 Introduction 1 Background to the Study .................................................................................. 1 National Planning Policy Framework ................................................................ 3 The National Planning Practice Guidance [Practice Guidance] ........................ 5 Burnley Development Plan ............................................................................... 6 Duty to Cooperate ............................................................................................ 7 Overall Approach ............................................................................................. 8

2.0 Defining the Housing Market Area 12 Introduction .................................................................................................... 12 CLG Guidance on Defining Housing Market Areas ........................................ 12 Previous SHMAs and Housing Market Areas Analyses .................................. 13 Extent of the HMA .......................................................................................... 15 Summary ....................................................................................................... 19

3.0 Context and Trends 21 Introduction .................................................................................................... 21 Challenges ..................................................................................................... 21 Demographic Trends...................................................................................... 22 Migration ........................................................................................................ 23 Housing Stock ................................................................................................ 25 The Active Market .......................................................................................... 31 Starter Homes ................................................................................................ 38 Modelling Affordability .................................................................................... 40

4.0 Market Signals 47 Local Plans Expert Group .............................................................................. 47 Housing Market Indicators ............................................................................. 49 Synthesis of Market Signals ........................................................................... 57

5.0 Modelling Assumptions and Background 67 Background .................................................................................................... 67 Updated Population and Household Projections for Burnley .......................... 70 Summary ....................................................................................................... 79

6.0 The Future Housing Scenarios 80 Introduction .................................................................................................... 80 Scenario Assumptions and Approach ............................................................ 81 Model Outputs................................................................................................ 83 Summary ....................................................................................................... 93

7.0 An Objective Assessment of Housing Need 94

:

10003369v15

Introduction .................................................................................................... 94 The Starting Point – Demographic Needs ...................................................... 96 Do Market Signals indicate a need for an upward adjustment to purely demographic-led needs? ................................................................................ 97 Is there a need to increase housing supply to aid the delivery of affordable housing? ........................................................................................................ 99 Conclusions on Burnley Borough’s Housing OAN ........................................ 101

8.0 Affordable Housing Need 104 Introduction .................................................................................................. 104 Number of Current and Future Households in Needs ................................... 105 Current Housing Need (Stage 1) Steps 1.1 to 1.4 ........................................ 107 Future Housing Need (Stage 2) .................................................................... 113 Summary ..................................................................................................... 116

9.0 Supply of Affordable Housing 117 Introduction .................................................................................................. 117

10.0 Affordable Housing Requirements 122 Introduction .................................................................................................. 122 Estimate of New Affordable Housing Needs ................................................. 122 Summary of Affordable Housing Requirements ............................................ 123 The Role of PRS in Meeting Affordable Housing Needs ............................... 124 Tenure of Households in Need ..................................................................... 126 Choices within Existing Affordable Housing Stock ........................................ 127 Housing Aspirations and Need ..................................................................... 128 Housing Requirements of Specific Groups in Need ...................................... 131 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 149

11.0 Key Issues for Future Policy 151 Introduction .................................................................................................. 151 Impact of Changes in House Prices and Market Rents ................................ 151 Impact of ‘Help to Buy’ ................................................................................. 153 Starter Homes .............................................................................................. 155 Second Steppers.......................................................................................... 158 Self-Build ..................................................................................................... 159 Impact of the Affordable Rents Model .......................................................... 160 Social Rent and 80% Affordable Rent Differences ....................................... 161 Proportion of Housing to be Affordable ......................................................... 163 Affordable Housing Split ............................................................................... 165

12.0 Housing Requirements by Size, Type and Sub-Area 171 Introduction .................................................................................................. 171 Housing Requirements Split by Size and Tenure ......................................... 171

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15

13.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 182 Introduction .................................................................................................. 182 Housing Requirements ................................................................................. 182 Affordable Housing Need ............................................................................. 183 Housing Requirements of Specific Groups ................................................... 186 Next Steps and Monitoring ........................................................................... 188

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners [NLP] has been appointed by Burnley Borough Council [BBC] to undertake a Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA]. The purpose of the study is to provide robust and up-to-date evidence on the potential scale of future housing need and demand in Burnley based upon a range of housing, economic and demographic factors, trends and forecasts. This will provide the Council with evidence on the future housing requirements of the Borough to help BBC plan for future growth and make informed policy choices through the emerging Local Plan process.

Background to the Study

1.2 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners [NLP] was appointed in 2013 to produce a Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA] for Burnley [BBC] and Pendle Borough Council [PBC]. This was to replace the out-of-date 2008 SHMA, since which time there had been significant economic and policy changes.

1.3 The 2013 SHMA utilised a range of housing, economic and demographic factors through NLP’s HEaDROOM Framework in order to provide robust evidence to help inform the Council’s Plan making process.

1.4 Based on past trends and context of both Boroughs, a number of scenarios were identified and agreed with BBC and PBC reflecting alternatives for potential future growth within the Boroughs. These were identified to reflect what had occurred previously, as well as what might occur in the future given the range of factors which affect population and household growth within both Boroughs.

1.5 The SHMA concluded that taking into account the scenarios tested, a dwelling requirement of between 60 and 100 dpa represented a sensible range for BBC, equivalent to between 1,140 and 1,900 net additional dwellings over the plan period 2011 to 2030. For Pendle, a dwelling requirement of between 280 and 320 dpa was recommended, equivalent to between 5,320 and 6,080 net additional dwellings over the same plan period. It was considered that this provided a realistic level of housing to support some economic growth, whilst recognising the demographic and viability challenges that remained.

1.6 The lower end of these ranges was derived on the basis of taking the latest household and population projections as the starting point for identifying OAN and accelerating household formation rates to anticipate a return to growth over the longer term. The top end of both ranges reflected realistic economic growth aspirations as identified in the (then) latest Experian econometric job growth projections.

1.7 Subsequently, PBC took forward a figure of 5,662 (net) additional dwellings (298 dpa) over the 19-year period 2011-2030 in Policy LIV1 of its Core Strategy. The Examination Hearing Sessions concluded on 28 April 2015 and the Plan was formally adopted at a meeting of the Full Council on 17th

Burnley SHMA

P2 10003369v15

December 2015.

1.8 At the time the 2013 SHMA was published, the latest Government data comprised the 2011-based (Interim) Sub-National Population Projections (SNPP) and equivalent Household (SNHP) Projections. The 2012-based SNPP became available in May 2014, whilst the 2012 SNHP were released in February 2015. This report provides an update to the housing scenarios modelled in the SHMA for Burnley, taking into account the latest demographic data releases as well as re-based 2014 mid-year population estimates [MYE] (released October 2015) and using updated Experian data (September 2015) to align with the updated 2015 Burnley ELDS which is being updated concurrently. In addition, this report projects a slightly extended time-frame for housing needs, given the need for plans to cover a minimum of a 15-year period from adoption, and as such provides an assessment of housing need between 2012 and 2032.

1.9 It is recognised that the Practice Guidance requires that housing needs should be assessed in relation to the relevant Housing Market Area [HMA], which in this case, would be the two Local Authority areas of Burnley and Pendle. Whilst this was the term of reference for the 2013 SHMA, the brief for this updated Study focuses on the identification of needs for Burnley Borough alone.

1.10 Clearly the 298 dwellings per annum [dpa] taken forward by PBC its Core Strategy falls within the 280 - 320 dpa OAN range recommended in the 2013 SHMA, and subsequently revised to between 250 dpa and 340 dpa in the subsequent “Housing Needs Study 2012-based SNPP Update” (September 2014) undertaken on behalf of the Council prior to its Core Strategy Examination. This need was identified to meet Pendle’s housing needs in isolation.

1.11 The latest 2012-based SNHP indicate a marked uplift in household growth in Burnley, at a rate of 57 households annually between 2011 and 2021 compared to the decline of 32 hpa in the (interim) 2011-based SNHP over the same timeframe which underpinned the 2013 SHMA modelling work, and it may be expected that this will have a positive impact on Burnley’s housing needs.

1.12 Despite this, the Practice Guidance is clear that whilst Local Plans should be kept up to date, and a meaningful change in the housing situation should be considered in this context, this does not automatically mean that housing assessments are rendered outdated every time new projections are issued.1

1.13 This report sits alongside (and will subsequently inform) other evidence base documents such as Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments [SHLAA], Housing Viability Assessments and Infrastructure Delivery Plans as well as other environmental and technical studies. It will assist the Local Planning Authority [LPA] in formulating their spatial strategies and enable the Council to

1§2a-016-20140306

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P3

make the informed policy choices required for a sound Local Plan.

1.14 The core outputs of this study cover the following:

1 Estimates of current dwellings in terms of size, type, condition, tenure, including the extent to which they are lacking or sharing basic amenities;

2 Estimates of the number of houses of in multiple occupation, households within them and the extent of shared facilities;

3 Analysis of past and current housing market trends, including balance between supply and demand in different housing sectors and price/affordability;

4 Description of key drivers underpinning the housing market and an assessment of whether the Burnley housing market is self-contained or not;

5 Estimates of total future number of households, broken down by age and type where possible;

6 Estimates of current number of households in housing need;

7 Estimates of future households that will require i) market housing and ii) affordable housing;

8 Estimates of the sizes, types and range of tenures of affordable housing and the size and types of market housing required;

9 Estimates of household groups who have particular housing requirements and may have access barriers to housing e.g. families, older people, key workers, black and minority ethnic groups, disabled people, young people, people in rural areas etc. and quantify this in terms of size, type and range of tenure; and,

10 Advice in relation to the Affordable Rent Model and intermediate housing products.

1.15 As requested by BBC, the base data of the report is 2012 and in-depth analysis is provided to 2032.

1.16 The study provides a robust and credible evidence base to inform the Council’s new Local Plan Policies, and is compliant with existing and emerging Government planning policy and guidance.

National Planning Policy Framework

1.17 In March 2012 the Government published the National Planning Policy Framework [the Framework].

1.18 Following the revocation of Regional Strategies and the consequent removal of the housing requirements and job targets therein, it now falls upon LPAs to establish local development requirements, in a manner consistent with national planning policy and practice guidance.

Burnley SHMA

P4 10003369v15

1.19 The Framework states that LPAs should:

“Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework…” [§47]

1.20 To deliver a wide choice of quality homes and widen opportunities for home ownership, LPAs should:

1 Plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as families with children, the elderly and people with disabilities); and,

2 Identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand [Framework §50].

1.21 The Framework [§159] outlines the evidence required to underpin a local housing target, and concludes that’s LPAs should:

“Prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA] to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where HMAs cross administrative boundaries. The SHMA should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which:

• Meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change;

• Addresses the needs for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families and people wishing to build their own homes); and,

• Caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand.”

1.22 The starting point for plan making is to use the evidence base to objectively assess the need for development with an area and then seek to meet that in full, where it is appropriate to do so. This is underlined in the Framework [§14] which identifies in respect of plan-making that local plans should, “meet objectively assessed needs… unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits…”

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P5

1.23 The Framework also outlines the importance of LPAs promoting economic growth:

“The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system… Planning policies should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment, including…any lack of infrastructure, services or housing.” [§19 and §21]

1.24 With the planning system expected to do ‘everything it can’ to support economic growth and strategic plans required to address any potential barriers to achieving this, Local Plans need to demonstrate how they are effectively and positively planning to support the economy in their local area, including delivering sufficient housing to ensure economic potential is realised.

1.25 Where objectively assessed development needs [OAN] are evidenced, but are not achievable within the boundaries of a Local Authority, the Framework sets out a requirement to plan positively across boundaries to meet the need elsewhere within the market area. This ensures that any shortfall in provision in one authority area is still met in other local authority areas. This is practically achieved through the statutory ‘duty to cooperate’.

The National Planning Practice Guidance [Practice Guidance]

Assessment of Housing and Economic Development Needs

1.26 On 6th March 2014 CLG launched the Planning Practice Guidance web-based resource2. This website brings together many areas of English planning guidance into a new format, linked to the Framework and replaces the previous CLG SHMA Practice Guidance published in 2007, which has now been cancelled. Although the new Practice Guidance is more succinct and provides less detail on the assessment of affordable housing need than the 2007 Guidance, the overall approach remains essentially the same.

1.27 The Guidance states that an objective assessment of need must be based on facts and unbiased evidence. Plan makers should not apply constraints to the overall assessment of need, such as limitations imposed by the supply of land for new development, historic under performance, infrastructure or environmental constraints. However, these considerations will need to be addressed when bringing evidence bases together to identify specific policies within development plans3.

1.28 The Guidance advises that HMAs can be broadly defined by using three different sources of information as follows: house prices and rates of change in house prices; household migration and search patterns; and, contextual data

2 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ 32a-004-20140306

Burnley SHMA

P6 10003369v15

(e.g. travel to work area boundaries, retail and school catchment areas)4.

1.29 The Guidance states that household projections published by CLG should provide the starting point estimate of overall housing need5. Housing need, as suggested by household projections, should be adjusted to reflect appropriate market signals, as well as other market indicators of the balance between the demand for and supply of dwellings. Relevant signals may include land prices, house prices, rents, affordability (the ratio between lower quartile house prices and the lower quartile income or earnings can be used to assess the relative affordability of housing), rate of development and, overcrowding6.

1.30 In areas where an upward adjustment is required, plan makers should set this adjustment at a level that is reasonable. The more significant the affordability constraints (as reflected in rising prices and rents, and worsening affordability ratio) and the stronger other indicators of high demand (e.g. the differential between land prices), the larger the improvement in affordability needed and, therefore, the larger the additional supply response should be7.

1.31 The Guidance recognises that market signals are affected by a number of economic factors, and plan makers should not attempt to estimate the precise impact of an increase in housing supply. Rather they should increase planned supply by an amount that, on reasonable assumptions and consistent with principles of sustainable development, could be expected to improve affordability, and monitor the response of the market over the plan period8.

1.32 Against this background, the Framework [§159] provides the starting point for considering the key requirements of what SHMAs now need to cover, namely household and population projections taking account of migration, the need for all types housing including affordable and the housing needs of different groups. The Framework [§50] also identifies other relevant considerations that will need to be evidenced around housing market trends and size/type/tenure requirements by location.

Burnley Development Plan

1.33 The development plan for BBC currently comprises the Burnley Local Plan (adopted 2006). The Local Plan draws from the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan [JLSP] in terms of its housing requirement. The JLSP identified the number of new residential units to be built in each district of the County over the period 2001 – 2016. The requirement for Burnley was 1,430 dwellings between 2001 and 2016. The supporting text of Policy H1 of the Burnley Local Plan (2006) proposed a housing target of 1,272 dwellings (net) over the period 2003-2016, which is the equivalent of 98 dpa. This figure is based on the figure from the Structure Plan minus the housing delivered between 2001 and 2003.

4 2a-004-20140306 5 2a-015-20140306 6 2a-019-20140306 7 2a-020-20140306 8ibid

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P7

1.34 Housing targets for the Borough until 2008 were set in the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan. In 2008 these were replaced by those set in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (subsequently renamed the Regional Strategy [RS]). Regional Strategies were formally revoked by the Secretary of State on 20th May 2013.

1.35 On 19th October 2010, the Council's Executive resolved that the RS’s indicative annual housing requirement of 130 dwellings per annum [dpa] be used as the Borough's housing target pending the setting of a new target at a borough level. A new target will be set in the Burnley Local Plan.

1.36 The now revoked RS9 set a target for net additional dwellings for the years 2003 to 2021 of 2,340. It also stated that its figures were:

“not absolute targets and may be exceeded where justified by evidence of need, demand, affordability and sustainability issues and fit with relevant local and sub-regional strategies.... some areas will achieve lower levels in the early years, for example during major market housing market renewal, which will be compensated later.” [§7.19]

1.37 BBC considers that areas such as Burnley therefore were not expected to achieve these indicative annual averages in the early years. To calculate the number of net additional dwellings per annum it is necessary to subtract the number of housing demolitions in that year from the number of net housing completions (completions taking account of new build and changes of use). For most years since 2003, the number of housing demolitions has resulted in the number of net additional dwellings falling below the indicative annual average of 130 per annum identified in RS. This arose partly in the context of the housing market renewal programme which involved the assembly of sites through acquisition and clearance in advance of replacement dwellings being provided and partly due to the 2009 recession and its after effects. In 2013/2014 the indicative annual average figure was exceeded.

Duty to Cooperate

1.38 The statutory duty to cooperate in respect of plan making is set out in Section 33A of the Localism Act (2011). The Framework [§178] sets out how public bodies have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, highlighting the strategic priorities of Local Plans which includes delivering the homes and jobs needed in the area. The Framework [§182] sets out the tests of soundness for Local Plans, crucially identifying that plans should be ‘positively prepared’ based on a strategy which seeks to meet OAN, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities.

9Government Office for the North West (September 2008): The North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021

Burnley SHMA

P8 10003369v15

Overall Approach

Approach to the SHMA and Identifying Local Housing Needs

1.39 In response to the need to generate locally derived requirements for growth, NLP developed HEaDROOM, a conceptual framework for identifying local housing requirements providing a robust basis for planning through Local Plans. NLP’s HEaDROOM framework (so-called given its focus on the Housing, Economic and Demographic factors underpinning the need for housing in a locality) has been applied in this study (See Figure 1.1) to identify the OAN for housing.

Figure 1.1 HEaDROOM Framework for Objective Assessment of Need for Housing

Source: NLP 2015

1.40 The approach adopted is consistent with the requirements of the Practice Guidance and the Framework, providing the necessary evidence and 'core outputs' to estimate future housing need and demand. The approach taken in arriving at a housing target for the Local Plan will need to consider relevant national and local policy factors at a high level; the realism of any target10; and the duty to cooperate. Although these are strictly factors outside the remit of this SHMA, it will nevertheless have due regard to them.

Objective Assessment of Housing Needs

1.41 In essence, the approach adopted to identify the housing need element of the study is to derive a series of scenarios based on housing, economic and demographic factors, and to identify the potential housing and employment growth needs arising within the parameters of any given scenario.

10 PPG §ID2a-003-20140306: “Assessing development needs should be proportionate and does not require local councils to consider purely hypothetical future scenarios, only future scenarios that could be reasonably expected to occur.”

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P9

1.42 The key outputs of the study are presented for the period 2012 to 2032. This is to fit with the intended Local Plan period for Burnley and to provide the OAN beyond the plan period, to 2032 which provides at least a 15-year modelling period from the date of this study, which is 2016.

1.43 HEaDROOM is dependent upon the availability of a wide range of existing data sources. Many of the modelled assumptions take account of datasets (particularly those demographically-driven) that are updated annually. It also relies on a number of older datasets which, due to reporting periods and data availability, represent the most recently available and/or most appropriate and robust data to use.

It will be important to keep the analysis under review and to take account of emerging information as it arises as part of the evidence base informing the Council’s Local Plan.

1.44 The analysis of housing market factors, the outputs of each of the scenarios and much of the assessment is undertaken cognisant of the geography of the Borough.

Figure 1.2 Burnley Settlement Areas

1.45 Postcode boundaries within each of the Settlement Areas have informed the analysis undertaken as part of the preparation of the SHMA. As local authority boundaries do not align exactly with postcode boundaries a ‘best fit’ approach

Burnley SHMA

P10 10003369v15

has been used. In the majority of instances, this only encompasses countryside or undeveloped areas and hence does not result in any significant bias in the results.

Affordable Housing

1.46 In addition to establishing the overall housing requirement associated with different scenarios, this study also seeks to assess the level of affordable housing need. This appraisal draws upon a wide range of existing sources of data relating to:

1 The local housing market;

2 Market Signals, including house prices and affordability issues;

3 The existing stock of affordable housing;

4 Anticipated future changes in the affordable housing stock; and,

5 Current and anticipated future levels of need for affordable housing.

1.47 The affordable housing target will be broken down by tenure, size and type, for each sub-housing market area, and for special needs households.

1 Families with children;

2 Older people;

3 Households with specific needs (such as disabled people);

4 Minority and hard to reach households;

5 Rural communities;

6 First time buyers and young people; and,

7 Key workers and service personnel.

1.48 NLP also considered the affordable rent model and the ability of households across the Borough to pay up to 80% market rents. This required an analysis of the affordable rent model and the identification of suitable rent thresholds for the local authority and settlement areas having regard to local incomes, the mortgage market and the supply of private rented and affordable housing. It included consideration of its likely impact on the supply and demand of social rented housing and its implications for households in need of affordable housing.

1.49 This SHMA has not separately identified the needs of C2 uses (residential institutions11) in the context of providing advice on the five-year housing land supply, which would be the subject of a separate study.

1.50 Analysis was undertaken to understand the effect of national and local policy on expressed housing need and demand by considering the Government’s Help to Buy Scheme, Right to Buy, Build to Rent and analysis of the housing needs of ‘second steppers’ as well as the recent Government announcements

11 Use Class C2 relates to residential institutions such as residential accommodation and care to people in need of care, residential schools, colleges or training centres, hospitals, and nursing homes

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P11

concerning Starter Homes.

1.51 The appendices set out the relevant assumptions used for the demographic modelling and also provide a technical guide to the approach adopted.

Stakeholder Consultation

1.52 Stakeholder consultation is vital for realistic and robust outputs, particularly as SHMAs must be defensible at Examinations and planning inquiries. In this situation, significant attention has to be paid to the views of neighbouring local authorities in accordance with the duty to co-operate, Registered Providers [RPs] who operate in the area, local agents, developers, and other key stakeholders.

1.53 To ensure satisfactory involvement from key stakeholders, questionnaires were sent to RPs, neighbouring authorities and local estate agents in the original 2013 SHMA, with key contacts spoken to again for this updated SHMA in 2015. The questionnaires were designed to gain a more detailed view of the affordable housing requirements in the HMA, including any key recent changes in the sector, the needs of specific groups, and the impact of the Affordable Rent model and initial views on the Government’s ‘starter homes’ initiative.

1.54 The neighbouring local authorities of Calderdale, Hyndburn, Pendle, Ribble Valley and Rossendale were approached directly by NLP in December 2015 on an individual basis to establish their relationship with Burnley Borough and assess whether there is likely to be a need to accommodate any of the housing requirement of these authorities in Burnley and vice versa.

1.55 The feedback from stakeholders has assisted NLP in assessing the assumptions used in the updated SHMA and the assessment of housing requirement. Details of this feedback have informed various sections of this report.

1.56 A Housing Needs Survey [HNS] was also carried out in spring 2013 by NEMS Market Research Company covering both Burnley and Pendle local authority areas, with the data used to inform the original 2013 SHMA. As the Practice Guidance suggests that the use of such primary data is not essential when undertaking a SHMA12, a new HNS was not commissioned for this updated SHMA; however, where appropriate the 2013 HNS data has been used to sensitivity test the NLP affordable housing needs analysis.

12Practice Guidance 2a-014-20140306: “Plan makers should avoid expending significant resources on primary research (information that is collected through surveys, focus groups or interviews etc. and analysed to produce a new set of findings) as this will in many cases be a disproportionate way of establishing an evidence base. They should instead look to rely on secondary data”.

Burnley SHMA

P12 10003369v15

2.0 Defining the Housing Market Area

Introduction

2.1 The Localism Act 2011 includes the statutory duty to cooperate on strategic planning for cross-boundary issues, and this is a requirement reiterated in the Framework in terms of addressing issues including housing figures and job growth. In particular the Framework states:

“…LPAs should: use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.” [§159]

2.2 Inspectors13 have taken the view that SHMAs must be undertaken for the whole Housing Market Area [HMA] and that objectively assessed housing needs should reflect such geographies. The Burnley and Pendle SHMA 2013 considers the appropriate HMA for Burnley. This section revisits this analysis incorporating more up to date data and new policies where relevant.

CLG Guidance on Defining Housing Market Areas

2.3 The CLG’s guidance note: ‘Identifying sub-regional housing market areas’ (March 2007) was revoked in March 2014. However, in the absence of any replacement detailed guidance, it provides a reasonable basis for defining HMAs. In this context, it notes that:

1 HMAs are inherently difficult to define. They are a geographic representation of people’s choices and preferences on the location of their home, accounting for live and work patterns. They can be defined at varying geographical scales from the national scale to sub-regional scale, down to local and settlement specific scales.

2 HMAs are not definitive. As well as a spatial hierarchy of different markets and sub-markets, they will inevitably overlap. However, CLG provides some advice in this regard.

2.4 The former CLG Guidance recommends that a measure of migration flow patterns can identify the geographical relationships of where people move house within an area with a 70% containment rate of migratory activity typically representing a HMA. In particular:

“The typical threshold for self-containment is around 70 per cent of all movers in a given time period. This threshold applies to both the supply side (70 per cent of all those moving out of a dwelling move within that same area) and the demand side (70 per cent of all those moving into a dwelling have moved from that same area). Some areas may be relatively more or less self-contained, and it may be desirable to explore different thresholds.”

13 Waverley Borough Council Core Strategy Examination in Public, Letter from Inspector Michael Hetherington June 2013, and Hart District Council Core Strategy Examination in Public, Letter from Inspector Kevin Ward July 2013

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P13

2.5 This level of self-containment is also recommended in the Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014). This provides some guidance on defining housing market areas including consideration of household migration and search patterns. The Practice Guidance states:

“Migration flows and housing search patterns reflect preferences and the trade-offs made when choosing housing with different characteristics. Analysis of migration flow patterns can help to identify these relationships and the extent to which people move house within an area. The findings can identify the areas within which a relatively high proportion of household moves (typically 70 per cent) are contained. This excludes long distance moves (e.g. those due to a change of lifestyle or retirement), reflecting the fact that most people move relatively short distances due to connections to families, friends, jobs, and schools.14”

2.6 Migration flows and calculation of self-containment percentages within and between local authorities have been used by NLP to assist in defining the Burnley HMA.

Previous SHMAs and Housing Market Areas Analyses

The Definition of HMAs in the North West Region (2008) Nevin Leather Associates

2.7 This study defines HMAs across the north west region using a combination of information from existing studies followed by analysis of migration and commuting patterns, house prices (supplemented by the views of developers and estate agents) in line with good practice.

2.8 The study highlighted the difficulties faced by the Lancashire Strategic Housing Partnership in putting together a sub-regional housing strategy for the area due to the complexity of bringing diverse and geographically distant areas together into a meaningful strategy. Burnley Borough comprises part of the East Lancashire Area.

2.9 The document splits Lancashire in to 7 distinct HMAs and confirms ‘Burnley/Pendle’ as a HMA in its own right.

CLG Geography of HMAs Study (2010)

2.10 A CLG study of HMAs was published in 2010 and considered the extent of HMAs at various levels across England. Figure 2.1 presents the ‘Burnley’ HMA as defined in the CLG publication ‘Geography of HMAs: Final Report’ (November 2010), mapped against the Burnley Local Authority boundary and those of adjoining districts.

2.11 This study defined wider strategic HMAs based on commuting flows and then subdivided these strategic areas into smaller local housing market areas. Burnley was identified as being within one local HMA. The Burnley HMA

14 2a-011-20140306

Burnley SHMA

P14 10003369v15

includes all of Burnley Borough, and a small portion of both Rossendale and Pendle Boroughs. Burnley is entirely within the wider ‘Blackburn and Burnley’ strategic HMA.

2.12 Self-containment within these local-level HMAs is between 61% and 72%, which is below the 70% requirement for some HMAs as set out in the Practice Guidance. However these figures do not take account of the impact of long distance moves. Furthermore, the towns of Burnley and Padiham have a substantial rural hinterland and it is generally accepted that rural areas have lower levels of self-containment.

Figure 2.1 Local HMAs

Source: CLG 2010 / NLP Analysis 2015

Burnley and Pendle Housing Needs Study and SHMA (December 2013)

2.13 The Burnley and Pendle Housing Needs Study and SHMA was published in January 2014. The aim of the SHMA was to enable the Council to understand the nature and level of housing demand and need within the HMA.

2.14 The study made the following conclusions regarding the HMA:

“Domestic migration patterns for Burnley and Pendle demonstrate that there is a strong housing market relationship between the Burnley and Pendle local authority areas. There is also a smaller level of market interdependency with Hyndburn, Blackburn with Darwen, Rossendale, and Craven. A pattern can be

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P15

discerned that the inter-relationships for Pendle tend to have more of a bias towards the larger conurbations and Yorkshire than Burnley, which has stronger relationships with the other Lancashire authorities. As regards Calderdale District, only 70 residents moved from this area into Burnley (and 50 in the other direction) whilst for Pendle the migratory interaction with Calderdale is almost too small to register. This suggests that neither Burnley nor Pendle have strong enough linkages to warrant taking on board any of Calderdale’s future housing requirement or indeed for any of the other adjoining districts. It is clear that the other districts (including those in close proximity such as Ribble Valley) operate as other, discrete, housing markets that can be set apart from the cohesive Burnley/Pendle HMA.” [§2.22]

2.15 Using the latest migration data available, which consisted on Census 2001 data and ONS migration statistics from 2011, Burnley and Pendle were considered to comprise one self-contained HMA.

Extent of the HMA

Migration and Travel to Work Patterns

2.16 NLP has analysed the latest available data on commuting, migration and other relevant HMA indicators in line with the Practice Guidance. In July 2014 origin/destination data on migration was released for the 2011 Census at local authority level. This data enables an up to date analysis of migration flows for Burnley Borough.

Figure 2.2 2011 Census Migration Flows - Burnley

Source: Census 2011 / NLP Analysis 2015

Burnley SHMA

P16 10003369v15

Figure 2.3 2011 Migration Flows - Burnley and Pendle HMA


Migration

2.17 As noted above, patterns of migration are a function of a range of housing market factors combined with household circumstances. Key factors which influence migration patterns and the geography of housing markets include affordability, which itself is influenced by a range of factors, and accessibility, particularly related to place of work and ease of commuting.

2.18 Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 demonstrate that there is a high level of inter-dependency between Burnley and Pendle and to a lesser extent with surrounding local authority areas.

2.19 Table 2.1 shows the number of migratory movements to and from Burnley and Pendle from Local Authorities with the strongest migratory relationships with the two Boroughs.

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P17

Table 2.1 Burnley and Pendle - In and Out Migration

Inward Migration Outward Migration

Burnley Pendle Burnley Pendle

Burnley 5,896 644 5,896 664

Pendle 664 5,807 644 5,807

Rossendale 163 76 159 79

Hyndburn 256 125 154 168

Blackburn with Darwen 154 149 139 88

Manchester 52 39 138 130

Ribble Valley 93 105 105 121

Leeds 38 40 81 86

Calderdale 50 29 37 28

Rochdale 38 34 22 31

Source: Census 2011/NLP Analysis 2015

2.20 The level of self-containment is significant with 80.1% of all inward movements to Burnley or Pendle originating from Burnley or Pendle and 75.2% of all outward migrations. This provides strong evidence that Burnley and Pendle should be treated as a self-contained HMA. The conclusions reached in the 2013 SHMA for Burnley and Pendle support these findings, as does the Nevin Leather 2008 North West Regional study.

Commuting

2.21 To define a Housing Market Area [HMA], a figure of around 70% is generally seen as being the threshold for self-containment in terms of internal movement patterns. Figure 2.4 shows commuting to and from Burnley and Pendle as well as the relationship between the two Boroughs.

Figure 2.4 Commuting Flows - Burnley and Pendle HMA


2.22 Figure 2.4 illustrates the strong relationships between Burnley and Pendle in

Burnley SHMA

P18 10003369v15

terms of commuting flows; 4,692 of Burnley residents commute out to Pendle and 5,159 flow the other way.

2.23 Overall, the Borough has high levels of out-commuting to Pendle, Hyndburn and Blackburn with Darwen, whilst Pendle and Hyndburn also have high levels of commuters travelling into Burnley in return. Burnley is a net exporter of labour, with a daily net outflow of around 664 workers, equivalent to around 1.8% of all workplace jobs within the Borough.

2.24 Table 2.2 demonstrates that the 23,095 people the self-containment figure for Burnley i.e. the percentage of people who live and work in the borough is 61% whereas the equivalent figure for Burnley and Pendle is 73% which provides strong evidence that Burnley and Pendle comprise a single travel to work area.

Table 2.2 Commuting Data - HMA Self-Containment

Live and work

in LA

Resident workforce population

Workplace population

Net commuters

Self-Containment

Burnley 23,095 38,304 37,640 -664 61%

Burnley and Pendle 52,665 77,802 72,417 -5,385 73%

Source: 2011 Census / NLP Analysis 2015

2.25 This was confirmed through the work of the ONS which, following the 2001 Census, produced a map showing ‘Travel to Work Areas’ [TTWA] (Figure 2.5) based on commuting data. In this dataset Burnley does not comprise a self-contained TTWA. Instead both Burnley Borough and Pendle Borough are within the Burnley TTWA area.

Figure 2.5 Excerpt from Travel to Work Areas (2011)

Source: 2011 Census / ONS Geography GIS & Mapping Unit

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P19

Cross Boundary Relationships

2.26 This SHMA considers housing OAN for Burnley taking into account of the inter-migratory relationships of the Borough with adjoining authorities. The data inputs informing the scenarios used in the demographic modelling explore these relationships, with the modelling taking account of inter district migration patterns through use of past trends in gross and net migration flows (both domestic and international) to inform the assessment of future housing needs.

2.27 Pendle Borough Council which forms part of the same HMA submitted its Core Strategy Update in December 2014 and the Examination Hearing Sessions concluded on 28 April 2015.

2.28 The Pendle Core Strategy confirms that there is no requirement for Burnley to accommodate any of Pendle’s housing need. The Core Strategy states that a minimum of 5,662 dwellings should be delivered in Pendle over the plan period (2011-2030), equivalent to 298dpa.

2.29 It is recognised that the Practice Guidance requires that housing needs should be assessed in relation to the relevant Housing Market Area [HMA], which in this case, would be the two Local Authority areas of Burnley and Pendle. Clearly the 298 dwellings per annum [dpa] taken forward by PBC its Core Strategy falls within the 250-340 dpa OAN range recommended by NLP in Pendle Borough’s “Housing Needs Study 2012-based SNPP Update” (September 2014).

2.30 A subsequent Briefing Note was prepared by NLP and submitted to the Examination (document reference C/013) which reviewed the 2012-based SNHP in the context of Pendle’s Full Objectively Assessed Need. This concluded that the latest SNHP did not indicate that the suggested OAN range of 250dpa to 340dpa would be substantially altered had the latest household projections been available to use in NLP’s PopGroup model for the September 2014 report.

2.31 Pendle’s OAN of 250-340 dpa was therefore retained and aligns with the broad approach taken by NLP for Burnley in this 2016 document. The 298 dpa requirement taken forward by PBC in its adopted Core Strategy is meeting Pendle’s housing needs in isolation.

Summary

2.32 The assessment of the extent of the HMA for Burnley demonstrates that over the past ten years, the Borough has continued to retain strong links with Pendle Borough. The level of self-containment exceeds 70% using both Census 2001 data and Census 2011 data, which illustrates the continued migratory links between the two Boroughs.

2.33 In summary:

1 The Practice Guidance defines an HMA as a geography at which 70% of local moves are contained, whilst the former CLG Guidance notes that

Burnley SHMA

P20 10003369v15

the benchmark for self-containment may be lower in more rural areas;

2 Burnley with Pendle have previously been identified as a self-contained HMA in both the 2013 SHMA and the 2008 Nevin Leather Associates study.

3 Excluding long-distance movements, an assessment of 2011 Census data on migration suggested that the two Boroughs have a self-containment of between 75% and 80% (including long distance moves);

4 Commuting Trends in Burnley show low levels of self-containment (61%). When considered against the Planning Practice Guidance this is too low to be considered a FEMA with high levels of out flows to Pendle particularly. This is relevant here as the low levels of migration provide contextual evidence to suggest Burnley is not a self-contained HMA;

5 Considering commuting flows within and between Burnley and Pendle there is a much higher level of self-containment (73%) which is sufficiently high enough to provide compelling evidence that Burnley and Pendle are within the same TTWA and similarly have similar trends that suggest they fall within the same (self-contained) HMA;

6 On this basis Burnley and Pendle can be considered as a single HMA for the purpose of considering housing needs in the context of the Local Plans;

7 Notwithstanding this, an objective assessment of need for Burnley and Pendle15 Boroughs will still fully account for cross-boundary dynamics, due to modelling assumptions concerning future migration patterns.

15 Pendle Borough Council has calculated an individual FOAN for Pendle Borough of 5,662 (net) dwellings over the plan period.

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P21

3.0 Context and Trends

Introduction

3.1 This local contextual review assesses the demographic, housing stock and supply/demand dynamics of Burnley to provide an understanding of the key drivers that are underpinning the housing market within the Borough.

Challenges

3.2 Burnley is located in East Lancashire and forms part of the Burnley and Pendle HMA. Burnley’s housing stock is a reflection of its industrial legacy and is dominated by stone and slate terraced housing with an oversupply of smaller 2-up, 2-down ‘street terraces’. These predominantly late 19th and early 20th Century houses have poor thermal characteristics, limited (if any) off-street parking and small garden areas/yards. Whilst still popular, the market appeal of these properties is limited and their oversupply and concentration in parts of Burnley results in relatively high vacancy levels. This is a trend that has been a consistent challenge to the Burnley housing market in the past and continues to influence the performance of the market.

3.3 The saturation of poor quality terraced housing in the Borough was the basis for intervention through the Housing Market Renewal [HMR] Pathfinder initiative that operated between 2002 and 2011. This initiative has now ceased, leading to a decline in the number of demolitions year on year as projects begin to be wound up.

3.4 Other initiatives continue to improve the former HMR areas, for example with the Burnley Empty Home Programme aiming to bring vacant dwellings back into use, which will reduce the number of new homes that will need to be built to meet their future housing needs.

3.5 Selective licensing has also been introduced to Burnley Borough in parts of Trinity, Queensgate and Gannow. This requires every private sector landlord operating in those areas to obtain a licence from the Council. Selective licensing compels landlords to engage with the Council and ensure they have appropriate management standards in place. This will help to reverse current trends whereby a predominance of poorly maintained private rented properties exacerbate the problems of low demand and deter people from living in a neighbourhood.

3.6 In terms of deprivation, Burnley is ranked as being the 21st most deprived Local Authority area in England, according to the 2010 Indices of Multiple Deprivation [IMD] (based on the rank of average rank). The updated version of the IMD dataset (2015) indicates that Burnley’s ranking has worsened slightly, to 17th, although the approach to assessing the IMD has altered hence this does not provide any conclusive evidence that levels of deprivation are noticeably worsening in the Borough.

Burnley SHMA

P22 10003369v15

Figure 3.1 Indices of Multiple Deprivation in Burnley

Source: CLG Indices of Deprivation 2015

3.7 The 2015 data presents similar overall trends in Burnley as its immediate predecessor. Padiham has seen slightly worsening levels of deprivation. A significant proportion of the inner urban area the falls within the 10%-30% most deprived areas in England. There is also a clear division between the rural and urban parts of the Borough, with the former experiencing far lower levels of deprivation.

3.8 Burnley also suffers with high levels of unemployment (7.1%16) which can influence the affordability of the housing market resulting in fewer households being able to become home owners, and more having to rent (either in the public or private sectors).

Demographic Trends

3.9 Understanding the demographic context of an area is critical to understand the foundations for a robust objective assessment of housing need. Up-to-date demographic evidence, informed by the 2011 Census and other nationally consistent data sources such as the Annual Population Survey [APS] and ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates [MYE], enables us to understand:

• how a district’s population has evolved in the past;

• how the key components of change (notably births, deaths and migration) have influenced this; and,

• how they are likely to continue shaping population and household change in the future.

3.10 The 2011 Census puts the population of Burnley Borough at 87,057 in 2011.

16 APS modelled unemployment rate (Jul 2014-Jun 2015) – NOMIS 2015

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P23

The population in Burnley according to the 2001 Census was 89,542. This represents a decline of 2,483 residents over the intervening decade (-3%). The latest (Census-adjusted) 2014 MYE suggest that the population of the Borough has increased slightly since the 2011 Census, to 87,291 by 2014 (as illustrated in Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 Population and Household Change in Burnley

Source: ONS Mid-Year Population, CLG 2012-based SNHP

3.11 In respect of the number of households in the Borough, these have increased gradually, from 36,707 in 2002 to an estimated 37,652 by 2014, an increase of 2.6% over this period. Figure 3.2 illustrates a slight step change between 2010 and 2011, as households increased by 256, the highest annual increase within this period. The impact of a faster rate of household growth than population growth has been a trend towards smaller household sizes, with the respective Census data reporting average household size of 2.40 in 2001, falling to 2.30 by 2011 (slightly lower than the 2.4 rate nationally).

Migration

3.12 Any population growth in Burnley over the past decade is solely attributable to natural demographic change (i.e. the rate of births exceeding that of deaths), as the total net migration has been consistently negative with more people moving out of the Borough than moving in. The exception is 2014, where net migration was positive mainly due to high levels of net international migration and reduced levels of internal out migration.

3.13 Between 2005 and 2014 population declined by 333, with estimates of net in-migration averaging -404 over the same period people over the same period, equivalent to 121% of population decline. The reason population decline is stemmed is due to the relatively high levels of natural change.

Burnley SHMA

P24 10003369v15

3.14 As illustrated in Figure 3.3, net migration has fluctuated in Burnley with net out-migration peaking in 2007, and net in-migration peaking in 2014. It is apparent that this is driven by domestic outward migration, although international migration was also predominantly negative between 2005 and 2009 (albeit at a very different magnitude), since when the number of immigrants has slightly exceeded emigration rates to/from the Borough.

Figure 3.3 Net internal and international migration for Burnley 2005 - 2014

Source: ONS Migration Estimates - Mid-Year Estimates 2014

Current Demographic Profile

3.15 The 2011 population profile is compared to the 2001 population profile, illustrating the relative change in population for each age group over the previous 10 years is shown by Figure 3.4. In particular, this highlights the large contraction in the population between the ages of 5 to 20 and 30 to 40 in particular. In contrast, the number of residents aged between 55 and 70 as well as the number aged 80-90 has grown as the population profile has shifted upwards by ten years. This brings with it considerable challenges when assessing future housing requirements and economic growth trajectories.

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P25

Figure 3.4 Population Profiles for Burnley 2001/2011

Source: Census 2001 / Census 2011

3.16 If such population trends continue, Burnley will see an increasingly ageing population, with particular implications around delivering housing for the retired and elderly. However, teamed with a decline in the number of very young children living in the Borough, there has been a strong growth in the number of older children, combined with a decline in the younger working age population between the ages of 20 and 30, and population decline across the Borough generally. Therefore whilst the need and demand for new houses may not increase significantly in absolute terms, there will be some potential for a changing household structure caused by a shifting population.

Housing Stock

Existing Stock

3.17 The tenure profile of households in Burnley is illustrated in Figure 3.5, Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7. The proportion of households that own and occupy their homes totals 65% in Burnley, below the Lancashire County figure (71%) but marginally higher than the North West figure (64.5%). Figure 3.5 suggests that owner occupation is particularly high in the rural parts of the Borough, which is the converse of the situation as regards the proportion of Borough residents living in private rented (Figure 3.6) and particularly social rented accommodation (Figure 3.7), who are far more likely to be living in the urban areas of Burnley and Padiham.

Burnley SHMA

P26 10003369v15

Figure 3.5 Tenure Profile for Burnley 2011 - % Owner Occupiers

Source: Census 2011

Figure 3.6 Tenure Profile for Burnley 2011 - % Private Rented

Source: Census 2011

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P27

Figure 3.7 Tenure Profile for Burnley 2011 - % Social Rented

Source: Census 2011

3.18 Households in affordable tenures totalled 14.3% in Burnley, below comparable figures for the North West (18.8%) but marginally higher than the figure for Lancashire (12.6%). Conversely, the proportion of households privately renting/living rent free in Burnley (20.7%) is higher than both the County (16.4%) and regional (16.7%) equivalents.

Table 3.1 Tenure Profile of Households in Burnley, Lancashire and North West, 2011

Tenure Burnley Lancashire North West

N % % %

Owned: Outright 11,815 31.5% 35.7% 31.0%

Owned: With a mortgage or loan 12,593 33.5% 35.3% 33.5%

Shared ownership (part owned/part rented) 79 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%

Social rented: From council (LA) 1,418 3.8% 4.2% 7.7%

Social rented: Other 3,863 10.3% 7.9% 10.6%

Private rented: landlord or letting agency 6,664 17.7% 13.7% 14.1%

Private rented: Other 603 1.6% 1.4% 1.3%

Living rent free 515 1.4% 1.3% 1.3%

Total 37,550 100% 100% 100%

Source: 2011 Census

3.19 The types of housing stock in the Borough are illustrated in Figure 3.8, Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10. Unsurprisingly, the first map, illustrating the key concentrations of detached properties, is the exact opposite of the remaining two maps illustrating the proportion of terraced and flatted accommodation respectively. Detached properties are particularly prevalent in the surrounding rural areas, and particularly in the more affluent parts of the Borough.

Burnley SHMA

P28 10003369v15

Figure 3.8 Accommodation Profile for Burnley in 2011 - % Detached

Source: Census 2011

Figure 3.9 Accommodation Profile for Burnley in 2011 - % Terraced

Source: Census 2011

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P29

Figure 3.10 Accommodation Profile for Burnley in 2011 - % of Flats

Source: Census 2011

3.20 Table 3.2 suggests that exactly half of all the properties in Burnley are terraced, more than double the national average and significantly above the comparable rate for Lancashire, 30.0% for the North West and 24.5% for England. As a consequence, the proportions of detached and semi-detached properties are well below comparable figures elsewhere.

3.21 This situation is fluid however - the proportion of terraced properties in Burnley between 2001 and 2011 actually reduced, from 51.9% to 50.1%. This reflects the type of new built properties that have been delivered over the previous decade and the significant clearance of terraced properties as part of the HMR initiative in the Borough.

Table 3.2 Type of Housing

Type Sub-Type

Burnley Lancashire North West England

# % % % %

House or Bungalow

Detached 5,203 13.0% 21.9% 17.7% 22.3%

Semi-detached 11,144 27.9% 33.2% 35.7% 30.7%

Terraced 20,009 50.1% 31.5% 30.0% 24.5%

Flat, maisonette or apartment

Purpose-built block of flats 2,774 6.9% 9.5% 13.0% 16.7%

Part of a converted or shared house

382 1.0% 2.1% 2.4% 4.3%

In a commercial building 349 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1%

Other Caravan or other mobile/temp. structure

103 0.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.4%

Total All Occupied Household Spaces

39,964 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Census 2011

Burnley SHMA

P30 10003369v15

3.22 Significantly, the proportion of flats in Burnley has increased from 7.6% in 2001 to 8.8% in 2011, although these proportions are still below the Lancashire (12.6%), North West (16.4%) and national (22.1%) averages.

3.23 In respect of the size of accommodation, the most up-to-date and robust indication of the size distribution of stock remains the 2011Census. Table 3.3 illustrates that in 2011 Burnley had a higher proportion of 4, 5 and 6 room household spaces and a lower proportion of 7, 8 and 9 room homes17 than the regional and national averages. Conversely, smaller proportions of both larger properties and smaller properties broadly reflect the type of housing stock in Burnley, with smaller proportions of detached homes and flats than national and regional averages.

Table 3.3 Size of Accommodation

Burnley (%) North West (%) England (%)

1 room (household space) 0.2% 0.4% 0.8%

2 rooms 1.6% 2.0% 2.9%

3 rooms 7.7% 9.0% 10.3%

4 rooms 21.8% 18.4% 19.2%

5 rooms 29.1% 26.8% 24.7%

6 rooms 22.4% 21.6% 19.4%

7 rooms 8.6% 10.3% 10.1%

8 or more rooms 4.8% 6.0% 6.3%

9 or more rooms 3.6% 5.4% 6.4%

Source: Census 2011

3.24 The 2011 Census also measured occupancy ratings. Occupancy ratings (rooms) provide a measure of whether a household’s accommodation is overcrowded or under occupied. The number of rooms required (based on a standard formula) is subtracted from the number of rooms present to obtain the occupancy rating.18 For example, an occupancy rating of -1 implies that a household has one less room than required, whereas +1 implies that they have one more room than the standard requirement.

3.25 The data indicates that as of 2011, Burnley had 29,198 households with an occupancy rating of 1 or more, comprising 77.8% of all households in the Borough. This compares to rates of 76.5% for the North West as a whole, and 72.6% nationally, which could indicate that the Borough has a mismatch between the size of households and the size of dwelling they occupy.

3.26 This could become more of an issue following the Government’s under-occupancy penalty, whereby if social tenants are deemed to have one spare room relative to the size of the household, their housing benefit will be cut by 14%, whilst if they have 2 or more spare rooms, the reduction will be in the order of 25%. Whilst tenants can downsize, problems may arise if there are areas of Burnley where there is a particular shortage of smaller social homes.

17 A size which broadly correlates to a 3 to 4 bed property assuming a kitchen and 1 or 2 reception rooms 18 For more information on occupancy ratings, including the formula used to calculate them please see www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census/2011censusdata/2011censususerguide/glossary

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P31

Stock Condition

3.27 The most up to date and comprehensive survey of the condition of dwelling stock in Burnley Borough is contained within the Council’s House Condition Survey (June 2009). This survey covered all tenures including properties owned by Registered Providers and concluded that 17,700 properties failed the Decent Homes Standard, equivalent to 43.6% of the total housing stock.

3.28 This is higher than the equivalent figure for England in the same period (at 36.7%). The proportion of non-decent dwellings by tenure were; owner occupied (45.5%); privately rented (46.3%); and, housing association (31.3%). The majority of dwellings were non-decent due to thermal comfort failure (32.1%), followed by Category 1 Hazards (25.3%). 10.4% of the stock failed the disrepair criterion and only 1.1% because they were lacking modern facilities and amenities.

The Active Market

Changes in Stock

3.29 Housing targets for the Borough were set in the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan until 2008. In 2008 these were replaced by those set in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (subsequently renamed the Regional Strategy [RS]).

3.30 Regional Strategies were formally revoked by the Secretary of State on 6 July 2010 but this decision was subsequently quashed in court and the Strategies were reinstated. The North West RS was finally revoked on 20 May 2013. On 19 October 2010, following the initial RS revocation, the Council's Executive resolved that the Regional Strategy's indicative annual housing requirement of 130 dpa be used as the Borough's housing target pending the setting of a new target at a borough level. A new target will be set in the Burnley Local Plan.

3.31 The now revoked RS set a target for net additional dwellings for the years 2003 to 2021 of 2,340 and gave an indicative annual average of 130 net additional dwellings. It also stated that its figures were “not absolute targets and may be exceeded where justified by evidence of need, demand, affordability and sustainability issues and fit with relevant local and sub-regional strategies....some areas will achieve lower levels in the early years, for example during major market housing market renewal, which will be compensated later.” Areas such as Burnley were not therefore expected to achieve these indicative annual averages in the early years.

3.32 To calculate the number of net additional dwellings per annum it is necessary to subtract the number of housing demolitions in that year from the number of net housing completions (completions taking account of new build and changes of use). Dwelling completions in Burnley over the past decade have fluctuated considerably and were severely impacted by the recession.

3.33 Completions have ranged from 202 net new dwellings in 2007/08, to -91 net

Burnley SHMA

P32 10003369v15

new dwellings in 2009/10. Past net completions have averaged just 42 dpa (net) since 2003/04. This is despite BBC approving a significant number of planning applications for residential use over the same time period, with 3,836 dwellings approved since 2003/04 at a rate of 320 annually.

Figure 3.11 Dwelling Completions in Burnley 2003/04 to 2014/15

Source: Burnley Borough Council - Housing Figures from HMD (2016)

3.34 Figure 3.11 indicates that, for most years since 2003, the high level of demolitions (due primarily to the HMR programme which involved the assembly of sites through acquisition and clearance in advance of replacement dwellings being provided) has resulted in the number of net additional dwellings falling below the indicative RS target of 130 dpa. In 2013/2014 the indicative annual average figure was exceeded for the first time since before the recession.

3.35 It also illustrates that completions in the Borough tailed off in the recessionary year, impacted by high levels of demolition. Net additional dwellings have only met the ‘indicative’ RS target twice in the past 12 years.

Transactions and Prices in the Private Market

3.36 Pre-recession dwelling sales across Burnley were between 2,300 and 3,500, representing c.8% of stock. However, since 2008, transactions plummeted, averaging c.990 per annum. This is equivalent to just 2.5% of the total stock in the Borough, which is a significant reduction from the pre-recession peak (Figure 3.12).

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P33

Figure 3.12 Property and Sales and Stock Turnover 2001-2012

Source: CLG Live Tables 588 and 125

3.37 House prices between 1996 and 2001 remained stable within Burnley and the wider County as a whole, albeit Burnley has consistently exhibited lower average house prices. Looking at the change in average house prices for Lancashire and Burnley, it is apparent that the recession and subsequent economic downturn has had a significant impact on the housing market. Figure 3.13 illustrates that Burnley house prices broadly follow the County pattern, albeit at a reduced magnitude.

Figure 3.13 Average House Prices in Burnley and Lancashire 1996 to 2011


Burnley SHMA

P34 10003369v15

3.38 In the period 1996 to 2012, Lower Quartile [LQ] house prices in Burnley have been significantly below the national and County-wide averages, with this gap widening post-2004. However, the Borough has experienced similar patterns in terms of peaks and troughs. In 2012, the average LQ house price in Burnley was £46,000, below the comparable prices in Lancashire and England and Wales (of £90,000 and £125,000 respectively). LQ house prices climbed steadily in Burnley from 2004 to 2008 and trebled over these years. Since 2008, LQ house prices declined slightly and have continued to remain relatively stable since then.

Figure 3.14 Lower Quartile House Prices in Burnley, Lancashire and England and Wales

Source: CLG Live Table 583

Current house prices and private rental levels

3.39 An internet search of current (November 2015) advertised private sector rent costs identified LQ rents of £350 across Burnley Borough. When the rents are examined more closely, it would appear that the difference between the Urban and rural areas is considerable and the authority-wide average does not portray true picture for Burnley as a whole.

3.40 Table 3.4 presents the relationship between property size and private sector rental levels in the two sub areas in Burnley. The analysis identified wide variations in private rent levels, with LQ rent levels varying from £350 in Burnley Urban to £441 in Burnley Rural. The variation in LQ rental levels is partly explained by variations in property size and the attractiveness of settlements. The demand and attractiveness of dwellings in rural areas also increases their rental value. It should be noted that these figures only provide a snapshot in time and do not portray rental values over a longer period.

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P35

Table 3.4 Private Sector Rent Levels (£ per month)

Burnley

Burnley Urban (LQ)

Burnley Urban (Range)

Burnley Rural (LQ)

Burnley Rural (Range)

1 – Bedroom £296 £220-£480 £373 N/A

2/3 - Bedroom £350 £320-£1,250 £441 £395-£825

4+ Bedrooms £795 £750-£1,100 N/A N/A

Source: NLP Analysis / Rightmove November 2015

3.41 The limited number of rental properties on the market within the defined boundary of Burnley Rural has restricted the conclusions that can be drawn from these figures. Bearing this in mind, the table provides an overview of the cost of dwellings by size within the two sub-areas.

3.42 Figure 3.15 demonstrates that the current median house price in Burnley Borough is £70,000, with LQ house prices of £40,000, based upon Land Registry data for the 12 months to September 2015.

3.43 This demonstrates that whilst there are very low house prices across Burnley it is notable that both LQ and average house prices are significantly higher for the rural sub area of Burnley than the urban area.

Table 3.5 House Price Data for Burnley, 2014/15

Burnley Urban Burnley Rural BURNLEY BOROUGH

AVERAGE £80,512 £172,269 £87,392

MEDIAN £65,000 £142,000 £70,000

LOWER QUARTILE £38,944 £100,000 £40,000

Source: NLP Analysis from Land Registry Price Paid Data, year ending September 2015

Figure 3.15 Distribution of House Prices 2014/15

Source: NLP Analysis and Land Registry Price Paid Data

Burnley SHMA

P36 10003369v15

3.44 Figure 3.16 displays monthly private rental data for all types of property as of the fourth quarter of 2015. It is clear from the chart that the majority of private rental properties are priced towards the lower end of the monthly rental values (£300-400) and very few properties are on the market for over £700 pcm.

Figure 3.16 Distribution of private market rents in Burnley (£)

Source: NLP / Rightmove November 2015

Vacant Dwellings

3.45 In October 2014 CLG19 recorded that there was a total of 2,458 vacant dwellings in Burnley, representing 6.14% of the total stock. Of these dwellings, 1,116 were classified as being long term vacant (i.e. vacant for longer than 6 months). Homes become vacant for many reasons, including natural vacancy in the market (e.g. a void between tenancies or short term vacancies as people move home). However, long term vacancies may be an indication of either structural weaknesses in the housing market (e.g. low demand for a particular type of property) or may be reflective of problems with the stock of housing (e.g. condition or type).

3.46 In Burnley, overall vacancy rates have ranged from 6.14% to 8.06% over the period 2004 to 2014. Figure 3.17 illustrates that vacancy levels across the Borough have been relatively consistent up to 2012 but in the last two years have begun to decline. By way of comparison, vacancy levels in Lancashire as a whole remained more stable ranging from 4.05% and 4.67%. Long term vacancy rates in Burnley have fluctuated between 2004 and 2014 with a low of 2.79% in 2014 (above the Lancashire figure of 1.52%). The changes over time have been relatively minor, and long term vacancy would not appear to be a significant issue in the Borough, particularly as this has declined overtime.

19 Calculation of Council Tax Base for Formula Grant Purposes, October 2014

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P37

Figure 3.17 Total and Long Term Vacancy Rates in Burnley and Lancashire


Supply and Demand for Affordable Dwellings

3.47 The supply of new affordable housing in Burnley Borough has varied since 1996/97. As illustrated in Figure 3.18, affordable housing completions were at their peak in 1996/97, with 70 completions achieved. Rates have since fluctuated, with just 10 completions in 2008/09, 2013/14 and 2014/15. The average completion rate between 1996/97 and 2011/12 was 36 dpa.

3.48 The B-With-Us Housing Register and HSSA data indicates that there was a significant drop in the Housing Waiting List in 2006/07. In 1997, the waiting list was 2,466 and, despite a dramatic decline in 2007 to 231, this rose again by 2014 to 2,001. Figure 3.18 illustrates that new affordable housing supply has not been able to keep pace with the demand for affordable housing.

3.49 Intermediate housing comprises homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels. This can include shared equity (i.e. shared ownership and equity loans); other low cost homes for sale; and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing.

3.50 Following the introduction of the Affordable Rent model by the Government in May 2011 (whereby rents are around 80% of the cost of private rent) there has been a shift towards the provision of this type of affordable housing, rising from 20 in 2012/13 to 60 in 2014/15.

Burnley SHMA

P38 10003369v15

Figure 3.18 Affordable Housing Completions and Waiting List in Burnley 1996/97 - 2014/15

Source: CLG 2015 – Live Tables 1006, 1006a, 1007 and 1008.

Starter Homes

3.51 On 2nd March 2015 Minister for Housing and Planning Brandon Lewis MP published a Written Ministerial Statement announcing the Government’s support for the development of 100,000 new ‘starter homes’ for young first time buyers by 2020.20 Following on from this, updated Practice Guidance provided information regarding the provision of starter homes on exception sites. It states that the intention of the policy is to help meet the housing needs of young first time buyers by allowing Starter Homes to be offered to them at below their open market value. The exception site policy enables applications for development for Starter Homes on under-used or unviable industrial and commercial land that has not been currently identified for housing. In summary:

“A Starter Home is expected to be well designed and suitable for young first time buyers. Local planning authorities and developers should work together to determine what size and type of Starter Home is most appropriate for a particular Starter Home exemption site reflecting their knowledge of local housing markets and sites. A Starter Home is not expected to be priced after the discount significantly more than the average price paid by a first time buyer. This would mean the discounted price should be no more than £250,000 outside London and £450,000 in London.

20 ‘Starter Homes’ 2nd March 2015 Written statement to parliament https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/starter-homes

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P39

LPAs should put in place planning obligations to ensure that Starter Homes are offered for sale at a minimum of 20% below its open market value of the property. Such properties are expected to be offered to people who have not previously been a home buyer and want to own and occupy a home, and who are below the age of 40 at the time of purchase.21”

3.52 The Housing and Planning Bill 2015-16 proposes that an English planning authority may only grant planning permission for residential development if the starter homes requirement – to be defined22 in regulations – is met (Clause 4). A Government announcement23 the day before the publication of the Bill (on 12th October 2015) stated that the legal duty to guarantee delivery of starter homes would apply to all ‘reasonably sized’ sites.

3.53 The Government’s “Consultation on proposed changes to National Planning Policy” (2015) (‘the consultation document’) proposes to amend the national planning policy definition of affordable housing to include starter homes.

3.54 There is nothing in the Housing and Planning Bill that states clearly that starter homes will be instead of, rather than in addition to, affordable housing, the Government’s consultation document proposes to amend the national planning policy definition of affordable housing so that it encompasses a fuller range of products, including starter homes.

3.55 The Housing and Planning Bill if enacted will impose a new legal duty on councils to promote the supply of starter homes in decision-taking and their other planning functions; they must have regard to Secretary of State [SoS] guidance in doing so. Regulations can also be made, such that LPAs can only grant planning permission for housing development, if the starter homes requirement in those regulations is complied with. The Bill suggests that this may be by way of a s106 obligation to provide starter homes, or for an applicant to make a starter homes payment to the LPA.

3.56 Based on previous announcements, these regulations are likely to require starter homes on all ‘reasonably sized’ new development sites, and to promote any schemes to first-time buyers in their area. The Practice Guidance also requires that LPAs do not seek section 106 affordable housing contributions, including any tariff-based contributions to general infrastructure pots, from developments of Starter Homes. LPAs will still be able to seek other section 106 contributions to mitigate the impact of development to make it acceptable in planning terms, including addressing any necessary infrastructure24.

3.57 The Housing and Planning Minister (Brandon Lewis) has said that the balance of starter homes and affordable housing is a matter for the LA to negotiate with the developer, but the Government considers starter homes to be a priority.25

3.58 In summary, the proposed statutory duty for LPAs to provide starter homes in

21ID: 55-001-20150318 to 55-003-20150318 22 Starter homes are defined in Clause 2 of the Bill 23 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-councils-must-deliver-local-plans-for-new-homes-by-2017 24Practice Guidance ID: 55-004-20150318 25 http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1372053/lewis-councils-will-negotiate-mix-affordable-rented-starter-homes

Burnley SHMA

P40 10003369v15

future is in parallel to requirements for affordable housing that may or may not be set out in local plans.

3.59 Subject to any transitional arrangements in secondary legislation, the proposed statutory duty for LPAs to require starter homes would in effect override local plan policies, and thus other forms of affordable housing would have to be provided in accordance with the development plan only if the development remains viable after starter home provision (and other planning obligations, which may include another new statutory duty, for providing custom build housing) are taken into account. Therefore starter homes would not need to be defined as affordable housing, even though the Government proposes that they will be.

3.60 The amendment to the definition of affordable housing in the Framework will have an impact on adopted local plans and local plan preparation. As such, this updated SHMA will examine the likely need for starter homes in Burnley Borough and how this could impact overall affordable housing need.

Modelling Affordability

3.61 The former CLG SHMA Practice Guidance (2008) defines affordability as a “measure of whether housing may be afforded by certain groups of households” [Annex G]. In identifying affordability of housing there are two key elements: the amount of income a household has available to access housing, and the cost of accessing housing. Comparing house costs against the ability to pay provides indications of the relative affordability. In particular, looking at the minimum incomes required to access housing at lower quartile prices provides an indication of entry-level prices to the property market. This can then be compared with the income distribution of both households overall and for newly forming households. Households unable to afford entry level prices on the private housing market, either renting or purchasing, will find themselves needing affordable housing tenures.

Incomes and Earnings

3.62 The income and earnings of households directly influences their relative ability to access housing. Information on household incomes at a local level is not widely published and crucially does not provide information on the number of households within different bands of income, although there is some information on personal incomes from the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE). In order to overcome this, NLP has drawn upon household income data which was purchased from Experian Business Strategies (see Appendix 1 for Methodological note on Experian’s Income Bands (Local Area Data)).

3.63 The resulting band income data for 2014 is illustrated in Figure 3.19. This shows the proportion of households within each £5,000/£10,000 income band. It demonstrates that household incomes (i.e. the combined income of those contained within a household) in Burnley have a distribution whereby 27% of

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P41

all households have an annual income of less than £10,000 a year, whilst 68% of all households in the Borough have an income of less than £20,000. Just 2% of all households in the Borough have an annual income over and above £50,000.

Figure 3.19 Distribution of Household Incomes in Burnley for 2014

Source: Experian Gross Household Income Data

3.64 Table 3.6 presents the banded income data for households across the two sub-areas of Burnley Borough. As might be anticipated, incomes are significantly lower for Burnley’s urban areas than the surrounding rural hinterland – in the former, 70% of households have incomes below £20,000 and 94% have incomes below £30,000, compared to 46% and 80% respectively in the surrounding rural areas of Burnley Borough. It should be noted that the gross household income data provided by Experian excludes housing benefits.

Table 3.6 Banded Income Data for Burnley Borough, 2014

Percentage of Household with a Gross Income:

Burnley

Urban Rural

Below £10,000 28% 16%

£10,000 to £19,999 42% 29%

£20,000 to £29,999 24% 34%

£30,000 to £39,999 2% 7%

£40,000 to £49,999 1% 5%

Over £50,000 2% 8%

Source: NLP Analysis from Experian Banded Income Data

3.65 This income distribution data is, however, for all households within Burnley Borough. Newly forming households are those that will typically drive the need for housing, as existing households will already occupy property. However these households typically have lower incomes and therefore have lower

Burnley SHMA

P42 10003369v15

purchasing power in the housing market. Evidence from the English Housing Survey (and its predecessor the Survey of English Housing [SHE]) demonstrates that over the previous decade the incomes of newly forming households have been relatively consistently between 60% and 75% of existing households. Looking further at data from the English Housing Survey [EHS] shows a substantially different distribution of incomes between newly forming households and existing households. This is illustrated in Figure 3.20.

3.66 The English Housing Survey 2013/14 [EHS] shows that newly forming households have approximately 76% of the average income of all households.

Figure 3.20 Difference between Income Profile of Newly Forming Households and Existing Households

Source: CLG English Housing Survey 2011-2012 Table FA4211 (December 2012)

Affordability Thresholds

3.67 In order to consider affordability of housing in the market, entry level prices must be utilised. In this regard the former CLG Practice Guidance identifies that lower quartile prices provide the best proxy for entry level prices, with prices below that marker often associated with housing that is poor quality. Drawing upon the review of current house prices and private rental values, lower quartile prices for a house (£40,000) and a rental property (£350 per month, £4,200 annually) and a 1-bed rental property (£296 per month, £3,552 annually) have been used as an indicator of the entry price to market housing. Such houses are readily available within Burnley and such values are relatively typical of smaller 1 and 2 bed properties on the market, ideal for newly forming households seeking to move into a first property.

3.68 In order to understand what income would be required to sustain ownership or occupation of such properties, it is necessary to consider how much households can afford to spend on their housing. The CLG SHMA Practice Guidance sets out that a household can be considered able to afford to buy a home if it costs 3.5 times the gross household income for a single earner or 2.9 times the gross household income for a dual income household. However, the

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Under £10.4k £10.4k to £20.8k £20.8k to £31.2k £31.2k+

Newly Forming Households

All Households

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P43

Practice Guidance does not prescribe exactly how affordability calculations should be undertaken other than to say that access to lower quartile (entry level) market housing is the relevant barometer.

3.69 The household income data utilised for Burnley does not differentiate between single earners and dual earners, and as such a 3.5 multiplier is considered appropriate in order to test best case outcomes (although it is noted that the Practice Guidance also states that where possible, allowance should be made for access to capital that could be used towards the cost of home ownership – this data is not presently available for Burnley). NLP has complemented this with evidence from the Council of Mortgage Lenders, who identified that in Q1 2012, the median loan-to-value ratio for first time buyers was 80% with an income multiple of 3.3. Although there may be difficulties in newly forming households in being able to secure a 20% deposit, there are options available including Government initiatives such as Help to Buy, the much publicised Starter Homes initiative as well as traditional sources of deposits such as parents. On this basis it is considered a useful sensitivity to test.

3.70 In respect of renting, there is no official, or definitive, threshold for how much a household can spend on rent before it is unaffordable. The former CLG SHMA Practice Guidance (2007) sets out that a household can be considered able to afford renting on the private market in cases where the rent payable was up to 25% of their gross household income. These affordability criteria have been applied to the identified rental costs to arrive at an income threshold to support ownership/occupation of entry level market housing.

3.71 However, there is more up to date evidence which suggests that the proportion of gross income household spend on rent may be higher than 25%. For example, the current HCA guidance to Registered Providers for assessing the affordability of their products sets out that 35% of gross household income can be spent on rent, whilst data released more recently than the former CLG SHMA Guidance estimates that the national average is 34.4% of gross household income (including state assistance) is spent on rent26. Other sources27 also suggest broad rules of thumb between 25% and 35% gross income as being the appropriate threshold (equating to c.33%-45% of net income).

26 CLG English Housing Survey 2010/11 27 For example see: Shelter Private Rent Watch Report one: Analysis of local rent levels and affordability (October 2011), Shelter.

Burnley SHMA

P44 10003369v15

Table 3.7 Income Thresholds for Entry Level Market Housing

Market Price/Product Cost Basis Income Threshold

% All Burnley Households unable to Afford

Private Buy Lower Quartile House Prices

£40,000 3.5 x income (CLG Practice Guidance)

£11,429 30.6%

20% Deposit and 3.3 x income (CLG Practice Guidance)

£9,697 26.2%

Private Rent Lower Quartile Rental Prices

£4,200 p.a. 25% Income (CLG Practice Guidance)

£16,800 49.7%

35% Income (HCA Guidance/EHS)

£12,000 32.0%

Source: CLG SHMA Guidance, CML, HCA Guidance/English Housing Survey, Land Registry, VOA, NLP Analysis

3.72 NLP has applied these thresholds to the income distribution for existing households and newly forming households in Burnley Borough to identify the proportion of households that can afford to access market housing. This is graphically represented in Figure 3.21, which presents the income distributions as cumulative proportions, identifying the thresholds for each of the entry level scenarios.

Figure 3.21 Affordability Modelling Burnley Borough

Source: NLP Analysis, Experian Income data, Rightmove, HM Land Registry data

3.73 As Figure 3.21 illustrates, applying the crude CLG approach to calculating affordable housing need suggests that almost 31% of existing households cannot afford entry level market housing in Burnley. The caveat remains that this makes no allowance for existing equity in their property, savings or deposit

LQ P

urch

ase

3.5

x in

com

e

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P45

assistance from relatives. If a 20% deposit is factored into the equation (albeit with a slightly lower income multiplier), then the proportion of existing households unable to afford entry level market housing would fall to 26%.

3.74 However, the income distribution of newly forming households is different from that of all households, reflecting their lower incomes. This means that a greater proportion of newly forming households are unable to access market housing than households overall. Data from the English Housing Survey [EHS] shows a significant difference between the incomes of newly forming and existing households. Evidence from the EHS (and its predecessor the Survey of English Housing) demonstrates that over the previous decade the incomes of newly forming households have been consistently between 60% and 85% of existing households. The latest data is displayed in Table 3.8 and indicates that newly forming households have approximately 83% of the average income of all households.

Table 3.8 Incomes of Existing and Newly Forming Households – England

Type of Household Income Average Household Income of all households £33,187

Average Household Income of newly forming households £27,550

Ratio 83%

Source: English Housing Survey 2014

3.75 As a result, an adjustment has been made in the modelling so that newly forming households in Burnley are (in line with the national average) assumed to have 83% of the income of the average household.

3.76 The CLG SHMA Guidance sets out clearly that the affordability of housing for newly forming households must be considered foremost, as it is these households that will most likely fall into housing need if their housing requirements are not met in the market. The resultant analysis is presented in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9 Proportion of Households Unable to Afford Market Housing

Property & Price Income-Threshold % of All Households

Unable to Afford

% of Newly Forming Households Unable to

Afford

Buy a Lower Quartile Priced Property (£40,000) with 3.5 x Income

£11,429 30.6% 36.4%

Buy a Lower Quartile Priced Property (£40,000), 20% Deposit with 3.3 x Income

£9,697 26.2% 31.2%

Rent a Lower Quartile Priced Property (£350 p.c.m) 25% income

£16,800 49.7% 68.6%

Rent a Lower Quartile Priced Property (£350 p.c.m) 35% income

£12,000 32.0% 38.2%

Source: NLP Analysis

3.77 Table 3.9 illustrates that using the former CLG approach, a minimum of 31% of households overall, and 36% of newly forming households, are unable to afford to purchase a house within Burnley Borough. This falls to 26% of existing

Burnley SHMA

P46 10003369v15

households and 31% of newly forming households if a 20% deposit is factored into the equation. This highlights the limited scale of affordability pressures that face households in Burnley Borough.

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P47

4.0 Market Signals

4.1 The Practice Guidance states that “the housing need number suggested by the household projections (the starting point) should be adjusted to reflect appropriate market signals, as well as other market indicators of the balance between the demand for and supply of dwellings”28.

4.2 The Guidance sets out six key market signals29:

1 Land Prices;

2 House Prices;

3 Rents;

4 Affordability;

5 Rate of Development; and,

6 Overcrowding.

4.3 It goes on to indicate that an appropriate comparison of these should be made with an upward adjustment made to planned housing numbers where there is evidence of a worsening trend in any of these indicators:

“This includes comparison with longer term trends (both in absolute levels and rates of change) in the housing market area; similar demographic and economic areas; and nationally. A worsening trend in any of these indicators will require upward adjustment to planned housing numbers compared to ones based solely on household projections.”

“In areas where an upward adjustment is required, plan makers should set this adjustment at a level that is reasonable. The more significant the affordability constraints (as reflected in rising prices and rents, and worsening affordability ratio) and the stronger other indicators of high demand (e.g. the differential between land prices), the larger the improvement in affordability needed and, therefore, the larger the additional supply response should be30.”

4.4 The Guidance sets out a clear and logical ‘test’ for the circumstances in which objectively assessed needs (including meeting housing demand) will be in excess of demographic-led projections.

4.5 The 2013 SHMA provided a review of market signals for Burnley and Pendle; however, since the publication of the SHMA, new data has become available and hence this section sets out an updated review.

Local Plans Expert Group

4.6 The Local Plan Expert Group [LPEG], in its Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning in March 2016,

28 2a-018-20140306 29 2a-019-20140306 30 2a-020-130729

Burnley SHMA

P48 10003369v15

recommended various changes to the Practice Guidance with the remit of considering how local plan-making could be made more efficient and effective.

4.7 Although the LPEG report is an independent report and has not yet been reported back on after Government’s recent consultation on it in April 2016, the report was ‘welcomed’ by Government in the Budget Statement [§2.287] which stated:

“Speeding up the process for assessing housing need - The government intends to accelerate the preparation and adoption of Local Plans. The government welcomes the report by the local plans expert group and will consult on the recommendations.”

4.8 Hence although limited weight can be given to the LPEG approach given that it is not policy or endorsed by Government, it is at least helpful in seeking to understand the general ‘direction of travel’ of defining housing OAN and what an appropriate response might be to define the influence of market signals and affordable housing.

4.9 In this regard, LPEG recommends a simplified, standard common methodology [§3.21] to arrive at an estimate of the Full housing OAN which:

1 identifies a common set of data sources to be used;

2 has clarity on the circumstances in which any adjustment should be made to CLG household projections (in terms of household formation rates and migration) and a standard methodology to apply where such adjustments are necessary to reflect local circumstances;

3 in the interests of streamlining the process, removes the current requirement to consider alignment of housing need with employment forecasts;

4 If they wish, plan makers should continue to be able to plan for further growth beyond FOAHN by considering a “policy on” alignment with job growth in setting their housing requirement where this is greater than housing need, but that this should not be part of FOAHN;

5 is based on clear guidance on the approach to be taken to the market signals adjustment, with this being distinct from any adjustment to household formation rates; and,

6 provides clarity on the adjustment necessary to address affordable housing needs.

4.10 In this regard, the Local Plan Expert Group [LPEG], in its Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning (March 2016), recommended various changes to the Practice Guidance concerning the assessment of housing market signals. Instead of analysing 6 key market signals and considering whether an uplift is justified as the current Practice Guidance states (and which this Section will examine), the LPEG recommends examining just two indicators:

1 House price affordability – the ratio of median quartile house prices to

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P49

median earnings (‘The House Price Ratio’); and,

2 Rental affordability – lower quartile rental costs as a percent of lower quartile earnings (The Rental Affordability Ratio’).

4.11 Applying the LPEG approach should be treated with caution at this stage given that it is not policy nor endorsed by Government and, in of itself, it will only be justified once/if the Practice Guidance is updated. It must also be seen in the context of the whole LPEG methodology and its purpose.

4.12 Nevertheless, whilst the LPEG report remains at the consultation stage and has no formal weight, it is a useful indicator of the general direction of travel this area of debate is likely to take. NLP has therefore applied the HPR/RAR tests to Burnley Borough at the end of this Section, which is drafted to fulfil the (current) requirements of the Practice Guidance.

Housing Market Indicators

4.13 Each of the housing market indicators is taken and applied to data for the Burnley local authority area.

Land prices

4.14 In the past the VOA provided readily available and nationally consistent data on unequipped agricultural land values or residential building land prices for Burnley but this is no longer collected.

4.15 CLG has published a document entitled ‘Land value estimates for policy appraisal’ (February 2015) which contains post permission residential land value estimates, per hectare for each Local Authority. For Burnley this figure is £725,000 per hectare although the figure should be taken as a guide only. The document states ‘the values of a particular site may vary significantly from the ‘typical residential site’ value for the local authority that is provided in this document; where land values for a specific site under appraisal are known these should therefore be used over the ‘typical values’ presented in this document.’ [page 4]

4.16 The land value estimate for Burnley compares with £845,000 in Calderdale and £370,000, which is a reserve value31 in Pendle.

House Prices

4.17 The Practice Guidance32 identifies that longer-term changes in house prices may indicate an imbalance between the demand for and supply of housing. Although it suggests using mix-adjusted prices and/or House Price Indices, these are not available at local authority level on a consistent basis, and

31In a number of cases schemes that do not produce a positive land value in the model. A ‘reserve value’ (£2,470,000 for London and £370,000 elsewhere) has been adopted to represent a figure at less than which it is unlikely (although possible in some cases) that one hectare of land would be released for residential development. This has been taken on a national basis and clearly there will be instances where the figure in a particular locality will differ based on supply and demand, values in the area, potential alternative uses etc. and other factors in that area. 32 2a-019-20140306

Burnley SHMA

P50 10003369v15

therefore for considering market signals in the Burnley and Pendle HMA, price paid data is the most reasonable indicator.

4.18 Land registry price paid data suggests current (October 2014 - September 2015) prices in Burnley are 35% of the England and Wales price paid median rate, and 53% of the Lancashire price paid median rate as a whole. These prices illustrate that the housing stock in Burnley is less expensive (Table 4.1). The data represents the median average dwelling price across both new and old housing.

Table 4.1 Median Dwelling Prices (2014)

Median Dwelling Price

Burnley £83,998

Lancashire £134,950

England (and Wales) £195,000


Figure 4.1 Median Dwelling Prices


4.19 CLG publishes series data on median house prices based on the same Land Registry price paid data series. This currently runs from 1996 to 2014. Figure 4.1 indicates that the Burnley area has had consistently (and considerably) lower house prices than the national and Lancashire-wide figures over this period. The median house price for Burnley increased gradually up to 2007, broadly in line with the County trend. Since this time house prices in Burnley and Lancashire flat-lined compared with limited increases nationally.

4.20 In 2014, median house prices in Lancashire were 31% lower than the national average, whilst house prices in Burnley were around half (53%) the national average. The Borough was ranked the cheapest of all 326 local authority areas in England.

4.21 Over the previous 15 years (1999-2014), median house prices increased by 164% in England to £195,000, 152% in Lancashire to £134,950 and 127% in

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P51

Burnley to £83,998. As set out in the Practice Guidance33, long term changes may indicate an imbalance between the demand for and the supply of housing. However, over the last 6 years Burnley house prices have been relatively stable, suggesting that there is not a significant imbalance, as there is for many other parts of the country. It is notable that between 2013 and 2014 median house prices in Burnley increased to an all-time high of £83,998, which equates to a 17% annual increase (albeit from a relatively low base). Over the same 12 month period median house prices increased by 4% in Lancashire and 4% in England and Wales.

Affordability

4.22 The former CLG SHMA Practice Guidance version 2 (2007) defines affordability as a ‘measure of whether housing may be afforded by certain groups of households’ (Annex G). A household can be considered able to afford to buy a home if it costs 3.5 times the gross household income for a single earner household or 2.9 times the gross household income for dual-income households. Where possible, allowance should be made for access to capital that could be used towards the cost of home ownership (page 42).

4.23 The Practice Guidance concludes that assessing affordability involves comparing costs against the ability to pay, with the relevant indicator being the ratio between lower quartile house prices and lower quartile earnings.

4.24 It can be seen in Figure 4.2 that over the past 15 years, the ratio of lower quartile house prices to lower quartile earnings in Burnley has been consistently below the national average, and that the gap has widened over time (most noticeably since 2007). The Borough ratio increased consistently from 2004 to 2007 and then began to fall, (from a peak in 2007) as the recession hit. The ratio has continued to decline up to 2013, improving housing affordability in Burnley as a consequence. However in 2014, the lower quartile house price to earnings ratio was 2.56 in Burnley compared with 2.36 in 2013. This may be related to a market increase in house prices recorded in 2014.

4.25 Figure 4.2 further illustrates that housing affordability in Burnley (compared to Lancashire) has fluctuated since 1999, although recent trends show that between 2007 and 2013 Burnley has become more affordable than the County as a whole and is becoming increasingly so each year. The Lower Quartile house price in Burnley is currently 2.56-times the median income in 2014, compared to 5.21 in Lancashire and 6.88 in England. This is down from a peak of 3.66 in 2008.

332a-019-20140306

Burnley SHMA

P52 10003369v15

Figure 4.2 Ratio of Lower Quartile House Price to Lower Quartile Earnings in Burnley


4.26 This illustrates that there is a greater level of housing affordability in the Burnley area when compared to the national average. In 2014 Burnley was the 3rd most affordable place to live in England out of 326 districts. In comparison, at this time Pendle was the 5th, Rossendale 31st and Hyndburn the 4th most affordable place to live in the country.

4.27 On this basis Burnley shows signs of an accessible housing market. Despite the spike in house prices in 2014 affordability is amongst the best in the country and house prices are low.

4.28 The House Price Ratio, the measure used within the proposed changes to the Practice Guidance by the LPEG34, equates to 3.42 for Burnley Borough (based on NLP’s analysis of median house prices set against median earnings).

Rents

4.29 On a similar basis, high and increasing rents in an area are a further signal of stress in the housing market. Median rents in Burnley in 2014/15 were £395 and for a 2 bed dwelling £380 per month35. Using series data from VOA, median rents in Burnley range from £347 per month for a 1 bed flat, to £695 per month for a 4+ bed house. The median rent paid in Lancashire is much higher on average, at £495 per month. Irrespective of the number of bedrooms, median rent is cheaper in Burnley than it is elsewhere in Lancashire. The lower overall median rent figure for Burnley could be at least partly explained by the relatively cheap house prices in the Borough. Overall, rental values in Burnley are a considerable 34% lower than the national average.

34 Revised Practice Guidance text on Housing and Economic Development Needs – Appendix 6 of Local Plan Expert Group Report [ID: 2a-020-20140306] 35 Burnley Borough Council provided private rental data for the period August 2014 – July 2015 from hometrack. The median rent for 3 bed properties in Burnley was £364 pcm, which is consistent with the VOA Private Rental Market Statistics

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P53

4.30 This series data for rents from VOA is currently only available for Q2 2011 to Q1 2015; however, they demonstrate that median rents in Burnley have increased only marginally since 2011 by 1.3%, compared with growth of 5.3% nationally and 6.5% across Lancashire (see Figure 4.3). It could be inferred that affordability within the private market rental sector has therefore remained relatively stable in Burnley in recent years, indicating there has not been significantly greater demand for housing in this tenure than there has been supply over this period.

Figure 4.3 Average (Median) Monthly Rents in Burnley, Lancashire and England - Q2 2011 to Q1 2015

Source: VOA Private Rental Market Statistics 2015

4.31 The Rental Affordability Ratio, the measure proposed to measure market signals within the LPEG’s proposed changes to the Practice Guidance36, is 22.6% for Burnley Borough (again, based on NLP’s analysis of LQ earnings against LQ 1-bedroom rental properties).

Rate of Development

4.32 The rate of development is intended to be a supply-side indicator of previous under-delivery. The Practice Guidance sets out that:

“if the historic rate of development shows that actual supply falls below planned supply, future supply should be increased to reflect the likelihood of under-delivery of a plan.”37

4.33 The rate of development is therefore a market signal relating to the quantity of past under-supply. As noted above, housing targets for the borough until 2008 were set in the Joint Lancashire Structure Plan. In 2008 these were replaced by those set in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (subsequently

36Revised Practice Guidance text on Housing and Economic Development Needs – Appendix 6 of Local Plan Expert Group Report [ID: 2a-020-20140306] 37 §2a-020-20140306

Burnley SHMA

P54 10003369v15

renamed the Regional Strategy [RS]). The RS was formally revoked by the Secretary of State on 6th July 2010 but this decision was subsequently quashed in court and the Strategies were reinstated. The North West RS was finally revoked on 20th May 2013.

4.34 On 19th October 2010, following the initial RS revocation, the Council's Executive resolved that the RS’s indicative annual housing requirement of 130 dpa be used as the Borough's housing target pending the setting of a new target at a borough level. A new target will be set in the Burnley Local Plan.

Table 4.2 Rate of Delivery against the Indicative RS Target

Burnley RS Target

Net Completions

Demolitions Net Additional

Dwellings Under / Over

Delivery

2003/04 130 129 93 36 -94

2004/05 130 198 167 31 -99

2005/06 130 126 88 38 -92

2006/07 130 280 155 125 -5

2007/08 130 238 36 202 72

2008/09 130 137 75 62 -68

2009/10 130 104 195 -91 -221

2010/11 130 82 150 -68 -198

2011/12 130 131 175 -44 -174

2012/13 130 80 55 25 -105

2013/14 130 188 26 162 32

2014/15 130 120 92 28 -102

TOTAL 1,560 1,813 1,307 506 -1,054

Source: BBC / NLP Analysis 2015

Figure 4.4 Housing Completions and Indicative RS Target for Burnley Borough - 2003/04 to 2014/15

Source: BBC/NLP Analysis 2015

4.35 Table 4.2 and Figure 4.4 illustrate past delivery in Burnley against the indicative former RS target of 130 dpa. In the last 12 years the Council has surpassed the target twice. By this measure, Burnley would have under-

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P55

delivered by 1,054 dwellings. However, as was envisaged in the RSS, high levels of demolition as part of the housing market renewal programme contributed significantly towards this shortfall, which was exacerbated by a period of recession in 2008 and its ongoing after effects.

4.36 Whilst the rate of housing delivery in Burnley Borough has fallen considerably short of planned supply, this does not appear to have caused marked pressure on other housing market signals which indicate limited stress in the housing market.

Overcrowding and Homelessness

4.37 Indicators on overcrowding, sharing households and homelessness demonstrate un-met need for housing within an area. The Practice Guidance suggests that long-term increases in the number of such households may be a signal that planned housing requirements need to be increased.

4.38 The Guidance states that indicators on:

“…overcrowding, concealed and sharing households, homelessness and the number in temporary accommodation demonstrate unmet need for housing. Longer term increases in the number of such household may be a signal to consider increasing planned housing numbers…”38

4.39 The Census measures overcrowding based on a standard formula; this measures the relationships between members of a households (as well as the number of people in that household) to determine the number of rooms they require. A rating of -1 or less indicates a household has one fewer room than required, +1 or more indicates a household has one or more rooms than needed. At the national level, affordability issues in recent years, as well as a shortfall in housing supply, have meant that people are either willing to accept sub-optimal living conditions (e.g. living in a smaller home to manage costs) or are forced into accepting such housing outcomes (e.g. are priced out of the market and have to share with friends/family).

4.40 Table 4.3 illustrates that overcrowding against the occupancy rating in Burnley is not considered to be severe, with just 5.1% of households living in a dwelling that is too small for their household size and composition. This compares to 8.7% nationally. It represents a consistent level with that recorded in Burnley a decade earlier (in 2001) which is again below the national trend which increased by 1.6% from 7.1% in 2011. Between 2001 and 2011 overcrowding in Burnley declined by 4.6% which compares to an increase in Lancashire of 1.8% and a substantial increase in England of 22.7%.

38 §2a-019-20140306

Burnley SHMA

P56 10003369v15

Table 4.3 Overcrowding: Household Room Occupancy Rating

2001 2011

Total Households

-1 room occupancy

or less

-1 room occupancy or less (%)

Total Households

-1 room occupancy or

less

-1 room occupancy or less (%)

Burnley 36,805 1,969 5.35% 37,550 1,916 5.10%

Lancashire 468,868 21,073 4.49% 496,299 22,706 4.58%

England 20,451,427 1,457,512 7.13% 22,063,368 1,928,596 8.74%

Source: Census 2001/Census 2011

Note: the definition of the Census ‘bedroom standard’ is slightly different from the ‘occupancy rating’ that informs the Government’s Under-Occupancy Charges, i.e. the Census states that ‘two persons of the same sex aged between 10 and 20’ can occupy one bedroom, whilst the Under Occupancy Charge changes this to ‘any two children of the same sex aged under 16’. It is possible that if the Government’s policy continues into the long term, then changes will be made to the categorisation of the Census’s Occupancy Rating to bring the two datasets into line.

4.41 The Census also recorded the number of concealed families, i.e. where there is more than one family present in a household. Nationally, this rose significantly between 2001 and 2011, at least in part due to the impact of recession on younger household’s ability to afford their own home. This meant that many younger people, including families, remained in the family home for longer than might have been expected in the past, either through choice (to save money) or through necessity.

4.42 At the time of the 2011 Census, 1.9% of all families in England were concealed; this represented 275,954 families. This is a rise compared to 2001 when 1.2% of families were concealed. In Burnley, a similar percentage of families was concealed (1.7%) as nationally (1.9%). This represents a rise from 1.2% in 2001 and is slightly higher than the equivalent rate for Lancashire. This is shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Concealed Families in Burnley, Lancashire and England - 2001-2011

Concealed Families Change

(percentage points)

Change in % 2001 2011

Burnley 309 (1.2%) 418 (1.7%) +0.48 +39.4%

Lancashire 3,516 (1.1%) 5,164 (1.6%) +0.46 +42.3%

England 161,254 (1.2%) 275,954 (1.9%) +0.69 +59.2%

Source: Census 2001/2011

4.43 The levels of overcrowding and concealed households in Burnley are moderate when compared with the national average.

4.44 The level of overcrowded households may also reflect cultural preferences of some households who chose to live with multiple generations and extended family members through choice rather than necessity. The level of overcrowding and number of concealed households is not so significant so as to conclude that there is severe market pressure, but it nevertheless highlights a degree of inadequacy in the housing market. This could be closely linked to the proportion of 2-up, 2-down housing stock and/or number of households

Burnley SHMA

10003369v15 P57

living as extended families requiring larger properties that may not be available or affordable.

4.45 Levels of overcrowding are therefore stable in the Borough, whilst the rate at which national and in other areas within the region is increasing. In this regard the level of overcrowding in Burnley has not worsened between 2001 and 2011, although it is still at 5.1% (by way of comparison, the lowest rate nationally was 1.96%, in Broadland, whilst the highest in 2011 was 34.90% in Newham. The median rate was 5.4%, slightly higher than Burnley’s).

Synthesis of Market Signals

4.46 Drawing together the individual market signals above begins to build a picture of the current housing market in and around Burnley, the extent to which demand for housing is not being met and the outcomes that are occurring because of this.

The Burnley Housing Market

4.47 It is clear from this analysis that the Burnley housing market faces very limited supply challenges relative to other housing markets. The market signals point towards a housing market which is largely matching demand with supply. This is despite the under delivery of dwellings over the past 12 years. Whilst pressures on housing market signals are not significant, signs of increased private market rents, increased house prices and increased proportions of concealed households are all putting modest pressure on the housing market albeit to a far lesser extent than most other local authorities across the country and national trends.

4.48 The increase in concealed households since 2001 may be due to the nature of the housing stock in Burnley and growing size of households which creates a slight mismatch between the size of housing stock and household size in the Borough. However, the percentage of overcrowded dwellings has declined. In Burnley, net housing delivery figures have fallen dramatically since before 2008, partly due to high levels of demolitions.

4.49 House prices and house price change is the lowest of all neighbouring authorities. Median house prices are the lowest in the country; resident-based incomes are likely to be a significant factor in the level of affordability in Burnley, resulting in an affordability ratio of 2.56. An increase in resident-based incomes would be expected to show noticeable improvements to affordability.

4.50 There are signs of improving affordability already evident, with the affordability ratio declining since 2007. This could be accelerated with an increase in resident-based incomes, although there was a slight worsening of affordability in 2014.

4.51 To draw meaningful conclusions on the extent to which these market indicators show housing market stress within Burnley, and the level of supply that is not

Burnley SHMA

P58 10003369v15

meeting demand, the Practice Guidance suggests that comparisons of absolute levels and rates of change in such indicators should be made with comparator areas and nationally. For this reason, Burnley has been compared and ranked against other local authority areas, and England as a whole.

4.52 These comparator areas have been chosen on the following basis:

A) Areas which border the Burnley and / or have some connection through migration and commuting:

1 Blackburn with Darwen

2 Bradford

3 Calderdale

4 Craven

5 Hyndburn

6 Pendle

7 Ribble Valley

8 Rossendale

B) The Practice Guidance also states that market signals must be compared with authorities which are not necessarily close geographically, but which share characteristics in terms of economic and demographic factors. These authorities have been chosen by examining the ‘OAC Supergroup Area Classification Map’, produced by the ONS in 2015, which groups each local authority into various socio-economic classifications. Burnley, as a ‘Mining Heritage and Manufacturing’ authority, has been compared with other communities similarly classified within this ranking and which share similar socio-economic characteristics:

1 Wakefield

2 Barnsley

3 Doncaster

4 Rotherham

5 Telford and Wrekin

6 Chesterfield

7 Bolsover

8 Mansfield

4.53 England has been used as the final comparator for both sets of tables. A higher ranking in these tables suggests a worse, or comparatively poorer performing, housing market for that indicator.

10003369v15 P59

Table 4.5 Burnley Market Signals Comparator Table - Cost of Housing [Neighbouring Authorities]

Rank

House Prices Affordability Rents

Median (2014) % Change

(1999-2014)

Absolute Change (1999-

2014) Ratio (2014)

% Change (1999-2014)


2014)

Median (Q1 2015)

% Change (Q2 2011-Q1 2015)

Absolute Change (Q2

2011-Q1 2015)

1 England Ribble Valley England Craven Pendle England England Ribble Valley Ribble Valley

2 Ribble Valley Craven Ribble Valley Ribble Valley Calderdale Ribble Valley Ribble Valley Pendle Pendle

3 Craven Calderdale Craven England England Craven Craven Calderdale England

4 Calderdale Pendle Calderdale Calderdale Bradford Calderdale Calderdale England Calderdale

5 Bradford England Bradford Bradford Ribble Valley Bradford Bradford Craven Craven

6 Rossendale Rossendale Rossendale Rossendale Blackburn with

Darwen UA Rossendale

Blackburn with Darwen UA

Burnley Burnley

7 Blackburn with

Darwen UA Bradford



Rossendale Pendle Rossendale Hyndburn Bradford

8 Pendle Blackburn with

Darwen UA Pendle Pendle Hyndburn


Pendle Bradford Hyndburn

9 Hyndburn Hyndburn Hyndburn Hyndburn Craven Hyndburn Hyndburn Blackburn with

Darwen UA Blackburn with

Darwen UA

10 Burnley Burnley Burnley Burnley Burnley Burnley Burnley Rossendale Rossendale

Source: CLG Live Table

586/Land Registry

CLG Live Table 586/Land Registry


CLG Live Table 576/Land

Registry/ASHE


Registry/ASHE


Registry/ASHE

VOA Private Rental Market

Statistics


Statistics


Statistics

10003369v15 P61

Table 4.6 Burnley Market Signals Comparator Table – Overcrowding and Homelessness [Neighbouring Authorities]

Rank

Overcrowded Households Households in Priority Need Concealed Families

Overcrowded Households, %

(2011)

Change (%) (2001-2011)

Households in Priority Need,

per 1,000 Households

(2014/15)

% Change (2004/05-2014/15)

Absolute Change

(2004/05-2014/15)

Change (percentage

points) (2001-2011)

Concealed Families, %

(2011)

Change (%) (2001-2011)

Change (percentage

points) (2001-2011)

1 Bradford England England Craven Craven England Bradford Pendle Bradford

2 England Bradford Bradford England Ribble Valley Bradford Blackburn with

Darwen UA England Pendle

3 Blackburn with

Darwen UA Craven Calderdale Bradford Calderdale


Pendle Rossendale Blackburn with

Darwen UA

4 Calderdale Blackburn with

Darwen UA Burnley Calderdale Bradford Craven Hyndburn Bradford England

5 Pendle Rossendale Craven Ribble Valley England Rossendale England Hyndburn Hyndburn

6 Burnley Burnley Blackburn with Darwen UA

Burnley Pendle Ribble Valley Calderdale Craven Burnley

7 Rossendale Ribble Valley Rossendale Blackburn with

Darwen UA Burnley Burnley Burnley Burnley Rossendale

8 Hyndburn Calderdale Ribble Valley Rossendale Rossendale Calderdale Rossendale Blackburn with

Darwen UA Calderdale

9 Craven Pendle Pendle Pendle Blackburn with

Darwen UA Pendle Ribble Valley Calderdale Craven

10 Ribble Valley Hyndburn Hyndburn Hyndburn Hyndburn Hyndburn Craven Ribble Valley Ribble Valley

Source: Census 2011 Census 2001, Census 2011

Census 2001, Census 2011

CLG Live Table 784 (P1e Returns)



Census 2011 Census 2001, Census 2011


P62 10003369v15

Table 4.7 Burnley Market Signals Comparator Table - Cost of Housing [‘Mining Heritage and Manufacturing’ Authority Comparisons]

Rank

House Prices Affordability Rents

Median (2014) % Change

(1999-2014)


2014) Ratio (2014)

% Change (1999-2014)


2014)

Median (Q1 2015)

% Change (Q2 2011-Q1 2015)

Absolute Change (Q2

2011-Q1 2015)

1 England Chesterfield England England Chesterfield England England Barnsley Barnsley

2 Telford and

Wrekin England Telford and

Wrekin Telford and

Wrekin Rotherham Chesterfield

Telford and Wrekin

Doncaster England

3 Chesterfield Rotherham Chesterfield Chesterfield England Rotherham Wakefield Chesterfield Doncaster

4 Wakefield Doncaster Rotherham Rotherham Telford and

Wrekin Telford and

Wrekin Doncaster England Telford and

Wrekin

5 Rotherham Mansfield Wakefield Wakefield Doncaster Wakefield Chesterfield Telford and

Wrekin Chesterfield

6 Doncaster Barnsley Doncaster Doncaster Wakefield Doncaster Mansfield Burnley Burnley

7 Mansfield Bolsover Mansfield Mansfield Barnsley Barnsley Rotherham Mansfield Mansfield

8 Barnsley Telford and

Wrekin Barnsley Barnsley Bolsover Bolsover Bolsover Rotherham Rotherham

9 Bolsover Wakefield Bolsover Bolsover Mansfield Mansfield Barnsley Wakefield Wakefield

10 Burnley Burnley Burnley Burnley Burnley Burnley Burnley Bolsover Bolsover

Source: CLG Live Table

586/Land Registry




Registry/ASHE


Registry/ASHE


Registry/ASHE


Statistics


Statistics


Statistics

10003369v15 P63

Table 4.8 Burnley Market Signals Comparator Table – Overcrowding and Homelessness [‘Mining Heritage and Manufacturing’ Authority Comparisons]

Rank

Overcrowded Households Households in Priority Need Concealed Families

Overcrowded Households, %

(2011)

Change (%) (2001-2011)

Change (percentage

points) (2001-2011)

Households in Priority Need,

per 1,000 Households

(2014/15)

% Change (2004/05-2014/15)

Absolute Change

(2004/05-2014/15)

Concealed Families, %

(2011)

Change (%) (2001-2011)

Change (percentage

points) (2001-2011)

1 England Chesterfield England Mansfield Doncaster Doncaster England Bolsover Telford and Wrekin UA

2 Telford and Wrekin UA

England Chesterfield England Wakefield Wakefield Telford and Wrekin UA

Telford and Wrekin UA

Doncaster

3 Burnley Doncaster Telford and Wrekin UA

Chesterfield England Barnsley Burnley Doncaster England

4 Wakefield Telford and Wrekin UA

Doncaster Doncaster Mansfield England Rotherham Wakefield Bolsover

5 Chesterfield Rotherham Rotherham Wakefield Bolsover Bolsover Doncaster England Rotherham

6 Doncaster Mansfield Mansfield Bolsover Telford and Wrekin UA

Burnley Wakefield Mansfield Wakefield

7 Rotherham Barnsley Wakefield Telford and Wrekin UA

Burnley Mansfield Mansfield Rotherham Burnley

8 Mansfield Wakefield Barnsley Rotherham Rotherham Rotherham Bolsover Chesterfield Mansfield

9 Barnsley Bolsover Bolsover Burnley Barnsley Telford and Wrekin UA

Barnsley Barnsley Barnsley

10 Bolsover Burnley Burnley Barnsley - - Chesterfield Burnley Chesterfield

Source: Census 2011 Census 2001, Census 2011





Census 2011 Census 2001, Census 2011


Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P65

4.54 The comparative assessment of market signals highlights the scale of housing market stress in Burnley. Burnley has a low rate of change and is bottom of all comparator authorities with the exception of rate of change of rental levels and land values. Overall there are limited signs of housing market stress in Burnley.

4.55 Affordability is good in the Borough compared to other Lancashire and Yorkshire authorities and there have been some signs of improvement since 2008. The affordability ratio (2.56) is currently significantly lower than the national level (6.88), which is to be expected given that house prices are far lower in Burnley than elsewhere. There has been some improvement since 2008 and in Burnley the median house price is less than 3 times the average household income.

4.56 Burnley is more affordable than neighbouring authorities in Lancashire and beyond (indeed it is the lowest affordability ratio of any local authority in England with the exception of Copeland). Burnley is also the least expensive place to buy a house in England. The already low affordability ratio is likely to be exaggerated by low resident-based incomes rather than house prices which are very low. Therefore, it is not considered that an uplift is appropriate in Burnley as there are clear signs of improving affordability and stable and very low house prices.

4.57 The situation has been complicated by the more recent recommendations of the Local Plan Expert Group [LPEG].39 This includes a standardisation of the appraisal of market signals and the extent of any uplift to the demographic starting point. The LPEG Report suggests taking account of just two market indicators (Appendix 6), namely the House Price Ratio and the Rental Affordability Ratio.

4.58 The Report suggests that, based on data by CLG, LPAs should apply an upward adjustment to the demographic starting point in line with the following benchmarks:

1 Where the House Price Ratio is less than 5.3 and Rental Affordability Ratio is less than 25%, no uplift is required;

2 Where HPR is at or above 5.3 and less than 7.0, and/or the RAR is at or above 25% and less than 30%, a 10% uplift should be applied;

3 Where the HPR is at or above 7.0 and less than 8.7, and/or the RAR is at or above 30% and less than 35%, a 20% uplift should be applied; and

4 Where the HPR is at or above 8.7 and/or the RAR is at or above 35%, a 25% uplift should be applied.

4.59 The data alluded to in the LPEG is not yet published by CLG and limited weight can be attached to the approach recommended therein. However, based on NLP’s own figures, it is calculated that the 2014 HPR for Burnley would be 3.42, whilst the RAR would equate to 22.6%.

39Local Plans Expert Group (March 2016): Local Plans Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning

Burnley SHMA :

P66 10003369v15

4.60 These figures are currently only indicative and may change if CLG agree to publish these figures themselves. Nevertheless if the findings of the LPEG report are accepted, then Burnley would require a 0% uplift. This aligns with our earlier conclusions based on the current Practice Guidance 6-key market signals approach.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P67

5.0 Modelling Assumptions and Background

Background

5.1 The headline figures from the latest 2012-based Sub-National Household Projections [SNHP] were released by CLG on 27th February 2015 and supersede the 2011-based (Interim) SNHP. The 2012-based SNHP are based on the 2012-based Sub-National Population Projections [SNPP] and further information from the 2011 Census.

5.2 The methodology for the 2012-based SNHP broadly follows that used for the 2011-based and 2008-based projections. The 2011-based SNHP included some changes that were required to incorporate valuable information from the 2011 Census. Since then, further information from the Census has become available and has been incorporated into the 2012-based SNHP where possible, building on the approach used for the 2011-based SNHP.

5.3 The housing projections are compiled using a two stage process. Stage One produces the national and local projections for the total number of households by age group and marital status group over the period to 2037. The total number of households in each local area forms the basis for the control totals for Stage Two of the projection methodology, which provides the detailed household type breakdown.

5.4 Stage One applies projected household formation rates to a projection of the private household population (in this case, taken as the 2012-based SNPP) disaggregated by age, sex and marital status and summing the projections of household representatives; this gives the number of households. The method uses a simplified three-way relationship categorisation to represent marital/co-habitational status. The categories are ‘in couples’ (including married couples who live together and cohabiting couples), ‘previously married’ (separated / divorced marrieds, and widows), and ‘single’ (people not cohabiting or never married). This is an aggregation of the detailed categories in the previous CLG (Household Projection System, known as HOPS) model which captures the key household formation characteristics of the relationship status groups while retaining relative simplicity.

5.5 As in the 2011-based projections, the projection methodology for Stage One from the 2008-based household projections has been maintained but adapted. The 2012-based projections include information from the 2011 Census which, together with data from the Labour Force Survey40 [LFS], has been used to update the estimated household representative rates for 2011 that are then used in the household projections methodology at the national level.

5.6 The updated national projections are then used to control a set of projections

40

The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a survey undertaken by ONS of the employment circumstances of the UK population. According to the ONS it is the largest household survey in the UK and provides the official measures of employment and unemployment.

Burnley SHMA :

P68 10003369v15

for regions and local authorities that have been derived by applying projections of the household representative rates by sex, age and status to the 2012-based household population by sex, age and status. The regional and local authority projection is then controlled to the 2011 Census aggregate household representative rate.

5.7 The projections methodology uses time-series modelling which weights together simple and dampened logistic trends. Cohort modelling is not used. The simplified time-series based projections are referred to as Stage One projections to distinguish them from the detailed projections by household type described in Stage Two.

5.8 There are six key components to the household projections produced in Stage One:

1 Population projections;

2 Marital status composition;

3 Institutional population;

4 Household representative rates

5 LFS adjustments; and,

6 Regional and local household projections.

5.9 The importance of the household projections to planning is emphasised in the Planning Practice Guidance which states that "household projections produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government should provide the starting point estimate of overall housing need."41 Therefore, the new household projections represent an important milestone in providing evidence to inform objective assessments of housing need.

5.10 However, they do not represent the whole picture, because:

a They are based upon applying headship rates (rates of household formation) to the already released ONS 2012-based SNPP. These underlying population projections are trend-based, reflecting migration patterns seen over the recession and may not be reliable in all areas. The 2012-based SNPP at the national level also under-estimated net in-migration to the UK by 170,000 persons over the past two years (2012/13 and 2013/14) compared with what ONS now know actually occurred.

b They reflect a long term and structural under-supply of housing, during periods of both recession and growth. Since 2001 an average of 135,000 dwellings in England have been completed each year, far short of what is required nationally, and there has been a 16% decline in the number of completions since the start of the millennium. Lack of dwellings amongst other factors constrains household formation and this historic and long term under-supply will have influenced what are firmly trend-based projections.

c They are influenced by recessionary trends since 2007, including 41 National Planning Practice Guidance: 2a-015-20140306

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P69

mortgage rationing, financial instability and affordability constraints. Although the methodology for the household projections draw upon household formation trends over a 40 year period since 1971, they still contain a 'recency bias' reflecting trends over the last 10 years much more than trends over the longer term. The projected average household size shows that household formation rates are increasing at a rate somewhere between the pre-recession 2008-based projections at the 2011-based interim projections.

5.11 The 2014 MYE show Burnley’s population at 87,291 in 2014 compared with 87,009 predicted by the 2012 SNPP, a difference of 282 (0.32%). However the National Population Projections are approximately 250,000 out when compared to the SNPP for 2014.

What do the projections mean for planning?

5.12 The Government's population and household projections will continue to act as the starting point for considering evidence of housing need. They can, and should, be subject to adjustment where specific evidence justifies it. The advice contained in the Practice Guidance, that the projections may require adjustment to reflect household formation having been supressed historically by housing undersupply and worsening affordability, has been widely considered.

5.13 Many Planning Inspectors have taken the view that the 2011-based projections represented a suppression of household formation, particularly amongst younger age groups. This has been supported by analysis into the underlying projections such as the 'Holman Paper '42, and whilst the 2012-based are more optimistic in household formation rates than their 2011-based predecessors, they remain lower than long term trends would indicate. Some commentators have suggested that the new projections represent a 'new normal', with reduced household formation, compared to longer term trends, likely to continue irrespective of recessionary impacts. NLP considers that applying this approach to planning would be wrong.

5.14 It is imperative to view the new projections through the prism of the Framework: this seeks to 'boost significantly' the supply of housing to meet housing demand (including demand arising from household formation) and address affordability. Whilst recognising that there are many reasons for people being locked out of the housing market, were the planning system to treat the lower levels of household formation as a 'new normal' it could 'lock in' the implications of housing under-supply impacting most of all on younger age groups, particularly those starting families. With the English Housing Survey having recently shown home ownership for younger age groups falling markedly, there are profoundly negative implications for economic and social well-being.

42 New Estimates of Housing Demand and Need in England, 2011 to 2031, Town & Country Planning Tomorrow Series Paper 16, Alan Holmans, 2013

Burnley SHMA :

P70 10003369v15

5.15 The recent data releases justify interrogating the data further and running a number of sensitivity tests on the key underlying assumptions.

Updated Population and Household Projections for Burnley

5.16 This report incorporates the Government’s latest population and household projections to assess the potential implications on objectively assessed housing need in Burnley. The 2012-based SNPP were released by ONS in May 2014 and were the first full (25-year) set of government population projections to be published since the 2011 Census. In February 2015, CLG published the 2012-based SNHP, which applied updated rates of household formation to the 2012-based SNPP in order to project levels of household growth in Local Authorities in England to 2037. As with the population projections, these were the first set of full household projections to be released since the 2011 Census. The results of the 2012-based SNHP as they relate to Burnley Borough, and compared against the previous 2011-based and 2010-based equivalents, are set out in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Projected Household Growth in Burnley – 2012-based SNHP

2012-based Household Projections

2012 2037 2012-2037 Annual

Households

Burnley 37,580 38,835 1,255 50

Source: CLG 2012-based Household Projections

Table 5.2 Projected Household Growth in Burnley – 2011-based (Interim) SNHP

2011-based Household Projections 2012-based Household Projections

2012 2021 2011-2021

Annual H’holds

2012-2021 Annual

Households

Burnley 37,456 37,192 -264 -29 551 61

Source: CLG 2011/2012-based Household Projections

Note: The time periods have been adapted to align across various SNHPs.

Note: It is important to note that each of these household projections is based on their respective population projections. Hence, applying the headship rates underpinning each projection to different population (such as applying the 2012-based headship rates to an updated 2012-based SNPP or long term migration scenario) will result in different levels of household growth to those shown above.

Table 5.3 Projected Household Growth in Burnley – 2008-based SNHP

2008-based Household Projections 2012-based Household Projections

2012 2033 2012-2033

Annual H’holds

2012-2033 Annual

Households

Burnley 36,292 37,599 1,307 62 1,135 54

Source: CLG 2008/2012-based Household Projections

Note: The time periods have been adapted to align across various SNHPs.

Note: It is important to note that each of these household projections is based on their respective population projections. Hence, applying the headship rates underpinning each projection to different population (such as applying the 2012-based headship rates to an updated 2012-based SNPP or long term migration scenario) will result in different levels of household growth.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P71

5.17 Across the 25-year projection period, the 2012-based SNHP project average annual household growth of 50. However, this is higher in the earlier years - 61 per annum 2012-21, compared to 49 per annum 2021-2033 (see Figure 5.1) before tailing off by 2037. The overall growth is higher than the 2011-based SNHP (which were negative) but lower than the 2008-based projections over the same time period. Across the period 2012-2033, the latest projections indicate household growth of 54 per annum, less than the 62 per annum projected in the 2008-based projections. Over the 10-year period 2012-2021, the latest projections show growth of 61 households per annum which is 90 households above the 2011-based projections.

Figure 5.1 Household Projections – Burnley Borough

Source: ONS 2008/2010/2011/2012-based Sub-National Household Projections

5.18 The subsequent section analyses the underlying reasons behind the substantial change in the latest SNHP and the factors which have contributed to this level of household growth to assess whether sensitivity tests on the demographic-led scenarios may be appropriate.

5.19 The key factors impacting on the levels of household growth projected by CLG are:

1 The underlying population projections, including size, growth and age profile; and,

2 Rates of household formation which have been applied.

Population

5.20 The total population projections for Burnley as projected in the 2008-, 2011-(Interim) and 2012-based SNPPs are presented in Figure 5.2.

Burnley SHMA :

P72 10003369v15

Figure 5.2 Population Projections – Burnley Borough

Source: ONS 2008/2010/2011/2012-based Sub-National Population Projections

5.21 Fundamentally, the 2012-based SNHP are founded on a population projection which is relatively stable albeit declining very gradually and follows a similar trend to the 2011-based (interim projections). This is contrary to the sustained levels of growth projected in the 2010-based projections and significantly different to the 2008-based projections which show substantial population decline. It is therefore surprising that the levels of household growth projected by the 2008-based population projections are slightly higher than the 2012-based household projections, since there were fewer people forecast to reside in Burnley over these forecasting periods. This is therefore due to differences in the household representation rates used to convert resident population into households between the 2008-based SNHP and the 2012-based equivalent. The 2011 Census provided an opportunity to revisit the MYE and SNPPs and it was found that the 2008-based SNPP over-estimated the level of population decline, as shown by the subsequent Census uplift annotated on Figure 5.2.

5.22 The 2008-based SNPPs were taken from a population base brought forward from the 2001 Census. It incorporated population trends (in births, deaths and migration) from the 5-6 years prior to 2008 with a starting point of c.86,000 in 2008, with steady decline over the 25 year period.

5.23 The 2011-based (Interim) SNPPs incorporated some data from the 2011 Census. However, as not all the necessary data was available, the projections only covered a ten-year period. These projections did, however, take into account corrections to the total population, i.e. they used a re-based MYE 2011 population base taken from the Census (rather than a rolled-forward estimate from 2001). The result was a considerably higher population base than previous projections had indicated, at around 87,032, compared to the 85,721 estimated for 27th March 2011 by the rolled-forward MYE.

Census Uplift

2014 MYE

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P73

5.24 By the time the 2012-based SNPPs were published, additional data from the 2011 Census had become available. Furthermore, the 2012 MYE had also been published. The 2012-based SNPP were based on trends observed over the preceding 5-6 years, i.e. 2008-2012 (a period of national recession and economic downturn), which fed into the national projections and resulted in a change from growth to decline in the population over time. However, in Burnley the 2012-SNPP were actually more positive than the trend nationally and population growth stabilised with minimal decline towards the end of the period to 2037.

5.25 The pattern observed in Burnley could be due to a number of reasons. In other areas the recession contributed towards a declining population as migration levels reduced; out migration levels have been significantly lower in recent years. However, Burnley’s population stabilisation could also have been affected to some degree by housing market conditions, with less expensive house prices and rents, encouraging people to move back to Burnley during the recession (or didn’t leave to seek jobs), as they were attracted by the affordability of the area compared to other local authorities. This pattern of migration is likely to have had a positive impact on Burnley’s population and hence the decline seen in many authority areas is not witnessed in Burnley to a similar extent.

5.26 The age structure of the population is also an important consideration when examining household projections. This is because populations which are projected to see an increase in the number of older people (even when there is no population growth or even decline) are likely to see a growth in the number of households; household size tends to decline substantially with age as older people are more likely to form smaller households.

5.27 The resultant population age/sex structure of Burnley Borough is shown in Figure 5.343, which incorporates data from the latest 2014 MYE and 2012-based SNPP. It shows an ageing population over time, with the percentage of the population aged over 65 increasing from 18% of the population in 2014 to 23% of the population in 2032, over the period 2014-2032. There is a decline in the majority of age groups below 65 years of age. However, there is a noticeable increase in both males and females between the ages of 8 – 16. Overall, there is projected to be a decline of 4,032 people in the number of residents of working age (16-64), from 54,308 in 2014 to 50,276 by 2032. This equates to a reduction from 62% to 57% of the total population.

5.28 As well as having an impact on the level of housing need, the change in population age structure is likely to also have implications for the number of jobs which can be supported as the labour force declines (despite the increases to the State Pension Age for both men and women over the coming years).

43 This is based on the 2012-based SNPP, updated to take into account the 2014-Mid Year Estimates, and hence varies slightly to the original ONS Projections. This is taken from Scenario Ai modelled by NLP through POPGROUP. See Section 4.0

Burnley SHMA :

P74 10003369v15

Figure 5.3 Population Age Structure – Burnley 2014-2032

Source: NLP based on ONS 2014 MYE and 2012-based SNPP

Components of Change

5.29 Analysis of the most recent iterations of population projections for Burnley shows different levels and patterns of growth. This is in addition to the change from decline to growth in the latest projections, which have also had a significant impact on projections of household growth.

5.30 Figure 5.4 illustrates the components of change (specifically natural change and migration) for each of the SNPPs over their respective (full) time periods. Natural change is a result of the difference between births and deaths within the population, whilst net migration is the balance of people moving into and out of the area. Together these result in the total population change. Each component of change is primarily based on the preceding 5-6 years of trends; hence different projections will draw upon trends from different time periods and result in different levels of growth.

5.31 In all the projections, natural change is positive and net migration negative. However, it is the balance between these which have changed the pattern of population growth for the Borough. In the 2010-, 2011- and 2012-based projections, natural change cancels out net out-migration to the extent that it results in population growth. However, in the case of the 2008-based projections, there is significant net out-migration (-422 residents annually), whilst natural change is also low (+333 residents annually, compared to 444 annually in the 2011-based SNPP) resulting in a declining population.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P75

Figure 5.4 Average Annual Components of Change – Burnley (2008/2010/2011/2012-based Population Projections) over their respective full time horizons

Source: ONS 2008/2010/2011/2012-based Population Projections

Note: Refers to annual average change over each of the projections’ respective time periods. May not sum due to rounding.

5.32 Figure 5.5 illustrates past trends in migration and how these compare with the levels projected in the 2012-based SNPP. These are shown for net internal (i.e. moves within the UK) and net international moves, as well as for the overall total. Over the last ten years, net internal migration has been consistently negative, ranging from -659 in 2007 to -37 in 2014. Total net migration has also been historically negative, with the exception of 2014 which had a net increase of 72 caused by a spike in international in-migration. Of particular note, net out-migration to the rest of the UK fluctuated over the past 10 years with a sudden drop in 2014 to -37. The 2012 SNPP projects that net losses due to internal migration will narrow gradually over the period to 2037; this is because the ONS also take into account the age profile of migrants, hence changes in the age structure of the population (of both Burnley and the rest of the UK) will vary the levels of migration over time.

5.33 Net international migration has been positive since 2010. However since 2010 it has fluctuated from a net low of 6 in 2010 to 109 in 2014. Net international migration is projected to remain steady over the projection period, with a net migration figure of 0 (i.e. immigration equalling emigration over this period).

5.34 The overall result of changes in migration suggests that losses due to net out migration are projected to reduce over the period, from c.-300 per annum in 2015 to c.-100 per annum by 2037. It should be noted that whilst the Figure suggests a general downward trend, the long term migration scenario modelled

Burnley SHMA :

P76 10003369v15

by NLP in Section 6.0 of this SHMA takes an average rate over the past ten years and keeps this constant over the course of the modelling period. This approach is in general accordance with the approach taken by ONS in its Sub-National Population Projections, which recognises the population structure and people’s propensity to migrate, by age cohort.

Figure 5.5 Historic and Projected Migration to/from Burnley Borough

Source: ONS MYEs 2003/04 to 2012/13, ONS 2012-based SNPP

Household Formation

5.35 Having established that the underlying population projections which inform the 2012-based household projections are fundamentally different to the previous iterations (given that they project population growth where the 2008-projections projected decline), it is also necessary to consider the household formation rates which have been applied in each case and the impact these have on projecting household growth.

5.36 Figure 5.6 illustrates the historic decline in average household size in Burnley and how successive SNHPs forecast this trend to continue with the exception of the 2011 (interim) projections that predicts a negligible increase. In the 1990s household size declined slowly from 2.49 to 2.43. However, throughout the 2000s household size began to decline at a faster rate from 2.43 to 2.33, in contrast to the national picture, which stabilised.

5.37 The 2008-based household projections incorporate rolled-forward estimates of population and household formation from the 2001 Census; they forecast household size to decline steadily in line with earlier trends. This rate of decline would, however, decelerate over time, reaching an average of 2.18 by

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P77

2033.

5.38 The 2011-based projections took into account the 2011 Census, and hence had a lower starting point than the 2008-based projections (since average household size was, in 2011, lower than projected). However, due to the recessionary time period which informed the projections, they modelled much lower rates of household formation (and hence little change in average household size) compared with the 2008-based SNHP. Since these covered a ten-year period only, CLG cautioned the use of these post 2021. A number of future projections were utilised in the 2013 SHMA in order to avoid trending forward these ‘supressed’ rates of household formation.

Figure 5.6 Historic and Projected Average Household Size – Burnley

Source: CLG 2008/2011/2012-based Household Projections

5.39 The most recent 2012-based SNHP project similar rates of change in household size post 2025 as their 2008-based equivalents, but from a slightly higher base. Both contrast sharply with the modest increase forecast by the 2011-based (Interim) SNHP which was clearly an anomaly. The 2008-based SNHP were produced pre-recession and as such recessionary effects on household formation (e.g. such as reduced supply relative to potential demand/need and mortgage availability, which particularly impacted the younger age cohorts) were not taken into account (i.e. they represents rates of household formation projected in the absence of recessionary setbacks).

5.40 Looking at age specific rates more closely, the 2012-based SNHPs show that the actual headship rates (the proportion of people in a given age group forming a head of household) in 2012 for younger cohorts was lower than those projected in the 2008-based projections. This is likely to be related to the recessionary effects as set out above, which meant that between 2008 and 2012 fewer people in those age cohorts were able to form a household.

Burnley SHMA :

P78 10003369v15

5.41 Research by Alan Holmans as part of his Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) Tomorrow Series Paper 16 entitled “New Estimates of Housing Demand and Need in England 2011 to 2031” (2013) found that there was an abrupt break with longer term trends in household formation in England between 2001 and 2011. Net additional household formation was down by some 20%, with almost 1 million fewer one-person households in 2011 than had been projected [page 1]:

“The central question for the household projection is whether what happened in 2001-11 was a structural break from a 40-year trend; or whether household formation was forced downwards by economic and housing market pressures that are likely to ease with time. At the time of the 2011 Census, the British economy was still in recession and the housing market was depressed. The working assumption in this study is that a considerable part but not all of the 375,000 shortfall of households relative to trend was due to the state of the economy and the housing market. 200,000 is attributed to over-projection of households due to the much larger proportion of recent immigrants in the population, whose household formation rates are lower than for the population as a whole. This effect will not be reversed. The other 175,000 is attributed to the economy and the state of the housing market and is assumed to gradually reverse.” [page 5]

5.42 This report identifies that 47% of the suppression seen in household formation rates between 2001 and 2011 is attributable to the economic downturn with the remainder being attributed to the culture of recent immigrants forming larger households than seen historically in England.

5.43 It is considered that in Burnley’s case, these effects on household formation are likely to be reflective of the economic conditions prevailing at the time, rather than a structural shift in household formation resulting from larger household sizes associated with high levels of immigration. As Burnley Borough has relatively low levels of international migration from abroad compared to other parts of the UK, although as shown in Figure 5.5 this rose in the 12 months to 2014.

5.44 For example, between 2001 and 2011, just 2,600 residents arrived from abroad and were still settled in Burnley Borough at the time of the 2011 Census44; this equated to just 3% of the total resident population in 2011. In contrast, for the North West as a whole, the percentage of the resident population who had arrived in the UK between 2001 and 2011 was greater than Burnley’s rate (at 4%), whilst the rate for England and Wales was nearly double, at 7%.

5.45 Furthermore, CLG’s projections are trend based and do not attempt to take into consideration any outside factors influencing household growth such as changing economic conditions or future policy. As such, NLP has tested a scenario based on the ‘pent-up’ demand for housing amongst younger residents (15-34 age groups) will be released over time. This results in higher

442011 Census: Year of Arrival in the UK, 2011 (QS801EW)

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P79

household formation rates for those age cohorts over the longer term, equating to a partial return to longer term trends.

5.46 An example of this for 20-24 year old males in Burnley Borough is presented in Figure 5.7. The 2008-based projections suggested that around 27.9% of males in this age group would form a household over the projection period (though this represents a slight decline from the 2008 level). Factoring in the 2011 Census data, the 2012-based projections show that the percentage of males forming a head of household was actually 23.3%, and projected this to decline steadily over the period to 22.7% by 2037.

5.47 The ‘partial catch-up’ scenario is modelled on the basis that, by 2033, headship rates in younger age groups will have made up around half the difference projected by the 2008-based headship rates. The justification for, and implications of, this assumption, as illustrated in Figure 5.7, are explored in Scenario B of the demographic modelling.

Figure 5.7 Household Formation Rates (20-24 Year old Males), Burnley

Source: NLP, based on CLG 2008/2012-based Household Projections

Summary

5.48 The latest Government projections indicate lower household growth compared with 2008-projections, but higher levels of growth than the 2011-based (interim) SNPP. However, this is primarily due to changes in the projected population of the 2012-based SNPP, which is now set to increase rather than decline as was projected by the 2008-based projections. There has also been a decline in headship rates compared with the 2008-based SNHP which has contributed to a lower level of household growth, particularly for younger age groups.

Burnley SHMA :

P80 10003369v15

6.0 The Future Housing Scenarios

Introduction

6.1 Applying the same broad methodology as set out in the 2013 SHMA the following scenarios were re-modelled to take into account the latest 2012-based SNHP and other updated information. The analysis covers the period 2012-32 to provide an updated base date and ensure there is sufficient time horizon of the projections to inform the Plan making process.

Demographic-led Projections

a Scenario A: 2012-based Population and Household Projections – This scenario applies the 2012-based SNPP components of change (births, deaths migration) to a 2012 base taken from the ONS 2012 MYE to project the population. This scenario uses the household formation rates within the 2012-based SNHP; - Scenario Ai: 2012-based Population Projections (re-based to

2014) - This scenario applies the 2012-based SNPP components of change (births, deaths migration) to a 2012 base taken from the ONS 2014 MYE to project the population. At 2013 and 2014 the total population is constrained by the MYE. This scenario uses the household formation rates within the 2012-based household projections;

b Scenario B: 2012-based Population Projections with Partial Catch-up Headship Rates – Using the same population as above (2012-based SNPP), headship rates are adjusted so that the household formation rates of younger age groups (15-34 year olds) will make up half the difference between the 2012 and 2008-based headship rates by 2032; - Scenario Bi: 2012-based Population Projections with Partial

Catch-up Headship Rates (re-based to 2014) – Using the same population as above (2012-based SNPP re-based to 2014 MYE), headship rates are adjusted so that the household formation rates of younger age groups (15-34 year olds) will make up half the difference between the 2012 and 2008-based headship rates by 2032. At 2013 and 2014 the total population is constrained by the MYE;

c Scenario C: Long Term Migration Trends – based on average gross flows of migration over the ten year period 2004/05 to 2013/14 as taken from the latest ONS MYE, assuming Burnley will continue to see migration at this level;

d Scenario D: Natural Change – This scenario sets all migration to 0, assuming that there is no movement into or out of the Borough over the Plan period. This provides an indication of the level of housing required were only current local residents’ needs were catered for.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P81

- Scenario Di: Natural Change (re-based to 2014) – This scenario sets all migration to 0, assuming that there is no movement into or out of the Borough over the Plan period. This provides an indication of the level of housing required were only current local residents’ needs were catered for. At 2013 and 2014 the total population is constrained by the latest MYE;

Employment-Led Projections

e Scenario E: Baseline Experian Job Growth – based on job growth as forecast by Experian (September 2015) (+4,280 workforce jobs 2012-2032);

f Scenario F: Key Growth Sectors Scenario – An uplift to the Experian projections to take into account LEP projects (+5,892 additional jobs 2012-2032);

g Scenario G: Job Stabilisation – assuming there are no additional jobs created in the Borough over the plan period, i.e. the number of jobs by 2032 remains at the 2012 level; - Scenario Gi: Job Stabilisation (re-based to 2014 jobs) –

assuming there are no additional jobs created in the Borough over the plan period, i.e. the number of jobs by 2032 remains at the 2014 level. This scenario takes into account job growth seen in 2013 and 2014;

h Scenario H: Past Job Growth – based on past levels of job growth as derived from the latest Experian forecasts from 1997 to 2012 (averaging -18 per annum). - Scenario Hi: Past Trends Job Growth (re-based to 2014 jobs) –

based on past trends as derived from the latest Experian forecasts from 1997 to 2012 adjusted to consider growth in 2013 and 2014

Supply-Led Scenarios

6.2 The following scenarios do not form part of the objectively assessed need; however they provide an indication of the outcomes based on different housing supply figures. The supply-led scenarios tested are:

1 SHMA Affordable Housing Requirement – this is based on the affordable housing needs identified in Sections 8-10 of this updated SHMA; and

2 Past Delivery – this scenario is based on the continuation of net completions at the rate seen in recent years.

Scenario Assumptions and Approach

6.3 There are a number of underlying assumptions which NLP has adopted that form the basis for most of the modelled scenarios. A number of these have been updated since the 2013 SHMA and subsequently will impact on the model outputs.

Burnley SHMA :

P82 10003369v15

6.4 These include:

1 Future changes in the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) and Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMR) are based on the birth and death rate projections for Burnley in the 2012-based SNPP. These rates in turn are used under each scenario to derive the number of births and deaths;

2 Projected migration under the 2012-based SNPP scenario forms the basis for migration in each scenario. In a number of the scenarios marked as ‘re-based 2014’ (i.e. scenarios Ai, Bi and Di), the SNPP migration figures are re-based to the 2014 population based on the 2014- MYE. In the Long Term migration scenario, the 2012-based SNPP is used to inform the age/sex profile of migration (albeit not the total gross flows). For the jobs-led scenarios, migration is flexed (i.e. constrained or inflated) in order to produce a population of sufficient size to support the given level of job change (with the 2012-based SNPP informing the age profile);

3 Regarding the population not in households (e.g. those in institutional care), NLP’s approach is to take the assumptions used to underpin the 2012-based CLG household forecasts and apply these to the population base for each scenario. This is applied as a number below age 75 and a rate above age 75. No change is assumed in the rate of this from the CLG identified levels, for either the demographic or employment-led scenarios. Therefore the need for certain types institutional accommodation (i.e. nursing homes) is not included in any of the scenarios. These provide outputs for C3 residential units only;

4 Inputs on headship rates are based on the 2012-based SNHP, which provide data by 5-year age group and sex for Burnley from 2012 to 2037. The sensitivity Scenario B adjusts these as described in Section 3.0;

5 In Burnley housing vacancies and second homes will result in the number of dwellings needed exceeding the total number of households under any scenario (as in any area). Hence in establishing the level of future housing need therefore, a vacancy rate is applied to the household projections. For Burnley a 2012-2014 average is taken from CLG Council Tax Base data, which indicates that 6.25% of homes are vacant/second homes. This rate is held constant in the modelling. It should be noted that the vacancy rate in new stock is likely to be lower than 6.25% and therefore this approach represents a ‘worst case’ scenario. Vacancy rates are normally around 3% to allow for market churn.

6 In order to calculate unemployment rates, the figures for 2012 (9.0%), 2013 (9.6%) and 2014 (9.2%) were used for these specific years in the modelling (from the Annual Population Survey Model-based Estimates). These rates are higher than the pre-recession average, which was 5.6%. As such, in projecting future unemployment it is estimated that by 2020 unemployment rates will have returned to the pre-recession average, then held constant to 2032. Therefore NLP incorporated the following annual unemployment rates into the PopGroup modelling: 2012 = 9.0%; 2013 = 9.6%; 2014 = 9.2%. The latter figure was gradually reduced on a

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P83

pro-rata basis to 5.6% by 2020, and then held constant at this rate thereafter.

7 Age and gender-specific economic activity rates are used. The bases for these are the 2011 Census45 and up to age 69 the ONS Labour Force Projections have been applied46. In addition, allowances have been made in the 65-69 age groups for the increases in State Pension Age which will occur in 2018-2020 and 2026-2028. In the oldest age groups, since the ONS LFP significantly under-estimated economic activity, an alternative assumption has been adopted based on a 2001-2011 trend;

8 It has been assumed that the labour force ratio remains static with no inferred increase or decrease in the ratio of people to jobs. In Burnley, APS and Experian data indicates that between 2012 and 2014 the labour force ratio averaged 0.96; i.e. Burnley is an area of in-commuting. This is slightly different to the 2011 Census commuting data which suggested that Burnley’s commuting ratio was 1.02 (i.e. slightly more people commute out of Burnley than travel in the opposite direction for work). This can be explained by the fact that the two figures are not directly comparable – aside from the fact that different time frames are used, the commuting rate does not take into account double-jobbing.

6.5 Where scenarios have been demographically modelled, a full schedule of the assumptions and inputs can be found in Appendix 2, and the modelling outputs in Appendix 3.

Model Outputs

Demographic-led Scenarios

6.6 The demographic-led scenarios use the components of population change (births, deaths, migration) to project future population growth. Under each scenario, the assumptions around household formation are applied in order to derive household change over time, which is then converted into dwelling needs. In addition, the economic activity rates are applied to the projected population to derive the labour force, which subsequently determines the number of jobs that could be supported over the period 2012-2032.

Scenario A: 2012-based SNPP/SNHP (Baseline)

6.7 This scenario models the 2012-based SNPP and the 2012-based SNHP. The household projections are based on the population projections and as such, modelling the rates on the population through PopGroup would produce the same outcome in terms of household growth as published in the CLG Live Table. Modelling in PopGroup also allows the derivation of job-related outputs, such as labour force and job growth.

45 As the 2011 Census provides rates for older age groups at LA level as ’65 and over’ only, an estimate of older economic activity (necessarily in order to accurately project the labour force) has been calculated using data from the 2001 Census. 46 The 2006-based ONS Labour Force Projections are the Government’s most recent projections of economic activity. Since these run to 2020, rates are held constant thereafter.

Burnley SHMA :

P84 10003369v15

6.8 Under this scenario, over the period 2012-32, there would be an overall population decline of 242. This is due to net out-migration of 5,253, which exceeds positive natural change (i.e. more births than deaths) of 5,012. Despite this modest population decline, the number of households in the Borough would increase by 1,098 over the projection period; this is due to a combination of new household formation of younger cohorts, and a decline in average household size associated with an ageing population. To accommodate this level of growth, there is a need for 1,171 dwellings, or 59 dpa.

6.9 Based on the change in population age structure, the labour force (i.e. the number of economically active people) would decline by 2,867. The application of commuting patterns and adjustments to unemployment results in a decline of 1,318 jobs (net) in the Borough.

Scenario Ai: 2012-based SNPP (re-based to 2014)

6.10 This scenario is essentially the same as Scenario A, with a slight adjustment for the latest MYE. As NLP has adopted a 2012 base date (which is based on the actual population as recorded for 2013 and 2014 from the MYE) which is slightly different to the 2012-based SNPP and re-based the birth and death rates, this will result in a slightly different population projection and therefore a slightly different projection of household growth. In this scenario, at 2013 and 2014 the total population is constrained to the MYE. Over the period 2012-32, under this scenario the population would increase by 821.

6.11 This is due to net in-migration of 4,917 falling below the positive natural change (i.e. more births than deaths) of 5,738. In relation to this population increase, the number of households in the Borough would increase by 1,580 over the projection period; this is due to a combination of new household formation of younger cohorts, and a decline in average household size associated with an ageing population. To accommodate this level of growth, there is a need for 1,686 dwellings, or 84 dpa.

6.12 Based on changes in population age structure, the labour force (i.e. the number of economically active people) would decline by 2,334, whilst the number of jobs would decline by 794 jobs (net) in the Borough.

6.13 The key outputs for these scenarios are shown in Table 6.1.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P85

Table 6.1 Key Model Outputs - Scenarios A and Ai: 2012-based SNPPs

Scenario A: Baseline Headship Rates

Scenario Ai: Baseline Headship Rates (re-based to 2014)

2012 2032 Change 2012 2032 Change

Population 87,127 86,885 -242 87,127 87,948 821

of which natural change

- 5,012 5,738

of which net migration

- -5,253 -4,917

Labour Force 41,800 38,934 -2,867 41,800 39,466 -2,334 Jobs 39,623 38,305 -1,318 39,623 38,829 -794 Households 37,573 38,671 1,098 37,573 39,153 1,580 Dwellings 40,078 41,249 1,171 40,078 41,763 1,686 Dwellings p.a. - 59 - 84

Source: NLP using PopGroup

Scenario B: 2012-based SNPP with Partial Catch-Up Headship Rates

6.14 Under this sensitivity test scenario, population growth and labour force outcomes are the same as for Scenario A; the only input which has been changed is the household formation rates, which dictate household growth and dwelling need.

6.15 By adopting higher household formation rates amongst younger adults, household growth would equate to 1,508 over the period to 2032 (37% higher than Scenario A). This would generate a need for 1,608 dwellings, or 80 dpa.

Scenario Bi: 2012-based SNPP with Partial Catch-Up Headship Rates (re-based to 2014)

6.16 All impacts are identical to Scenario B, with the exception of the use of MYE of population for 2013 and 2014, with all data re-based from this point.

6.17 Based on adopting higher household formation rates in younger adults, household growth would be 1,998 over the period to 2032 (25% higher than Scenario Ai). This would generate a need for 2,131 dwellings, or 107 dpa.

6.18 The key outputs for these scenarios are shown in Table 6.2.

Burnley SHMA :

P86 10003369v15

Table 6.2 Key Model Outputs - Scenarios B and Bi: Partial Catch-up

Scenario B: 2012-based SNPP with Partial Catch-Up Headship

Rates

Scenario Bi: 2012-based SNPP with Partial Catch-Up Headship

Rates (re-based to 2014)

2012 2032 Change 2012 2032 Change

Population 87,127 86,885 -242 87,127 87,948 821


- 5,012 - 5,738


- -5,253 - -4,917

Labour Force 41,800 38,934 -2,867 41,800 39,466 -2,334 Jobs 39,623 38,305 -1,318 39,623 38,829 -794 Households 37,573 39,080 1,508 37,573 39,570 1,998 Dwellings 40,078 41,686 1,608 40,078 42,208 2,131 Dwellings p.a. - 80 - 107


Scenario C: Long Term Migration Trends

6.19 The 2012-based SNPP projects net out-migration over the projection period; however, this declines dramatically, from c.-500 in 2012/13 to c.-150 by 2031/32. This is primarily due to a decline in levels of out-migration to the rest of the UK.

6.20 Scenario C models future migration on the basis of long term trends taken from the last ten years (2004/05 to 2013/14). This shows that total net migration has averaged -167 per annum, i.e. 167 more people leaving the Borough than arriving. Natural change is positive at 6,129 over the period 2012-2030, at +306 annually, therefore the population of the Borough increases overall.

6.21 Under this scenario the level of household growth would be higher than Baseline Scenario A, at 2,275, equating to a housing need of 2,426, or 121 dpa. The labour force would decline by 1,393, but there would be the creation of 132 jobs. The key outputs are shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Key Outputs - Scenario C: Long Term Migration Trends


2012 2032 Change

Population 87,127 89,842 2,715

of which natural change - 6,129 of which net migration - -3,414 Labour Force 41,800 40,408 -1,393 Jobs 39,623 39,755 132 Households 37,573 39,847 2,275 Dwellings 40,078 42,504 2,426 Dwellings p.a. - 121


Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P87

Scenario D: Natural Change

6.22 This scenario examines the consequences of removing all in- and out-migration to/from Burnley in order to assess the needs associated solely with the current population and its growth and change over time. Doing so would result in population growth of 5,498. An additional 3,426 households would form, with a need for 3,655 dwellings (or 183 dpa).

Scenario Di: Natural Change (re-based to 2014)

6.23 This scenario applies the same assumptions as Scenario E but constrains population in 2013 and 2014 to that of the equivalent MYE. The key outputs are shown in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 Key Outputs – Scenario D and Di: Natural Change

Scenario E: Natural Change Scenario Ei: Natural Change

(re-based to 2014)

2012 2032 Change 2012 2032 Change

Population 87,127 92,625 5,498 87,127 92,311 5,184


- 5,498 - 5,592


- 0 - -408

Labour Force 41,800 41,713 -88 41,800 41,597 -203 Jobs 39,623 41,039 1,416 39,623 40,926 1,302 Households 37,573 40,999 3,426 37,573 40,843 3,271 Dwellings 40,078 43,732 3,655 40,078 43,566 3,489 Dwellings p.a. - 183 - 174


Employment-led Scenarios

6.24 A series of employment-led scenarios have been assessed to identify how much additional housing may be needed to take account of employment growth over and above demographic needs.

6.25 Whilst there are a complex set of issues involved in matching labour markets with housing markets (with different occupational groups having a greater or lesser propensity to travel to work), there are some simple metrics which can allow us to explore the basic alignment of employment, demographic and housing change. This is notably the amount of housing needed to sustain a given labour force (and therefore number of jobs), assuming certain characteristics around commuting and unemployment.

6.26 All of the employment-led scenarios incorporate similar assumptions concerning the maintenance of a constant labour force ratio, an improving rate of unemployment and a (generally) increasing economic activity rate, most notably amongst the older age groups. Any significant rebalancing of the commuting rate in particular would be outside the control of BBC to directly influence, although this aspiration could be a policy choice for the Council to

Burnley SHMA :

P88 10003369v15

make when setting its housing requirement, based on suitably robust evidence.

6.27 Ensuring a sufficient supply of homes within easy access of employment generators represents a central facet of an efficiently functioning economy and can help minimise housing market pressures and unsustainable levels of commuting (and therefore congestion and carbon emissions).

Scenario E: Experian Job Growth

6.28 The latest Experian forecasts (September 2015) project job growth of 4,280 over the period 2012-32 in Burnley, equivalent to 214 net additional workforce jobs annually.

6.29 To support this level of job growth, taking into account current commuting patterns and projected changes in economic activity rates (as well as unemployment), there would need to be an increase in the size of the labour force of 2,823. This would require population growth of 11,151, of which 3,341 would be through net in-migration. This takes into account the age profile of people who move into and out of the Borough. This growth would result in an additional 5,501 households, generating a need for 5,868 dwellings, equivalent to 293 dpa. The key outputs are shown in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5 Key Outputs - Scenario E: Experian Job Growth

Scenario E: Experian Job Growth

2012 2032 Change

Population 87,127 98,278 11,151

of which natural change - 7,810 of which net migration - 3,341 Labour Force 41,800 44,624 2,823 Jobs 39,623 43,903 4,280 Households 37,573 43,074 5,501 Dwellings 40,078 45,945 5,868 Dwellings p.a. - 293

Source: NLP 2015 using PopGroup

Scenario F: Key Job Growth Sectors

6.30 As set out in the Council’s ELR, this scenario uplifts the Experian baseline job growth projections to take into account LEP supported proposals / developments which are likely to have a significant influence on job growth in the coming years. This results in an additional 5,892 jobs in Burnley Borough over the period 2012-2032, of which 2,040 are likely to be based on B-class land. This represents an increase of 1,612 jobs over and above the level projected under the Experian baseline.

6.31 To support this level of job growth, taking into account current commuting patterns and projected changes in economic activity rates (as well as unemployment), there would need to be an increase in the size of the labour force of 4,462 and population growth of 14,391, of which 6,064 would be

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P89

through net in-migration. This growth would result in an additional 6,736 households, generating a need for 7,185 dwellings, or 359 dpa. The key outputs are shown in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6 Key Outputs - Scenario F: Key Job Growth Sectors

Scenario F: Key Job Growth Sectors

2012 2032 Change

Population 87,127 101,518 14,391

of which natural change - 8,327 of which net migration - 6,064 Labour Force 41,800 46,262 4,462 Jobs 39,623 45,515 5,892 Households 37,573 44,309 6,736 Dwellings 40,078 47,263 7,185 Dwellings p.a. - 359

Source: NLP 2015 using PopGroup

Scenario G: Job Stabilisation

6.32 This scenario assesses the need for housing were the number of jobs based in Burnley to remain constant over the course of the plan period 2012-2032 (i.e. job stabilisation). As the number of people who are unemployed is forecast to fall over the course of the plan period to pre-recession levels, a higher proportion of the labour supply would be working, and as such the total labour force needed would actually reduce by 1,527. However, as with most other parts of the country, Burnley’s population is ageing and hence the population overall would still need to increase by 2,337, of which 5,727 is through natural change and -3,390 from out-migration.

6.33 The level of household growth associated with this level of population growth is 2,150, which translates into a need for 2,293 dwellings, or 115 dpa.

Scenario Gi: Job Stabilisation (taking into account growth for 2013 and 2014)

6.34 This scenario makes the same assumptions as Scenario G but constrains the number of jobs in 2013 and 2014 to that already recorded by Experian for these years. The key outputs are shown in Table 6.7.

Burnley SHMA :

P90 10003369v15

Table 6.7 Key Outputs - Scenario G and Gi: Job Stablisation

Scenario G: Job Stabilisation Scenario Gi: Job Stabilisation

(taking into account growth for 2013 and 2014)

2012 2032 Change 2012 2032 Change

Population 87,127 89,464 2,337 87,127 94,432 7,305


- 5,727 - 7,122


- -3,390 - 183

Labour Force 41,800 40,274 -1,527 41,800 42,693 892 Jobs 39,623 39,623 0 39,623 42,003 2,380 Households 37,573 39,722 2,150 37,573 41,612 4,039 Dwellings 40,078 42,371 2,293 40,078 44,386 4,308 Dwellings p.a. - +115 - +215


Scenario H: Past Trends Job Growth

6.35 Between 1997 and 2014, Burnley saw an average decline in the number of jobs of 18 annually (Figure 6.1), from 40,130 workforce jobs in 1997 to 39,820 in 2014.

Figure 6.1 Workforce Jobs in Burnley, 1997 - 2014

Source: Experian (2015)

6.36 This scenario sets out the level of growth required were past trends to continue at this (negative) rate.

6.37 Under this scenario, there would be a decline of 360 jobs over the period 2012-2032. The labour force would decline by 1,893, led by out-migration of -3,997 and natural change of 5,611. As the population is ageing, more people are required to sustain the workforce, hence even though the number of jobs declines under this scenario, the Borough’s overall would need to increase to compensate for the fact that comparatively more people would be leaving the

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P91

workforce to retire. This equates to an overall population growth of 1,613, household growth of 1,874 and 100 dpa.

Scenario Hi: Past Trends Job Growth (taking into account growth for 2013 and 2014)

6.38 This scenario makes the same assumptions as Scenario H but constrains growth in 2013 and 2014 to that already recorded by Experian for these years. The key outputs are shown in Table 6.8.

Table 6.8 Key Outputs - Scenario H and Hi: Past Trends Job Growth

Scenario H: Past Trends Job Growth

Scenario Hi: Past Trends Job Growth (taking into account growth for 2013 and 2014)

2012 2032 Change 2012 2032 Change

Population 87,127 88,740 1,613 87,127 93,783 6,656


- 5,611 - 7,027


- -3,997 - -371

Labour Force 41,800 39,908 -1,893 41,800 42,363 563 Jobs 39,623 39,263 -360 39,623 41,679 2,056 Households 37,573 39,447 1,874 37,573 41,365 3,792 Dwellings 40,078 42,077 1,999 40,078 44,122 4,045 Dwellings p.a. - +100 - +202


Policy/Supply-led Scenarios

6.39 These scenarios examine the implications (in terms of population growth, migration and job growth) of constraining additional housing supply over the period 2012-32 to a range of specified level; the bases for which are set out below.

SHMA Affordable Housing Need

6.40 Section 10.0 of this updated 2016 SHMA has identified a need for 52 affordable homes per annum based on the gross household formation approach, using the Housing Register with 3.3 x income and allowing for a 20% deposit. In Burnley affordable housing need is high due to low incomes and high unemployment which makes the housing market inaccessible to many despite the house prices being amongst the least expensive in the country. At 10%47, this would result in an affordable housing OAN of 520 dpa.

6.41 Even using the lowest sensitivity test approach (the Housing Needs Survey data, allowing for a 20% deposit), the annual need for 37 affordable homes, at

47

The figure of 10% has been used as this broadly aligns with BBC’s 2006 adopted Local Plan minimum target. The identification of the proportion of affordable housing to be provided is difficult for Burnley given that virtually no market sites have provided any social housing in the recent past. From comparing past delivery rates (2003/04 – 2014/15) it is apparent that Burnley has delivered 1,813 dwellings gross (506 net), of which affordable units have comprised 440 units – a rate of 24%.

Burnley SHMA :

P92 10003369v15

a rate of 10% would result in a requirement for 370 dpa.

Past Delivery

6.42 Between 2003/04 and 2014/15, Burnley has seen a net delivery of 506 dwellings, equivalent to 42 dpa (see Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2 Net Additional Dwellings in Burnley Borough, 2003/04 – 2014/15

Source: Burnley Borough Council 2015

6.43 However net additional dwellings in Burnley have been effected substantially by the significant levels of demolitions which in some years accounted for the loss of over 130 homes which alone would equal the former indicative annual requirement RS, as illustrated in Figure 6.3. With the end of Housing Market Renewal funding, the scale of housing demolitions in Burnley is likely to subside and net dwelling completions are likely to rise commensurately. Average completions were 151 dpa, which is more than three times the average net additional dwelling completions (42 dpa) over the same period.

Figure 6.3 Housing Delivery in Burnley Borough, 2003/04 – 2014/15 (Net/Gross/Demolitions)

Source: Burnley Borough Council 2015

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Net Completions Demolitions Net Additional Dwellings Indicative RS Target

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P93

Summary

6.44 The scenarios present a range of housing needs for the period 2012 to 2032 based on different drivers of growth, as set out in Table 6.9. These range from a low of 59 based on 2012-based SNPP (Scenario A), all the way up to a high of +359 dpa based on Key Job Growth Sectors (Scenario F). The remaining scenarios (excluding the Experian Job Growth Scenario E) cluster in a narrower range of 84 dpa to 215 dpa.

6.45 The outputs are different from the previous SHMA for a number of reasons including higher headship rates, lower out-migration and stronger job growth forecasts.

Table 6.9 Summary of Updated Burnley Scenarios 2012-2032

Scenario Population

Change Jobs Households

Dwelling Change

Dwellings p.a. (to 2032)

A. 2012-based SNPP -242 -1,318 +1,098 +1,171 +59

Ai. 2012 SNPP re-based to 2014 +821 -794 +1,580 +1,686 +84

B. 2012-based SNPP/PCU -242 -1,318 +1,508 +1,608 +80

Bi. 2012 SNPP/PCU re-based to 2014 +821 -794 +1,998 +2,131 +107

C. 10 Year Migration +2,715 +132 +2,275 +2,426 +121

D. Natural Change +5,498 +1,416 +3,426 +3,655 +183

Di. Natural Change re-based 2014 +5,184 +1,302 +3,271 +3,489 +174

E. Experian Jobs Growth +11,151 +4,280 +5,501 +5,868 +293

F. Key Job Growth Sectors +14,391 +5,892 +6,736 +7,185 +359

G. Job Stabilisation +2,337 +0 +2,150 +2,293 +115

Gi. Job Stabilisation from 2014/15 (i.e. taking into account Experian Employment growth 2012/13 and 2013/14.

+7,305 +2,380 +4,039 +4,308 +215

H. Past Job Growth Trends +1,613 -360 +1,874 +1,999 +100

Hi. Past Trends from 2014/15 (i.e. taking into account Experian Employment growth 2012/13 and 2013/14)

+6,656 2,056 +3,792 4,045 +202


Burnley SHMA :

P94 10003369v15

7.0 An Objective Assessment of Housing Need

Introduction

7.1 In practice, applying the Framework requires a number of key steps to be followed in order to arrive at a robustly evidenced housing target:

The starting point for Local Plans is to meet the full objectively assessed development needs of an area [§47 and §156].

An objective assessment of housing need must be a level of housing delivery which meets the needs associated with population and household growth, addresses the need for all types of housing including affordable and caters for housing demand [§159].

Furthermore, a planned level of housing to meet objectively assessed needs must respond positively to wider opportunities for growth and should take account of market signals, including affordability [§17].

In choosing a housing requirement which would not meet objectively assessed development needs, it must be evidenced that the adverse impacts of meeting needs would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies within the Framework [§14].

Where an authority is unable to meet its objectively assessed development needs or it is not the most appropriate strategy to do so, it must be demonstrated under the statutory duty-to-cooperate that the unmet need is to be met in another local authority area in order to fully meet development requirements across housing market areas [§179 and §182 bullet point 1].

7.2 It is against these requirements of the Framework which BBC’s housing requirement will be identified. This has been brought into sharp focus following the high court judgement ‘(1) Gallagher Homes Limited and (2) Lioncourt Homes Limited v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1283’ which reiterated that the imperative need to firstly identify full objectively assessed need for housing and then define a strategy which seeks to meet it, consistent with the Framework.

7.3 The Government’s Practice Guidance states that needs should be assessed in relation to the relevant functional area, i.e. the Housing Market Area [HMA]48. As discussed in Section 2.0, on the basis of the analysis of migratory patterns, commuting patterns and housing indicators, it is considered that Burnley and Pendle local administrative areas together comprise a joint HMA. Whilst the consideration of Pendle’s and Burnley’s housing needs together was the term of reference for the 2013 SHMA, the brief for this update focuses on the identification of needs for Burnley Borough alone.

7.4 Clearly the 298 dpa taken forward by PBC its Core Strategy falls within the 250 - 340 dpa OAN range recommended in the September 2014 report49, and a

48

ID 2a-008-20140306 49NLP (September 2014): Pendle Housing Needs Study 2012-based SNPP Update

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P95

subsequent briefing note prepared by NLP to inform Pendle Borough’s Core Strategy Examination in Public in March 201550 concluded that the OAN range of 250dpa to 340dpa would be unlikely to be substantially altered had the latest household projections been available to use in NLP’s PopGroup model for the September 2014 report. The methodology and data inputs used to derive that range broadly align with the approach taken in updating Burnley’s OAN.

7.5 As the Core Strategy confirms that Pendle’s 298 dpa is intended to meet that Borough’s OAN in full, and in isolation, it is appropriate that this report seeks to identify the full OAN for Burnley Borough.

7.6 The Practice Guidance states that ‘household projection published by CLG should provide the starting point estimate of overall housing need.’ It also states that the household projection may require adjustment to reflect factors affecting local demography and household formation rates which are not necessarily captured in past trends51. To comply with the Practice Guidance, this 2015 update has used the latest 2012-based SNHP to derive the baseline demographic need, which acts as the ‘starting point’ when determining the housing OAN. Thereafter, various assumptions, adjustments and sensitivities have been applied to take account of local factors and economic aspirations.

7.7 Figure 7.1 sets out the annual dwelling need under each scenario as identified by NLP’s modelling work.

Figure 7.1 Updated Model Outputs Burnley Borough: Dwellings per Annum 2012-2032

50NLP (March 2015): Briefing Note: Implications of 2012 Sub National Household Projections, document reference C/013 51 ID 2a-015-20140306

Burnley SHMA :

P96 10003369v15

The Starting Point – Demographic Needs

7.8 The CLG 2012-based household projections indicate need for 59 dwellings per annum in Burnley between 2012 and 2032. In line with the Practice Guidance, NLP has taken account of the recent 2014 MYE to provide an updated position on demographic-led needs. This indicated a need for 84 dpa over the period to 2032.

7.9 NLP’s analysis suggests that the economic downturn, unlike trends seen elsewhere, that the recession led to Burnley’s housing market becoming more attractive; lower house prices and rents made it more accessible for both people staying in the Borough and those choosing to return. Following a suitable adjustment to the headship rates under Scenario Bi, and re-basing the population to incorporate the 2014 MYE, it is therefore considered that a figure of 107 dpa represents the initial demographic-led need for housing and appropriate baseline for Burnley, taking account of the necessary data and factors.

7.10 This starting point demographic led need is above the previous comparable figure in the 2013 SHMA, of 55 dpa. However, the 2013 SHMA utilised the (lower) 2011-based (Interim) SNPP and equivalent household projections, and the reasons for the differences between these projections and the 2012-based projections have been set out in Section 3.0. They primarily relate to the difference in the starting ‘size’ population (as recorded by the 2011 Census) and the components of change as well as other impacts including lower household formation rates. It is considered that the latest 2012-based SNPP scenario should carry considerably more weight than the previous data inputs, which have now been superseded.

7.11 In terms of the appropriateness of the other demographic scenarios, a natural change scenario (D) is usually considered to be unrealistic, given the inability of an authority to limit the number of people moving in and out such that there is no growth arising from migration. In the case of Burnley the Borough is projected to see population decline52 due to out-migration, and therefore a scenario that prohibits any inward or outward migration and relies solely on births vs. deaths for growth, actually represents a scenario where the net number of people in the authority increases compared with the baseline projection.

7.12 As a result this could result in a need for 183 dpa, generating an increase in the size of the labour force, with an additional 1,416 jobs able to be supported. Scenario Di, re-based the model incorporate the 2014 MYE and resulted in a need for 174 dpa with an additional 1,302 jobs.

7.13 Scenario C models long term migration and is a useful comparator. It is less reflective of the recession as it is based on a 10 year period, unlike the SNPP which is reliant on data from the past 5/6 years which will have been influenced by the recession. However, in the case of Burnley, the trend of high levels of

52 Re-basing the population in 2013 and 2014 based on 2014 MYE estimates shows a slight increase in population

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P97

net outward migration goes back to a time well before the recession and so this is clearly not just a characteristic of the economic downturn. Furthermore, in 2003-08 housing delivery in Burnley was well below the identified RS need and therefore low levels of delivery are entrenched in the Borough and cannot just be attributable to the recession and the period upon which the SNPP is based.

7.14 In this particular instance therefore, it is considered that more weight should be attached to the 2012-based SNPP than the long term migration scenario.

Do Market Signals indicate a need for an upward adjustment to purely demographic-led needs?

7.15 Market signals in Burnley have performed well against both the County and the national comparators. Burnley evidently has very low (indeed amongst the lowest) house prices, as well as low rents and relatively low affordability ratio. Affordability has in fact seen signs of improvement since 2007 (with one exception between 2013 and 2014, where affordability worsened slightly). This will have had knock on effects on concealed families, where numbers have slightly increased, although overcrowded households have actually declined, there remain a significant number of vacant properties in the urban parts of the Borough and a considerable amount of unimplemented planning permissions for residential use. This indicates a marginally higher level of housing demand than there has been supply, although there has undoubtedly been a significant under-supply of dwellings when set against past housing targets.

7.16 Burnley is more affordable than neighbouring authorities in Lancashire. Burnley is the cheapest place to live in England. The already low affordability ratio is likely to be exaggerated by low resident-based incomes rather than house prices which are very low. Therefore, it is not considered that an uplift is appropriate in Burnley as there are clear signs of improving affordability and stable and very low house prices.

7.17 This conclusion would also be supported by the suggested LPEG approach to modelling the House Price Ratio and the Rental Affordability Ratio.

How should employment trends be taken into account in defining the housing OAN for Burnley?

7.18 The Practice Guidance requires plan-makers to assess likely employment growth based on past trends and/or economic forecasts. Where the labour force supply is projected to be less than the forecast job growth, the Guidance states that this could result in unsustainable commuting patterns which could potentially reduce the resilience of local businesses.

7.19 Given that Burnley has typically seen high levels of net out-migration, (including residents of working age), it is important to consider how additional housing might help stem the outflow of these residents to achieve a more balanced population structure. This should reduce potential future difficulties arising from an ageing population reducing the supply of labour and placing increased demands on service provision.

Burnley SHMA :

P98 10003369v15

7.20 A number of scenarios have been modelled to demonstrate the impact of a range of future job-led scenarios. These include considering past trends in job growth, job stabilisation, growth forecast by Experian and, building on this, a Key Job Growth scenario.

7.21 The economic forecasts for Burnley Borough indicate that additional housing above the demographic needs is necessary in order to meet its future growth potential. The Scenario Ai baseline would result in a decline in the local labour supply and the number of jobs based in the Borough of over 794 by 2032. Even keeping the number of jobs constant over time (Scenario Gi) and allowing for job growth already secured in 2012-14 would require an uplift in the housing need figure to 215 dpa; excluding the job growth that has occurred over the past two years would reduce this figure down to 115 dpa (Scenario G).

7.22 Historically, Burnley has seen a modest decline in the number of jobs. If these trends were to continue, despite the small decline in jobs (-18 per annum) there would be still be an increased need for additional housing as the population ages and, without significant levels of inward migration, the labour force would shrink at an increasing rate. It is undesirable to plan for decline whilst at the same time there is a need to look at what is realistic and achievable, taking into account past performance.

7.23 The latest Experian forecasts indicate more optimistic levels of job growth compared with past trends and job stabilisation, projecting growth of 4,280 over the plan period. To support this level of job growth (without relying upon a significant increase in the level of in-commuting), a substantial amount of in-migration would be required as indicated through the modelling. This would generate high levels of population growth (compared with the demographic-led scenarios) and housing need of 293 dpa.

7.24 BBC would need to consider the realism of such a scenario, given that +4,280 job growth over the Plan period would represent a step-change in Burnley’s economic fortunes. This is particularly so as the Borough has suffered from continuous job losses from 1997 to 2011 with only slight increases in the last 4 years due to growth in non B-class uses. There has been a continued decline in industrial (B1c/B2/B8) employment. The concurrent net out-migration would need to be radically overturned if this scenario were to be realised, despite a reduction seen in 2014 due to an increase in net international migration.

7.25 To meet the level of job growth predicted by the Experian forecasts without relying on increased levels of net in-commuting, there would have to be significant levels of inward migration (+3,341) compared to the SNPP Scenario Ai which projects net migration of -4,917. Moreover, to facilitate this level of job growth housing delivery would have to increase past delivery to rates significantly higher than has been achieved since 2003/04 (with net additional dwellings peaking at 202 dpa in 2007/08).

7.26 The Borough has delivered only 42 dpa net over the period 2003/04 to 2014/15, and given that the latest 2012-based SNPP (re-based to the 2014

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P99

MYE) suggest a level of population change of 41 annually, 14-times lower than the level of population growth projected under Scenario E. Therefore this could be considered to be an outlier as defined in the Lichfield inspectors report to the Local Plan Examination53.

7.27 All of these points would also apply to Scenario F, the Key Job Growth Sectors Scenario, which would suggest an even greater level of job growth (+5,892), population growth (+14,391) and dwelling need (+7185, or 359 dpa) than the Experian Jobs Growth scenario upon which it is (partly) based.

7.28 It is important to note that this assessment has been based on fixed assumptions around commuting patterns, and where alternative evidence indicates this may not be the case, such housing figures should be treated with a degree of caution.

7.29 The employment-led element of the OAN is therefore calculated as being up to 215 dpa.

Is there a need to increase housing supply to aid the delivery of affordable housing?

7.30 With regards to the incorporation of affordable housing needs into the total housing figures included in Local Plans, the Practice Guidance54 sets out the following:

“The total affordable housing need should… be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments, given the probable percentage of affordable housing to be delivered by market housing led developments. An increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes.”

7.31 The Practice Guidance sets out that ‘the total housing figures’ are about much more than just demographic need and should consider increases towards meeting full affordable housing needs.

7.32 The importance of considering affordable housing needs in an objective assessment of housing need calculation has been recently (19/02/15) confirmed in the High Court judgment Satnam Millennium Ltd vs Warrington Borough Council.55 It sets out the requirement for an objective assessment of housing need to cater for affordable housing needs within its calculation. The judgment found that the adopted objective assessment of housing need figure proposed in Warrington’s Local Plan was not in compliance with policy because (para 43) “the assessed need was never expressed or included as part of the OAN”. The decision found that the “proper exercise” had not been undertaken, namely:

“(a) having identified the OAN for affordable housing, that should then be 53 Paragraph 67 of the Annex attached to the Inspector’s letter to Lichfield District Council 28th August 2013 54 ID 2a-029-20140306 55 2015] EWHC 370 (Admin) Case No: CO/4055/2014 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/370.html

Burnley SHMA :

P100 10003369v15

considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market/affordable housing development; an increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes;

(b) the Local Plan should then meet the OAN for affordable housing, subject only to the constraints referred to in NPPF, paragraphs 14 and 47.”

7.33 In this regard, the updated evidence published in this 2016 SHMA, concludes that the affordable housing net annual need is at least 52 dpa, therefore at a delivery rate of 10%56 of all housing, 520 dpa would need to be provided. It should be recognised that in the recent past, virtually all of Burnley’s affordable housing provision has come from sources other than s.106 agreements (i.e. they have formed 100% of the housing delivered on particular sites).

7.34 As previously noted, house prices and private rental levels are amongst the lowest in the country, hence it may appear counter-intuitive that the need for affordable homes is moderate. However, whilst prices are low, incomes are also low in the Borough – for example, Burnley has the 89th lowest Gross Weekly Earnings (by residence) of the 380 districts across England and Wales57 and high levels of unemployment58 (7.1%) which reduces average income levels. As such, there will always be a need for new affordable housing to replace lost stock and to meet the housing needs of those not in work or otherwise on low incomes. Nonetheless, it is evident that affordable housing needs justify an upward adjustment to the demographic-led OAN in this instance. The employment-led OAN (215 dpa) is already more than double the demographic-led OAN (107 dpa) so no further uplift is considered appropriate in this instance to the top end of the range.

7.35 On the basis that the demographic led OAN, excluding affordable housing, amounts to 107 dpa, this would increase the lower end of the range to 117 dpa. The delivery of between 12 and 22 affordable dwellings per annum is not inconsistent with past delivery between 2004-05 and 2011-12 in Burnley, which ranges between the delivery of 10 and 50 affordable dwellings per annum and averages 34 per annum between 2004-05 and 2011-12. However, considering this against the need for affordable housing, there is a clear need to uplift the demographic-led figures to take account of the affordable housing need in Burnley.

7.36 Whilst the full affordable housing need equates to 520 dpa, in practice it is very unlikely that anywhere near this level of market housing delivery will ever be consistently achieved in Burnley, which has averaged just 42 dpa (net) since 2003/04 and has yet to deliver more than 160 dwellings (net) in any one year.

56

The figure of 10% has been used as this broadly aligns with BBC’s 2006 adopted Local Plan minimum target. The identification of the proportion of affordable housing to be provided is difficult for Burnley given that virtually no market sites have provided any social housing in the recent past. From comparing past delivery rates (2003/04 – 2014/15) it is apparent that Burnley has delivered 1,813 dwellings gross (506 net), of which affordable units have comprised 440 units – a rate of 24%. Even if this higher rate were to be applied, an uplift to the demographic starting point would still be required. 57Burnley: £379 Gross Weekly Pay - All Full Time Workers’ Median Earnings, Source: ONS annual survey of hours and earnings - resident analysis (2014) 58 ONS annual population survey 2014

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P101

7.37 An indicative 10% uplift to take account of the significant affordable housing needs would result in a figure of 117 dpa at the lower end of the range.

7.38 Appendix 6 to the LPEG Report suggests that in terms of meeting affordable housing needs, where the total number of homes that would be necessary to meet affordable housing is greater than the figure arrived at based on the demographic starting point and application of market signals, an upwards adjustment should be made of either 10% or to meet affordable housing in full if lower, to arrive at a figure for FOAHN. If the affordable housing need expressed as the total number of homes necessary is lower than the need figure arrived at based on market signals, the assumption is that affordable housing need will be addressed without further adjustment.

7.39 Again, it is stressed that whilst it is a useful indicator of the general direction of travel this area of debate is likely to take, the LPEG report represents a series of recommendations to Government, does not comprise Government policy and therefore has no formal weight.

7.40 With this caveat in mind, applying the LPEG approach to this area of housing need debate would suggest that a 10% uplift would be appropriate. This aligns with NLP’s judgement on the issue, as set out above.

Conclusions on Burnley Borough’s Housing OAN

7.41 On the above basis, and in light of the clear need (as set out in the Practice Guidance) for an uplift above the demographic baseline to account for affordable housing needs and economic growth, there is no basis for considering objectively assessed needs within the Borough would be as low as the demographic starting point of 84 dpa.

7.42 However, the scale of objectively assessed need is a judgement and the different scenarios and outcomes set out within this report provide alternative levels of housing growth for Burnley Borough.

Burnley SHMA :

P102 10003369v15

7.43 This process is summarised in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Approach to identifying Housing OAN for Burnley 2012-2032

Dwellings per annum (2012-

2032) Relevant Scenario

Demographic Starting Point 84 dpa Ai: 2012 SNPP re-based to

2014

Adjustments to Demographic-led Needs

107 dpa Bi: 2012 SNPP/PCU re-

based to 2014

Uplift for Market Signals 0% -

Employment Led Needs 215 dpa G: Job Stabilisation from

2014/15

Affordable Housing Needs 520 dpa* SHMA Affordable Housing

need

Uplift for Affordable Housing (@10%) (107 dpa X 1.10 ) – 215 dpa -

Full Objectively Assessed Needs 117 dpa – 215 dpa -

*Based on an affordable housing net annual need of 52 dpa at a delivery rate of 10%

7.44 NLP considers these to be as follows:

1 84 dpa equates to the 2012-based household projections incorporating the 2014 MYE (the starting point), rising to 107 dpa with necessary adjustments being made to headship rates in the younger age categories and also incorporating the 2014 MYE. It is not considered that in this instance a further uplift is necessary following the market signals analysis.

2 115 dpa represents a scenario at which the Borough’s economy would stabilise, i.e. there would be job stabilisation and higher employment rates over the Plan period, although this would rise to 215 dpa if the significant job growth that has already been recorded in 2013 and 2014 is incorporated. Any dwelling requirement below this would potentially result in a declining workforce, which could conflict with the Framework’s stated aspiration to ensure that the planning system ‘does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth’ [§19];

3 293 dpa represents the level of housing growth necessary to provide a sufficiently large labour force to support the latest Experian job growth forecasts for the Borough, assuming the commuting rates remain constant, rising to 359 dpa if the Key Job Growth Sectors Scenario is modelled. In the particular circumstances of Burnley, NLP considers these projections to be outliers to the housing OAN;

4 This would suggest an range of housing needs between 107 dpa and 215 dpa;

5 The scale of affordable housing needs, once considered as a proportion of market housing delivery, implies significantly higher estimates of total need, although whether such estimates may be realistically expected to occur is open to question. Nevertheless in light of the level of affordable housing need identified, it is considered that this supports an uplift of 10% to the demographic-led projections, and one that is well above the

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P103

level identified by the household projections alone.

6 The resultant housing OAN range would be in the order of 117 dpa – 215 dpa.

7.45 Taking into account all factors, NLP’s analysis identifies an OAN range of 117 – 215 dpa for Burnley Borough over the period 2012-2032. The lower end of the OAN range would, at the very least, align with the demographic-led approach to identifying housing need, factoring in market signals and affordable housing needs, and would increase the delivery achieved in recent years. The top end of the range would stabilise the local economy and would potentially enable a greater level of affordable housing to be provided59, which would go some way towards addressing the affordable housing need identified in this SHMA.

7.46 BBC would need to consider whether a figure towards the top end of the range is realistically achievable in the Borough; whether it would align with its own economic and affordable housing delivery aspirations; and whether it would comply with paragraphs 14 and 47 of the Framework.

7.47 It is recognised that this SHMA has focussed on the needs of Burnley Borough in isolation, and that the Borough forms part of a wider HMA that contains Pendle. The 298 dpa taken forward by PBC in its emerging Core Strategy falls within the 250-340 dpa OAN range recommended in the 2012-based SNPP Housing Needs Study Update (September 2014).

59It is recognised that in the recent past, virtually all of Burnley’s affordable housing provision has come from sources other than s.106 agreements (i.e. they have formed 100% of the housing delivered on particular sites. This should be monitored by Council Officers to test whether viability issues are precluding mixed sites from coming forward.

Burnley SHMA :

P104 10003369v15

8.0 Affordable Housing Need

Introduction

8.1 In this section a calculation of affordable housing need, which fulfils all the requirements of the Practice Guidance (and for some more specific details the former CLG SHMA Guidance60 2007), has been undertaken for Burnley Borough to inform the assessment of the scale of housing affordability as well as arriving at an estimate of future housing need.

8.2 The basic approach to this is:

8.3

Current housing need seeks to identify those households in Burnley who currently lack their own housing or live in unsuitable housing and cannot afford to meet their needs in the housing market. Components of housing need are not definitive and can encompass drawing together statistics from a wide range of sources. Although potentially not including all households in need of housing, and conversely including those who do not fall within the definition of being in need of affordable housing, the local Housing Register forms the starting point for estimating what the need and demand for affordable housing is. At the very least, if all of the households on the Housing Register were accommodated, it would be reasonable to assume that all demand for affordable housing would be met, even if there remain households in need which are not reflected in the Housing Register.

8.4 To complement this analysis, a Housing Needs Survey [HNS] was carried out in spring 2013 by NEMS Market Research Company. After careful consideration a telephone survey of 800 households split between the two defined sub-areas in Burnley was agreed with BBC to give a better than +/-5% level of accuracy at the 95% confidence interval, whilst limiting costs. The interviews within each spatial area were broken down as follows: 295 in rural Burnley and 505 in urban Burnley61.

60 Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Practice Guidance (August 2007) 61 The number of interviews conducted in each sub area was not proportional to the population within each sub area. As a result, the results of the HNS were weighted to provide uniform information for the SHMA. If the data was not weighted, some of the sub areas would be over-represented (e.g. Burnley Rural where NEMS conducted 295 interviews but would have only conducted 78 if the number of interviews were proportional to the population) whereas others would be under-represented. The weighted data rectifies this. However, it only impacts on the Total column, for example unweighted 24.6% of the Total sample live in a semi-detached house but when weighted this increases to 25.9%. Whereas in Burnley Rural this figure is 24.1%, irrespective of unweighted or weighted.

PPG (ID 2a-025)

PPG (ID 2a-026)

PPG (ID 2a-027)

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P105

8.5 NEMS advises that the statistical accuracy of the survey gives results of +/-3.5% for 800 interviews. However, it must be emphasised that detailed analysis of survey data should be undertaken with a degree of caution due to the potential for inaccuracies within the smaller sub-sets. A larger sample size will of course result in more statistically accurate data for any subgroup, e.g. Ward, young people, those wanting to move etc.

8.6 The brief for this updated SHMA specifically required that the results of the housing needs model are broken down to consider need by housing market sub-area, tenure, size and type. The brief also required that identification is made of the housing requirements of specific groups in need, as set out in Section 10.0.

8.7 Given that the NEMS Housing Survey is now three years out of date, the Housing Register approach is presented initially, with the Housing Survey presented as a sensitivity check.

Number of Current and Future Households in Needs

Data Sources for Stage 1 & 2

8.8 This section estimates the number of current and future households in need. Table 8.1 summarises the data sources used by Stage One and Two of the affordable housing model.

Table 8.1 Summary of Data Required for Stage One and Two

Stage of the Model Data Items

Stage One: Current Housing Need (Chapter 6)

Affordability Test Land Registry House Price Data (2014/15), Rightmove (November 2015), Experian Income Data (2013)

1.1: Homeless Households and those in Temporary Accommodation

Estimate from P1e Quarterly Homeless Returns (CLG Data) – Annual average from past 3 years data (Q3 2012

to Q2 2015)

1.2 and 1.3: Households in Unsuitable Housing

Housing Register Bands A-C (October 2015), excluding those already in social housing / NEMS Housing Survey

2013

1.4: Total Current Housing Need (Gross)

Step 1.1 PLUS 1.2 PLUS others from Step 1.3.

Stage Two: Future Housing Need (Chapter 6)

2.1: New Household Formulation NLP PopGroup Modelling (Baseline Scenario)

2.2: Number of Newly Forming Households Unable to Buy or Rent in the Market (Annual)

Land Registry House Price Data (2014/15), Rightmove (November 2015), Experian Income Data (2013)

2.3: Existing Households Falling into Need

CORE data (2012/13-2014/15), Land Registry House Price Data (2014/15), Rightmove (November 2015),

Experian Income Data (2013)

Burnley SHMA :

P106 10003369v15


2.4: Total newly arising housing need (gross per year)

Step 2.2 PLUS 2.3

Affordability

8.9 Steps 1.4, 2.2 and 2.3 of the affordable housing calculation refer to the results of an affordability test. Information in respect of local house prices, market rents and household income levels is set out as part of the contextual analysis in Section 2.0. This data has informed an affordability test which estimates the ability of households to afford market housing.

8.10 The affordability test has been calculated by identifying the costs of entry level market housing (including private rented). This utilised the following data:

1 Land Registry house price data. Banded house price data was obtained at a postcode sector level and amalgamated to reflect study’s four sub areas. It is acknowledged that the geographical boundaries of postcodes and the sub areas do not accord exactly. However, a best-fit was made, by placing postcodes which cover more than one housing market area in the area in which the majority of the postcode is located. An assumption of ‘entry level’ house prices was then made using ‘lower quartile’ prices.

2 Due to the lack of up-to-date sub-area data on private rents, an internet search of advertised private sector rental costs was undertaken to identify entry level (lower quartile) rents for each of the settlement areas.

3 Using the above information on market housing costs to estimate the minimum income required to access entry level market housing. The calculation assumes that households can afford a 3.5 x income multiplier to purchase a home or up to 25% of gross household income on rent. These assumptions are in accordance with the former CLG Guidance, which whilst no longer extant, still represents best practice. As set out above, two sensitivity tests applying a 3.3 x income multiplier with a 20% deposit to purchase a home, or up to 35% of gross household income on rent have also been modelled as sensitivity tests.

4 Using the above data to compare entry-level house prices and rents with household incomes to calculate the proportion of households unable to afford access to market housing.

8.11 Separate affordability calculations have been carried out in respect of existing households (used in Step 1.4 and 2.3 of the model) and newly forming households (used in Step 2.2). This is because newly forming households generally have lower than average incomes. The English Housing Survey 2013/14 [EHS] has been used, which shows that newly forming households have approximately 76% of the average income of all households. This proportion was applied to the income data provided by Experian, to enable a separate affordability calculation to be undertaken identifying the (higher) un-affordability levels of newly forming households.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P107

8.12 The proportions of households estimated to be unable to afford lower quartile market housing are set out in Table 8.2 (for existing households) and Table 8.3 (for newly forming households). For Burnley Borough as a whole, given the very low house prices and associated low monthly costs of servicing a mortgage, more households can afford to buy than rent.

Table 8.2 Affordability Test Results - Proportion of Existing Households Unable to Afford LQ Market Housing

Area % Unable to Afford to Buy % Unable to Afford to Rent (assuming 3.5

income multiple) 20% deposit & 3.3

income multiple (assuming 25%

income) (assuming 35%

income) Burnley Borough 30.6% 26.2% 49.7% 32.0%

Source: Land Registry Data (2014/15), Rightmove (2015), Experian Income Data (2013)

Table 8.3 Affordability Test Results - Proportion of Newly Forming Households Unable to Afford LQ Market Housing

Area % Unable to Afford to Buy % Unable to Afford to Rent (assuming 3.5


income multiple (assuming 3.5


income multiple Burnley Borough 36.4% 31.2% 68.6% 38.2%


8.13 It is accepted that the figures in Table 8.2 and Table 8.3 which strictly follow the CLG approach are likely to over-estimate the proportion of households likely to be unable to afford to buy a property, as due to a lack of primary data sources, the analysis does not allow for any savings that households may have to put towards the purchase of their property. This approach does not allow for residents transferring equity from their existing property into the purchase of a new dwelling, which is corrected in the sensitivity test, with a 20% deposit allowed for.

8.14 There will also be many instances whereby households with comparatively low income levels (i.e. the elderly) are asset rich and may already own their own home, hence they would not necessarily be in housing need. However, given the lack of data available for the Borough and the complexity involved, it has not been possible to model the detailed quantitative implications of this.

Current Housing Need (Stage 1) Steps 1.1 to 1.4

8.15 The first stage of the assessment considers current (backlog) affordable housing need. The Practice Guidance is clear that an estimate should be made of the number of households who lack their own housing or live in unsuitable housing and who cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the open market. The Practice Guidance provides an indication of the types of households that can be considered in housing need:

1 Homeless households;

2 Households in temporary accommodation;

3 Overcrowded housing;

4 Concealed households;

Burnley SHMA :

P108 10003369v15

5 Existing affordable housing tenants in need; and,

6 Households from other tenures in need and those that cannot afford their own homes62.

8.16 Current housing need therefore seeks to identify those households in Burnley who currently lack their own housing, or live in unsuitable housing and cannot afford to meet their own housing or live in unsuitable housing and cannot afford to meet their needs in the housing market. Components of housing need are not definitive and can draw together statistics from a wide range of sources.

8.17 Although potentially not including all households in need of housing, and conversely including those who do not fall within the definition of being in need of affordable housing, the local Housing Register forms the starting point for estimating what the need and demand for affordable housing is. At the very least, if all of the households on the Housing Register were accommodated, it would be reasonable to assume that all demand for affordable housing would be met, even if there remain households in need which are not reflected in the Housing Register.

8.18 The Housing Register for Burnley contains households in Priority Bands A – D. For the purpose of this study, those in Priority Bands A – C are considered to be in affordable housing need as defined by the Planning Practice Guidance62.

8.19 Therefore, we have considered the components of housing need as those in need and within a priority need banding (e.g. in need for affordable housing for a variety of reasons including homelessness, overcrowding etc.), currently concealed households and other groups in need, for which the existing Housing Register has been used as a best case proxy.

8.20 As of January 2016, the B-with-Us Housing Register for East Lancashire indicates that there are currently 1,885 households seeking social housing in Burnley. This comprises 55 in Band A, 236 in Band B, 876 in Band C and 718 in Band D. However, this includes all applicants across all bandings and may include households whose circumstances do not fall within the criteria of housing needs. Restricting the data to those registered in bands A-C would suggest that 1,167 households in Burnley are in need of affordable housing.

8.21 As per the Practice Guidance, those seeking transfers should be netted off to avoid double counting as they themselves will free up an affordable homes as they transfer. On this basis, recent data from BBC suggests that 19.4%, or 366 of these households, are likely to comprise transfers (i.e. they are existing social rented or affordable rent tenants seeking a move), meaning that the remaining 801 households are living in other tenures and in need across bands A-C.

8.22 To provide an estimate of those within key priority banding, data from CLG and the 2001/2011 Census has been utilised to illustrate the extent to which households identified as in need are either homeless or within concealed

62 §2a-023-20140306

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P109

households. Whilst this is consistent with the Practice Guidance, given the potential for double counting and the recency of some of the concealed households data, the current Housing Register provides a more appropriate gross estimate of housing need.

Table 8.4 Current Backlog of Housing Need

Households Source

Housing Register Priority Bands A-C

1,167 Housing Register January

2016

…of which Homeless households (including those in temporary accommodation)

40

Estimate from P1E Quarterly Homeless Returns (CLG Data)

– average past 3 years data (Q3 2012 to Q2 2015)

…of which Concealed households

308 Estimate from Census 2011

based upon Concealed Families

Gross Estimate of Current Housing Need

1,167 Households in priority

bandings

…of which current occupiers of affordable housing

366 Housing Register January 2016

Net Estimate of Current Housing Need (Backlog)

801

8.23 Whilst the former SHMA Practice Guidance suggested that transfers should be added in at the supply stage (i.e. units becoming available when existing tenants are re-housed), NLP has presented this in the ‘need’ stage to reflect the fact that some of those currently in need of affordable housing and on the Housing Register are current occupiers, and that the net backlog is reduced accordingly at this stage. This backlog will need to be factored into future provision in order to reduce the scale of those in need of housing.

8.24 Although existing households in need already occupying affordable housing are excluded from the affordable housing calculation, it is noted that they do still have a requirement for the right type of affordable housing to become available to meet their needs. If an appropriate unit does not become available (e.g. due to shortage of supply of a specific type or size of unit) then these households will remain in need, despite not contributing to a net need requirement. New affordable housing provision provides the opportunity to focus on the size/type of provision to balance affordable housing mix, as set out in Section 9.0.

Sensitivity Test to Calculating Current Housing Need – Housing Needs Survey

Households in Unsuitable Housing (Steps 1.2 and 1.3)

8.25 Using the results of the survey, rather than an analysis of the housing register, enables detailed analysis by housing tenure and household type. Respondents identified a number of reasons for their current housing being unsuitable. Some of these issues could be resolved at the current dwelling,

Burnley SHMA :

P110 10003369v15

without a requirement for a household to move (e.g. by installing central heating), while other factors are likely to require a house move in order to be resolved (e.g. a requirement for additional bedrooms). Only those households citing a factor making their current dwelling unsuitable which is considered likely to require a household to move house are included in the housing needs model. This approach is consistent with the former CLG Guidance on the types of housing which is considered to be unsuitable.

8.26 The proportion of households in unsuitable housing identified by the HNS has been applied to the total number of households in each sub area to allow the total number of households in unsuitable housing to be estimated. The results are set out in Table 8.5. This shows that a total of 1,921 households are estimated to be in unsuitable housing in Burnley.

Table 8.5 Estimated Unsuitable Housing – Calculation (weighted)

Burnley

Total Number of Households (2011 Census) 37,726

% Households in Unsuitable Housing identified by HNS

5.09%

Total Number of Households in Unsuitable Housing 1,921

Source: Housing Needs Survey (June 2013)

8.27 Table 8.6 identifies whether households in unsuitable housing are currently living in affordable housing (Council, Housing Association or Shared Ownership) or a different tenure (including owner occupation and private rented). A more detailed analysis of housing need (by housing sub-market area and different household types and tenures), is provided at Section 10.0.

Table 8.6 Estimated Unsuitable Housing – Tenure Breakdown (weighted)

Current Tenure Burnley

Social Housing 154

Other Tenure 1,767

Total Number of Households in Unsuitable Housing

1,921


8.28 Table 8.7 provides more details on the identified reasons for households being in unsuitable housing. This identifies the proportion of all respondents who identified that they live in housing which is unsuitable for each listed reason and applies this proportion to the total number of households in the Borough. For example, the Survey identified that 3.71% of households in Burnley consider that their home is too small, equating to 1,399 households out of the 37,726 households in Burnley.

8.29 The main identified reasons all relate to housing being of an inappropriate size

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P111

(too small, insufficient number of bedrooms or too large).

Table 8.7 Estimated Unsuitable Housing – Reason Unsuitable (weighted)

Reason Unsuitable Burnley

No. %

Home is too small 1,399 3.71%

Insufficient no. of bedrooms 286 0.76%

Too large 227 0.60%

Inadequate facilities 10 0.03%

Not suitable for children 69 0.18%

Not suitable for disabled 0 0.00%

Bad neighbours 69 0.18%

Suffering harassment 0 0.00%

Tenancy insecure 0 0.00%

Not suitable for older people 0 0.00%

Housing is affecting health 0 0.00%

Any of the Above Reasons (one or more)63 1,921 5.09%

Total Number of Households in Borough 37,726 100%


Total Current Need (Gross) (Step 1.4)

8.30 Newly forming households generally have lower than average incomes and hence an adjustment was made to the income data provided by Experian to enable a separate affordability calculation to be undertaken identifying the (higher) un-affordability levels of newly forming households. The results of the affordability analysis above were applied to the 1,767 households estimated to live in unsuitable housing and added to the 40 homeless households identified above. This enables the number of existing households currently in need (gross) to be estimated (Table 8.8).

8.31 It should be noted that the affordability test identifies the proportion of households unable to buy or rent in the market, in accordance with CLG Guidance.

8.32 Households in unsuitable housing already living in affordable housing have been excluded from the calculation at Step 1.4 (see Table 8.6). Although these households do have a housing need, this could be addressed via a transfer within affordable housing (e.g. by transferring an overcrowded household living in social rented to a larger social rented house). This transfer

63 % refers to proportion of all households in Borough in unsuitable housing. “Any of the Above” refers to all households who identified any one or more reason for their house being unsuitable. Some households identified more than one reason and therefore the numbers in the column above sum to more than 1,921 and 1,963.

Burnley SHMA :

P112 10003369v15

would result in their existing home becoming available for someone else in need. Thus, these households do not contribute to the net requirement for affordable housing and in turn when these households move, this does not contribute to net supply. These households can either be excluded at Stage 1 (from need) or Stage 3 (from supply – as suggested by CLG Guidance): it would not affect the overall results of the calculation. Here, we have excluded these households from Stage 1 to reflect the approach taken in Stage 2 in respect of newly arising need (it is considered clearer to adopt the same approach in respect of transfers in both aspects of the calculation).

8.33 Although existing households in need already occupying affordable housing are excluded from the affordable housing calculation, it is noted that they do still have a requirement for the right type of affordable housing to become available to meet their needs. If an appropriate unit does not become available (e.g. due to shortage of supply of a specific type or size of unit) then these households will remain in need, despite not contributing to a net need requirement. New affordable housing provision provides the opportunity to focus on the size/type of provision to balance affordable housing mix, as explained at Section 10.0.

Table 8.8 Current (Backlog) Need - Gross

Burnley

Number of Homeless households and households in temporary accommodation (Step 1.1) (see above) PLUS

40

Number of households in unsuitable housing (overcrowded, concealed and other groups) (Steps 1.2 and 1.3) (excluding those already in affordable housing)

1,767

% of existing/current households unable to buy or rent in the market (identified by affordability test)

30.57%

Total Number of households in unsuitable accommodation 541

EQUALS: Number of Households in Need (Gross) 581

Adjusted Affordability test – including 20% deposit and 3.3 income multiple 26.18%

Total Number of households in unsuitable accommodation463

EQUALS: Number of Households in Need (Gross) 503

Source: NLP Analysis

8.34 The number of households in need (gross) identified by the updated SHMA for Burnley is therefore 581. This compares to the 801 households in need as identified in the latest version of the Housing Register for Burnley. The sensitivity tests would reduce the HNS-based need down to 503 across the Borough.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P113

Future Housing Need (Stage 2)

8.35 Future housing need is split into two components. The Practice Guidance64 sets out firstly that “the process should identify the minimum household income required to access lower quartile (entry level) market housing”. This could be either through purchasing a dwelling or renting privately. Secondly, existing households fall into need to be considered as part of future affordable housing needs.

New Household Formation (Step 2.1)

8.36 The Practice Guidance recommends that gross household formation (under 45 years of age) should be used as the measure of newly forming households, as opposed to net household growth which takes into account household dissolution65. This is required to ensure that household dissolution is not double counted in the calculation, once as a net loss of households and potentially again as a re-let of the house they may have occupied. However, gross household formation is typically much higher than net rates, and may represent an overestimate of the amount of households seeking new housing in each year within Burnley.

8.37 Newly forming households have been calculated using the demographic modelling noted previously. Each of the scenarios modelled provide outputs on estimates of household change by type and by age band. The demographic-led Partial-Catch Up (re-based 2014) Scenario (Scenario Bi) has been used for the purposes of considering future newly forming households, as this represents a reasonable mid-point of the various scenarios tested and is considered to represent the best estimate of the demographic-led housing OAN. Naturally, if an alternative scenario with lower or higher rates of household growth is adopted for the purposes of assessing future need, the inferred newly arising need would also be commensurately different. Table 8.9 presents the number of newly forming households (gross) in the Borough.

Table 8.9 Number of Newly Forming Households Annually (Gross)

No. Newly Forming Households Annually (gross)

Burnley 674

Source: NLP

8.38 This output of future housing need should be treated with caution. Such gross estimates may include people that form several different households over the period at different stages of their life, but does not account for their previous household no longer existing (for example two single person households could evolve into a couple).

64 2a-025-20140306 65 ibid

Burnley SHMA :

P114 10003369v15

Newly Forming Households Unable to Buy or Rent in the Market (Step 2.2)

8.39 This stage of the assessment undertakes an affordability test. Information in respect of local house prices, market rents and household income levels has informed the test which estimates the ability of households to afford lower quartile market housing. The affordability test has been calculated by identifying the costs of entry level (lower quartile) market housing, the costs of which have been obtained from the Land Registry, as well as private rental costs obtained from Rightmove.

8.40 As discussed in detail above, newly forming households generally have lower than average incomes and hence an adjustment was made to the income data provided by Experian to enable a separate affordability test to be undertaken identifying the (higher) unaffordability levels of newly forming households.

8.41 This analysis estimated that 39.7% of newly-forming households in Burnley Borough are likely to be unable to meet their housing needs in the private market. This is applied to the household formation to identify the likely scale of newly forming households that will fall below the minimum income threshold for market housing, and will therefore require affordable housing.

8.42 This enables the number of newly forming households unable to access market housing (per year) to be estimated, as shown in Table 8.11. In accordance with the Practice Guidance, the affordability test identifies the proportion of households unable to buy or rent in the market.

Table 8.10 Affordability Test Results - Proportion of Newly Forming Households Unable to Afford LQ Market Housing

Area % Unable to Afford to Buy % Unable to Afford to Rent

(assuming 3.5 income multiple)

20% deposit & 3.3 income multiple

(assuming 25% income spent on

rent)

(assuming 35% income spent on

rent)

Burnley Borough 36.4% 31.2% 68.6% 38.2%


Table 8.11 Number of Newly Forming Households Unable to buy or rent in the market (annual)

Burnley

Gross Household Formation Approach

No. Newly Forming Households

% Unable to Buy or Rent Market Housing

No. Unable to access market housing

CLG Approach 674

36.4% 246

Sensitivity Test 31.2% 210

Source: Land Registry House Price Data (2015), Rightmove (November 2015), Experian Income Data (2013)

8.43 These calculations of future need, based upon gross household formation, must therefore be seen only as one factor in assessing and considering an objective assessment of future housing need and demand. They also take no account of the deliverability of providing up to 36.4% (or 31.2% incorporating a deposit) of total dwellings as affordable tenures (as would be inferred by the

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P115

Practice Guidance’s methodology) with factors such as viability affecting the proportion of housing that will be able to be delivered as affordable.

8.44 In general, NLP considers that gross household formation is a relatively abstract concept in the identification of affordable housing needs. In not accounting for future dissolution of households it inevitably arrives at a need figure which is disproportionate to net household formation (as set out by the household projections, which are the starting point for identifying objectively assessed needs).

8.45 Furthermore, household dissolution is projected to increase in the future, with an ageing population, and this factor is not reflected in the SHMA’s estimate of re-lets based on backwards looking trend data (i.e. leading to undercounting in supply, rather than double counting of dissolution). This is a further statistical limitation to applying gross household formation rates.

8.46 The outcome of using gross household formation and the higher levels of affordable (and overall) housing needs that such an approach invariably indicates, takes no account of the moderating effect that such high levels of supply would have upon prices and affordability. Whilst the analysis indicates that currently 36.4%/31.2% of newly forming households in Burnley may be unable to afford housing in the market (and this assumption is applied going forward), if housing were delivered at a rate above that indicated as structurally required to meet demographic-led needs (i.e. the household projections) then this, by virtue of supply and demand, would moderate affordability (very slightly) and reduce that proportion from 36.4%.

8.47 The extent to which this would occur is obviously difficult to assess and the Practice Guidance advises against doing so, stating that “plan makers should not attempt to estimate the precise impact of an increase in housing supply.” It stands, however, that in using gross household formation, there would be significant downward pressure on the 36.4%/31.2% figures.

8.48 Whilst NLP recognises the implications of using the gross household formation the Planning Practice Guidance66 is clear that it is the gross household formation that should be applied.

Existing Households Falling into Need (Step 2.3)

8.49 Step 2.3 uses secondary data for the number of households who move house each year (based on past trends) to estimate the number of existing households falling into need annually. Using data for the number of people actually moving (from the Land Registry and CORE data) provides a good indicator of need, as it shows actual moves; whereas the Housing Register only provides an indication of intentions.

8.50 Existing households falling into need is therefore based upon an analysis of recent trends of movements from the private sector into the social sector as a proxy for existing households falling into need. These figures were averaged

66 §2a-024-20140306

Burnley SHMA :

P116 10003369v15

from CORE data. The resultant calculation is set out in Table 8.12.

Table 8.12 Existing Households Falling into Need in Burnley

Burnley

2012/13 350

2013/14 423

2014/15 440

Number of new lettings per year (identified from CORE data – average from past 3 years) – previous tenure in the private sector

404

Source: CORE data 2012/13 - 2014/15

8.51 It is recognised that these figures only relate to those households who are successful at gaining entry to social housing. There will be a proportion of households in need and unable to afford market housing who either do not apply for affordable housing or are not successful in gaining entry, and as such the figures in Table 8.12 could be an underestimation.

Total Newly Arising Housing Need (gross per year) (Step 2.4)

Step 2.4 simply adds together the number of newly forming households unable to access market housing (Step 2.1 and 2.2 above) to the number of existing households falling into need (Step 2.3). This provides an annual gross figure for future households in need. The resulting figures are set out in Table 8.13.

Table 8.13 Total Newly Arising Housing Need (Gross per year)

Burnley

Newly forming households unable to access market housing gross (Steps 2.1/2.2)

246 / 210

Existing households falling into need (Step 2.3) 404

Total Newly Arising Housing Need (Gross household formation approach per year)

650 / 615

Summary

8.52 It is estimated that there will be 650 newly arising households in need of affordable housing in Burnley per annum based on the gross household formation approach, or 615 if an allowance is made for a suitable deposit.

8.53 This should be set alongside the existing backlog affordable housing need of 801 dwellings in Burnley. This does not take into account existing and future likely supply of affordable housing, which is analysed in Section 9.0.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P117

9.0 Supply of Affordable Housing

Introduction

9.1 This Section estimates the existing and forthcoming stock of affordable housing as per the Practice Guidance. This stage examines housing stock that can accommodate households in housing need. The information is required in order to calculate net affordable housing requirements. The model considers both current affordable housing stock (including how much of this is available) as well as the level of future annual new supply.

9.2 The Guidance67 sets out the current components of housing stock used to accommodate current households in affordable housing need as well as future supply:

• Affordable dwellings that are going to be vacated by current occupiers that are fit for use by other households;

• Surplus stock (vacant dwellings);

• Committed supply of new affordable units; and

• Identifying units to be taken out of management (demolition or replacement).

9.3 Table 9.1 sets out these current components of supply and the data sources used in Stage Three of the affordable housing model.

Table 9.1 Summary of Data Required for Stage Three


Stage Three: Affordable Housing Supply

3.1: Affordable Dwellings Occupied by Households in Need N/A - already netted off at Stage 1 (Step 1.4)

3.2: Surplus Stock – Vacant, but available for letting CLG Data: Table 100 (2015) and Table 615 (2015)

3.3: Committed Supply of New Affordable Housing Burnley Borough Council

3.4: Units to be taken out of management Burnley Borough Council / RP information

3.5: Total Affordable Housing Stock Available Step 3.1 PLUS 3.2 PLUS 3.3 MINUS 3.4

3.6: Future Annual Supply of Social re-lets (net) CORE Data (2012/13-2014/15)

3.7: Future Annual Supply of Intermediate affordable housing available for re-let or resale at sub market levels

CORE Data (2012/13-2014/15)

3.8: Annual Supply of Affordable Housing Step 3.6 PLUS 3.7

Affordable Dwellings Occupied by Households in Need (Step 3.1)

9.4 The purpose of Step 3.1 is to identify the number of affordable dwellings which become available but are occupied by households in housing need. Thus, this

67 2a-026-20140306

Burnley SHMA :

P118 10003369v15

step considers transfers within the affordable housing stock. The movement of these households (within affordable housing) will have a nil effect overall in terms of housing need. These households have already been netted off at Stage 1 of the calculation and therefore the figure for this step is zero.

Surplus Stock

9.5 A certain level of voids are normal and allow for transfers and works properties. The former CLG Guidance (page 48) notes that a vacancy rate in excess of 3% and properties which are vacant for considerable periods of time should be counted as surplus stock. NLP continue to use the former CLG guidance as part of a robust methodology although the Planning Practice Guidance68 does not specify a precise percentage and in fact suggests that all vacant dwellings should be counted as surplus stock.

9.6 An analysis has been undertaken utilising vacancy level data for the last 3 years. This shows that social housing stock in the authority had a vacancy level of 2.7% in 201469 which is considered to be low.

9.7 This is supported by data received during the stakeholder consultation, which suggested that one of the major Registered Providers operating in Burnley had a vacancy rate of between 2.4%-2.7% (although this was still above their ambitious 1.75% target).

9.8 Therefore, as the current rate of vacancy is below the 3% rate suggested by CLG, a surplus stock rate of zero has been included within the model.

9.9 In any case, the latest LAHS return provided by the Council for 2013/14 suggests that the total number of social dwellings vacant and available for letting was zero in Burnley Borough.

Committed Supply of New Affordable Housing (Step 3.3)

9.10 The former CLG Guidance stated that this step of the model should utilise information about new social rented and intermediate affordable dwellings which are committed at the point of assessment. Data on committed supply of affordable housing has been provided by BBC (Table 9.2) and suggests that a modest amount of affordable housing is currently in the development pipeline.

Table 9.2 Supply of New Affordable Units

Burnley

Supply of New Affordable Housing (Committed Supply) 53

Source: BBC (2016)

68 §2a-026-20140306 69 CLG Data: Table 100 (2014) and Table 615 (2014)

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P119

Units to be taken out of Management (Step 3.4)

9.11 The former CLG Guidance states that this stage should “estimate the number of social rented or intermediate affordable housing units that will be taken out of management.” This includes properties which are planned to be demolished or redeveloped (with a net loss of stock). In accordance with advice received from BBC, a figure of zero has been used for this step.

Total Affordable Housing Stock Available (Step 3.5)

9.12 This step calculates total housing stock available by simply adding together steps 3.1 (affordable dwellings occupied by households in need), 3.2 (surplus stock) and 3.3 (committed additional housing stock) and subtracting 3.4 (units to be taken out of management). This is presented in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3 Current Supply of Affordable Housing

Burnley

Step 3.1 (Affordable Dwellings Occupied by households in need) 0 (already taken off need identified by Step 1.4)

PLUS Step 3.2 (Surplus Stock) 0

PLUS Step 3.3 (Committed Supply of New Affordable Housing) 53

MINUS Step 3.4 (Units to be taken out of management) 0

EQUALS Step 3.5 Current Supply of Affordable Housing 53

Source: CLG Data: Table 100 (2014) and Table 615 (2014) / BBC

Future Annual Supply of Social Re-Lets (Step 3.6)

9.13 The Practice Guidance70 also requires the calculation of social re-lets and intermediate affordable housing (excluding transfers) to be assessed as future components of affordable housing supply:

“plan makers should calculate the level of likely future affordable housing supply taking into account future annual supply of social housing re-lets (net), calculated 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 levels)”.

9.14 Steps 3.6 and 3.7 therefore focus on the future supply of affordable housing arising from existing stock. The former CLG Guidance recommends that the number of social re-lets per year should be assessed by looking at past trends over the previous 3 years.

9.15 CORE data in respect of the number of lettings by RPs in the last 3 years has therefore been assessed. This excludes transfers from other affordable dwellings as they were removed from the assessment of ‘need’ at Step 2.3. The average figure for the last 3 years has been used in the model (Table 9.4).

70 2a-027-20140306

Burnley SHMA :

P120 10003369v15

Table 9.4 Future Annual Supply of Social Re-lets

Number of Social re-lets (excluding transfers)

2012/13 539 2013/14 596 2014/15 672 Average 602

Source: CORE Data (2012/13 - 2014/15)

9.16 Whilst the level of re-lets appears high, it has been confirmed by RPs operating in this part of Lancashire that the figure does not appear to be unrealistic. It is possible that this trend may have increased recently as more customers ended their tenancy and moved to smaller homes as part of their response to the Government's under-occupation penalty.

9.17 The level of stock turnover due to re-lets was around 18.3% in 2014/15. The former CLG SHMA Guidance states that for this stage of the SHMA assessment, in areas where the stock base of affordable housing is changing substantially (e.g. due to high levels of Right to Buy) it may be appropriate to take into account the changing stock base when predicting the future levels of future voids.

9.18 An assessment of the CORE database indicated that there has been no data returned for Burnley over the last three years. However, data received from Calico suggests that over the past 3 years (2012/13 – 2014/15) a total of 24 of its properties have been sold to tenants through Right to Buy (including preserved Right to Buy), with a further 17 sold through tenants through right to Acquire. Therefore 41 social housing units have been sold over the past 3 years at an annual rate of 14.

9.19 If the average stock re-let rate of 18.3% is applied to the average figure of 14 units per annum, this would equate to the loss of 2.6 dwellings per year, which is a negligible amount.

9.20 Nevertheless this figure has been deducted from the annual supply of social re-lets to derive a total social re-lets figure moving forward of 600 per annum in Burnley. It is possible that the Government’s renewed endorsement71 of the RTB scheme, and more specifically the provision of greater discounts being offered to social tenants to buy their property and the extension of the programme (albeit on a voluntary basis) to Registered Providers, could increase the level of RTB in Burnley over the next few years.

Future Annual Supply of Intermediate Affordable Housing (Step 3.7)

9.21 This step takes into account the number of shared ownership affordable homes which become available as a result of re-sales each year. CORE data on re-

71 The Government has increased the maximum cap on the Right-to-Buy discount, to be determined by the length of a tenant's qualifying period or the maximum discount allowed (now up to £75,000 across England). Recent Government announcements have confirmed plans to extend the RTB scheme although the housing minister has confirmed that housing associations cannot be compelled by regulators to sell their homes under this Government’s Right To Buy extension.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P121

sales of intermediate (shared ownership) housing for the last 3 years is usually assessed but for Burnley this data is not available. Council data suggests that the number of intermediate properties in the Borough is very limited. In the absence of satisfactory data and the relatively low number of intermediate tenure properties in the Borough at present, a figure of zero has been used for this stage.

Future Supply of Affordable Housing (Step 3.8)

9.22 This is simply the sum of Step 3.6 (social re-lets) and Step 3.7 (shared ownership re-sales). The results are presented in Table 9.5.

Table 9.5 Annual Supply of Affordable Housing

Burnley

Step 3.6 (Future Annual Supply of Social re-lets) 600

PLUS Step 3.7 (Future Supply of Intermediate Affordable Housing) 0

EQUALS Step 3.8 Annual Supply of Affordable Housing 600

Burnley SHMA :

P122 10003369v15

10.0 Affordable Housing Requirements

Introduction

10.1 This section of the report draws together the analysis conducted in Sections 8.0 and 9.0 in order to provide an assessment of net affordable housing need for Burnley. This is done on an annual basis over the whole plan period, and as such it will be necessary to convert the backlog of need into an annual quote based upon the period which this backlog will be addressed. It is a point for the emerging Burnley Local Plan’s housing trajectory to set out how and when the backlog of affordable housing need will be delivered in the plan period. However, for the purposes of an objective assessment of housing need calculation, an average figure over a 20-year period will still match the total affordable housing need over the plan period (even if this is addressed fully in the first 5 years).

10.2 This section also examines the type of accommodation most appropriate to meet this need.

Estimate of New Affordable Housing Needs

10.3 The starting point in calculating the net affordable housing need is the Total Current Housing Need (Gross) established at Step 1.4. This figure takes account of any backlog in provision. By deducting the current available stock of affordable housing (Step 3.5), this results in a backlog of 801 dwellings for Burnley (based on the Housing Register approach). Annualised over 20-years this equates to a backlog of 43 dpa. Applying the alternative Housing Needs Survey data results in a lower level of backlog, of between 23 and 27 houses annually depending upon whether a slightly lower income multiplier and 20% deposit are incorporated or not.

10.4 In defining newly arising need, the future annual supply of affordable housing identified in Step 3.8 (619 dpa) is removed from the annual future housing need of 650/615 dpa gross as set out in Table 10.1. When added to the backlog, this indicates that Burnley has a net annual need of between 37 and 88 affordable dpa. This reflects gross household formation and does not account for household dissolutions, with the implication that needs are likely to be inflated under this approach.

10.5 It is recognised that these figures are different, and in some cases lower, than the affordable housing need reported in the 2013 SHMA. This is due to a combination of factors, including new and updated data sources for all of the data categories; higher levels of social re-lets being reported; lower LQ house prices in 2015 (which has the effect of increasing households’ ability to afford a property); and the annualisation of the net backlog over 20 years rather than five.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P123

Table 10.1 Net Annual Housing Need for Burnley Borough

Housing Register HNS

3.5 x income3.3 x income

+ 20% deposit

3.5 x income

3.3 x income + 20%

deposit

Current Need (Including Backlog)

Total Current Need (Step 1.4) 801 581 503

MINUS Total Available Stock of Affordable Housing (Step 3.5)

53 53

Equates to Net Current Need 748 528 450 Net Backlog: Annualised (20 years) (A) 37 26 22

Newly Arising Housing Need (Annual) (Step 2.4)

650 615 650 615

MINUS Future Annual Supply of Affordable Housing (Step 3.8)

600 600

Equates to Net Newly Arising Need (net) (B)

50 15 50 15

NET ANNUAL NEED = A+B 88 52 77 37

Summary of Affordable Housing Requirements

10.6 Although it is not clear to what extent the outcomes of the above affordable housing need scenarios represent “future scenarios that could be reasonably expected to occur” 72, as is required by the Practice Guidance, it is clear that under any of the four main scenarios highlighted above, there is a modest level of affordable housing need in Burnley. On the basis that the 3.3 x income and 20% deposit sensitivity test would be more likely to align with reality and hence more policy compliant, the 52 dpa figure has been taken forward.

10.7 Consideration of such scenarios at Local Plan examinations has highlighted the care that should be applied to interpreting such scenarios. For example, in considering housing needs during the West Lancashire Local Plan Examination, the Inspector concluded:

“At the other end of the range is one scenario which seeks to meet the full level of affordable housing need by building at least twice the number of houses required to meet any of the population-based household projections. It appears to me that this approach would result in a substantial surplus of market houses and so would be economically unrealistic.”73

10.8 Notwithstanding, in line with the Practice Guidance BBC needs to consider if an uplift in overall housing delivery is required to meet these affordable housing needs. Clearly there is need to consider this in coming to a conclusion on full objectively assessed housing needs for Burnley. This is discussed in further detail in Section 7.0.

72 2a-003-20140306 73 West Lancashire Local Plan, Inspector’s Report (September 2013) – §47

Burnley SHMA :

P124 10003369v15

The Role of PRS in Meeting Affordable Housing Needs

10.9 CLG’s former SHMA Practice Guidance (2007) recognises that:

“some households in need may choose to live in the private rented sector (possibly with the use of housing benefit) or housing that would be classified as unsuitable, even though they are eligible for affordable housing” [p49].

10.10 As such, SHMAs are required to analyse how the private rented sector is being used to accommodate housing need in an HMA, even though it is not specifically identified as a potential source of affordable housing in the Practice Guidance.

10.11 Whilst it is not appropriate to simply ‘net off’ households in need living in private rented housing from the overall affordable housing requirement figure (due to a variety of reasons including the associated greater insecurity of tenure), in practice it makes an important contribution to filling the often sizeable gap between affordable housing supply and demand. The private rented sector has increased in size significantly in recent years and it is therefore necessary to review its role in any objective assessment of affordable housing requirements.

10.12 An analysis of the 2011 Census indicates that some 7,267 households rent privately Burnley, 19% of all households. This is above the equivalent rates at regional (15%) and national (17%) levels. This also represents a substantial increase in the role of private rented accommodation in the Borough – the 2001 Census reported that just 3,930 households rented privately in Burnley Borough, just 11% of the total – considerably below the current rate. This broadly reflects the rate of increase in this form of tenure at a regional and national (England and Wales) level between 2001 and 2011 and is likely to be indicative of the increasing affordability problems for prospective households purchasing their own home in the intervening period.

10.13 The former CLG SHMA Guidance suggests that turnover rates should be calculated, although they require careful interpretation. According to that document, turnover rates vary significantly depending upon the tenure – for example in the private rented sector, the average length of stay is 6-12 months reflecting the leasehold structure, whilst homeowners move on average every 3 to 7 years. “In the social rented sector, high turnover can be created in part by the allocations system; social-rented properties can have high turnover rates where vulnerable households are placed in housing not suited to long term tenancies” [page 32].

10.14 According to the 2012/13 English Housing Survey, the total turnover of the private rented stock at a national level is 34.3% annually, the highest of any form of tenure. Applying this figure to the number of households in private rented accommodation (as reported in the 2011 Census) implies an annual turnover of 2,493 private rented dwellings. This figure does not separate out the proportion of private rented properties that are likely to become available to

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P125

households in receipt of housing benefit.

10.15 According to the House Condition Survey Report (June 2009), around 26% of private rented properties have HHSRS Category 1 Hazards. Taking this as a proxy of the proportion of private rented properties that would not be considered suitable as affordable housing, this would reduce the aforementioned turnover figure to 1,845 dwellings in Burnley.

10.16 Table 10.2 presents data from the Department for Work and Pensions [DWP] in respect of the number of Housing Benefit claimants in the Private Rented Sector. It indicates that over the past five years or so, there has been a consistent level of housing benefits claimants who are meeting their needs in the private rental market in Burnley, down only slightly from 4,500 in 2011 to 4,448 in 2015.

Table 10.2: Housing Benefit Claimants in Burnley

Year Burnley

No. of Housing Benefit Claimants in

Private Rented Sector

Annual Increase

August 2011 4,500 0

August 2012 4,790 290

August 2013 4,830 330

August 2014 4,795 -35

August 2015 4,448 -347

Annual Average: 4,673 Source: DWP 2016

10.17 DWP data suggests that as at March 2011 there were 4,460 claimants in receipt of Housing Benefit living within the private rented sector in Burnley, out of 8,850 housing benefit recipients in total.

10.18 Again, based upon the 2011 Census this would imply that 61.4% of the 7,267 households living in private rented accommodation are reliant to a greater or lesser extent on housing benefit in Burnley, although it is recognised that this is clearly an over-estimation given that there can be multiple claimants living in the same dwelling.

10.19 By comparing the English Housing Survey data with DWP data (2012) at a national level, it is suggested that the number of households claiming is 66.3%74 of the total number of claimants at a national level, to reflect the issue of multiple claimants. Applying this rate to the 61.4% figure quoted above would suggest that 40.7% of Burnley households living in private rented accommodation are reliant to a greater or lesser extent on housing benefit.

10.20 By comparison, the British and Social Housing Foundation’s report “Who Lives in the Private Rented Sector” (January 2013) indicates that on average 19% of the total stock of private rented dwellings is benefit supported. It does, however, accept that this is likely to be an underestimation and that typically

74Calculated on the basis of dividing the total number of households claiming housing benefits and living in the private rented sector (987,647 in England in 2012/13, according to the EHS Annex Table 5) by the total number of housing benefit claimants living in the private rented sector (1,489,254 according to the DWP April 2013).

Burnley SHMA :

P126 10003369v15

the figure has been around a quarter [page 30]. However, taking this lower figure on a precautionary basis, it could be suggested that for Burnley, 350 of the 1,845 (discounted to reflect ‘fit’ properties) annual private rented housing turnover (as at 2011) could be available as re-lets to households in receipt of Housing Benefit (751 based on the DWP data approach).

10.21 We are not suggesting that these figures of 751/350 should be ‘netted off’ the affordable housing need. For example, recent Government reforms to the benefits system, not least the payment of Universal Credit to the tenant rather than the landlord, may increase risk to the latter’s portfolio and therefore slow the rapid increase of the private rented accommodation recorded in recent years. Furthermore, as clarified in recent High Court judgements75, it is not a designated form of affordable housing and may not be suitable for many households in need:

“private rental accommodation is not affordable housing; and the Inspector was entitled to ignore the fact that state-subsidised accommodation in the private rental sector might in practice keep people who would otherwise be accommodated in affordable housing off the streets”.

10.22 Nevertheless, the private rented sector plays a very significant role in helping households in constrained circumstances to meet their housing needs independently, and for addressing the slack between affordable housing need and provision.

10.23 The extent to which BBC wish to see this situation continue over the course of the Plan period is a policy intervention issue for the Council to consider, and one that is outwith the scope of this study.

Tenure of Households in Need

10.24 Table 10.3 shows the proportion of households in unsuitable housing for each of the tenures, based upon the HNS results. Due to the low numbers of households in some tenures, the results for both Pendle and Burnley Boroughs were combined to increase reliability.

10.25 However, the results are still not as robust as we would like, particularly for those households renting from a Housing Association which is an unusually high result and may not reflect the true situation. That said, the results suggest that a higher proportion of residents of rented accommodation (particularly private rented) are in unsuitable housing than owner occupiers.

75Oadby and Wigston Borough Council vs. SoS for Communities and Local Government and Bloor Homes Limited, [2015] EWHC 1879 (Admin), paragraph 50.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P127

Table 10.3 Estimated Unsuitable housing - by tenure (Burnley and Pendle HMA)

Tenure Proportion of Households in Unsuitable Homes

Own with Mortgage 5.47%

Own Outright 3.51%

Social Rent (Registered Providers / Housing Associations) 9.95%

Private or Agency Rent 10.54% Source: HNS 2013

Choices within Existing Affordable Housing Stock

10.26 Table 10.4 shows the number of bedrooms required by households on the Housing Register and within the HNS. Table 10.4 can be compared with Table 10.5, which shows the number of bedrooms required in the HNS (20130) and also Table 10.6 which shows the number of bedrooms in affordable dwellings which were let during 2013/14.

10.27 The first table suggests that 50% of households on the B-with-Us Housing Register require nothing larger than 1 bedroom accommodation, and a further 32% requiring 2-bedrooms or less. However, this contrasts with the aspirations expressed in the HNS, which suggests that just 12% of households would like to move to a 1-bed property, and 29% requiring a 2-bed property. This highlights a significant disparity between the Housing Register (which is informed by people’s objective needs), and the Housing Needs Survey, which is more subjective and based to an extent on people’s aspirations.

10.28 Unsurprisingly therefore, Table 10.4 indicates a need for smaller sized dwellings for households on the Housing Register, whilst the HNS identifies a particular desire for 3 and 4-bedroomed properties.

10.29 Following the imposition of the under-occupancy penalty, discussions with local RPs have suggested that there is now a very strong increase in demand for smaller properties, and specifically for 1 and 2 bed units, although this can also be partly explained by the increasing number of elderly and newly forming households. Local RPs suggested that the demand for 3-bed properties in Burnley has declined substantially in the past couple of years as a result of the financial penalties involved with under-occupation of social rented properties although a third of all properties let were for 3-bed properties in 2014/15 (Table 10.6).

Table 10.4 Number of Bedrooms Required

No. of Bedrooms Housing Register (%)

Minimum Size Maximum Size

1-bed (including studio) 54.1% 50.3%

2-bed 31.5% 32.1%

3-bed 11.6% 12.2%

4-bed 2.8% 4.5%

5+ bed 0.1% 0.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% Source: Housing Register Quarterly Monitoring Report January 2016

Burnley SHMA :

P128 10003369v15

Table 10.5 Number of Bedrooms Required

No. of Bedrooms Household Needs Survey (%)

How many bedrooms would you like to have? (Need)

1-bed (including studio) 11.7%

2-bed 29.2%

3-bed 24.2%

4-bed 29.2%

5+ bed 5.8%

Total 100.0% Source: Housing Needs Survey 2013 Q26A and Q26B

Note: relates to those whose household needs to move to a different property within the next 5 years

Table 10.6 Affordable Housing General Needs Lettings in 2014/2015 - Number of Bedrooms in Property

No. of Bedrooms

Burnley

1-bed 26.0%

2-bed 37.1%

3-bed + 33.2%

4 bed + 3.7% Source: CORE Data 2015

Housing Aspirations and Need

10.30 The results of the HNS provide an indication of the proportion of households (of all tenures) which anticipate moving in the next 5 years and, of those, how many could afford a home suitable to meet their needs within Burnley Borough. The results are summarised in Table 10.7 and Table 10.8.

10.31 Table 10.7 shows that 15.7% of households in Burnley Borough anticipate that they will need to, or would like to move home in the next 5 years; at sub-area level, the survey results show that a particularly high proportion of households located in the urban areas (16.0%) and much lower in the surrounding rural areas (11.5%).

Table 10.7 Households which need or are likely to move in next 5 years

Burnley Total

% of households which need to move or are likely to move in the next 5 years

15.7%

Source: Housing Needs Survey Q18 (2013)

10.32 Table 10.8 focuses on those households expecting to have a requirement to move in the next 5 years. It shows that between 42%-53% of households needing to move (or would like to move) in the next 5 years expect that they could afford a suitable home in Burnley Borough where they live, with levels particularly high for those living in the surrounding rural areas.

10.33 The level of affordability identified by the HNS therefore produces similar results to the affordability test of the affordable housing model used above (in

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P129

respect of Burnley as a whole), which suggested that around 31% of existing households seeking to purchase an entry-level house would be unable to afford to move house (compared to 35%/37% in Table 10.8).

Table 10.8 Households which need or are likely to move in next 5 years - affordability

Households which need or are likely to move in the next 5 years

Need to Move Like to Move

Burnley Total Burnley Total

% who could afford a suitable home in the Borough 41.7% 52.5%

% who could not afford a suitable home in the Borough

35.0% 36.9%

% who could maybe afford a suitable home in the Borough/don’t know

23.3% 10.7%


10.34 Table 10.9 summarises the type of property which respondents with a requirement to move in the next 5 years would like to move to, set against the type of property these respondents anticipate they will move to in reality.

10.35 The differences between the two questions are identical for semi-detached properties, suggesting a reasonably good match between aspirations and expectations. However, as may be expected, Table 10.9 suggests aspirations are not expected to be met for detached housing. The significantly higher proportion of respondents who expect to move to a terraced property, despite this not being necessarily their preferred property type may also reflect the high proportion of terraced stock in Burnley.

Table 10.9 Type of Property Respondents would like/are likely to move to

Property Type Would like to move to

Are likely to move to

Semi-detached house 33.0% 33.0%

Detached house 16.7% 8.9%

Terraced house 8.1% 15.8%

Flat/Maisonette 2.2% 3.3%

Bedsit/Studio/Room Only 0.0% 0.0%

Bungalow 33.0% 32.9%

Supported housing 1.1% 0.0%

Caravan or temporary structure

0.0% 0.0%

Don’t Know 5.7% 6.1%

Source: Housing Needs Survey Q24 and Q25 (2013)

10.36 Table 10.10 shows the number of bedrooms which respondents with a requirement to move in the next 5 years would like to have, set against the number of bedrooms they anticipate that the house they move to will have. Again, the differences between the two questions are not substantial, suggesting a realistic match between aspirations and expectations.

Burnley SHMA :

P130 10003369v15

10.37 The table suggests a tendency for aspirations not to be met for larger properties, where (for example) 17% of respondents would like to move to a 4 bed property, but only 13% realistically expect to do so within the next 5 years. This is combined with a pattern of respondents who expect to move to 1 or 2 bedroom properties having aspirations for a larger property.

Table 10.10 Number of Bedrooms Respondents would like/are likely to have

Number of Bedrooms

Would like to have Are likely to have

1 6.9% 8.0%

2 42.9% 46.1%

3 29.7% 26.0%

4 17.2% 12.8%

5 0.0% 0.0%

6 2.2% 2.2%

7 or more 0.0% 0.0%

(Don’t know) 1.1% 4.9%


10.38 Table 10.11 shows the property tenure which respondents with a requirement to move in the next 5 years would like, set against the property tenure these respondents anticipate they will move to in reality. As may be expected, the table suggests high levels of both aspirations and expectations for home ownership in Burnley. Aspirations for home ownership are unsurprisingly higher than expectations.

10.39 However, the findings suggest no aspiration or expectation for shared ownership, which perhaps reflects a limited understanding of the benefits/availability of such a tenure choice. Aspirations for private rent are similar to or lower than expectations in Burnley, although only 8.9% would actually like to move into private rented accommodation.

10.40 As these figures show, around 14% of Burnley residents would like to have social rented housing, lower than the 17% of residents who think it likely that they will end up living in such accommodation.

Table 10.11 Tenure of Housing Respondents would like/are likely to have

Tenure Would like to have Are likely to have

Own / buy it (with mortgage) 33.3% 35.7%

Own / buy it (mortgage free) 39.6% 25.5%

House/flat share 0.0% 0.0%

Rent from a Housing Association 13.6% 16.9%

Rent from a landlord/agency 8.9% 12.4%

Rent from relative/friend 0.0% 0.0%

Shared ownership 0.0% 0.0%

Tied/linked to job 1.1% 1.1%

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P131

Tenure Would like to have Are likely to have

Other 1.1% 1.1%

(Don’t know) 2.4% 7.2%

Source: Housing Needs Survey Q29/Q29B (2013)

Housing Requirements of Specific Groups in Need

10.41 Different household groups have different needs and demands from their housing and therefore influence the housing market in different ways. Incorporating the latest Census 2011 data, the Housing Register, the PopGroup projections and the Housing Needs Survey, this SHMA presents an analysis of need by specific groups, including an assessment of household age, socio-economic issues and factors such as disability.

10.42 The brief for the study required consideration of the housing needs of the following groups (where the dataset is available):

1 Families with children;

2 Older people;

3 Households with specific needs such as disabled people;

4 Black and Minority Ethnic households;

5 Rural communities;

6 First time buyers and young people; and,

7 Key workers.

10.43 The analysis includes reference to the results of an earlier Survey of RPs, which was carried out as part of the original 2013 SHMA work, with key contacts spoken to again for this updated SHMA in 2015. Questionnaires were completed by Allocations Managers and Development Managers at the RPs. The questionnaire was drafted and prepared in conjunction with local authority officers. It is emphasised that references below to the results of the Survey of RPs reflect the opinions of respondents to the Survey and are not necessarily the opinion of the authors of this report or BBC Officers.

Household Types

10.44 The 2011 Census provides a breakdown of household composition, as illustrated Figure 10.1. This indicates that the majority of households within Burnley Borough are defined (by ONS) as family units, mainly couples (married, co-habiting or same sex civil partnerships). Elderly households, where all occupants are aged 65+, comprise 20% of all households in Burnley.

Burnley SHMA :

P132 10003369v15

Figure 10.1 Breakdown of Household Composition in Burnley 2011

Source: Census 2011

10.45 Families with dependent children number almost 10,000 households in Burnley (27% of the total), whilst families with non-dependent children comprise almost 3,920 households (10% of all households, which is slightly higher than the national rate of 9.5%). Such families with non-dependent children will include young adults who still live at home with their parents and may be seeking to move out.

10.46 The remainder of this section of the SHMA analyses the future change and growth in different household types, demonstrating that smaller household types of one person/couple households (both younger and in elderly households) look set to account for the majority of future household growth in Burnley.

Families with Children

10.47 The Framework recognises the importance of providing housing for families, especially those with children, in the context of creating mixed communities.

Demographics

10.48 NLP’s PopGroup analysis has provided an indicative estimate of the likely future numbers of families with children in Burnley. This accords with the approach set out in the former CLG SHMA Guidance.

10.49 Table 10.12 shows the number (and proportion) of households with one or more children estimated to be living in Burnley in 2012. Table 10.12 also demonstrates how the number and proportion of families with children is projected to change by 2032. The number of families with children is likely to remain virtually identical over the Plan period, declining very slightly by 9

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P133

households over the next 20 years). However, as the number of households is projected to increase by 5.3% overall in the Borough over that time period, the number of households with children as a proportion of the total declines from 28.6% of the Borough’s total in 2012, to 27.1% by 2032.

Table 10.12 Projected Change in the number of Households with Children 2012-2032

2012 2032 Difference 2012-2032

Number % Number % Number %

Burnley 10,748 28.6% 10,739 27.1% -9 0%

Source: NLP PopGroup Baseline PCU/MYE

10.50 Table 10.13 breaks the above figures down to identify how many of these households are expected to have 1 or 2 children, and how many 3 + children. It shows that the majority of households with children in 2032 are expected to have 1 or 2 children. The proportion of households comprising larger families (with 3 or more children) is projected to comprise 5.0% of all households, with the vast majority (22%) comprising smaller family units. This is consistent with the percentage of families with 3+ children in 2012 (5.2%); however, the number of families with 1 or 2 children is projected to decline slightly (from 23.4% of the total in 2012).

Table 10.13 Projected Number of Families with Children in 2032

Families with 1 or 2 Children Families with 3 + Children

Number % Number %

Burnley 8,764 22.1% 1,974 5.0%


10.51 An analysis of the detailed figures suggests that the number of households with a couple and 2 dependent children will decline from 0.6% to 0.3% between 2012 and 2032. Over the same period the number of lone parents with 1 dependent child increases from 4.1% to 5.0%.

10.52 In terms of policy implications, it is important that the housing needs of these families are met through the provision of sufficient, good quality family accommodation in sustainable locations. However, the provision of family housing should be balanced against the requirement for smaller housing to meet the needs of an ageing population with increasing numbers of single person households (see Section 11.0).

10.53 Although larger families will form only a relatively small proportion of the population as a whole, policy will still need to ensure that housing is available to meet the requirements of these households (for larger houses). Hence there is a need for properties of all types, with the provision of bungalows and smaller 1-bed properties alongside continued provision for larger family properties, although the general trend is still towards smaller 1/2 bed properties overall.

Burnley SHMA :

P134 10003369v15

Housing Need Identified by the Housing Register

10.54 The proportion of families with children who are seeking social housing comprises 44% of all households on the Housing Register (see Table 10.14), which appears high when compared to Borough-wide average.

Table 10.14 Active Housing Register Applicants, by Household Type (2016)

1 adult with

children

2 adults with

children

Couple Families with no children

Friends Single

Burnley 27.0% 17.4% 11.5% 1.1% 0.9% 42.2%

Source: B-With-Us Housing Register 2016

Results of the Stakeholder Consultation

10.55 Discussions with local agents, Registered Providers and other key Burnley stakeholders suggest that there is no apparent shortage of larger housing and housing suitable for families. One RP suggested that many houses are under occupied and that this problem will increase further as the full implications of the Government’s under occupancy penalty become clearer. It was noted that there was still a demand for family houses but this was more towards 2 bedroom properties rather than 3+ bedroom properties.

Older Person Households (Aged 65+)

Demographics

10.56 Table 10.15 presents the number of households headed by older people (aged 65+) estimated to be living in Burnley in 2012 and how this is projected to change by 2032, based on NLP’s PopGroup analysis which incorporates the 2012-based SNPP and 2012-based SNHP headship rates, applying the partial catch up headship rates and the latest Mid-Year Population Estimates (Scenario .Bi)

10.57 It is evident that both the number and proportion of such households is expected to increase significantly in the Borough over this 20-year period. Burnley is projected to see a very significant proportionate increase in net additional older households, of 37% between 2012 and 2032 (+3,785).

Table 10.15 Projected Change in Number of Households headed by Older People (aged 65+) 2012-2032

2012 2032 Difference 2012-2032

Number % Number % Number %

Burnley 10,217 27.2% 14,001 35.4% 3,785 37.0%


10.58 Table 10.16 breaks down the projected change in the number of households headed by a resident aged 65+ in 2032 to identify how many of these households are expected to be headed by a resident aged 65-84, and how

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P135

many are headed by a resident aged 85 and over, who tend to need higher levels of care intervention and often have more specialised housing requirements as a consequence. It demonstrates that the proportion of households headed by a resident aged 85+ is likely to be significantly higher in Burnley Borough than is presently the case.

Table 10.16 Projected Number of Households headed by Older People (aged 65+) in Burnley Borough

Burnley Aged 65-84 Aged 85+

Number % (of over 65s) Number % (of over 65s)

2012 8,857 86.7% 11,543 82.4%

2032 1,359 13.3% 2,458 17.6%

Source: NLP PopGroup Baseline PCU/MYE Note – the percentages in the table relate to the proportion of the population aged over 65; hence in 2032, 17.6% of all households headed by an older person will be aged 85 and over, whilst 82.4% will be aged 65-84.

10.59 Furthermore, there is also the issue that the number of residents aged over 65 in the Borough is projected to rise at a much higher rate between 2012 and 2032 than for the rest of the population as a whole. In Burnley, the number of residents aged 65 and over is projected to increase by 5,804, or 39.3%, which is in stark contrast to the overall population growth of just 821 residents (+0.9%). Furthermore, the figures are even more extreme when one considers the increase in the population aged over 85, with a growth of 1,646 residents in this age category - an 85.0% increase.

Current Stock and Projected Future Need for Specialist Housing

10.60 The projected increase in older residents (both in absolute and relative terms) is therefore striking and has a number of severe housing, health and social care service implications which must be planned for accordingly.

10.61 Housing implications include increased demand for both specialist accommodation for older people and for services and home adaptations to enable older people to remain 'at home' living independently. There will be a requirement for additional sheltered housing to meet this need or, potentially, greater provision of bungalows.

10.62 There will be a particular need to adapt existing stock to lifetime homes standards76; and providing appropriate opportunities for elderly households to downsize where they may be under-occupying larger homes. Encouraging elderly residents to downsize is difficult to achieve in the private market through local policy intervention alone, as many prefer to remain in the family home even if their children have moved away and it is larger than their personal needs require. However, providing good quality alternative accommodation (e.g. retirement style housing schemes and Extra Care facilities) may incentivise elderly households to release equity and down-size.

76 The concept of Lifetime Homes was developed in the early 1990s by a group of housing experts. Lifetime Homes designed to incorporate 16 design criteria that can be applied to new homes at minimal cost. Each design feature adds to the comfort and convenience of the home and supports the changing needs of individuals and families at different stages of life.

Burnley SHMA :

P136 10003369v15

10.63 The issue of under-occupation remains; hence there is a need to enable/encourage older people to downsize if possible (recognising the inherent problems of this, given that many people tend to prefer to stay in the 'family home' even though they may be better suited to moving to a smaller property). In addition to population growth, demand for services will also be influenced by changing attitudes to what comprises an acceptable quality of life amongst older generations and changing service provision.

10.64 Data from Housing LIN77 is presented for Burnley (for 2014) in Table 10.17. This indicates that currently, there is sufficient supply of specialist housing for older people in the Borough, with 2,378 units set against overall demand of 1,878. However, the Table shows that there is currently a significant over-supply of Sheltered Housing for rent, and insufficient Enhanced Sheltered Housing and Extra Care facilities (for residents requiring a higher level of care).

Table 10.17 Current Supply and Demand for Specialist Housing for Older People (2014)

Demand Supply Variance*

Sheltered Housing Rent 838 1,450 613

Lease 0 0 0

Enhanced Sheltered

Rent 75 0 -75

Lease 59 0 -59

Extra Care Rent 156 0 -156

Lease 12 0 -12

Registered Care Residential Care 436 549 114

Nursing Care 302 379 78

TOTAL 1,878 2,378 503

Source: Housing LIN SHOP 2016. Note: Housing LIN definitions are as follows:

Housing Demand is the number of units required per 1,000 of the population aged 75+.

Sheltered housing: Schemes / properties are included where some form of scheme manager (warden) service is provided on site on a regular basis but where no registered personal care is provided.

Enhanced sheltered housing: Schemes / properties are included where service provision is higher than for sheltered housing but below extra care level. Typically there may be 24/7 staffing cover, at least one daily meal will be provided and there may be additional shared facilities.

Extra care housing: Schemes / properties are included where care (registered personal care) is available on site 24/7.

Residential care: Where a care homes is registered to provide residential (personal) care only, all beds are allocated to residential care.

Nursing care: Where a care homes is registered to provide nursing care all beds are allocated to nursing care, although in practice not all residents might be in need of or receiving nursing care.

*Note: Variance figures do not always sum due to rounding

77 The Housing Learning and Improvement Network (LIN), formerly responsible for managing the Department of Health's (DH) Extra Care Housing capital programme, is the leading 'knowledge hub' for a growing network of housing, health and social care professionals in England involved in planning, commissioning, designing, funding, building and managing housing with care for older people. For further information see http://www.housinglin.org.uk/AboutHousingLIN/

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P137

10.65 Moving forward, the Housing LIN SHOP model calculates that by 2030, a net increase of 534 additional specialist housing units for older people will be required to meet demand, with a particularly need for Nursing Homes, Enhanced Sheltered Accommodation and Extra Care facilities. There will be no further requirement for Sheltered housing in the Borough over the course of the Plan period given current high levels of supply.

Table 10.18 Current Supply and Demand for Specialist Housing for Older People (2014)

Supply (2014

Demand 2030 Variance @2014 Supply

2014 2015 2020 2025 2030

Sheltered Housing

Rent 1,450 838 850 963 1,200 1,300 150

Lease 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enhanced Sheltered

Rent 0 75 76 86 108 116 -116

Lease 0 59 60 68 84 92 -92

Extra Care Rent 0 156 158 179 223 242 -242

Lease 0 12 12 13 17 18 -18

Registered Care

Residential Care

549 436 442 501 624 676 -127

Nursing Care 379 302 306 347 432 468 -89

TOTAL 2,378 1,878 1,904 2,157 2,688 2,912 -534

Source: Housing LIN SHOP 2016.

Housing Need Identified by the Housing Register

10.66 Table 10.19 demonstrates that older households are less likely to consider that they are in need of moving into a social property than might be expected, given their overall representation in the Borough. The local choice-based Housing Register demonstrates a relatively modest level of housing need amongst the elderly in the Borough, whereby just 21% of applicants in Bands 1-4 are aged over 60 (despite 23.5% of all residents in 2014 in the Borough being aged 60 and above). This may indicate a lower level of dissatisfaction amongst older residents with their current accommodation.

Table 10.19 Burnley Housing Register Bands 1-4 – Older People

Applicant Age Band Number of Households % of Total on Register

Under 60 1,499 79.5%

Over 60 386 20.5%

TOTAL 1,885 100.0%

Source: B-with-Us Housing Register 2016


10.67 The Stakeholder Consultation produced some interesting findings on the housing requirements of older people.

Burnley SHMA :

P138 10003369v15

10.68 Respondents indicated that there was an increasing demand for affordable small homes and bungalows. One RP respondent stated that bungalows were more popular than flats with older customers. It was suggested that there is a shortage of dwellings capable of accommodating the elderly with specific needs, although no further detail was provided regarding whether this related to particular geographical areas.

10.69 Respondents suggested that at present, many elderly people were living in family homes and chose to stay in these homes for the rest of their lives. One RP indicated that the number of elderly people in poor quality ‘2-up-2-down’ owner occupied terraced accommodation is very high in both boroughs, and that such properties were very difficult and expensive to maintain or convert.

10.70 It was noted that many of the occupants of these properties are ‘cash poor but equity rich’ and that they are unwilling to release the equity in their properties. It was suggested that any turnover in stock occupied by elderly people is usually a result of dwellings becoming available when their occupants die.

10.71 When asked whether there was a specific need for flexi-care bungalows78, the majority of respondents either provided no response to the question or commented that they were not aware of any specific need. However, one respondent confirmed that they had recently bid to the Care & Support fund for an extra care housing scheme in Burnley, having identified a demand for such accommodation.

10.72 The key issue raised by RPs in Burnley is that although the amount of stock tailored for the elderly may appear sufficient, the quality of the stock is very poor and there remains a clear qualitative need to replace a substantial portion of both the social and private rented dwellings.

10.73 In summary, given the high growth in the number of elderly residents in the Borough over the Plan period, there will be a number of severe housing, health and social care service implications which will raise difficult policy choices. In particular, the provision of sheltered accommodation to meet this need will be a priority, although practical measures seeking to reduce under-occupancy of larger homes should also be explored.

Households with Specific Needs

10.74 Housing may need to be purpose built or adapted for households with specific needs, including people with disabilities. This analysis explores the overall qualitative housing requirements of households with specific needs; it does not provide a quantitative housing need for C2 uses for the purposes of 5-year housing land supply calculations.

78 Flexi-care, or extra care housing, provides residents with more support than sheltered housing and more independence than a residential care home.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P139

Demographics

10.75 ONS Census Data (2011) indicates that Burnley Borough has levels of limiting long-term illness which are above both the regional and national averages. 22.5% of Burnley residents reported that their day-to-day activities were limited either ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’, compared to 20.2% at a regional, and 17.6% at a national, level. Similarly, 7.7% of Burnley residents reported themselves as being in ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ health, compared to rates of 6.8% for the North West region and 5.5% for England as a whole.

10.76 It is emphasised that older people are more likely than average to suffer limiting long-term illness and disability. The previous section relating to the housing requirements of older people detailed the increasing number of older residents projected for Burnley and the increased need for specialist residential properties with high levels of care intervention. Thus, it is probable that the ageing population is likely to lead to greater rates of limiting long-term illness and disability, with associated requirements for appropriate housing provision and adaptations.

Housing Need identified by the Housing Needs Survey

10.77 Table 10.20demonstrates that according to the HNS, households containing a disabled resident were less likely to consider that their home is unsuitable than average.

Table 10.20 Estimated Unsuitable housing – Disabled Residents

Proportion of Households in Unsuitable Homes

Average Households Containing 1 or More

Disabled Adult

Burnley and Pendle 5.18% 4.75% Source: Housing Needs Survey Q6 2013 *Note: An overall HMA figure is provided rather than separate LA figures as the needs criterion data has been cross-tabulated against the number of households containing 1 or more disabled adult

10.78 Households containing disabled people were (like other groups) most likely to justify their need to move on the basis that their existing house was too small or had insufficient bedrooms. However, some of these households also referred to factors such as their home being too large or unsuitable for a disabled person.

10.79 The HNS results also provide specific information relating to whether a household member has a long-term illness, health problem or disability. Table 10.21 shows that only a low proportion of such households have a current home which has been adapted or purpose built for a person with a long-term illness, health problem or disability.

Burnley SHMA :

P140 10003369v15

Table 10.21 Households Containing a Household Member with a long-term illness, health problem or disability – homes have been adapted or purpose built for a person with a long-term illness, heath problem or disability

Area % where current home has been

adapted

% purpose-

built

% Home has not been adapted or

purpose built Don’t Know Total

Burnley 25.88% 0.65% 73.38% 0.09% 100%

Source: Housing Needs Survey Q16

10.80 The survey then asked respondents where the household contained a disabled person to identify adaptations to the dwellings which are required. The results are provided at Table 10.22, which shows that the most common adaptations required are to the bathroom. Other common requirements include a stair lift/vertical lift and wheelchair adaptations. The proportion of households requiring adaptions tends to be higher in the Burnley urban area compared to the surrounding rural areas.

Table 10.22 Adaptations Required

Adaptation Type Burnley

Bathroom adaptations 7.86%

Ground floor extensions 1.29%

Handrails/ grab rails 2.31%

Improvements to access 2.68%

Kitchen adaptations 2.13%

Room for carer 1.29%

Stair lift/vertical lift 3.42%

Wheelchair adaptations 3.42%

Source: Housing Needs Survey Q17

Housing Need identified by the Housing Register

10.81 The B-with-Us Housing Register for Burnley Borough shows that 23.8% of all those on the Register have a disability. This is higher than might be expected given the proportion in need in the HNS, although it is in line with the proportion on the B-with-Us Register for East Lancashire as a whole (23.7%). This could imply that households with 1 or more adult with a disability are finding it more difficult to access suitable social accommodation than other households and therefore they are over-represented on the Register; alternatively, this could suggest that such households are more likely to need affordable housing due to (generally) lower incomes.


10.82 The Stakeholder Consultation responses to the issue of households with specific needs produced mixed results. Some RPs and respondents were not

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P141

aware of any specific requirement for homes for people with specific needs. Other RPs identified a shortage of homes for a variety of households including housing for blind people, the physically disabled, the mentally impaired and the physically injured. One RP highlighted a specific need for more level access properties in Burnley. However, more specific details of precise requirements and the spatial distribution of such need were not provided.

10.83 A common thread identified was the need for properties that can be adapted to suit their occupant. In terms of spatial distribution, the need for this type of property was considered to cover all parts of the HMA but a particular need for adaptable properties in rural areas was identified. One RP gave an example of a scheme in Daneshouse where such adapted properties have been provided. As noted above, the type of properties often occupied by the very elderly and those with some form of disability are 2-up-2-down terraced properties or very small bungalows, which can be difficult and expensive to convert.

10.84 It was also raised that Lancashire County Council have produced an extra care and specialist housing strategy79 for the area which looked at need across the county and contained key statistics on need within Burnley. This document recognises that the County as a whole faces enormous challenges in dealing with an ageing population profile and that there is a clear need to promote and to make investments in accommodation for older people across all forms of tenure and across the spectrum of dependency and affluence.

10.85 The findings of the LCC Strategy generally accord with the analysis above, in that Extra Care accommodation provides a cost effective alternative to commissioning into residential care in many circumstances, with better outcomes for both individuals and the commissioning authorities. In particular, the Strategy recognises that the County has significant provision of sheltered housing, which will not meet the demand for Extra Care as generally it is well occupied, remains in strong demand and is a different offer.

10.86 The Strategy identifies an immediate need for an additional 136 units of extra care (of 988 across the County as a whole, i.e. 14%). This level of provision could enable Burnley to reduce its current reliance on residential care.

Minority and Hard to Reach Households

Demographics

10.87 Black and Minority Ethnic [BME] households may have particular requirements in relation to housing needs, often reflecting different social norms and family structures.

10.88 According to the 2011 Census (Table 10.23) in Burnley, 87.3% the population is self-classified as ‘white’, compared to 85.4% across England as a whole. The remaining 12.6% of Burnley’s population comprises a wide range of ethnicities, although there is a concentration of residents from Pakistani

79 Lancashire Regeneration Property Partnership (28 August 2014): Extra Care and Specialist Housing Strategy for Lancashire

Burnley SHMA :

P142 10003369v15

(6.8%), and to a lesser extent, Bangladeshi (2.8%), ethnic groups.

Table 10.23 Burnley Population and Housing Waiting List Bands 1-4 by Ethnicity

Ethnic Group

Burnley

Ethnicity (Census 2011)

Total on Housing

Register 2016

Wh

ite

English/Welsh/Scottish/ N. Irish/British 74,464 85.5% 1,628 85.4%

Irish 527 0.6% 12 0.6%

Gypsy or Irish Traveller 10 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other White 1,053 1.2% 94 4.9%

Mix

ed

/ m

ulti

ple

e

thn

ic g

rou

p White & Black Caribbean 228 0.3% 4 0.2%

White & Black African 90 0.1% 3 0.2%

White & Asian 476 0.5% 6 0.3%

Other Mixed 182 0.2% 3 0.2%

Asi

an/

Asi

an

B

ritis

h

Indian 321 0.4% 3 0.2%

Pakistani 5,924 6.8% 85 4.5%

Bangladeshi 2,425 2.8% 45 2.4%

Chinese 222 0.3% 2 0.1%

Other Asian 686 0.8% 8 0.4%

Bla

ck/

Afr

ican

/ C

ari

bb

ean

/Bla

ck

Bri

tish African 76 0.1% 4 0.2%

Caribbean 120 0.1% 2 0.1%

Other Black 15 0.0% 1 0.1%

Oth

er

eth

ni

c g

rou

p Arab 55 0.1% 0 0.0%

Any other ethnic group 185 0.2% 6 0.3%

Total 87,059 1,906

Refused/Did Not Say - - 2 -

Source: Census 2011 and B-with-Us Housing Register 2016

10.89 Table 10.23 compares the ethnic profile of Burnley Borough’s total population with the ethnic profile of active applicants on the Housing Register. Although imprecise, this analysis seeks to identify any ethnicities which may be disproportionately represented on the Housing Register, and therefore may provide an indication of particular problems accessing housing. In this respect the only group that appears to be over represented on the housing register is ‘other’ white ethnicities (e.g. European White). Pakistani, Bangladeshi and ‘Other Asian’ households are under-represented.

10.90 This may provide some indication of particular affordability or housing market pressures facing these groups. In the case of ‘other white’ ethnicities in Burnley Borough, this could conceivably comprise white European households, including European migrants often associated with agricultural work and construction or blue collar jobs in logistics or manufacturing sectors.

10.91 Conversely, the number of Housing Register applicants of Asian/Asian British ethnic origin is around half the level that might be expected given the size of the population living in the area. This supports anecdotal evidence provided by at the stakeholder workshop that many households from this ethnic

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P143

background have very specific housing requirements that they seek to meet in the private sector.

Housing Need identified by the Housing Needs Survey

10.92 Table 10.24 demonstrates that households containing one or more non-British adults are more likely to consider that their home is unsuitable than the average (or typical) household interviewed as part of the HNS. However, it should be noted that the response rate was low considering the proportion of BME residents in Burnley and Pendle.

10.93 An analysis of the reasons for households being in unsuitable housing identifies that the main reason for their need as relating to their existing house being too small. These households are also considerably more likely to report a requirement for additional bedrooms than the general population.

Table 10.24 Estimated Unsuitable Housing – Non British Residents


Average Households Containing 1 or More Non British

Adult

Burnley and Pendle 5.18% 11.76% Source: Housing Needs Survey Q6 2013 *Note: An overall HMA figure is provided rather than separate LA figures as the needs criterion data has been cross-tabulated against the number of households containing 1 or more non-British adults


10.94 The stakeholder consultation produced some interesting results. Several RPs indicated that some neighbourhoods in Burnley are unpopular with BME groups and it was suggested that this is because these groups often like to settle in the same community. It was noted that this can cause an issue in providing housing as the geographical area of search is more limited and therefore restricted to fewer properties.

10.95 One RP commented that demand for shared ownership properties is higher in BME communities in Burnley. However, an attempt to sell shared ownership properties in Burnley was unsuccessful and homes reverted to an alternative tenure.

10.96 In terms of accessing affordable housing, the consultation feedback was mixed with one RP not aware of any issues with BME groups accessing affordable housing. It was suggested by others that some BME groups struggle to understand the concept of choice-based lettings, particularly the Bengali population in the Burnley area. In this situation, it was considered that properties were easier to let through local advertising.

10.97 There was a general consensus that small family homes were usually required by the BME groups in the area. A specific need for 2, 3 and 4 bedroom family homes was identified (with the provision of two sitting rooms and other alterations necessary to accommodate religious requirements in some instances) resulting in a requirement for larger than normal properties. In terms of spatial distribution, the need of these groups was considered to be

Burnley SHMA :

P144 10003369v15

most prevalent in Daneshouse.

Rural Communities

10.98 The government has placed the provision of housing for rural communities high up its agenda. Both the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance80 recognise the importance of recognising the particular issues facing rural areas in terms of housing supply and affordability, and the role of housing in supporting the broader sustainability of villages and smaller settlements:

“In rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, LPAs should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate.” [The Framework, §54]

10.99 Furthermore, the government’s 2015 Rural Productivity Plan81 identifies the need to provide more rural housing in rural areas as one of its ten key action points, recognising that a lack of housing is a national challenge but in rural areas it is a particular constraint to labour and entrepreneurial mobility. In response:

“The government will increase the availability of housing in rural areas, allowing our rural towns and villages to thrive, whilst protecting the Green Belt and countryside. This will include a significant contribution to the 200,000 ‘Starter Homes’, to be offered at a 20% discount for first-time buyers under the age of 40, that the government is committed to delivering this Parliament. Through the right combination of measures, the government wants to ensure that any village in England has the freedom to expand in an incremental way, subject to local agreement.” [page 19]

10.100 This includes making it easier for rural areas to establish a neighbourhood plan and allocate land for new homes, including through the use of rural exception sites to deliver Starter Homes, as set out in the current Government consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy:

“Starter homes can provide a valuable source of housing for rural areas and, if classified as affordable housing, then we consider it should be possible to deliver starter homes through the existing rural exception site policy” [§46]82.

10.101 The Affordable Rural Housing Commission (ARHC) was set up in July 2005 to enquire into the scale, nature and implications of the shortage of affordable housing for rural communities in England and make recommendations to help address unmet need.

10.102 The ARHC identified a number of trends in rural communities:

1. Inward migration of commuters, retirees and owners of second or holiday homes contributing to demand-led house price inflation;

80Reference ID: 50-001-20140306 81DEFRA (August 2015):”Towards a one nation economy: A 10-point plan for boosting productivity in rural areas” 82CLG (December 2015): “Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy”

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P145

2. Right-to-buy has had a proportionally greater impact in reducing the stock of social housing in rural areas;

3. Fewer new homes have been built to replace those sold in rural areas;

4. Planning policies have prioritised the protection of the environment and limited the availability of land for market and affordable housing;

5. While average earnings in rural areas match those elsewhere, the affluence of commuters and others masks the fact that many of the lowest paid wage-earners are employed in the rural economy and often face the highest and least affordable house prices.

10.103 There is therefore growing pressure nationally to assess the housing needs of rural communities, as a separate and distinct study from more broad based housing needs assessment. Rural communities and their housing needs are important in Burnley given the substantial areas of rural land containing a variety of smaller villages and hamlets beyond Padiham and Burnley town itself.

Housing Need identified by the Household Survey

10.104 Analysis has been undertaken of the survey results by examining whether the respondent’s postcode was ‘rural’ or ‘urban’. Table 10.25 indicates that residents of rural areas were much less likely to report that their home is unsatisfactory than the equivalent borough-wide averages, with the main issues relating to size (either too large, or too small).

Table 10.25 Estimated Unsuitable housing – Rural Communities

Area Proportion of Households in Unsuitable HomesAverage Households in a Rural Location

Burnley Rural Areas 5.09% 2.03% Source: Housing Needs Survey Q05


10.105 There was a general consensus amongst RPs that there was a strong demand for housing in rural areas and an overall shortage of social rented stock. RPs commented that there was much lower stock turnover in rural locations of Burnley, and if dwellings became available they did not stay vacant for long in marked contrast to the towns of Burnley and Padiham.

10.106 In terms of identifying the size of social rented stock required, the response from RPs was mixed, with one RP suggesting the need for family accommodation, one RP suggesting the need for single person accommodation, and another suggesting the need for small rural houses for the elderly.

10.107 The RP who suggested the need for single person accommodation noted that the future sustainability of such accommodation was unclear. They were seeking to avoid a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to welfare reform and the impact of under occupancy upon housing benefit, wanting instead to maintain mixed,

Burnley SHMA :

P146 10003369v15

sustainable neighbourhoods and supporting tenants who are severely affected to cuts in benefits.

10.108 One RP considered that the supply of rural social rented stock was sufficient, although this RP did not provide stock for elderly or retired people, from which there may be a significant requirement in future.

10.109 In spatial terms, respondents did not identify specific areas of need within the Borough other than the rural areas in general. Consultees were not able to identify any rural areas where there were specific affordability issues although one RP commented that rural houses carry a premium which can affect people wishing to live in the area.

First Time Buyers and Young People

10.110 The Government has recognised that there is a growing crisis of home ownership across the country, exemplified by the fact that young adults are finding it harder and harder to access the housing ladder. In his 2015 Autumn Statement the Chancellor highlighted the fact that 15 years ago, around 60% of people under 35 owned their own home, with the figure set to fall to around 30% in 2016. In response, a series of measures were announced by the Chancellor to deliver 400,000 ‘affordable’ housing starts by 2020-21, focussing on low cost home ownership; facilitating 200,000 Starter Homes for first time buyers under the age of 40; and to extend the existing Help to Buy programme with new, relaxed rules intended to help younger households purchase their own home.

10.111 The particular problems faced by young people with aspirations to access home ownership are therefore a high-profile concern nationally and the Government has introduced various schemes seeking to tackle the issue. Although house prices are only now starting to reach again the peak last achieved in 2007-2008, the requirements of mortgage providers have become more stringent, including less availability of mortgages at a high loan to value ratio.

10.112 The number of family households with non-dependent children living at home in Burnley highlights the difficulties faced by young people in accessing housing. Ineligibility for social housing, lower household incomes and the unaffordability of owner occupation for such groups are common factors that apply to Burnley as they do elsewhere in England. Furthermore only 4.0% of households are headed by someone under the age of 25. This increases to 18.0% under the age of 35 based on the latest PopGroup modelling.

10.113 Earlier sections of this report have focused on affordability for households seeking to access market housing (to rent or buy). This identified that newly forming households generally have lower incomes than the average population (equating to around 76% of the total income for the average household according to the Survey of English Housing). A proportion of these newly forming households with lower incomes comprise young people seeking to leave their parental home to establish a new household. Younger people also

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P147

have had less opportunities than older households (who may also have equity in their existing house) to accumulate the wealth required in order to afford a deposit for a house purchase. Many have had to live with their parents and save up for a deposit as a consequence.

10.114 Private sector renting provides a significant tenure for young people and provides particular benefits for this age group such as flexibility to move home relatively easily. However, private rented may be considered by some as a 'gateway tenure' for households with aspirations for home ownership and the associated benefits such as security of tenure. It is noted that the private rented sector forms a relatively high proportion of the housing stock in both authorities (19.4% of households rent privately in Burnley, compared to an average for the North West of 15.4%83).

10.115 Comments received from RPs (see below) suggest that much of the private sector stock available in the Borough is of a poor quality, with high turnover and a transient tenant base, with much of the stock comprising small 2-up, 2-down terraces in need of improvements. Data on private sector rented levels (Section 8.0) also points to wide variations in lower quartile rent levels between geographical sub-areas, with rural areas of Burnley being significantly more expensive than the urbanised parts of the Borough. Thus, although private rented provides an important tenure for young people, obstacles such as the availability of appropriate accommodation and limited locational choice should be a consideration.

Demographics

10.116 Table 10.26 presents the number of households headed by younger people (aged 24 and under) living in Burnley as a proportion of the entire population, and how this is projected to change over the Plan period. It is evident that the proportion of households headed by a resident aged 24 or younger is broadly in line with the level that might be expected (given that national rate is 11.9% for the same age categories nationally84). However, the number and proportion of residents in the younger age categories are projected to decline slightly over time as the population ages.

Table 10.26 Projected Change in Numbers of Younger People (aged 16-24) 2012-2032

2012 2032 Difference 2012-2032

No. % No. % No. %

Burnley 9,836 11.3% 9,402 10.7% -434 -4.4%

Source: NLP PopGroup Baseline PCU/MYE Sensitivity

Housing Need identified by the HNS

10.117 Table 10.27 demonstrates that younger households are slightly less likely to consider that their home is unsuitable than average.

83 Census 2011: Tenure - Households, 2011 (QS405EW) 84 Census 2011: Age by Single Year, 2011 (QS103EW)

Burnley SHMA :

P148 10003369v15

10.118 A range of reasons was given by households containing young people as to why their house was unsuitable, but they were particularly likely to cite that their existing home was too small for their needs moving forward.

Table 10.27 Estimated Unsuitable housing – Young People


Average Households Containing One or More

Persons Aged 16-24

Burnley and Pendle 5.18% 5.04% Source: Housing Needs Survey 2013 Q5 *Note: An overall HMA figure is provided rather than separate LA figures as the needs criterion data has been cross-tabulated against the number of households containing one or more persons aged between 16 and 24

Housing Need identified by the Housing Register

10.119 The Quarterly Monitoring Report (January 2016) of the local choice-based Housing Register also demonstrates a relatively high level of housing need for the young in Burnley. Of those on the Active register in Bands 1-4, a total of 322 applicants in Burnley were under 24, or 17.1%. This compares with 13.5% of all Band 1-3 applicants in the five Pennine Lancashire authorities.

10.120 This is likely to be due to the affordability of housing compounded by the difficulties young people face in accessing housing finance; for example, young single adults under the age of 35 can only qualify for Housing Benefit if they are prepared to live either in bed-sit accommodation or a single room in shared accommodation.


10.121 With regards the housing needs of young people and first time buyers, one RP operating in the area who responded to the consultation noted that there has been an increase in the number of customers ending their tenancies to receive care or support. This includes younger customers who have chosen to go back to their parental home. One issue highlighted was that young people cannot afford the basic bills to maintain a tenancy of their own. It was also noted that people are living with their parents for longer due to costs and the lack of knowledge of RP products available. There was a general consensus that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future, particularly as the age limit for claiming housing benefit has been raised substantially.

10.122 One RP noted that customers had difficulty understanding how intermediate and shared ownership schemes work, and that access to such properties was exacerbated by a lack of financial support from banks, as a result of which potential buyers are struggling to obtain mortgages.

10.123 It was further highlighted that there is a particular need for smaller houses suitable for small families; and also a need for flats, particularly in urban areas where young people wish to live and commute from. It was noted that there is a shortage of rented dwellings for young single people in Padiham.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P149

Key Workers

10.124 This focuses on those households with one or more residents who are defined as a key worker. Of those respondents to the HNS in employment, around 29% in Burnley could be classified as ‘key workers’85.

10.125 Table 10.28 demonstrates that such households are slightly less likely to consider that their home is unsuitable than for the average, or typical, household interviewed as part of the HNS.

10.126 A range of reasons were given by households containing key workers for their housing being unsuitable. They were particularly likely to cite that their existing home is too small (generally in terms of space, rather than the number of bedrooms which elicited a separate response in the HNS). Interestingly, housing being too large was also one of the main reasons housing was considered to be unsuitable. Around 63% of respondents with key workers in the household were in full time employment across the boroughs of Burnley and Pendle, compared to around 34% for all respondents, suggesting a greater security of income and hence a greater ability to access housing in the two boroughs.

Table 10.28 Estimated Unsuitable housing – Key Workers

Area Proportion of Households in Unsuitable Homes

Average Households Containing One or More

Key Worker

Burnley and Pendle 5.18% 4.98% Source: Housing Needs Survey Q6 2013 *Note: An overall HMA figure is provided rather than separate LA figures as the needs criterion data has been cross-tabulated against the number of households containing one or more persons aged between 16 and 24


10.127 Feedback from stakeholders on Key Workers in Burnley was very limited. Most RPs were not aware of any specific issues surrounding Key Workers or they did not consider there to be any particular problems with their ability to access either social or private sector housing in the Borough.

Conclusion

10.128 There are a range of housing requirements which are specific to certain groups in Burnley. In particular, the area faces a substantial growth in the number of older households and this will commensurately increase the need for both housing to accommodate such households, as well as potentially specialist residential care solutions (and particularly Extra Care, for which there is projected to be a shortfall over the course of the plan period).

10.129 Housing needs by ethnicity suggests that certain groups face disproportionate barriers to home ownership and occupation, with white Europeans facing

85 Key workers are defined in various ways and often vary depending upon where in the country the assessment is being undertaken. In general the list of key worker occupations is dominated by the public sector and usually includes teachers, doctors, nurses, porters, social workers, firefighters, police, amongst others.

Burnley SHMA :

P150 10003369v15

particular barriers to housing. Ethnic groups with an Asiatic origin have a disproportionately low representation on the Housing Register relative to the size of the resident population in Burnley. Disabled applicants account for a relatively small proportion of the Housing Register. Affordable stock, and more widely, market stock, will need to be designed to accommodate such groups.

10.130 As is the case in many other parts of the country, there also appears to be an issue relating to high levels of demand for housing for first time buyers and younger people. Even with demand-side interventions by the Government such as Help to Buy and the Starter Homes initiatives, there remain considerable barriers to accessing the housing market for such people due to a lack of available mortgage finance. However, this is ameliorated in Burnley to an extent due to the comparatively low property prices.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P151

11.0 Key Issues for Future Policy

Introduction

11.1 This section considers the implications of future policy changes on the delivery of affordable housing and particularly the impact of changes in housing costs. It also examines affordable housing requirement as a proportion of overall supply and the tenure mix.

Impact of Changes in House Prices and Market Rents

11.2 Sensitivity testing has been applied to examine the impacts on affordability of an increase or decrease in housing costs. A range of scenarios are tested as follows:

1 Land Registry data on house prices (2014/2015);

2 Current (2015) market rents;

3 5% and 10% increase in house prices;

4 5% and 10% decrease in house prices;

5 5% and 10% increase in market rents, and,

6 5% and 10% decrease in market rents.

11.3 Table 11.1 and Table 11.2 show the proportions of households in each sub-area which are estimated to be unable to afford access to market housing. Table 11.1 shows the affordability of existing households (used in steps 1.4 and 2.3 of the affordable housing model) and Table 11.2 shows the affordability of newly forming households, who generally have lower incomes (used in Step 2.2 of the model). As outlined previously, unusually, the higher monthly costs of renting a property rather than buying in the urban areas means that a higher proportion of households are unable to rent than the proportion unable to buy in all of the areas.

11.4 Housing affordability appears to be more of a problem in the surrounding rural areas of Burnley, although interestingly it is more affordable to rent than to buy outside the towns of Burnley and Padiham.

11.5 As might be expected:

1 An increase in housing prices or rental levels results in a corresponding increase in the percentage of households unable to afford access to market housing; and,

2 A decrease in housing costs causes the percentage of households unable to afford access to market housing to decrease accordingly.

Burnley SHMA :

P152 10003369v15

Table 11.1 Affordability Test Results – Proportion of Existing Households Unable to Afford LQ Market Housing

% Unable to Buy/Rent Lower Quartile House:

3.5 x Income Multiple / 25% Gross Income on rent

3.3 x Income Multiple + 20% Deposit / 35% Gross

Income on rent

% Unable to BUY 30.6% 26.2%

…with 5% increase 32.0% 27.5%


…with 5% decrease 29.1% 24.9%


% Unable to RENT 49.7% 32.0%





Source: Land Registry Data (2015), Rightmove (2015), Experian Income Data (2011)

Table 11.2 Affordability Test Results – Proportion of Newly Forming Households Unable to Afford LQ Market Housing

% Unable to Buy/Rent Lower Quartile House:

3.5 x Income Multiple / 25% Gross Income on rent

3.3 x Income Multiple + 20% Deposit / 35% Gross

Income on rent

% Unable to BUY 36.4% 31.2%





% Unable to RENT 68.6% 38.2%





Source: Land Registry Data (2015), Rightmove (2015), Experian Income Data (2011)

11.6 The results of the above affordability calculation (based upon higher and lower housing costs) have been inputted into the affordable housing model to enable an assessment to be made of the impact of changes in market rents on the net affordable housing requirement. The findings are set out in Table 11.3, which

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P153

demonstrates the significant impact which relatively minor changes in house prices/rental levels would have on affordable housing requirements (based on the Housing Register, rather than HNS, data).

Table 11.3 Net Annual Housing Need - with changes in market prices/rents

Burnley Housing Register Approach

Annual Affordable Housing Need

3.5 x Income Multiple / 25% Gross Income on

rent

3.3 x Income Multiple + 20% Deposit / 35%

Gross Income on rent

Current (2015) LQ House Prices 88 52

…with 5% increase 99 62


…with 5% decrease 76 42


Current (2015) LQ Rents 304 99





Impact of ‘Help to Buy’

11.7 The government’s ‘Help to Buy’ mortgage guarantee scheme has been hailed by both the development industry and the Government as being a key factor (alongside the gradual economic recovery) of stimulating the housing market. This helps to facilitate the provision of mortgage finance to households (often, but not exclusively, first time buyers) who might otherwise struggle to provide a sufficient deposit.

11.8 Under the government’s Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme, a buyer is only required to put down a minimum 5% deposit on a new home (older homes are excluded), and the government provides an equity loan (through the HCA) of up to 20% of the property’s value up to a maximum price of £600,000. The remaining amount is then covered through a standard mortgage. At the end of the mortgage or when the property is sold, the household must repay the equity loan, which will be 20% of the value at the time of sale. There is no fee applied to the equity loan for the first 5 years, after which an annual fee of 1.75% is payable, rising by RPI plus 1% each year.

11.9 The government’s Help to Buy Mortgage Guarantee scheme helps households to purchase a home with a deposit of just 5% of the purchase price. This is open to both first time buyers as well as existing home owners, for both new build and older homes in the UK (again with a purchase price of up to £600,000). The government provides a guarantee to the mortgage lender. In general, bank lending rates are higher under this scheme than if a purchaser were to apply for a mortgage independently, with an initial interest rate of 5.2% for the first five years typical.

Burnley SHMA :

P154 10003369v15

11.10 The government has also instigated the Help to Buy ISA, by which the government will boost savings into the account by 25%. The maximum government bonus that can be received is £3,000 (and a minimum of £400), and is available to each first time buyer, not each household (meaning that a couple with two separate Help to Buy ISAs, each saving up to £12,000, could receive a £6,000 bonus from the government to go towards buying your first home). As this can be used in conjunction with the other Help to Buy schemes, this could further increase the amount of deposit households can put down for their first home.

11.11 The latest figures provided by the Government86 indicate that between 1st April 2013 and 30st September 2015, the Help to Buy Equity Loan Scheme has helped 127 people buy their first home in Burnley, of which 84% (107) went to people taking their first step onto the housing ladder. In addition, the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee has helped 41 people buy their own home in Burnley (between 8th October 2013 and 30th June 2014).

11.12 An analysis has been undertaken of the extent to which the advent of Help to Buy allows both existing and newly forming households to purchase a new property. The analysis has looked at both the Help to Buy Mortgage Guarantee Scheme (which assumes that households would have access to a 5% deposit); and the HTB Equity Loan Scheme (where the Government provides an additional equity loan through the HCA of 20% of the property’s value).

11.13 The same LQ house prices are factored into the equation as before, and similar assumptions have been made that newly forming households will have incomes approximate three-quarters the level of existing households. It should be noted that the analysis makes no allowance for any fees involved; nor does it analyse the implications of the household failing to sell the property (or reduce the size of the equity loan) within the first five years and incurring increasing interest charges on the outstanding equity loan.

11.14 The results are presented in Table 11.4. They indicate that the HTB Equity Loan scheme could have a dramatic effect on people’s ability to purchase a new build property in Burnley. For example, the number of existing households who in theory could not afford to buy a new build property in Burnley could fall from 31% to 23%, or 29% with the HTB mortgage guarantee.

11.15 This suggests that the true level of affordability for both new and existing households in Burnley could be somewhat lower than has been modelled in Sections 7.0 to 10.0, although this of course assumes that householders are able to afford a 5% deposit in the first place (the HTB ISA could of course go some way towards assisting new households in being able to provide the necessary deposit).

86 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-monthly-statistics

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P155

Table 11.4 Affordability Test Results – Implications of the Help to Buy Scheme

% Unable to Buy/Rent Lower Quartile House

Burnley

ALL

Currently (EXISTING HOUSEHOLDS) 12,285 (30.6%)

With 20% Deposit and 3.3 x income 10,519 (26.2%)

With HTB Equity Loan (25%) deposit 9,297 (23.1%)

With HTB mortgage guarantee (5%) deposit 11,710 (29.1%)

Currently (NEW HOUSEHOLDS) 14,641 (36.4%)

With 20% Deposit and 3.3 x income 11,176 (27.8%)

With HTB Equity Loan (25%) deposit 11,176 (27.8%)

With HTB mortgage guarantee (5%) deposit 13,948 (34.8%) Source: Land Registry Data (2015), Rightmove (2015), Experian Income Data (2011)

Starter Homes

11.16 As noted in Section 3.0, the Housing and Planning Bill is introducing a statutory duty on local authorities to promote the delivery of Starter Homes, with a requirement for a proportion of starter homes to be provided on all ‘reasonably sized’ housing development sites.

11.17 Consultation is ongoing regarding the level at which this requirement should be set, although the Bill defines starter homes as being new dwellings available to first time buyers under the age of 40, sold at a discount of at least 20% of market value and at less than the price cap of £450,000 in London and £250,000 elsewhere, with a minimum time limit on resale (5 years) before the discount can be realised. Further financial support is available through the Help to Buy ISA to help purchasers save for a deposit, further reducing the financial burden on first time buyers87.

11.18 It is intended that most of these starter homes will be available for re-sale on the open market after 5 years at their full market value, and hence they will not retain their low cost status in perpetuity. Nevertheless, the government has made clear its intentions that Annex 2 to the Framework (the Glossary) will be revised to include starter homes within the overall definition of Affordable Housing on the grounds that affordable housing is about supporting households to access home ownership, where that is their aspiration, as well as delivering homes for rent:

“We propose to amend the national planning policy definition of affordable housing so that it encompasses a fuller range of products that can support people to access home ownership. We propose that the definition will continue to include a range of affordable products for rent and for ownership for households whose needs are not met by the market, but without being unnecessarily constrained by the parameters of products that have been used in the past which risk stifling innovation. This would include products that are

87 CLG (December 2015): Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy

Burnley SHMA :

P156 10003369v15

analogous to low cost market housing or intermediate rent, such as discount market sales or innovative rent to buy housing. Some of these products may not be subject to ‘in perpetuity’ restrictions or have recycled subsidy. We also propose to make clearer in policy the requirement to plan for the housing needs of those who aspire to home ownership alongside those whose needs are best met through rented homes, subject as now to the overall viability of individual sites.88” [§9]

11.19 Clearly then (acknowledging that the details are yet to be finalised), whilst starter homes are to be included in the definition of affordable housing going forward, households will not be means-tested. Therefore any first time buyer under the age of 40 could apply for a starter home no matter what their income may be. This means that it is not a simple matter to set out what the potential demand is likely to be for starter homes in Burnley, particularly as the Borough has some of the least expensive housing of any locality in England.

11.20 NLP has undertaken an analysis of the potential pool of households who may be eligible and able to purchase a starter home over the plan period 2012-2032. This process is summarised in Table 11.5.

Table 11.5 Potential Starter Homes Eligibility in Burnley (2012-2032)

Potential First Time Buyers

2012-32

% Who can afford to purchase a new

property @20% discount

Number able to afford a starter

home

Total Annual

Existing Households with a HRP under 40

5,297* 17.0% 903 45

Newly Forming Households with a HRP under 40

13,240 7.2% 959 48

TOTAL 18,537 - 1,862 93

Source: 2011 Census Land Registry Data (2015), Rightmove (2015), Experian Income Data (2011), 2016 PopGroup PCU/MYE Baseline Scenario

*Note: For existing households with a Household Reference Person [HRP] under the age of 40, it has been assumed that if they are currently living in rented accommodation then they would not previously have owned a home and would therefore be eligible for a starter home. Whilst this is likely to be true for the majority of cases, it will necessarily under-estimate the total number of households who have, for whatever reason, decided to rent having purchased a property in the past.

11.21 In the absence of any data on the likely purchase price of typical starter homes in Burnley, it has been assumed that this is likely to equate to the typical sales price of new build semi-detached, apartments and/or terraced properties in Burnley. The price paid figure for such properties over the year to September 2015 (as recorded by HM Land Registry) was £110,042. Discounted by 20%, this would suggest a typical discounted price of £88,034, which would require a household income of at least £25,152 (assuming a standard 3.5 x income multiple).

11.22 Table 11.5 indicates that this would typically price out 83% of existing households with an HRP under 40, and 93% of newly forming households with an HRP under 40. Applied to the total number of households in this age

88CLG (December 2015): “Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy”

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P157

bracket, this would suggest that there is potentially an annual reservoir of 93 households (both existing and emerging) over the next 20 years who would be eligible and theoretically able to purchase a starter home.

11.23 It is of course noted that this figure is based on a number of assumptions regarding individuals’ ability to pay and how the starter homes discount is likely to work in practice. We do not of course know how this will play out in Burnley, and whether given the comparatively low house prices generally, there will be substantial interest in this discounted product from either developers or potential occupiers.

11.24 For example, it is likely that the demand for starter homes will come from households who are either able to afford market or shared ownership properties, rather than affordable rented/social rented housing. It is unlikely therefore to have an impact on this latter form of social housing, although it is possible that there will be some overlap with intermediate housing needs. This is examined in further detail below.

11.25 Clause 3 of the Housing and Planning Bill (as currently drafted 13/01/2016) states that an English LPA “must carry out its relevant planning functions with a view to promoting the supply of starter homes in England”. Furthermore, Clause 4 - Planning permission: provision of starter homes, contains a new duty that applies to decisions on planning applications. The Explanatory notes accompanying the Bill suggests that the clause would enable the SoS, through regulations, to require that in relation to applications for residential development above a certain size there must be a s.106 planning obligation securing a certain proportion of starter homes on the site.

11.26 The regulations may also specify that certain types of residential development should be exempt, or that certain areas should have a higher starter home requirement, or that LPAs should have discretion about certain requirements. The requirements could include the provision of a particular number or proportion of starter homes on site or the payment of a commuted sum to the local planning authority for the provision of starter homes. The SoS will have flexibility to apply different requirements to different types of residential developments and to different areas, including conferring discretions on LPAs. It is understood that the Bill also gives the option to developers whether to build starter homes or affordable homes, including where there is a current s.106 agreement in place.

11.27 The government has therefore yet to provide a figure in the Practice Guidance / Framework regarding what the ‘certain proportion of starter homes’ provided on suitably-sized starter home schemes, is likely to be. Without this, it is very difficult to suggest the scale of need at this stage, or what proportion (if any) of the affordable housing requirement should be ‘netted off’ for the provision of starter homes.

11.28 Discussions with various RPs suggested that demand is likely to be very limited for starter homes in Burnley due to the relatively low property prices in the Borough.

Burnley SHMA :

P158 10003369v15

11.29 As such, the Council will need to monitor the situation and prepare suitable policy responses, based on viability assessments, to ensure that demand can be met without harming the wider property market (for either market or social rented properties).

Second Steppers

11.30 The Housing Needs Survey and stakeholder consultation have highlighted that a significant proportion of households are essentially unable to exercise genuine choice within the market as a result of their current limited financial capacity (when considered against current house prices and rents), even allowing for financial incentives such as Help to Buy. This is in part driven by a high proportion of local households having very low incomes or with low levels of savings or with limited (or even negative) equity in their property. This includes a group referred to as ‘second steppers’.

11.31 Second steppers are those people still living in their first home, but looking to take their next step up the ladder. They are the link between first time buyers and the rest of the housing market. Lloyds TSB has developed a second stepper housing affordability measure which is calculated as the average price of a typical second stepper home less the owner’s current equity position as a ratio of average earnings. In the UK, this stood at 4.6-times gross annual fulltime average earnings for 2012. This was significantly higher than a decade earlier when the ratio was 2.9-times gross annual average earnings, and well above the long-term average of 3.3. In the North West the figure was also 4.6-times89. The UK figure improved slightly on the previous year (the figure was 5.4-times in 2011, the highest figure in a quarter of a century).

11.32 Despite many benefitting from the recent equity boost associated with HTB and other fiscal measures discussed above, financial support is still being required to help many make the jump to the next step. A recent update by Lloyds Bank90 found that first time movers typically need to find an extra £125,694 to fund the move to their preferred next home of a detached property, and that 17% will require financial assistance from family or friends to help bridge this gap (asking for more than £22,000). Half of these second steppers feel that they would not be able to make the next move on the property ladder without this help.

11.33 According to Lloyds TSB, as more time passes since the peak of the market and the subsequent fall in house prices in 2007/08, a higher proportion of potential second steppers will have bought their first property when house prices had already fallen from their peak. However, second steppers in aggregate still face considerable challenges. Across the UK, the difficulties faced by second steppers are having a considerable knock–on impact for potential first-time buyers due to the resulting shortage of properties available on the market with housing chains hard to establish.

89www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/globalassets/documents/media/press-releases/lloyds-bank/2013/1201_stepper.pdf 90www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/Media/Press-Releases/2015/lloyds-bank/second-steppers-still-need-bank-of-mum-and-dad/

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P159

11.34 In terms of what this means for Burnley, the ratio between house prices and earnings has been calculated for second steppers in the authority for 2015 and compared to the equivalent ratios for England and Wales and the North West over the same period. This calculation is based on the following assumptions and data:

1 A second stepper is, on average, estimated to have 7% equity of the average price for a typical move-on property (based on equity level data collated by Lloyds TSB);

2 The data used relates to semi-detached properties (based on consumer research by Lloyds TSB which found that the majority of second steppers expect to move into a semi-detached home);

3 When calculating average semi-detached house prices, Land Registry Price Paid data for the 12 months to September 2015 has been used (equal to £121,378 for Burnley, compared to £226,863 nationally);

4 Earnings are based on Gross Annual Pay for Full Time Employee Jobs in 2015 using data from ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE).

11.35 The resultant ratios of house prices to earnings for second steppers are 5.1-times for Burnley. This compares to a Lancashire average of 5.6-times and a national average of 7.7-times.

11.36 This suggests that homes in Burnley are more affordable for second steppers than for Lancashire generally and considerably more affordable than across the country as a whole.

Self-Build

11.37 The Framework [§50] requires LPAs to plan for a mix of housing including for people wishing to build their own homes. The Government wants to enable more people to build their own home and wants to make this form of housing a mainstream housing option. There is strong industry evidence of significant demand for such housing, as supported by successive surveys. The Practice Guidance91 states that LPAs should plan to meet the strong latent demand for such housing. A self-build project is defined as a situation whereby a house is designed and constructed to the specifications of the person who is going to live there.

11.38 At present around 10,000 self-build homes a year are built in the UK92. The Government is keen to see this figure rise to 50,000 a year, or more. This would help to grow the proportion of new self-build homes built in the UK from its current 7%93 to nearer 25% (of 200,000).

11.39 The first stage involves self-builders formally registering for a new building plot with their local authorities (similar to the way people currently register on a

91ID2a-021-20140306 92 HCA (8th May 2015): 2010 to 2015 government policy: house building 93According to CLG’s Housebuilding September 2015 Quarterly, 136,830 homes were built in the year to September 2015

Burnley SHMA :

P160 10003369v15

council housing waiting list). People who wish to register may need to prove they have the resources to buy a plot once the council makes them available.

11.40 Each council needs to take note of the level of demand there was in its area and facilitate suitable building plots to match the local demand. The Government is planning to impose a legal duty on councils to provide the plots, and it has allocated £150m to help kick start the process. This enables councils to acquire land for the plots if it has no land of its own, and it could also be used to service the plots (i.e. to ensure good road access or to provide water, power etc. for each plot).

11.41 People on the local register would not be able to demand plots in specific locations, or get them at unrealistic prices. They would have to pay the full local value. People on the register could not expect to pick and choose too much. If a council made reasonable plots available and those on the register turned them down the council would have met its requirements. If councils do little or nothing to facilitate suitable building plots those on the register may be able to sue them.

11.42 In terms of how this initiative relates to Burnley Borough, the Practice Guidance94 advises that additional local demand over and above current levels of delivery can be identified from secondary data sources such as: building plot search websites; ‘Need-a-Plot’ information available from the Self Build Portal; and enquiries for building plots from local estate agents.

11.43 A review of such websites indicates that there are no plots specifically available for self-build in Burnley (although of course people could buy a plot of land with extant planning permission for residential use and self/custom build). Furthermore, the ‘Need a Plot’ information suggests that the level of demand for plots is also very low in the Borough, with no specific requirements for a plot being identified in either area at the time of search. As such, this data on its own does not demonstrate a strong local demand for people wishing to build their own homes in the Borough, and it therefore seems unlikely that this source will contribute significantly to meeting housing needs over the short to medium term in the Borough.

11.44 However, BBC has (as of 1st April 2016) a statutory responsibility for keeping a self-build and custom housebuilding register under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 and will need to put arrangements in place to ensure that it complies with this requirement. Alongside promotion of the benefits of self-build in their areas and the provision of suitable plots, the Council may wish to consider undertaking a survey to ascertain true levels of demand for self-build in Burnley.

Impact of the Affordable Rents Model

11.45 The Government introduced a new Affordable Rent Model in April 2011 as part of its spending review. Affordable Rent offers shorter term tenancies at a rent

94 ID2a-021-20140306

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P161

higher than social rent. This is set at up to 80% of local market rent.

11.46 In July 2014 the HCA announced the Affordable Homes Programme for 2015 to 2018, which will invest £1.7 billion in new affordable housing to deliver 165,000 new homes by March 2018. In addition, the Affordable Housing Guarantee scheme was launched to support the building of new additional affordable homes. The scheme offers housing associations and other private registered affordable housing providers a government guarantee, on debt they raise to deliver additional newly-built affordable homes. This will help to reduce their borrowing costs, increasing the number of new homes they can afford to provide. The guarantee scheme is complemented in England by grant funding, although the guarantees themselves are UK wide95.

11.47 The Government's recommendations were broadly welcomed by many RPs. There are new opportunities to better manage their assets and to tailor tenancies and rent levels to more accurately meet their needs. However, the structure of the new system also means that in areas where private rents are low (such as Burnley), social housing currently offers close to - or greater than - 80% of market rents. This finding was supported by the findings of the stakeholder consultation. For these places, there has been little or no increase in subsidy. This means that there has been very little additional money available with which to build new homes in some parts of the country.

11.48 The purpose of this section of the report is to examine the impacts of the affordable rent model. This report only focuses on affordability aspects; it does not consider other impacts of the affordable rent model. In addition, the potential opportunities for utilising affordable rent housing as part of a recommended tenure split for future affordable housing supply are explored later in this report.

Social Rent and 80% Affordable Rent Differences

11.49 As noted above, due to the comparatively low price of existing market housing, with a Lower Quartile price of £40,000, many households will find renting a more expensive option than purchasing a house. However, restricted access to mortgage finance and other issues mean that social rented/affordable rented properties still have an important role to play in meeting housing needs in Burnley. Table 11.6 presents the changes to rental levels by comparing current social rents with 80% of market rents. This does not take into account variations of income/rent levels in different locations within Burnley. However, the calculation is useful in broadly demonstrating the extent to which affordable rent levels (on average) at 80% of LQ market rent (i.e. 80% of £350 per month), compared with the cost of social rent. It shows significant differences between social and 80% market rents, with the former some 24% higher.

95

HCA (8th May 2015): 2010 to 2015 government policy: house building

Burnley SHMA :

P162 10003369v15

Table 11.6 Difference between Current Social Rents and 80% Market Rent - Overall Average

Social Rents

(Average) 80% Market Rents (Lower Quartile)

Difference

Burnley £348 £280 +£68 (+24%)

Source: CORE DATA (2015) and Rightmove (2015)

Comparing Rent with Household Income

11.50 Figure 11.1 draws together the information on rent differences with Experian household income band data for the general population (i.e. all households who live in Burnley).

Figure 11.1 Burnley Affordability

Source: Experian (2011), CORE, Rightmove (2015)

Affordability of existing and newly forming households

11.51 The above information relates to the general (existing) population. However, the affordable housing calculation (Section 8.0) explained how the incomes of newly forming households are generally lower than that of the general population. This is reflected in Figure 11.2, which contrasts the percentage of existing and newly forming households unable to afford existing social renting and 80% market rent. There is a substantial difference between the number of existing and new households that can afford either affordable or social rented accommodation due to the substantial drop in income estimated for the latter group.

11.52 There remains a very substantial difference between the ability of existing and newly forming households to afford either social or affordable rent. Indeed, it appears that:

1 49.1% of existing households and 68.2% of newly forming households

Income required to afford existing social rents

Income required to afford 80% LQ market rents

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P163

cannot afford existing social rent; and,

2 Some 35.6% of existing households and 46.3% of newly forming households in the Borough cannot afford 80% LQ market rent.

Figure 11.2 % of Existing/Newly Forming Households Unable to Afford Existing Social Rent or 80% LQ Market Rent

Source: Experian 2011, CORE 2015, Rightmove 2015

11.53 The income data used to inform this analysis does not take into account benefits received by households (including Housing Benefit). The analysis suggests that the proportion of households receiving Housing Benefit as part of the all-encompassing Universal Credit, could fall significantly with rents for new properties set at 80% of market rents, due to the low price of the latter.

Proportion of Housing to be Affordable

11.54 An overall housing OAN has been identified (Section 6.0) of 117 dpa - 215 dpa for Burnley Borough, equivalent to 2,340 to 4,300 additional dwellings over the Plan period 2012 to 2032. This has been informed by the moderate level of affordable housing need identified in this SHMA, which has resulted in a 10% uplift to the baseline figures.

11.55 An affordable housing requirement has been identified (in Section 10.0) of between 77 dpa and 88 dpa based on a 3.5 income multiplier, or between 37 dpa and 52 dpa applying alternative (and in the case of Burnley, arguably more realistic) assumptions regarding the inclusion of a 20% deposit and a lower borrowing formula (x3.3 income).

11.56 An assessment of the amount of net annual affordable housing need identified for the Borough (as a proportion of the total housing requirement) suggests that using the 52 dpa figure (using the most up to date Housing Register data,

Burnley SHMA :

P164 10003369v15

and arguably the more realistic income multiplier and deposit assumptions), Burnley would require between 24% and 44% of its total annual housing OAN to comprise affordable housing if it is to meet all of its need to 2032.

Ultimately, the affordable housing target to be established by Burnley Borough Council is a decision to be made through the Local Plan. The Council will need to establish a balance between housing need requirements and viability of delivery, amongst other planning considerations. The study has demonstrated that the quantitative need for affordable housing is modest, at around 52 dpa; a substantial fall on the previous level of need identified in the 2013 SHMA reflective of new data and particularly the new approach to distribute out the affordable housing backlog over the full 20-year period, rather than in the first five years which (in Burnley’s case) is likely to be unachievable.

This level of affordable housing need has nevertheless contributed to an uplift in the housing OAN range to help address the issue. Whilst it is recognised that other sources, including the Private Rented Sector, currently play a role in meeting affordable housing, this often results in unsatisfactory outcomes for those in housing need (i.e. insecurity of tenure). The extent to which BBC wishes to see this situation continue over the course of the plan period is a policy intervention issue for the Council to consider and NLP has not made any adjustments to the affordable housing requirement to ‘net off’ the contribution the PRS makes to addressing affordable housing need.

The government’s Practice Guidance states that the total affordable housing need should be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments, given the probable percentage of affordable housing to be delivered by market housing led developments. “An increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes.”96

However, the Guidance also states that any assessment of need ‘should be realistic in taking account the particular nature of that area’.

The affordable housing target to be established by BBC is a decision to be made through the emerging Local Plan. The Council will need to establish a balance between housing need requirements and viability of delivery. In particular, the supply of both market and affordable housing must be tackled to prevent the problem from becoming more acute.

This should be monitored given that the sector is in a state of flux at the time of writing, with the Housing and Planning Act likely to have significant impacts on the sector with requirements to ensure the provision of starter homes on all reasonably sized sites, as well as a host of other measures including the (voluntary) extension of Right to Buy for Housing Association tenants.

96 ID2a-029-20140306

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P165

Affordable Housing Split

11.57 An assessment has also been undertaken to establish a suggested split between social rent, affordable rent and intermediate affordable housing (with commentary also provided on the likely extent of overlap of the latter with starter homes). Again, the targets to be established are a policy decision for BBC to make through its emerging Local Plan.

11.58 This assessment has been undertaken by examining the interaction between housing costs and household income. The suggested tenure split has been informed by our analysis of the ability of households with insufficient income to access market housing to afford different types of affordable housing.

11.59 Housing costs have been examined by looking at the following sources:

1 Social rent levels: CORE data.

2 Intermediate housing costs: CORE data setting out the market value of shared-ownership purchases has been assessed. Indicative monthly housing costs have been identified using market values for non-detached new build properties in Burnley and based on the purchaser buying a 50% equity share in the property. Monthly mortgage costs are calculated based on 4% interest rate mortgage on the 50% equity. Rent levels are calculated on the basis that 3% of the equity retained by the RP is paid per year. For example, for a typical new build LQ property in Burnley valued at £89,738 (LQ price for new build properties), where 50% is rented, rental costs are assumed to be £113 per month.

3 Private rent levels: Rightmove data on advertised rents, cross-checked against VOA data.

4 Affordable Rent levels: (assuming affordable rent is at 80% market rents): 80% of private rented costs.

11.60 This has identified average monthly housing costs, which are set out in Table 11.7. Information on household income has been obtained from Experian data, which estimates the number of households with a household income in each of ten different income bands. The income data used to inform this analysis does not take into account benefits received by households (including Housing Benefit).

Table 11.7 Monthly Rents and Costs

LQ Home Ownership (£40,000)

Affordable Rent (80%

market rent - £280 pcm)

Social Rent (average

£348 pcm)

LQ Private Rent (£350

pcm)

Intermediate shared

ownership (50% equity)*

Starter Homes**

New Home Ownership

(10% deposit)

97

Income required £11,429 £13,440 £16,682 £16,800 £20,681 £22,531 £25,347

% of Existing Burnley Residents who cannot afford

31% 36% 49% 50% 50% 75% 83%

Source: CORE (2015), Land Registry 2015 and Rightmove (2015)

97 Calculated on the basis of a 10% deposit for a typical Lower Quartile house in Burnley, at an interest rate of 4% over 25 years

Burnley SHMA :

P166 10003369v15

** Note: HM Land Registry data for Burnley indicates that the LQ price paid for a new home in Burnley was £89,738 for the year to September 2015

*Note: HM Land Registry data for Burnley indicates that the median price paid for a new home in Burnley (excluding detached) was £109,995 for the year to September 2015.

11.61 The analysis has estimated the number of households unable to afford market housing. This assumes that a household does not spend more than 25% of their income on rent (or for intermediate properties, combined mortgage/rent payments). Thus, to afford a lower quartile private rented monthly rent of £350, a household would require a yearly income of £16,800, 80% market rent would require an income of £13,440; to afford intermediate a household income of £16,873 would be required; and to afford social rent, a household would need a household income of £16,682 (excluding any allowance for housing benefit).

11.62 In total, it is estimated that 19,985 households cannot afford private rent, which would equate to around 50% of all households in the Borough. Table 11.7 indicates that unusually, and due to the comparatively low costs of owning your own home in Burnley, home ownership is actually the most cost-effective form of housing open to households in the Borough, with almost 70% of existing households theoretically able to purchase a Lower Quartile property without any form of financial assistance. This is reflective of the low prices of many existing properties in the Borough – at the other end of the scale the median price of new homes built and sold over the year to September 2015 is significantly higher, at £109,995, with just 17% of existing households theoretically able to afford even with a 10% deposit allowance.

11.63 The analysis has enabled an estimate to be made of the proportion of households in each area with insufficient income to afford market rent and therefore requiring affordable housing. The analysis at Figure 11.3 shows the proportion of these households:

1 Unable to afford LQ house prices;

2 Able to afford LQ House prices, but not 80% market rent;

3 Able to afford 80% market rent, but not social rent;

4 Able to afford social rent, but not LQ private rent;

5 Able to afford LQ Private rent, but not intermediate housing;

6 Able to afford intermediate housing, but not starter homes;

7 Able to afford starter homes, but not a new build property (at median sales prices).

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P167

Figure 11.3 Existing Households ability to afford a New House

Source: Experian, NLP analysis, CORE, Rightmove 2015

11.64 Figure 11.3 shows that in theory, all forms of social housing are less affordable than LQ market housing in the Borough, with 31% of existing households unable to afford this most affordable of housing tenures. However, clearly the situation is considerably more complicated than this; it presupposes that the remaining 69% of households are able to assure the mortgage provider that they are credit-worthy and have an income source that would enable them to meet the monthly payments.

11.65 In addition, it might ordinarily be supposed that there will be a significant overlap between households in need of a shared ownership property, and those eligible for/able to buy a starter home. Whilst it is impossible to estimate at present the likely extent of any ‘switch’ between intermediate and starter homes in Burnley due to the absence of any further information at this time from government concerning costs and future requirements, it appears that for Burnley at least the impact on affordable housing needs will be limited. This is because there is a very significant gap between the (comparatively low) price of an LQ house to purchase, and the (likely) cost of a new build starter home.

11.66 There is likely to be some overlap between intermediate homes and starter homes given the nature of the products involved, although it is likely that the incomes required for a LQ intermediate house and a starter home will be quite different – with the latter tenure likely to require (as a minimum) incomes around £5,660 higher.. The need for starter homes is likely to be particularly pressing in surrounding rural areas, given the higher house prices in these locations (although it is difficult to gauge the extent of this given the very low level of development outside the towns of Burnley and Padiham in recent years).

Burnley SHMA :

P168 10003369v15

11.67 The recommended percentage split for social rent/affordable rent/intermediate affordable housing (based on the identified net requirements) is set out in Table 11.8.

11.68 This is based on the analysis above and the progressive move at a national level away from social rented towards affordable rented tenure provision. As noted above, the Government has introduced measures to facilitate the provision of affordable rented properties at the expense of social rented dwellings.

11.69 For example, 31% of households cannot afford any form of housing (whether it is social rented or private) without any form of housing subsidy, whilst a further 18% can afford social rented accommodation, although affordable rented accommodation appears to be less costly. These households cannot afford any form of social rented accommodation, hence a significant proportion will be reliant on housing benefit to meet their housing needs, which would be paid out to households whether they are in social rented or affordable rented properties.

Table 11.8 Suggested Social Rent/Intermediate Affordable Housing Split

Burnley

Net Annual Affordable Housing Need (gross household formation approach, HNS)

52

% Social / Affordable Rented 80%

% Intermediate Tenure 20%

11.70 In justifying the 20% of affordable housing to comprise intermediate tenure, the recommended split has been based upon an assessment of the affordability of households in need for different forms of affordable housing. Policy choices on the delivery of affordable housing will need to balance affordability against the deliverability of social rented, affordable rented and intermediate tenures (intermediate being generally cheaper to deliver per unit than social rented and affordable rent offering a new choice and opportunity for delivery).

11.71 It is accepted that there has been relatively limited use of intermediate tenure property in Burnley. Furthermore, in the Housing Needs Survey, not a single household in need stated that their preferred tenure would be intermediate, or shared ownership, housing, whilst Registered Providers also suggested that there was a very limited supply of, and demand for, shared ownership in Burnley. However, it is a relatively cheap form of affordable tenure and offers significant benefits to the occupants by providing them with a financial stake in the property. In addition, this tenure is often preferred by housebuilders as it is cheaper to deliver and does not have an impact on the marketability of the adjacent open market housing. Around 40% of all households who cannot afford an open market, new build property (based on median prices), can afford intermediate housing.

11.72 In these circumstances, it would require a shift in delivery and the Council/RPs to market this form of tenure to demonstrate its benefits to future residents but it has the potential of providing an attractive and more viable form of affordable

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P169

housing to meet local needs.

11.73 The amount of income from affordable housing varies depending on the type of tenure proposed. This is not generally related to the costs of building the dwelling (although the specification may be slightly higher for intermediate rather than social rent) but to the sale price to Registered Providers [RPs]. RPs are generally able to pay more for intermediate stock because of they receive part of the purchase price and market rent from the future occupier. This means that housebuilders receive a premium for this type of tenure which assists the viability of the development as a whole. In addition, housebuilders are often able to make a greater provision of intermediate housing due to the reduced implications on market sales and the higher premium from RPs. This form of tenure also provides tenants part ownership of their property which helps first time buyers to enter the property market.

11.74 Housebuilders determine the affordable housing they prefer to provide based on the financial implications for the development. In particular, housebuilders prefer to provide intermediate housing because there is less market resistance amongst house purchasers to buy houses next to intermediate tenures; indeed much of the concern over social housing relates to the implications for house sales nearby. As a consequence, the plots adjacent to the affordable housing units are generally sold at a discount with the greatest discount reserved for those properties close to social rented accommodation.

11.75 It is noted that this analysis has been undertaken before the affordability and deliverability implications of the new starter homes tenure have become apparent. This is likely to impact on affordable housing provision and will overlap to an extent with intermediate housing needs/provision. This emerging role of starter homes will require close monitoring and if new evidence emerges on the affordability impacts of social rented and intermediate properties then the recommended tenure split may require amendment. Policy decisions on the required split should also take into account the comparative deliverability and viability of affordable/social rent, intermediate tenure and starter homes going forward.

Conclusions

11.76 Sensitivity testing has been undertaken to examine the impacts on net affordable housing requirements of an increase or reduction in housing costs. It demonstrates the significant impact which a relatively minor change in rental levels would have on affordable housing requirements. This reinforces the importance of monitoring the situation and updating the affordable housing calculation if significant changes in the costs of market housing occur. The implications of the government’s approach towards the promotion of starter homes on reasonably sized sites and the extent to which they will also perform a social housing function will also need to be monitored, given the relatively weak viability of many urban sites in the Borough.

11.77 The affordable housing requirement as a proportion of overall supply has also been examined. It notes that theoretically at least, LQ market housing is more

Burnley SHMA :

P170 10003369v15

affordable than any form of social tenure including intermediate and starter homes; however clearly many households are unable to obtain access to mortgage finance for a variety of reasons and social housing provision will clearly still have an important role to play in the Borough.

An assessment has been undertaken of the split required between social rent, affordable rent and intermediate housing. Affordable housing targets are a policy decision to be made through the emerging Local Plan. However, the following indicative percentage split for affordable housing has been suggested by this report (bearing in mind that there is very limited difference between the cost of social/affordable rent and intermediate housing in the Borough):

- 80% Social/Affordable Rented; 20% Intermediate.

It is recommended that BBC continues to take a flexible approach to affordable housing requirements when dealing with housing applications in the Borough, as the lower level of housing viability in many urban parts of Burnley and Padiham could be compromised by an excessive affordable housing requirement. This applies not only to the amount of affordable housing to be provided, but also the tenure type, with social/affordable rented accommodation generally being less profitable for a volume house builder than intermediate, or shared, ownership.

There are therefore considerable uncertainties as to what the new starter homes requirement is likely to mean for affordable housing provision and the extent to which this will overlap with intermediate housing provision in particular. Therefore in weighing the amount of affordable housing to be provided, the LPA should treat each case on its merits.

It is acknowledged that levels of intermediate housing provision in Burnley have been relatively low to date, whilst the HNS revealed very limited demand and/or understanding of the product. However, the provision of this tenure is becoming increasingly popular across the Country as it offers developers a more profitable and lower risk affordable housing alternative to social rented properties.

The provision of intermediate housing can thus assist in improving the viability of development, which is an important issue in Burnley Borough. This form of tenure also provides occupants with a financial interest in their property and thereby helps first time buyers to enter the property market. It is therefore considered likely that the popularity of the intermediate housing tenure will increase in Burnley over time, hence the 20% recommendation for intermediate tenure provision.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P171

12.0 Housing Requirements by Size, Type and Sub-Area

Introduction

12.1 The modelling undertaken for Burnley, and discussed in detail in Sections 5.0-7.0, has provided a range of housing requirements for the Borough. This section provides a more detailed analysis of the requirements split by size and type affordable/market housing combined.

Housing Requirements Split by Size and Tenure

12.2 There is no exact formula for setting the approach to defining housing size and type requirements, and no way to ‘model out’ the need for judgement when balancing a range of different factors. The starting point for the analysis involves revisiting the outputs of the PopGroup model. This splits the population forecasts into various household groupings based on 8 ONS derived codes (i.e. single household, married couple with two children etc.). This is significantly lower than the 17 codes that underpinned the previous CLG household projections, which makes it harder to break down the likely household composition than before.

12.3 Table 12.3 indicates that more than a third of all households are single in Burnley currently, with the number expected to increase by over 1,400 to 2032. In contrast, the number of Couples with one or more other adults is projected to decline by almost 200 households over the next 20 years. The number of households with 2 children is expected to shrink by almost 300 households by 2032.

Table 12.1 Estimated Household Type

Burnley

2012 2032

Single Person (Male or Female) 12,618 (34%) 14,036 (36%)

Couple Only 9,067 (24%) 9,466 (24%)

Couple + Other Adults 2,900 (8%) 2,704 (7%)

Households with 1 Child 5,086 (14%) 5,378 (14%)

Households with 2 Children 3,715 (10%) 3,386 (9%)

Households with 3+ Children 1,947 (5%) 1,974 (5%)

Other Multi-Person Households 2,240 (6%) 2,625 (7%)

TOTAL 37,572 (100%) 39,570 (100%)

Source: NLP / PopGroup Baseline PCU/MYE Model Run 2016

Burnley SHMA :

P172 10003369v15

12.4 It is possible to link the changes in household characteristics with the housing types/sizes they are likely to require, adapted from assumptions stated in the Government’s Survey of English Housing (2008). The assumptions, amended by NLP, are presented in Table 12.2.

Table 12.2 Estimated Housing Size required by Household Type, by Age of Head of Household

Age Range 2013

Single Person Male

Single Person Female

Couple Only

Couple + Other Adults

Households w/ 1 child

Households w/ 2

children

Households w/ 3+

children

Other Multi-

Person

0-14 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

15-24 1 bed flat/house 1 bed

flat/house 2 bed

flat/house 3 bed house

2 bed flat/house

3 bed house 4 bed house 3 bed house

25-34 1 bed flat/house

1 bed flat/house

2 bed flat/house

3 bed house 2 bed

flat/house 3 bed house 4 bed house

3 bed house


2 bed flat/house

2 bed flat/house

3 bed house 3 bed house 3 bed house 4 bed house 3 bed house


2 bed flat/house

2 bed flat/house

3 bed house 3 bed house 3 bed house 4 bed house 3 bed house


1 bed flat/house

2 bed flat/bungalo

w

3 bed flat/bungalow

3 bed house 3 bed house 4 bed house 3 bed house

85+ Housing with

care Housing with

care Housing with

care Housing with

care Housing with

care Housing with

care Housing with

care Housing with care

Source: NLP after Survey of English Housing 2008

12.5 This table has been defined on the basis of the following assumptions98:

1 Smaller flatted accommodation or houses will be more suitable for meeting the initial requirements of married couples until the age they have a family. Those households without children could occupy either houses or flats of the appropriate size;

2 Cohabiting couples and lone parents will want and require similar sizes of housing to married couples. Those households without children could occupy either houses or flats of the appropriate size;

3 Smaller flatted accommodation or houses will generally be more suitable to meeting the requirements of single person households (although it is recognised that this is more relevant for younger households, as Burnley and Padiham offer comparatively inexpensive housing and many people will expect a house rather than a flat);

4 According to their composition, flatted provision such as a residential care home, hostel or purpose-built student accommodation will be more suitable for multi-person households;

5 Further qualitative allowances will need to be made of households at retirement age who are likely to continue living in their previous home unless more manageable two bed flats, houses and bungalows are available; and,

98After Northern Peninsula SHMA (December 2008)

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P173

6 The requirement for housing with care, including supported housing and extra care provision, is likely to increase at 85 and above. This relates to C3 rather than C2 (i.e. nursing homes) land uses.

12.6 Applying the matrix to the PopGroup data allows an initial (and very much an indicative) understanding of the composition of future dwelling type requirements in Burnley.

12.7 Table 12.3 demonstrates that due to the high numbers of one-person households in the area by 2032, coupled with an ageing population, the need for smaller units exceeds the need for larger, family units for Burnley, and that the trend is likely to become accentuated over time. For example, given the changing household characteristics, the proportion of households who could be adequately housed in 3-bed accommodation could decrease from 32.1% in 2012, to 30.5% in 2032. The need for housing with care could increase substantially for Burnley Borough over the 21-year time period.

Table 12.3 Estimated Housing Type and Size ‘needed’

Burnley

2012 2039

1 bed flat 19.0% 19.3%

2 bed flat/house/bungalow 40.1% 39.0%

3 bed house/bungalow 32.1% 30.5%

4 bed house 5.2% 5.0%

Housing with Care 3.6% 6.0%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%


12.8 Table 12.4 presents the difference, in absolute terms, for each of the house types based on the PopGroup baseline model and demonstrates an increased ‘need’ for 1 and 2 bed properties and particularly housing with care (the ‘need’ for which could increase by more than 80%, with a stabilisation in the need for 3-bed and 4-bed houses. This requirement for smaller residential units99 for Burnley Borough would correlate with the national trend towards an ageing population and smaller household sizes generally.

Table 12.4 Change in House Size and Types, 2012-32

Burnley

2012 2032 Difference (%)

1 bed apartment 7,142 7,626 484 (+6.8%)

2 bed flat/house/bungalow 15,076 15,440 364 (+2.4%)

3 bed /house/bungalow 12,048 12,072 23 (+0.2%)

4 bed house 1,946 1,974 28 (+1.4%)

Housing with Care 1,359 2,458 1,099 (+80.8%)

99 It should be noted that the need for ‘smaller’ properties refers to 1/2 bed properties instead of 3/4 bed properties. This does not necessarily mean there is a need for properties with a smaller footprint.

Burnley SHMA :

P174 10003369v15

Burnley

2012 2032 Difference (%)

TOTAL 37,572 39,570 1,998 (+5.3%)


12.9 However, the figures are indicative and do not take into account a range of critical qualitative considerations. In particular, the modelling does not fully address people’s aspirations and the viability of particular dwelling types. As a result, the modelling is a relatively weak match with the current ‘stock’ of house sizes in the Borough, as illustrated in Figure 12.1.

12.10 For example, whilst the modelled need for 1-bed properties is high in Burnley Borough in 2011, the actual stock of 1-bed homes recorded in the 2011 Census was just 9% (itself a small proportion of the stock when compared with the national average of 12%). It should be recognised as well that the data presented in the Census for this category does not provide a separate figure for Housing with Care. It is therefore important to recognise that in practice, providing a range of dwelling sizes specifically to match the quantitative need would not address people’s aspirations and could discourage more affluent households from moving to/remaining in the Borough.

Figure 12.1 Modelled ‘need’ compared with 2011 Census ‘actual’ stock

Source: NLP PopGroup Analysis / Census 2011

Note: Census 2011 does not provide a breakdown for the number of households currently residing in housing with care

Aspirations and Viability Considerations

12.11 Research by CABE shows that semi-detached and detached houses are the preferred house type for the majority of households, particularly families (but not limited to this household type). Older couples also aspire to live in

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P175

detached houses. In terms of past supply, 1 and 2-bed flats have contributed significantly to supply over recent years. They are viewed as a short-term housing option for many households, with a large number of purchases resulting from their relative affordability and their being located primarily in central locations100. Stakeholder discussions suggested that flats have struggled to sell in Burnley in recent years and there is significantly weaker demand for this type of product going forward.

12.12 Underlying trends in the wider economy - and particularly the ability of households to pay for ‘more’ housing than they strictly need - has resulted in increasing housing consumption (in terms of numbers of rooms for most household types), especially in owner occupation. This is accentuated by the generally progressive nature of housing aspirations.

12.13 Hence aspirations are generally for larger homes, and the size of dwelling that people actually ‘need’ (as calculated in Table 12.3) is often significantly smaller than the size of dwelling they actually want, or can afford. Furthermore, viability challenges remain a barrier to policy makers in Burnley seeking to influence size/mix. Many developers quite correctly cite squeezed development margins in a risk averse commercial market as a barrier to making amendments to the mix of dwellings where any such changes might be ‘sub optimal’ in terms of sales and marketing. Further uncertainties concerning the new starter homes requirement is further clouding matters in the Borough.

12.14 In the public sector, changes to the benefits system (especially the advent of the Government’s fiscal penalty for under-occupancy) is incentivising households to move to smaller properties in order to avoid a reduction in the level of housing benefit they receive. Discussions with a number of RPs has indicated that the under-occupancy penalty has had a significant impact on household’s requirements (in the social sector), with a substantial increase in the number of respondents wanting 1 and 2-bed properties and a commensurate reduction in the number of households asking for 3-bed properties. This is at variance with what was experienced previously. This is presenting significant problems for RPs as there is insufficient 2-bed stock to meet this demand.

12.15 Equally, in the current property market, the assumption that high density apartment schemes will come forward in substantial numbers in Burnley (particularly for market housing) must be tempered with the fact that there are many examples across the country of sites with extant planning permission for small apartments lying vacant. This is of particular interest to Burnley, where there is considerable potential to convert the numerous mill buildings in the authority area. However, the very low proportion of dwelling completions to planning approvals in Burnley (see Figure 3.11) suggests that other forces are at work that are prohibiting/discouraging landowners from implementing their permission, with viability issues likely to be a key concern. As such, there is a risk in deliverability should BBC be too prescriptive with regards an overly high requirement for small, high density 1 and 2-bed apartment schemes.

100 CABE 2005, ‘What home buyers want: attitudes and decision making among consumers’

Burnley SHMA :

P176 10003369v15

Housing Size and Type Summary and Qualitative Balancing

12.16 In summary, the evidence base suggests that there is a need to encourage the development of smaller properties to provide choice in terms of both size and price, particularly in the social rented sector. Through the application of various assumptions on housing need by household type, the results suggest that, based on the characteristics of existing and new residents in Burnley in the period up to 2032, there would be a need for the following:

1 An increased need for 1-bed apartments, in the order of 7%;

2 A modest increased need for 2-bed apartments/houses/bungalows, in the order of 2%;

3 No significant increase in the need for 3-bed apartments / houses / bungalows;

4 A slight increase in the need for 4-bed semi-detached and detached houses (+1%); and

5 A substantial increased need for housing with care, at levels over 80% higher than the 2012 position.

12.17 However, this level of ‘need’ does not factor in critical issues such as aspirations and viability. Realistically, although a couple aged 65+ living in the large former family home, may only ‘need’ a 1 or 2 bed dwelling, they are quite likely to remain and ‘under-occupy’ their existing, larger house (particularly if they own their own home), or even move to a similarly sized property. Similarly, families will often seek a spare bedroom if affordability permits.

12.18 In addition, there are clear issues with the quality of much of the existing dwelling stock. The Burnley 2009 House Condition Survey101 found that a substantially higher proportion of the housing stock in the Borough was built pre-1919: 71.2% compared to 23.6% nationally, with lower proportions built in the following periods especially between 1919 and 1944. The stock has very high proportions of terraced houses (comprising 74.6% of the total stock compared to 29.1% nationally) especially medium/large terraced houses (51.0% in Burnley compared to 16.9% nationally).

12.19 The Survey found that the proportion of homes failing the Decent Homes Standard, at 43.6%, was significantly worse than the national average of 36.7% for equivalent tenures. Failure rates were largely driven by energy efficiency standards and Category 1 Hazards102:

“The highest rate of non-decency, by some margin, is found in converted flats (71.3%) which generally have an association with the private rented sector and poor repair. The next highest rate is for small terraced houses (49.3%) and then low rise purpose built flats (49.1%). The lowest rate of non-decency is found in bungalows at 12.2%.103” [4.6.3]

101 Burnley Borough Council (June 2009): House Condition Survey 2009 102 Examples of a Category 1 might be: A dwelling that has little or no insulation and is using electric fires for heating. · A dwelling with a steep, narrow poorly lit staircase that has no hand-rails. A dwelling with loose and uneven crazy paving over a large area with a high risk of causing a trip resulting in a fall. Source: BBC (2009): House Condition Survey 2009 103Ibid

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P177

12.20 The Survey found that there is currently a 2,120 dwelling shortfall against the 2010 decent homes target. This means that 54.1% of vulnerable households, in the private sector, are living in decent homes, a figure that should be raised to 70%.

12.21 This indicates that there is a very clear issue with the quality of much of the smaller flatted accommodation and also the ubiquitous 2/3-bed terraced properties in the Borough.

12.22 Furthermore, an over-representation of smaller town houses/apartments could be detrimental to the viability of many proposed developments in the Borough and may do little to change perceptions of the urban areas of Burnley, with a need for larger, more aspirational properties. As such, a rational, balanced approach needs to be taken using the modelled approach to guide, rather than dictate, the proposed mix of units. The aspirations of local residents have been obtained following the household survey work used to inform the SHMA.

12.23 The Housing Register, SHMA modelling work discussed in Section 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0 and the 2013 Housing Needs Survey suggests the following (summarised in Table 12.5):

All housing tenures:

1 There is a general aspiration of households across Burnley for larger 3/4+ bed properties rather than smaller 1 bed units. For example, 20% of Burnley respondents would like to move into 4-bed properties or larger, despite current ‘need’ being estimated at around 5%. The total stock of such dwellings is around 12% in Burnley;

2 When asked about the size of properties that respondents are likely to move into, the aspirations outlined above are tempered (with more people expecting to move into 2-bed properties), but only slightly – far more people consider themselves ‘likely’ to move into larger properties than their actual housing ‘need’ would suggest, based on the size of the family unit;

3 The greatest imbalance is in the 3 bed properties, which comprise around 40% of the total stock in Burnley, yet a substantially lower level of modelled and revealed ‘need’ going forward.

Affordable Housing:

1 The RPs Survey indicated that social housing providers were finding it increasingly difficult to let 3-bed properties in the Borough as a direct result of the newly introduced penalty for under-occupancy, with demand far outstripping supply for social rented 2-bed properties;

2 The Housing Register data suggests a pronounced need for additional 1-bedroom properties in Burnley, at a level more than five-times above current stock levels. The need for smaller properties in the social rented sector is also much greater than the aspirations of existing households who can afford market housing.

Burnley SHMA :

P178 10003369v15

Table 12.5 Estimated Housing Size ‘needed’ / aspired towards

Burnley Stock (2011

Census)

All Housing Tenures Affordable Housing

‘Need’ (PopGroup Modelling, redistributing

housing with care)

Housing Needs Survey**

Minimum Required (Housing Register)*

Maximum Required (Housing

Register)*

2011 2012 2032 2013 2016 2016

1 bed flat 8.9% 21.6% 23.4% 6.9% 54.1% 50.3% 2 bed flat / house / bungalow

39.5% 40.8% 40.4% 43.4% 31.5% 32.1%

3 bed house / bungalow

39.8% 32.4% 31.3% 30.0% 11.6% 12.2%

4 bed+ house 11.8% 5.2% 5.0% 19.7% 2.8% 5.3% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Census 2011 / NLP / Housing Register 2016104 / 2014 Housing Needs Survey *Maximum Bed Size Required – January 2016 Quarterly Report, B-With-Us Active Housing

Register **2013 Housing Needs Survey: “Q26 ‘How many bedrooms would you like to have’”. Excludes

‘Don’t knows’ from responses

12.24 In terms of property type, whilst it is difficult to compare the existing stock as recorded in the 2011 Census with household’s aspirations due to the absence of a separate category for ‘bungalows’ for the former data source, an analysis has been made of the responses of the HNS and also the bidding activity for property types on the B-With Us Housing Register, as outlined in Table 12.6.

12.25 There is a clear aspiration amongst Burnley respondents to move into a semi-detached property and particularly a bungalow. For the latter, the proportion of respondents aspiring towards owning a bungalow is around three-times the actual stock levels recorded in the 2011 Census, suggesting a clear mismatch between supply and demand. For terraced stock, the reverse is true.

Table 12.6 Estimated Property Type aspired towards

Burnley (%)

HNS Estimated Stock HNS Aspirations*

2013 2013

Semi-detached house 30.2% 35.1%

Detached house 14.1% 9.5%

Terraced house 41.0% 16.8%

Flat/Maisonette 2.6% 3.6%

Bedsit/Studio/Room Only 0.0% 0.0%

Bungalow 11.4% 35.0%

Supported housing 0.2% 0.0%

Caravan or temporary structure 0.6% 0.0%

TOTAL 100% 100% Source: Household Survey 2013 Q01: ‘What type of property do you live in’ and Q25 ‘How many

bedrooms would you like to have’, excluding extra care housing

104Given the absence of data available on ‘need’ and aspirations for extra care housing, this house type has been excluded from the calculations. However, given the characteristics of those households requiring extra care accommodation, it seems reasonable to suppose that the majority will require smaller properties, and particularly 1/2 bed flats/bungalows.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P179

12.26 As noted in BBC’s 2009 Stock Condition Survey, the Borough has an over-supply of terraced properties, many of which are of a poor quality that fail the Decent Homes Standard. There is a clear lack of higher quality/replacement properties towards the top end of the housing market catering for more aspirational households, specifically larger detached properties. The provision of more of these types of dwellings might encourage a greater number of existing households to remain living in the Borough whilst moving up the housing ladder.

12.27 Table 12.7 brings together the quantitative analysis discussed above to provide an indicative forward requirement for house sizes between 2012 and 2032. The indicative requirement highlighted in the table represents a balanced judgement, based on the results of the stock, need, and aspirations categories. No specific weighting has been attached to any of these three categories.

12.28 The recommendations attempt to strike a balance between the smaller household sizes over the plan period and the changes to the welfare system. This is forcing many households to move to smaller social properties, set against the clear need to diversify the housing stock from terraced properties towards more aspirational detached and semi-detached dwellings.

12.29 It is only by developing higher quality 3 and 4-bed detached properties in these areas that Burnley can hope to effectively compete against wealthier housing markets nearby, and to stem the tide of out-migration of affluent residents which stakeholders identified as being a serious problem for the Borough. This is particularly important if the upper end of the OAN housing range is targeted, which will aim to reverse the trend of net out-migration and seek to attract and retain economic migrants to move to the Borough.

Table 12.7 Suggested Property Size and Type 2012-2032

Burnley (%)

All Property Types Affordable

1 bed flat 40% 70%

2 bed flat / house / bungalow

3 bed house / bungalow 60% 30%

4 bed house

Semi-detached house 35% 35%

Detached house 20% 10%

Terraced house 15% 15%

Flat/Maisonette 10% 15%

Bedsit/Studio/Room Only 0% 0%

Bungalow / Elderly Housing 20% 25%

Caravan or temporary structure 0% 0%

Burnley SHMA :

P180 10003369v15

12.30 It should be noted that even if 215 dpa were delivered in Burnley over the plan period, this would still only comprise a relatively small percentage of the total dwelling stock in the Borough by 2032 (around 11%). As a result, it would take a substantial amount of time to rebalance the stock to meet identified needs, as set out in the (indicative) Table 12.8.

Table 12.8 Indicative Changes to Dwelling Stock

Burnley Current Stock

Recommended New Stock

Additional Housing (215

dpa)

Estimated Future Housing

Stock

2011 2012-2032 2012-2032 2032

1/2 bed flat/ house / bungalow

18,155 (48.3%) 40% 1,720 19,875 (47.5%)

3/4+ bed house / bungalow 19,395 (51.7%) 60% 2,580 21,975 (52.5%)

12.31 The indicative requirements for Burnley Borough are made on the following grounds:

1 Smaller 1 / 2 bed dwellings: there is a need for continued provision of smaller housing in Burnley Borough over the course of the plan period. This is as a result of a combination of social change, with more people living longer, and alone. Households’ aspirations in the Borough (as identified in the HNS) are evenly split between smaller 1/2 bedroomed dwellings and larger 3/4 bed properties. However, this is set against the shift towards smaller properties as set out in the PopGroup ‘need’ based modelling. There is already a substantial stock of small properties in the Borough, and particularly two-up, two down terraced dwellings, many of which are in poor condition and do little to attract / retain households in Burnley. As a consequence, and bearing in mind viability considerations (which would need to be considered in greater detail by the Council as this is outside the scope of this SHMA), it is suggested that around 40% of all new units in Burnley could comprise 1/2-bed units.

2 As regards affordable housing, particular consideration was given to stakeholder comments received, which indicated that although demand for smaller properties has been weak in the recent past, the changes to the benefits system was forcing more residents to consider smaller housing options than before to avoid losing part of their housing benefit. Furthermore, the Housing Register indicates that over 80% of all applicants in Burnley require a maximum of a 1/2 bed property, despite the aspirations revealed in the HNS being closer to 50%. A reasonable point between the two ranges suggested by the HNS and the Housing Register indicates a need for around 70% 1/2 bed affordable properties in Burnley.

3 Larger 3/4 bed dwellings: there are a lower proportion of larger properties in Burnley than might be expected when compared to the regional and national averages, with just 52% of Burnley’s total stock comprising 3/4+ bed units in the 2011 Census, compared to 62% across the North West and 60% nationally. Furthermore, 50% of respondents to the HNS aspired to move to larger 3/4 bed properties. In terms of the

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P181

physical ‘need’ for such properties, the trend over the study period is declining slightly over time. For example, despite comprising 52% of the total stock at present (according to the 2011 Census), it is estimated that Burnley Borough would ultimately ‘need’ only around 36% of its total stock to comprise this house size by 2032. However, there is a clear need to rebalance the stock and provide larger, better quality dwellings in the Borough and meet aspirational needs.

4 On this basis, it is suggested that the amount of larger units be set around the 60% level in the Borough. As noted above, there is a clear need to reverse the current trends of high levels of net out-migration of residents, and to diversify the housing stock towards these larger, better quality detached and semi-detached properties. This will help ensure that there is a more clearly defined housing ladder within the Borough, which is currently overly weighted towards the value end of the market.

5 As regards the need for larger affordable housing, the stakeholder discussions revealed there to be a serious imbalance in the social rented sector regarding supply and demand for 3-bed properties in particular, which are becoming increasingly hard to let as a result of the fiscal penalties associated with under-occupation. Furthermore, the Housing Register clearly shows there to be a far greater need for smaller properties in the Borough. Adjusting the balance between ‘need’ and aspirations suggests that Burnley may wish to provide around 30% of the total affordable stock as 3/4-bed in future.

6 Type of property: Linked to points 1-5, there is a clear need to rebalance the stock away from the traditional 2-up, 2-down terraced properties that are common in Burnley. Furthermore, there is also a need to encourage households to remain in Burnley, and providing them with a range of larger, high quality properties could be part of an effective strategy to reduce levels of out-migration. As such, it is suggested that around 20% of new market stock could comprise more aspirational property types, specifically detached dwellings.

7 Using the aspirations identified by the HNS as a base, it is suggested that around 35% of the total market stock developed over the Plan period could comprise semi-detached housing; 20% detached housing; 15% terraced/town house properties; 10% flats/maisonettes; and the remaining 20% could comprise properties tailored for the elderly market (i.e. C3 bungalows, extra care facilities, sheltered housing etc.). This does not include provision for C2 units requiring a higher level of care intervention, which would be in addition to the figures quoted in this report.

8 As for the suggested affordable housing split, and based upon the findings of the stakeholder discussions and the Housing Register (see Table 12.6), it is suggested that fewer detached properties should be provided, with the balance redistributed towards smaller housing types such as terraced / town houses, apartments and bungalows/elderly housing reflecting the smaller property sizes required.

Burnley SHMA :

P182 10003369v15

13.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction

13.1 This report has been prepared by NLP to advise Burnley Borough Council on the housing requirements necessary for its emerging Local Plan. The study advises on all housing sectors, including the size and type of dwellings required to reflect local demand. The report also summarises the outputs of NLP’s HEaDROOM framework which forms an integral part of this report’s findings.

Housing Requirements

13.2 Taking into account the scenarios tested and the core constraints on development delivery as shown by current evidence, it is NLP’s recommendation that Burnley’s housing OAN range is between 117 and 215 dpa over the period 2012-2032. This will provide a realistic level of housing provision which responds to economic growth, affordable housing need, market signals and the demographic challenges that are present in the Borough.

13.3 The latest available Census data on migration and commuting patterns suggests that Burnley Borough in isolation does not comprise a self-contained Housing Market Area, which also includes the administrative area of Pendle Borough Council. The 117-215 dpa housing OAN therefore relates only to part of the wider HMA Burnley sits within (as it is based upon the population expected to be living within the Borough’s administrative boundaries over the period to 2032).

13.4 The 298 dpa taken forward by PBC in its emerging Core Strategy falls within the 250-340 dpa OAN range recommended in the 2012-based SNPP Housing Needs Study Update (September 2014).

13.5 Burnley’s range takes the CLG’s most recent household projections (59 dpa) as the starting point for identifying need as defined in the Practice Guidance. A judgement was made to accelerate household formation for the younger age groups to allow for the return to growth and their increased ability to form a household going forward, as well as making an adjustment for the latest Mid-Year Population Estimates, increases this starting point to 107 dpa.

13.6 Despite a significant under-delivery of housing in the Borough in recent years, despite relatively high levels of residential planning permissions, for most if not all of the other market signals identified in the Practice Guidance, Burnley does not appear to be experiencing any of the symptoms that might be associated with a tightening demand; indeed the Borough has some of the lowest property prices in the country and the lowest affordability ratio. Whilst a degree of subjectivity is necessary here, it is not considered necessary to increase the demographic starting point to respond to any worsening market signals in this

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P183

instance.

13.7 Whilst recognising that there is not a direct causal relationship between employment growth and dwelling requirements, clearly the two are fundamentally related. The demographic starting point would actually result in a loss of employment in the Borough by 2032, with 215 dpa necessary to stabilise the local economy (taking into account recent job growth). Past job growth has been negative, although the econometric forecasts provided by Experian suggest the potential for 4,280 net job growth over the next 20 years, which would need to be sustained by a dwelling growth of 293 annually, keeping measures such as commuting levels constant. It is considered that this level of housing, along with the even higher projection under the Key Job Growth Sectors Scenario, would represent outliers to what might realistically expected to occur.

13.8 Even if BBC were to deliver housing at the top end of the range, this would be well below the affordable housing OAN of 52 dpa. At a delivery rate of 10%, this would result in an affordable housing OAN of 520 dpa.

13.9 It is considered that this could justify an uplift to the demographic need. It is NLP’s judgement that a 10% uplift to the figures would go some way towards addressing this affordable housing need. This would uplift the lower end of the OAN range to 117 dpa.

13.10 Meeting the identified affordable housing need is unlikely to be fully addressed through the s.106 process. Clearly if BBC were to target a greater level of affordable housing provision then a higher overall housing target may be a reasonable policy choice open to them.

13.11 It has been assumed that the current high vacancy rate of 6.25% remains constant over the plan period. It should be noted that the vacancy rate in new stock is likely to be lower than 6.25% and therefore this approach represents a ‘worst case’ scenario.

Affordable Housing Need

13.12 The starting point in calculating the net affordable housing need is the Total Current Housing Need (Gross) established in the Practice Guidance and set out in Sections 7.0 to 9.0 of this SHMA. This figure takes account of any backlog in provision. By deducting the current available stock of affordable housing (Step 3.5), this results in a net backlog of 801 dwellings for Burnley based on the Housing Register approach, or between 503 and 581 dwellings using the HNS approach. Annualised over 20-years this equates to a backlog of between 22 and 37 dwellings (deducting the current supply of 53 affordable dwellings). Given the relatively close march between the figures, this suggests a high degree of commonality between the separate approaches.

13.13 In defining newly arising need, the future annual supply of affordable housing identified in Step 3.8 (600 dpa) is removed from the annual future housing need of between 615 and 650 dpa for Burnley (depending upon whether an

Burnley SHMA :

P184 10003369v15

allowance is made for a 20% deposit and a slightly lower income ratio). When added to the backlog, this indicates that the Borough has a net annual need of between 15 dpa and 50 dpa, based on the gross household formation approach.

13.14 This results in a net annual need of between 37 and 88 affordable dpa. On the basis that the 3.3 x income and 20% deposit sensitivity test would be more likely to align with reality and hence more policy compliant, and as the Housing register represents the most up to date data available for Burnley, it is considered that greater weight can be attached to the 52 dpa figure.

13.15 This makes allowance for addressing the net backlog (annualised over 20 years) as indicated in Table 13.1. Should the Council wish to frontload the backlog over a shorter timeframe, such as 5 years, the figures would need to be adjusted accordingly and would result in a much higher affordable housing need over the short term.

Table 13.1 Annual Affordable Housing Need

Housing Register HNS

3.5 x income3.3 x income

+ 20% deposit

3.5 x income

3.3 x income + 20%

deposit

Current Need (Including Backlog)

Total Current Need (Step 1.4) 801 581 503

MINUS Total Available Stock of Affordable Housing (Step 3.5)

53 53

Equates to Net Current Need 748 528 450

Net Backlog: Annualised (20 years) (A) 37 26 22

Total Newly Arising Need

Newly Arising Housing Need (Annual) (Step 2.4)

650 615 650 615

MINUS Future Annual Supply of Affordable Housing (Step 3.8)

600 600

Equates to Net Newly Arising Need (net) (B)

50 15 50 15

NET ANNUAL NEED = A+B 88 52 77 37

13.16 The above calculations are significantly lower than the 434 dpa affordable housing need suggested by the Borough’s previous 2013 SHMA. The earlier report was based on a different methodology and data sources than this 2016 SHMA, not the least of which is the assumption (necessary in the context of Burnley’s weak delivery levels) to remove the backlog over twenty years rather than just five.

13.17 The new affordable housing need identified reflects the comparatively low property prices in the Borough, particularly for existing dwellings where the LQ price is just £40,000. However even at this level there are around 30% of existing households, and around 36% of newly forming households, who would be unable to afford a property, whilst a significant proportion of households may find it difficult to access mortgage finance in the Borough.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P185

13.18 Ultimately, the affordable housing target to be established by BBC is a decision to be made through the emerging Local Plan. This study has demonstrated that the quantitative need for affordable housing in Burnley is modest, but nevertheless challenging in the Burnley context.

13.19 The Practice Guidance states that any assessment of need ‘should be realistic in taking account the particular nature of that area’. There is therefore a clear need to balance the need to boost the delivery of affordable housing set against viability concerns for Burney.

Tenure Split and Property Sizes

13.20 The suggested split for social rent/affordable rent/intermediate affordable housing (based on the identified net requirements) is set out in Table 13.2. This is based on the analysis in Section 11.0 and the progressive move at a national level away from social rented towards affordable rented tenure provision.

13.21 Due to the recent introduction of the policy, the emerging role of starter homes will require close monitoring. Whilst it is impossible to estimate at present the likely extent of any ‘switch’ between intermediate and starter homes in Burnley due to the absence of any further information at this time from government concerning costs and future requirements, it appears that for Burnley at least the impact on affordable housing needs will be limited.

13.22 Although stakeholders have suggested that the demand for starter homes is likely to be limited in Burnley given the very low price of existing properties, if new evidence emerges on the affordability impacts of starter homes and the extent of any overlap with intermediate tenure properties in particular, then the recommended tenure split may require amendment. As mentioned above, policy decisions on the required split between social rent and affordable rent provision should also take into account their comparative deliverability.

Table 13.2 Suggested Social Rent/Intermediate Affordable Housing Split

Burnley

Net Annual Affordable Housing Need (gross household formation approach, Housing Register 3.3x income + 20% deposit)

52

% Social / Affordable Rented 80%

% Intermediate Tenure 20%

13.23 It is accepted that there has been relatively limited use of intermediate tenure property in Burnley. However, it is a relatively cheap form of affordable tenure and offers significant benefits to the occupants by providing them with a financial stake in the property. In addition, this tenure is often preferred by housebuilders as it is cheaper to deliver and does not have an impact on the marketability of the adjacent open market housing.

13.24 An assessment has been undertaken of the housing size split needs over the Plan period. Such housing targets are a policy decision to be made through

Burnley SHMA :

P186 10003369v15

the Local Plan and should be further tested through a plan wide viability assessment prior to submission.

13.25 However, it is recommended that the stock should be rebalanced away from terraced properties towards high quality, aspirational property types designed to reduce the high levels of net out-migration to adjoining areas. There is also a need for more good quality specialist care accommodation designed specifically for the growing elderly population.

Housing Requirements of Specific Groups

13.26 NLP’s PopGroup analysis and stakeholder consultation has enabled an assessment to be made of the housing requirements of specific groups in need:

1 Families with Children: Whilst the proportion of households which are families with children is expected to remain virtually identical over the plan period, the number of households with children will remain significant. It will be important to ensure that the housing needs of these families are met, through the provision of sufficient, good quality family accommodation in sustainable locations. Stakeholders commented that younger families with children are moving out of the Borough seeking more aspirational executive housing, with the HNS adding further weight to the supposition that there is a need to broaden the stock and provide a better quality environment in which to bring up children in Burnley;

2 Older People: It is evident that both the number and proportion of such households is expected to increase substantially in the period to 2032. Burnley is projected to see an increase of 37% of households headed by a person aged 65 and over between 2012 and 2032 (+3,785 households), whilst the number of residents aged over 85 is projected to increase by 85% over the same time period. The projected increase in older people (both in absolute and relative terms) has a number of severe housing, health and social care service implications which must be planned for accordingly.

Housing implications include increased demand for both specialist accommodation for older people and for services and home adaptations to enable older people to remain ‘at home’ living independently. Data from Housing LIN indicates that whilst there is currently a sufficient supply of specialist housing for older people in the Borough, this is imbalanced. There is currently a significant over-supply of Sheltered Housing for rent, and insufficient Enhanced Sheltered Housing and Extra Care facilities (for residents requiring a higher level of care). There is a need to enable/encourage older people to downsize if possible (recognising the inherent problems of this, given that many people tend to prefer to stay in the ‘family home’ even though they may be better suited to moving to a smaller property).

3 Households with specific needs such as disabled people: ONS Census Data (2011) indicates that Burnley has a level of limiting long-

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P187

term illness above the regional and national averages. As noted above, Burnley has a strongly ageing population, and older people are more likely than average to suffer limiting long-term illness and disability. Thus, it is probable that the ageing population is likely to lead to greater rates of limiting long-term illness and disability, with associated requirements for appropriate housing provision and adaptations. Households containing disabled people were (like other groups) most likely to justify their need to move on the basis that their existing house was too small or had insufficient bedrooms. However, some of these households also referred to factors such as their home being too large or unsuitable for a disabled person. The most common adaptations required are to the bathroom. Other common requirements include a stair lift/vertical lift and wheelchair adaptations.

4 Minority and hard to reach households: Households containing one or more non-British adults are more likely to consider that their home is unsuitable than the average (or typical) household interviewed as part of the HNS. However, it should be noted that the response rate was low considering the proportion of BME residents in Burnley. These households are also considerably more likely to report a requirement for additional bedrooms than the general population. Several RPs indicated that some neighbourhoods in Burnley are unpopular with BME groups and it was suggested that this is because these groups often like to settle in the same community. It was noted that this can cause an issue in providing housing as the geographical area of search is more limited and therefore restricted to fewer properties.

There was a general consensus that small family homes were usually required by the BME groups in the area. A specific need for 2, 3 and 4 bedroom family homes was identified (with the provision of two sitting rooms and other alterations necessary to accommodate religious requirements in some instances) resulting in a requirement for larger than normal properties. In terms of spatial distribution, the need of these groups was considered to be most prevalent in Daneshouse.

5 Rural Communities: The Government has placed the provision of housing for rural communities high up its agenda. In this regard, residents of Burnley’s rural areas were much less likely to report that their home is unsatisfactory than the equivalent borough-wide averages, with the main issues relating to size (either too large, or too small). There was a general consensus amongst RPs that there was a strong demand for housing in rural areas and an overall shortage of social rented stock. RPs commented that there was much lower stock turnover in rural locations of Burnley, and if dwellings became available they did not stay vacant for long in marked contrast to the towns of Burnley and Padiham.

6 First time buyers and young people: There is a relatively high level of housing need for the young in Burnley, although stakeholders considered that this demand could be adequately met by the very high volume of

Burnley SHMA :

P188 10003369v15

affordable properties currently on the market. As such, it was predicted that the advent of starter homes would not have a significant impact on meeting needs as the product is less relevant for places such as Burnley, which already has some of the lowest house prices in the country. A particular need for smaller houses suitable for small families was identified by stakeholders; and also a need for flats, particularly in urban areas where young people wish to live and commute from. Private sector renting provides a significant tenure for young people and provides particular benefits for this age group such as flexibility to move home relatively easily. Obstacles such as the availability of appropriate accommodation and limited locational choice should be a consideration.

7 Key workers: It was generally considered that there were few specific issues surrounding Key Workers and their ability to access either social or market housing in the Borough.

Next Steps and Monitoring

13.27 This report provides the baseline evidence for the likely scale of housing need and demand that Burnley will need to accommodate between 2012 and 2032. Whilst this report sets out a range of future potential scenarios, arriving at a final housing requirement will necessitate an iterative process utilising evidence contained within this report alongside other considerations material to the development of a spatial strategy.

13.28 In this context necessary future work may include:

1 To continue to monitor and update existing evidence and consider the implications of any future evidence upon constraints or opportunities for housing growth which may alter the scale of housing considered to be deliverable. Monitoring data could include: - Housing land (current stock) database;

- Housing completions/conversions/demolitions by sub-area;

- Housing permissions granted, by type;

- Housing land and premises available;

- Housing premises enquiries;

- Housing developer requirements for houses;

- Housing waiting lists applications;

- Key market signals;

- Dwelling vacancy levels, including the extent to which net vacancy levels can realistically be reduced in the future;

- Changes to the unemployment rate;

- Changes to the commuting rate / Labour Force ratio;

- Changes to the housing development pipeline by sub-area;

- The provision of affordable housing by sub-area; and,

- Domestic migration levels and trends at a sub-area level.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15 P189

2 Potential to undertake the following further monitoring work: - Undertake an assessment of the extent to which net vacancy levels

can be reduced over time. Clearly this will not just be about analysing the number of dwellings that are brought back into use, but also the extent to which the existing occupied stock is falling vacant – the ‘net’ figure is therefore the most important indicator, although even a significant reduction in net vacancy levels will only be likely to lead to a modest reduction in any housing requirement;

- Further evidence on housing need at a sub-area level to provide further context (but not sole determinant for) sub-area requirements;

- Assessment of the deliverability of different types of affordable housing provision (particularly as further information on starter homes and the extent to which this overlaps with intermediate housing in particular becomes available);

- On-going work on the evidence base for infrastructure, environmental and land supply constraints through on-going dialogue and annual updates/monitoring work;

- On-going work on the evidence base in relation to viability issues;

- An integrated infrastructure delivery plan that assesses the extent to which different scale and distribution of housing is able to deliver financial return (via CIL, New Homes Bonus, and other mechanisms) to address infrastructure requirements (site specific and area-wide, including specific CIL charging schedule;

- Integrate this work into the economic base for Burnley, including identifying the appropriate economic strategy going forward given the potential implications of demographic change for labour supply and what policy options are available for Burnley, including on housing mix.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15

Glossary

ASMigR (Age Specific Migration Rate)

Average number of migrants per 1,000 people by year of age.

Base Year Starting year for assessment. Currently 2012 due to data availability.

Blended Job Growth A job growth forecast using the forecast average job change in the Borough based on a combination of the latest projections produced by the Experian forecasting houses.

BRES The Business Register and Employment Survey. BRES is the definitive source of official employee statistics and can be used to derive employment estimates at varying industrial and geographical levels.

CLG Department for Communities and Local Government

Concealed Households

A household that neither owns nor rents the dwelling within which they reside AND which wants to move into their own accommodation and form a separate household.

Derived Forecast Model

New development in the PopGroup suite of software that incorporates the previous features of HouseGroup and LabGroup. The DF model allows data to be entered for any variable that is closely related to the age-sex structure of the population as forecast by PopGroup or independently, including household structure, economic activity rates and disability projections, and to prepare projections from these data sources.

In specific respect of this analysis, the DF model projects future household levels and resultant dwelling requirements and future economic activity and the number of jobs likely to be sustained in a particular area.

Dpa Dwellings per annum.

Economic Activity Rate

The % of population (both employed and unemployed) that constitutes the manpower supply of the labour market.

The Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (adopted in March 2012) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

HEaDROOM NLP housing requirement framework which takes account of demographic, housing and economic factors as well as policy and delivery matters to set out future housing requirements.

Household Headship Head of a household expressed as % of each age – sex population category. For married/cohabiting couples, males are taken as heads of household.

Household to Dwelling Conversion Factor

Factor for conversion of number of households to the number of dwellings. It takes account of transactional and long term vacancies and 2nd/holiday homes.

Expressed as 100 minus the vacant homes/2nd homes rate (%)

Internal Migration Migration to/from another part of UK.

International Migration Migration to/from another country.

Labour Force / Employment Conversion Rate

Factor for conversion of number of workers to number of jobs in an area it takes account of economic activity and commuting levels calculated by # workers in area ÷ # jobs in area over time, an objective would be to move towards a ratio of 1 = self-containment

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15

LEP Local Enterprise Partnerships are partnerships between local authorities and businesses. They decide what the priorities should be for investment in roads, buildings and facilities in the area. Burnley is located within the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership.

MYE Mid-Year Population Estimates

Natural Change The difference (in any given time period) between the number of births and the number of deaths.

A natural change projection ignores migration and shows the future population where any births and deaths affect it.

NOMIS NOMIS, an acronym for ‘National Online Manpower Information System’ is a service provided by the Office for National Statistics to provide free access to detailed and up-to-date UK labour market statistics from official sources.

ONS Office for National Statistics

Planning Practice Guidance

On 6th March 2014 CLG launched the Planning Practice Guidance web-based resource (http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/). This website brings together many areas of English planning guidance into a new format, linked to the National Planning Policy Framework.

PopGroup Forecasting model to project future population levels, based upon assumptions regarding fertility, mortality and migration when used in conjunction with HouseGroup and LabGroup it will also project the future dwelling requirements associated with the population change and the economic activity/job effects of change.

SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment

SMR (Standard Mortality Rate)

Number of deaths per 1,000 population per year.

SNHP Sub-National Household Projections. Household projections are trend-based and indicate the number of additional households that would form if recent demographic trends continue. They are produced by CLG and are underpinned by the equivalent SNPP.

SNPP Sub-National Population Projections. Population projections provide an indication of the size and age/sex structure of the future population if specified assumptions about future fertility, mortality and migration were to be realised. SNPPs are produced by ONS for local authority areas in England. They are not forecasts and do not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors (whether in the UK or overseas) might have on demographic behaviour.

Special Populations Particular groups within the wider population that exhibit particular demographic characteristics (e.g. students/school boarders/armed forces/prisoners).

Sub-Groups Individual areas to be tested that collectively form part of a broader study area.

TFR (Total Fertility Rate)

Average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if she were to experience the exact current age specific fertility rates (ASFR) through her lifetime and if she were to survive from birth to the end of her productive life.

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15

Appendix 1 Experian Income Bands Methodology Note

Income Bands (Local Area Data) Data Profile

Income Bands (Local Area Data)

Page 2 │Data Profile Version 1 | UK 2015 Data Release Experian Public

Overview

Coverage Availability

The UK Local Area Data (LAD) Income Bands database provides views of estimated

Personal and Household Income. These estimates are based on modelling undertaken at

person and household levels for Experian’s ConsumerView UK portfolio of Demographics,

Classifications, and Propensities.

The views of estimated personal and household income are based on models that were first

created in 2010 and are maintained on an annual basis following creation. The views show

the distribution of Household and Personal Income categories by mid-year 2014 (i.e. 30th

June 2014) estimates of Households (for Household Income) and Adults 18+ (for Personal

Income).

Methodology Income Bands 2011 relate to the latest version of Experian’s ConsumerView models of

Personal and Household Income. These were developed in 2010 using logistic regression

and linear regression techniques applied to Yougov and Experian consumer survey

responses. Results at person and household level have been calibrated to agree as closely

as possible with distributions from the Yougov survey as well Region (Formerly Government

Office Region) level targets from government sources (Note : See separate ConsumerView

Product Profiles for Personal Income 2011and Household Income 2011 for more

information).

In order to create the Local Area Data versions of Personal and Household Income Bands,

the processes described below have been undertaken. These processes are followed

because Output Area level counts of Adults and Households on ConsumerView can differ to

Experian Local Area Data Output Area level counts of Adults and Households. This is due to

the use of different data sources, different methodologies, and also different timings, when

creating the ConsumerView and Local Area Data estimates.

For the Income Bands 2011 model:

• Counts of ConsumerView Persons (Adults) by Personal Income category, and

Consumer Households by Household Income category, are accumulated to Output

Area level. This creates arrays of these items.

• The counts within these arrays are then scaled so that the sum of them across all

Income bands agrees with Experian’s Local Area Data, Output Area level, estimates of

Adults 18+ or Households, as appropriate.


Page 3 │Data Profile Version 1 | UK 2015 Data Release Experian Public

Variables Income Bands 2011 has the following household income bands and distribution:

Band Household %

£0 - £14,999 17.14

£15,000 - £19,999 7.31

£20,000 - £29,999 18.76

£30,000 - £39,999 15.05

£40,000 - £49,999 12.50

£50,000 - £59,999 7.80

£60,000 - £69,999 5.07

£70,000 - £99,999 7.32

£100,000 - £149,999 4.68

£150,000 + 4.38

Income Bands 2011 also has the following personal income bands and distribution:

Band Adults 18+ %

£0 - £9,999 24.38

£10,000 - £14,999 13.70

£15,000 - £19,999 10.58

£20,000 - £29,999 20.03

£30,000 - £39,999 13.10

£40,000 - £49,999 5.97

£50,000 - £59,999 2.89

£60,000 - £69,999 2.31

£70,000 - £99,999 3.39

£100,000 + 3.64

Update Frequency Annual.


Page 4 │Data Profile 2015 © Experian Ltd All rights reserved Experian Public

Experian Ltd

Embankment House

Electric Avenue

Nottingham

NG80 1EH

T: 44 (0) 115 968 5005

F: 44 (0) 115 958 5003

Latest Release: UK 2015 Data Release

Burnley SHMA :

10003369v15

Appendix 2 Inputs and Assumptions

Baseline Demographic Scenarios

Scenario A: 2012-based SNPP

Scenario B: 2012-based SNPP, with Partial Catch-up Headship Rates


Scenario D: Natural Change

Population

Baseline Population A 2012 baseline population is taken from the 2012-based SNPP. This population is split by single year of age and gender.

Births The number of projected births in Burnley from the ONS 2012-based SNPP is used.

Fertility Rates derived from the 2012-based SNPP for Burnley are used.

Deaths The number of projected deaths in Burnley from the ONS 2012-based SNPP is used.

Standardised Mortality Ratios derived from the 2012-based SNPP for Burnley area used.

Internal Migration Gross domestic in and out migration flows are adopted based on forecast migration Burnley from the ONS 2012-based SNPP are used.

Migration flows for 2012/13 and 2013/14 are taken from the Mid-Year Estimates for Burnley. Thereafter, a ten year average for 2004/05 to 2013/14 is used.

All migration flows are set to 0.

International Migration As above but for international flows

Propensity to Migrate (Age Specific Migration Rates)

Age Specific Migration Rates (ASMigR) for both in and out domestic migration are based upon the age profile of migrants to and from Burnley in the 2012-based SNPP. These identify a migration rate for each age cohort (for both in and out flows separately) which is applied to each individual age providing an Age Specific Migration Rate. This then drives the demographic profile of those people moving into and out of the District (but not the total numbers of migrants).

Burnley SHMA :

Demographic Sensitivities

Scenario Ai: 2012-based SNPP re-based to 2014

Scenario Bi: 2012-based SNPP, with Partial Catch-up Headship Rates re-based to 2014

Scenario Di: Natural Change re-based to 2014

Population

Baseline Population A 2012 baseline population is taken from the 2012-based SNPP. This population is split by single year of age and gender. At 2013 and 2014 the total population is constrained to the Mid-Year Estimates

Births The total number of births in Burnley for 2012/13 and 2013/14 is entered. For 2014/15 onwards the fertility rate from the 2012-based SNPP for Burnley is used.

Deaths The number of deaths in Burnley for 2012/13 and 2013/14 is used. For 2014/15 onwards the standardised mortality ratio from the 2012-based SNPP for Burnley is used.

Internal Migration The migration figures for 2012/13 and 2013/14 are used. For 2014/15 onwards, the projected levels of migration are taken from the 2012-based SNPP.

The migration figures for 2012/13 and 2013/14 are entered. For 2014/15 onwards, all migration flows are set to 0.




Employment-led Scenarios (and Supply-Led Scenarios)

Scenario E: Experian Job GrowthScenario F: Key Job Growth Sectors

Scenarios G and Gi: Job Stabilisation

Scenarios H and Hi: Past Trends Job Growth

Population

Baseline Population A 2012 baseline population is taken from the 2012-based SNPP. This population is split by single year of age and gender.

Births The Total Fertility Rate for Burnley (as derived from the 2012-based SNPP) is applied.

Deaths The Standardised Mortality Ratios for Burnley (as derived from the 2012-based SNPP) are applied.

Internal Migration Migration is inflated/constrained according the change in number of jobs (or homes for ‘supply-led’ scenarios) over the projection period.




Burnley SHMA :

All Scenarios

Housing

Headship Rates Headship rates specific to Burnley taken from the CLG 2012-based household projections are used. These are split by five year age group and sex. Partial Catch-up Sensitivity – as above, however rates in the 15-34 age groups are projected to make up 50% of the difference between the 2012-based and 2008-based projections by 2033.

Population Not in Households

The number of population not in households (e.g. those in institutional care) is similarly taken from the assumptions used to underpin the 2012-based CLG household forecasts. This is applied as a number below age 75 and a rate above age 75. No change is assumed in the rate of this from the CLG identified rate.

Vacancy / 2nd Home Rate

A vacancy and second homes rate is applied to the number of households, representing the natural vacancies/not permanently occupied homes which occur within the housing market and mean that more dwellings than households are required to meet needs. The average rate of vacant/second homes in Burnley over the 2012-14 period has averaged 6.25%. This has been taken from CLG Council Tax Base data.

Economic

Economic Activity Rate

Age and gender specific economic activity rates are used. The bases for these are the 2011 Census. The economic activity rates have been adjusted to take into account the 2012 Annual Population Survey, to reflect the known number of economically active people in Burnley at the base year. For age groups 16-24, rates are projected to reach the ONS Labour Force Projections (LFP) by 2020, and then held constant. For ages 25-69, the ONS LFP growth rates are applied, and held constant post 2020. In older age groups, an adjustment has been made to take account of higher economic activity than projected in the LFP. Rates for 70-74 year olds are projected to reach a mid-point between the ONS LFP and a linear trend based on 2001-2011 growth, then held constant. Above this age, the 70-74 growth rate is applied. Further adjustments have been made for males and females age 65-69 to take into account of changes in Statutory Pension Age in 2018-2020 and 2026-2028.

Labour Force Ratio A standard net commuting rate is inferred through the modelling using a Labour Force ratio which is worked out using the formula: (A) Number of employed workers living in area ÷ (B) Number of workers who work in the area (number of jobs). In Burnley, APS and Experian data indicate that between 2012 and 2014 the LF ratio averaged 0.96. This is applied and held constant over the projection period.

Unemployment A model-based estimate of unemployment taken from the Annual Population Survey is used. For 2012, 2013 and 2014 the figures for unemployment are used (9.0%, 9.6% and 9.2% respectively). It is assumed that by 2020, unemployment in Burnley will reach its pre-recession level of 5.6%. From 2020 onwards this is held constant.

Burnley SHMA :

P200 10003369v15

Appendix 3 PopGroup Output Sheets

Population Estimates and Forecasts NLP

Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario A: 2012-based SNPPYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 628 620 612 606 604 598 590 583 576 570 564 558 553 550 547 544 543 541 541 541

Female 598 590 583 577 575 570 562 555 548 542 537 532 527 524 521 518 517 515 515 515

All Births 1,226 1,210 1,196 1,183 1,178 1,168 1,151 1,137 1,124 1,112 1,101 1,090 1,081 1,073 1,067 1,063 1,059 1,057 1,056 1,056

TFR 2.18 2.15 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DeathsMale 440 428 428 424 425 418 419 419 420 421 423 426 429 432 435 437 441 444 450 454

Female 486 447 439 441 440 433 431 428 427 429 426 428 429 431 433 437 439 442 446 450

All deaths 926 875 867 865 865 850 850 847 847 850 850 854 858 863 868 875 879 886 896 904

SMR: males 128.6 122.8 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 130.8 119.7 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 129.7 121.2 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.8 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.5 83.2

Expectation of life: males 76.3 76.8 77.1 77.5 77.7 78.2 78.5 78.8 79.1 79.4 79.7 80.0 80.2 80.4 80.7 81.0 81.2 81.4 81.5 81.6

Expectation of life: females 80.4 81.3 81.7 81.8 81.9 82.3 82.5 82.8 83.0 83.2 83.5 83.7 83.9 84.1 84.3 84.5 84.7 84.9 85.0 85.1

Expectation of life: persons 78.4 79.1 79.5 79.7 79.9 80.3 80.6 80.8 81.1 81.3 81.6 81.9 82.1 82.3 82.6 82.8 83.0 83.1 83.3 83.4

Deaths input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In-migration from the UK Male 1,566 1,570 1,573 1,576 1,578 1,580 1,580 1,581 1,580 1,579 1,578 1,577 1,578 1,581 1,585 1,589 1,594 1,598 1,601 1,606

Female 1,557 1,554 1,554 1,551 1,548 1,545 1,542 1,540 1,536 1,533 1,532 1,530 1,532 1,534 1,538 1,544 1,549 1,554 1,559 1,565

All 3,123 3,125 3,127 3,127 3,126 3,124 3,122 3,120 3,116 3,112 3,110 3,107 3,110 3,115 3,123 3,133 3,143 3,152 3,161 3,171

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Out-migration to the UK Male 1,735 1,725 1,719 1,715 1,712 1,703 1,695 1,690 1,685 1,684 1,679 1,677 1,672 1,673 1,672 1,671 1,671 1,670 1,667 1,669

Female 1,748 1,729 1,726 1,712 1,704 1,690 1,671 1,664 1,657 1,646 1,647 1,646 1,647 1,645 1,649 1,646 1,645 1,641 1,644 1,645

All 3,484 3,454 3,445 3,427 3,416 3,392 3,367 3,354 3,341 3,330 3,326 3,323 3,319 3,317 3,321 3,317 3,315 3,311 3,312 3,313

SMigR: males 38.3 38.2 38.2 38.3 38.3 38.3 38.3 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.7 38.6 38.6 38.5 38.4 38.4

SMigR: females 37.4 37.3 37.4 37.3 37.4 37.4 37.3 37.4 37.5 37.5 37.6 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.6 37.5 37.4 37.4 37.3

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In-migration from Overseas Male 192 190 190 196 194 190 186 187 186 186 187 188 190 191 196 196 196 197 199 203

Female 196 195 191 194 189 187 185 181 184 182 185 185 184 188 191 189 190 191 193 198

All 388 385 382 390 382 377 371 368 370 368 372 373 374 379 386 385 387 388 391 401

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Out-migration to Overseas Male 213 211 211 211 213 208 207 208 208 207 209 210 211 213 218 218 218 219 220 225

Female 205 205 201 200 197 195 195 191 193 192 195 195 194 198 201 200 201 202 203 208

All 418 416 413 411 410 403 402 399 401 399 404 405 406 411 419 417 419 420 423 433

SMigR: males 84.3 84.0 84.5 84.7 85.9 84.4 84.6 85.4 85.9 86.3 87.3 88.4 89.4 90.4 92.6 92.7 93.0 93.1 93.7 95.4

SMigR: females 99.4 99.7 99.0 99.1 98.2 98.0 98.6 98.0 100.0 100.0 102.8 103.3 103.7 106.0 108.0 107.5 108.1 108.5 109.0 111.7

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Migration - Net FlowsUK -361 -329 -319 -300 -290 -268 -244 -234 -225 -217 -216 -216 -209 -202 -198 -184 -172 -159 -151 -143

Overseas -31 -31 -31 -22 -28 -26 -31 -31 -31 -31 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32

Summary of population changeNatural change +299 +334 +329 +318 +313 +318 +301 +290 +277 +262 +251 +236 +222 +210 +199 +188 +180 +171 +160 +152

Net migration -392 -360 -350 -322 -318 -294 -275 -265 -257 -249 -248 -248 -241 -234 -230 -216 -205 -191 -183 -174

Net change -92 -26 -21 -4 -5 +23 +26 +25 +20 +13 +3 -12 -19 -24 -31 -28 -25 -20 -23 -22

Crude Birth Rate /000 14.08 13.90 13.74 13.60 13.55 13.42 13.23 13.07 12.91 12.77 12.64 12.51 12.41 12.33 12.27 12.22 12.18 12.15 12.15 12.16

Crude Death Rate /000 10.64 10.06 9.96 9.95 9.95 9.77 9.77 9.73 9.73 9.76 9.76 9.81 9.86 9.92 9.98 10.05 10.11 10.19 10.30 10.40

Crude Net Migration Rate /000 -4.50 -4.14 -4.02 -3.71 -3.66 -3.38 -3.16 -3.05 -2.95 -2.86 -2.85 -2.85 -2.77 -2.69 -2.65 -2.49 -2.35 -2.19 -2.10 -2.00

Summary of Population estimates/forecastsPopulation at mid-year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 5,949 5,943 5,904 5,894 5,870 5,822 5,771 5,719 5,666 5,607 5,547 5,491 5,439 5,393 5,351 5,316 5,287 5,265 5,248 5,238

5-10 6,310 6,503 6,652 6,783 6,838 6,889 6,915 6,879 6,862 6,820 6,807 6,779 6,727 6,671 6,616 6,560 6,500 6,437 6,379 6,326 6,278

11-15 5,046 4,965 4,840 4,847 4,948 5,029 5,160 5,339 5,448 5,540 5,582 5,597 5,574 5,570 5,542 5,534 5,515 5,481 5,442 5,403 5,361

16-17 2,163 2,155 2,134 2,086 1,940 1,913 1,933 1,925 1,966 2,037 2,088 2,141 2,225 2,251 2,240 2,226 2,207 2,222 2,225 2,211 2,194

18-59 (Females) and 18-64 (Males) 50,117 49,632 49,315 49,006 48,809 48,493 48,096 47,809 47,489 47,131 46,862 46,532 46,284 46,086 45,913 45,729 45,558 45,356 45,243 45,132 44,997


75-84 4,642 4,694 4,732 4,774 4,828 4,941 5,058 5,245 5,391 5,548 5,978 6,314 6,597 6,770 6,893 6,952 7,038 7,054 7,075 7,081 6,922

85+ 1,936 1,957 1,995 2,041 2,091 2,125 2,174 2,211 2,272 2,359 2,454 2,550 2,627 2,707 2,797 2,912 3,031 3,186 3,326 3,482 3,815

Total 87,127 87,035 87,009 86,988 86,984 86,978 87,002 87,028 87,053 87,073 87,086 87,089 87,077 87,058 87,034 87,003 86,975 86,950 86,930 86,907 86,885

Dependency ratios, mean age and sex ratio0-15 / 16-65 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34

65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.41

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.75

Median age males 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.1 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.7 38.8 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.4 39.5 39.7 39.8

Median age females 39.7 39.8 39.8 39.9 39.9 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.1 40.3 40.4 40.6 40.7 40.9 41.0 41.2 41.3 41.5 41.7 41.8

Sex ratio males /100 females 96.8 97.0 97.1 97.2 97.3 97.5 97.6 97.7 97.8 97.9 97.9 98.0 98.1 98.2 98.2 98.3 98.4 98.4 98.5 98.6 98.6

Population impact of constraintNumber of persons +1 +0 +0 +2 +1 +2 +1 +0 +1 +0 +0 -0 -0 +0 -0 -0 -0 -0 +0 +0

HouseholdsNumber of Households 37,573 37,612 37,649 37,691 37,784 37,849 37,940 38,004 38,057 38,123 38,177 38,233 38,282 38,325 38,381 38,440 38,501 38,550 38,599 38,648 38,671

Change in Households over previous year +39 +37 +42 +93 +66 +90 +64 +53 +66 +54 +56 +49 +43 +56 +59 +61 +49 +48 +49 +23

Number of supply units 40,078 40,120 40,159 40,204 40,303 40,373 40,469 40,538 40,594 40,665 40,722 40,782 40,835 40,880 40,940 41,003 41,068 41,120 41,172 41,224 41,249

Change in over previous year +42 +39 +45 +99 +70 +96 +69 +57 +70 +58 +60 +53 +46 +60 +63 +65 +52 +52 +52 +25

Labour Force at 3% 39,867

Number of Labour Force 41,800 41,684 41,522 41,324 41,192 41,015 40,828 40,734 40,650 40,446 40,241 40,020 39,833 39,680 39,506 39,405 39,320 39,197 39,113 39,017 38,934

Change in Labour Force over previous year -116 -163 -198 -132 -176 -188 -93 -85 -204 -205 -221 -187 -154 -173 -101 -85 -122 -84 -96 -83


Change in over previous year -370 +20 +76 +136 +88 +78 +168 +176 -200 -201 -217 -184 -151 -170 -100 -84 -120 -83 -95 -82


Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario Ai: 2012-based SNPP re-based to 2014 MYEYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 618 616 618 612 610 604 596 589 582 577 571 566 561 558 555 553 551 550 549 549

Female 589 587 589 583 581 575 568 561 555 549 544 539 535 531 529 527 525 524 523 523

All Births 1,207 1,203 1,207 1,195 1,190 1,180 1,164 1,150 1,137 1,126 1,115 1,105 1,096 1,089 1,084 1,080 1,077 1,074 1,072 1,072

TFR 2.14 2.13 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input * *

DeathsMale 457 427 418 411 411 403 404 404 404 405 407 409 413 416 418 421 425 428 434 438

Female 495 459 428 428 426 417 415 412 411 413 411 414 415 417 420 424 426 429 434 439

All deaths 952 886 846 839 837 820 819 816 815 818 818 823 827 833 838 845 850 857 868 877

SMR: males 133.3 124.5 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 133.3 124.5 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 133.3 124.5 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.8 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.5 83.2




Deaths input * *


Female 1,582 1,812 1,554 1,551 1,548 1,545 1,542 1,540 1,536 1,533 1,532 1,530 1,532 1,534 1,538 1,544 1,549 1,554 1,559 1,565

All 3,174 3,644 3,127 3,127 3,126 3,124 3,122 3,120 3,116 3,112 3,110 3,107 3,110 3,115 3,123 3,133 3,143 3,152 3,161 3,171

SMigR: males 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 1,850 1,843 1,726 1,712 1,704 1,690 1,671 1,664 1,657 1,646 1,647 1,646 1,647 1,645 1,649 1,646 1,645 1,641 1,644 1,645

All 3,686 3,681 3,445 3,427 3,416 3,392 3,367 3,354 3,341 3,330 3,326 3,323 3,319 3,317 3,321 3,317 3,315 3,311 3,312 3,313

SMigR: males 40.5 40.7 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.8 37.8 37.9 37.9 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.0 38.1 38.1 38.0 37.9 37.9 37.7 37.7

SMigR: females 39.6 39.7 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 36.9 37.0 37.1 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.3 37.2 37.3 37.2 37.1 37.0 37.0 36.9

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 87 130 87 90 88 88 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87

All 187 279 186 194 188 189 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 72 72 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97

All 163 162 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217

SMigR: males 35.6 35.7 47.6 47.7 48.0 48.2 48.4 48.7 49.0 49.2 49.5 49.7 50.0 50.1 50.2 50.3 50.3 50.2 50.2 50.1

SMigR: females 35.1 35.2 47.1 47.3 47.6 48.0 48.4 48.8 49.3 49.7 50.1 50.5 50.9 51.1 51.3 51.4 51.4 51.4 51.3 51.2

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Overseas +24 +117 -32 -24 -29 -28 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32


Net migration -488 +80 -350 -324 -319 -296 -276 -266 -257 -249 -248 -248 -241 -234 -230 -216 -204 -191 -183 -174

Net change -233 +397 +10 +31 +34 +64 +68 +69 +64 +58 +48 +34 +28 +23 +16 +19 +22 +26 +22 +21

Crude Birth Rate /000 13.87 13.81 13.82 13.68 13.62 13.50 13.30 13.14 12.98 12.84 12.71 12.59 12.49 12.41 12.34 12.29 12.25 12.22 12.20 12.19

Crude Death Rate /000 10.94 10.17 9.69 9.61 9.58 9.38 9.36 9.32 9.31 9.33 9.33 9.38 9.42 9.48 9.54 9.62 9.68 9.75 9.87 9.97

Crude Net Migration Rate /000 -5.61 0.92 -4.01 -3.71 -3.66 -3.39 -3.16 -3.04 -2.94 -2.84 -2.83 -2.82 -2.75 -2.67 -2.62 -2.46 -2.33 -2.17 -2.08 -1.98


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 5,920 5,942 5,911 5,908 5,892 5,867 5,829 5,780 5,729 5,672 5,614 5,560 5,511 5,467 5,429 5,396 5,370 5,349 5,332 5,321

5-10 6,310 6,489 6,658 6,791 6,854 6,908 6,919 6,882 6,877 6,846 6,838 6,816 6,786 6,745 6,694 6,641 6,583 6,524 6,469 6,419 6,375

11-15 5,046 4,952 4,841 4,849 4,948 5,029 5,162 5,338 5,446 5,540 5,589 5,604 5,573 5,570 5,551 5,547 5,533 5,519 5,494 5,459 5,420

16-17 2,163 2,105 2,066 2,004 1,858 1,832 1,851 1,846 1,885 1,952 2,001 2,059 2,141 2,156 2,146 2,141 2,130 2,129 2,123 2,125 2,120



75-84 4,642 4,709 4,761 4,814 4,881 5,010 5,140 5,341 5,497 5,667 6,111 6,452 6,746 6,929 7,064 7,133 7,228 7,257 7,293 7,315 7,169

85+ 1,936 1,893 1,889 1,907 1,940 1,956 1,993 2,018 2,071 2,150 2,238 2,335 2,410 2,486 2,571 2,683 2,802 2,955 3,093 3,249 3,582

Total 87,127 86,894 87,291 87,301 87,333 87,367 87,431 87,499 87,567 87,632 87,690 87,738 87,772 87,799 87,822 87,838 87,857 87,879 87,905 87,927 87,948


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.41

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.75

Median age males 38.0 38.0 37.9 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.8 38.9 39.0 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.6



Population impact of constraintNumber of persons +9 -20


Change in Households over previous year -24 +202 +58 +101 +77 +108 +92 +78 +85 +73 +79 +76 +68 +78 +82 +83 +73 +71 +73 +47


Change in over previous year -26 +215 +62 +107 +82 +116 +98 +83 +90 +78 +85 +81 +72 +83 +87 +89 +78 +76 +78 +50



Change in Labour Force over previous year -152 +156 -155 -109 -157 -174 -80 -71 -193 -190 -208 -178 -147 -163 -84 -79 -117 -78 -85 -70




Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario B: 2012-based SNPP PCUYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 628 620 612 606 604 598 590 583 576 570 564 558 553 550 547 544 543 541 541 541

Female 598 590 583 577 575 570 562 555 548 542 537 532 527 524 521 518 517 515 515 515

All Births 1,226 1,210 1,196 1,183 1,178 1,168 1,151 1,137 1,124 1,112 1,101 1,090 1,081 1,073 1,067 1,063 1,059 1,057 1,056 1,056

TFR 2.18 2.15 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DeathsMale 440 428 428 424 425 418 419 419 420 421 423 426 429 432 435 437 441 444 450 454

Female 486 447 439 441 440 433 431 428 427 429 426 428 429 431 433 437 439 442 446 450

All deaths 926 875 867 865 865 850 850 847 847 850 850 854 858 863 868 875 879 886 896 904

SMR: males 128.6 122.8 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 130.8 119.7 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 129.7 121.2 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.8 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.5 83.2




Deaths input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 1,557 1,554 1,554 1,551 1,548 1,545 1,542 1,540 1,536 1,533 1,532 1,530 1,532 1,534 1,538 1,544 1,549 1,554 1,559 1,565

All 3,123 3,125 3,127 3,127 3,126 3,124 3,122 3,120 3,116 3,112 3,110 3,107 3,110 3,115 3,123 3,133 3,143 3,152 3,161 3,171

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 1,748 1,729 1,726 1,712 1,704 1,690 1,671 1,664 1,657 1,646 1,647 1,646 1,647 1,645 1,649 1,646 1,645 1,641 1,644 1,645

All 3,484 3,454 3,445 3,427 3,416 3,392 3,367 3,354 3,341 3,330 3,326 3,323 3,319 3,317 3,321 3,317 3,315 3,311 3,312 3,313

SMigR: males 38.3 38.2 38.2 38.3 38.3 38.3 38.3 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.7 38.6 38.6 38.5 38.4 38.4

SMigR: females 37.4 37.3 37.4 37.3 37.4 37.4 37.3 37.4 37.5 37.5 37.6 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.6 37.5 37.4 37.4 37.3

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 196 195 191 194 189 187 185 181 184 182 185 185 184 188 191 189 190 191 193 198

All 388 385 382 390 382 377 371 368 370 368 372 373 374 379 386 385 387 388 391 401

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 205 205 201 200 197 195 195 191 193 192 195 195 194 198 201 200 201 202 203 208

All 418 416 413 411 410 403 402 399 401 399 404 405 406 411 419 417 419 420 423 433

SMigR: males 84.3 84.0 84.5 84.7 85.9 84.4 84.6 85.4 85.9 86.3 87.3 88.4 89.4 90.4 92.6 92.7 93.0 93.1 93.7 95.4

SMigR: females 99.4 99.7 99.0 99.1 98.2 98.0 98.6 98.0 100.0 100.0 102.8 103.3 103.7 106.0 108.0 107.5 108.1 108.5 109.0 111.7

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Overseas -31 -31 -31 -22 -28 -26 -31 -31 -31 -31 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32


Net migration -392 -360 -350 -322 -318 -294 -275 -265 -257 -249 -248 -248 -241 -234 -230 -216 -205 -191 -183 -174

Net change -92 -26 -21 -4 -5 +23 +26 +25 +20 +13 +3 -12 -19 -24 -31 -28 -25 -20 -23 -22

Crude Birth Rate /000 14.08 13.90 13.74 13.60 13.55 13.42 13.23 13.07 12.91 12.77 12.64 12.51 12.41 12.33 12.27 12.22 12.18 12.15 12.15 12.16

Crude Death Rate /000 10.64 10.06 9.96 9.95 9.95 9.77 9.77 9.73 9.73 9.76 9.76 9.81 9.86 9.92 9.98 10.05 10.11 10.19 10.30 10.40

Crude Net Migration Rate /000 -4.50 -4.14 -4.02 -3.71 -3.66 -3.38 -3.16 -3.05 -2.95 -2.86 -2.85 -2.85 -2.77 -2.69 -2.65 -2.49 -2.35 -2.19 -2.10 -2.00


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 5,949 5,943 5,904 5,894 5,870 5,822 5,771 5,719 5,666 5,607 5,547 5,491 5,439 5,393 5,351 5,316 5,287 5,265 5,248 5,238

5-10 6,310 6,503 6,652 6,783 6,838 6,889 6,915 6,879 6,862 6,820 6,807 6,779 6,727 6,671 6,616 6,560 6,500 6,437 6,379 6,326 6,278

11-15 5,046 4,965 4,840 4,847 4,948 5,029 5,160 5,339 5,448 5,540 5,582 5,597 5,574 5,570 5,542 5,534 5,515 5,481 5,442 5,403 5,361

16-17 2,163 2,155 2,134 2,086 1,940 1,913 1,933 1,925 1,966 2,037 2,088 2,141 2,225 2,251 2,240 2,226 2,207 2,222 2,225 2,211 2,194



75-84 4,642 4,694 4,732 4,774 4,828 4,941 5,058 5,245 5,391 5,548 5,978 6,314 6,597 6,770 6,893 6,952 7,038 7,054 7,075 7,081 6,922

85+ 1,936 1,957 1,995 2,041 2,091 2,125 2,174 2,211 2,272 2,359 2,454 2,550 2,627 2,707 2,797 2,912 3,031 3,186 3,326 3,482 3,815

Total 87,127 87,035 87,009 86,988 86,984 86,978 87,002 87,028 87,053 87,073 87,086 87,089 87,077 87,058 87,034 87,003 86,975 86,950 86,930 86,907 86,885


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.41

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.75

Median age males 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.1 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.7 38.8 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.4 39.5 39.7 39.8



Population impact of constraintNumber of persons +1 +0 +0 +2 +1 +2 +1 +0 +1 +0 +0 -0 -0 +0 -0 -0 -0 -0 +0 +0







Change in Labour Force over previous year -116 -163 -198 -132 -176 -188 -93 -85 -204 -205 -221 -187 -154 -173 -101 -85 -122 -84 -96 -83




Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario Bi: 2012-based SNPP re-based to 2014 MYE PCUYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 618 616 618 612 610 604 596 589 582 577 571 566 561 558 555 553 551 550 549 549

Female 589 587 589 583 581 575 568 561 555 549 544 539 535 531 529 527 525 524 523 523

All Births 1,207 1,203 1,207 1,195 1,190 1,180 1,164 1,150 1,137 1,126 1,115 1,105 1,096 1,089 1,084 1,080 1,077 1,074 1,072 1,072

TFR 2.14 2.13 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input * *

DeathsMale 457 427 418 411 411 403 404 404 404 405 407 409 413 416 418 421 425 428 434 438

Female 495 459 428 428 426 417 415 412 411 413 411 414 415 417 420 424 426 429 434 439

All deaths 952 886 846 839 837 820 819 816 815 818 818 823 827 833 838 845 850 857 868 877

SMR: males 133.3 124.5 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 133.3 124.5 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 133.3 124.5 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.8 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.5 83.2




Deaths input * *


Female 1,582 1,812 1,554 1,551 1,548 1,545 1,542 1,540 1,536 1,533 1,532 1,530 1,532 1,534 1,538 1,544 1,549 1,554 1,559 1,565

All 3,174 3,644 3,127 3,127 3,126 3,124 3,122 3,120 3,116 3,112 3,110 3,107 3,110 3,115 3,123 3,133 3,143 3,152 3,161 3,171

SMigR: males 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 1,850 1,843 1,726 1,712 1,704 1,690 1,671 1,664 1,657 1,646 1,647 1,646 1,647 1,645 1,649 1,646 1,645 1,641 1,644 1,645

All 3,686 3,681 3,445 3,427 3,416 3,392 3,367 3,354 3,341 3,330 3,326 3,323 3,319 3,317 3,321 3,317 3,315 3,311 3,312 3,313

SMigR: males 40.5 40.7 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.8 37.8 37.9 37.9 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.0 38.1 38.1 38.0 37.9 37.9 37.7 37.7

SMigR: females 39.6 39.7 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 36.9 37.0 37.1 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.3 37.2 37.3 37.2 37.1 37.0 37.0 36.9

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 87 130 87 90 88 88 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87

All 187 279 186 194 188 189 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 72 72 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97

All 163 162 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217

SMigR: males 35.6 35.7 47.6 47.7 48.0 48.2 48.4 48.7 49.0 49.2 49.5 49.7 50.0 50.1 50.2 50.3 50.3 50.2 50.2 50.1

SMigR: females 35.1 35.2 47.1 47.3 47.6 48.0 48.4 48.8 49.3 49.7 50.1 50.5 50.9 51.1 51.3 51.4 51.4 51.4 51.3 51.2

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Overseas +24 +117 -32 -24 -29 -28 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32


Net migration -488 +80 -350 -324 -319 -296 -276 -266 -257 -249 -248 -248 -241 -234 -230 -216 -204 -191 -183 -174

Net change -233 +397 +10 +31 +34 +64 +68 +69 +64 +58 +48 +34 +28 +23 +16 +19 +22 +26 +22 +21

Crude Birth Rate /000 13.87 13.81 13.82 13.68 13.62 13.50 13.30 13.14 12.98 12.84 12.71 12.59 12.49 12.41 12.34 12.29 12.25 12.22 12.20 12.19

Crude Death Rate /000 10.94 10.17 9.69 9.61 9.58 9.38 9.36 9.32 9.31 9.33 9.33 9.38 9.42 9.48 9.54 9.62 9.68 9.75 9.87 9.97



2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 5,920 5,942 5,911 5,908 5,892 5,867 5,829 5,780 5,729 5,672 5,614 5,560 5,511 5,467 5,429 5,396 5,370 5,349 5,332 5,321

5-10 6,310 6,489 6,658 6,791 6,854 6,908 6,919 6,882 6,877 6,846 6,838 6,816 6,786 6,745 6,694 6,641 6,583 6,524 6,469 6,419 6,375

11-15 5,046 4,952 4,841 4,849 4,948 5,029 5,162 5,338 5,446 5,540 5,589 5,604 5,573 5,570 5,551 5,547 5,533 5,519 5,494 5,459 5,420

16-17 2,163 2,105 2,066 2,004 1,858 1,832 1,851 1,846 1,885 1,952 2,001 2,059 2,141 2,156 2,146 2,141 2,130 2,129 2,123 2,125 2,120



75-84 4,642 4,709 4,761 4,814 4,881 5,010 5,140 5,341 5,497 5,667 6,111 6,452 6,746 6,929 7,064 7,133 7,228 7,257 7,293 7,315 7,169

85+ 1,936 1,893 1,889 1,907 1,940 1,956 1,993 2,018 2,071 2,150 2,238 2,335 2,410 2,486 2,571 2,683 2,802 2,955 3,093 3,249 3,582

Total 87,127 86,894 87,291 87,301 87,333 87,367 87,431 87,499 87,567 87,632 87,690 87,738 87,772 87,799 87,822 87,838 87,857 87,879 87,905 87,927 87,948


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.41

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.75

Median age males 38.0 38.0 37.9 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.8 38.9 39.0 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.6














Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario C: 10-Year Migration TrendYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 618 616 619 615 615 611 605 599 594 590 585 581 578 575 573 572 570 569 568 568

Female 589 587 590 586 586 582 576 571 566 561 557 553 550 548 546 545 543 542 541 541

All Births 1,207 1,203 1,209 1,201 1,200 1,194 1,181 1,170 1,160 1,151 1,143 1,134 1,128 1,123 1,119 1,116 1,114 1,111 1,110 1,109

TFR 2.14 2.13 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input * *

DeathsMale 457 427 418 411 411 404 405 405 406 407 409 411 415 418 421 424 428 431 437 441

Female 495 459 428 429 427 418 416 414 413 415 413 416 417 419 422 427 429 432 437 442

All deaths 952 886 846 840 838 822 822 819 819 822 823 827 832 838 843 851 856 863 874 883

SMR: males 133.3 124.5 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 133.3 124.5 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 133.3 124.5 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.8 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.5 83.2




Deaths input * *


Female 1,582 1,812 1,581 1,578 1,575 1,573 1,571 1,570 1,569 1,567 1,567 1,566 1,567 1,567 1,567 1,568 1,568 1,568 1,569 1,570

All 3,174 3,644 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181 3,181

SMigR: males 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 1,850 1,843 1,664 1,659 1,657 1,655 1,649 1,648 1,647 1,643 1,645 1,646 1,648 1,647 1,649 1,648 1,648 1,646 1,650 1,649

All 3,686 3,681 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322 3,322

SMigR: males 40.5 40.7 36.5 36.6 36.6 36.7 36.9 37.0 37.1 37.3 37.3 37.4 37.3 37.3 37.2 37.2 37.1 37.1 37.0 36.9

SMigR: females 39.6 39.7 35.7 35.7 35.8 35.9 36.0 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.5 36.5 36.6 36.5 36.4 36.4 36.3 36.2 36.2 36.1

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 87 130 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

All 187 279 213 213 212 212 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 72 72 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106

All 163 162 239 238 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239

SMigR: males 35.6 35.7 52.2 52.2 52.3 52.4 52.5 52.7 52.9 53.1 53.3 53.5 53.6 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.7 53.7 53.5

SMigR: females 35.1 35.2 51.6 51.7 51.9 52.1 52.4 52.7 53.1 53.5 53.8 54.2 54.4 54.6 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.7 54.6

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Overseas +24 +117 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26 -26


Net migration -488 +80 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167 -167

Net change -233 +397 +196 +194 +195 +205 +192 +184 +174 +162 +153 +140 +129 +118 +109 +99 +91 +81 +69 +59

Crude Birth Rate /000 13.87 13.81 13.83 13.71 13.68 13.57 13.39 13.24 13.10 12.97 12.86 12.74 12.65 12.58 12.52 12.47 12.43 12.39 12.37 12.35

Crude Death Rate /000 10.94 10.17 9.68 9.59 9.55 9.34 9.32 9.27 9.25 9.27 9.26 9.29 9.33 9.38 9.44 9.50 9.56 9.63 9.74 9.83



2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 5,920 5,942 5,931 5,946 5,948 5,941 5,918 5,882 5,843 5,797 5,751 5,709 5,670 5,636 5,606 5,580 5,558 5,539 5,524 5,511

5-10 6,310 6,489 6,658 6,804 6,878 6,946 6,970 6,946 6,955 6,938 6,946 6,938 6,922 6,895 6,858 6,817 6,771 6,721 6,676 6,633 6,594

11-15 5,046 4,952 4,841 4,857 4,963 5,051 5,191 5,374 5,488 5,588 5,644 5,667 5,643 5,651 5,642 5,649 5,646 5,642 5,626 5,600 5,569

16-17 2,163 2,105 2,066 2,009 1,866 1,842 1,864 1,860 1,901 1,969 2,020 2,081 2,166 2,182 2,174 2,172 2,164 2,167 2,164 2,170 2,168



75-84 4,642 4,709 4,761 4,817 4,887 5,018 5,150 5,353 5,511 5,683 6,129 6,474 6,770 6,956 7,094 7,165 7,262 7,293 7,330 7,354 7,209

85+ 1,936 1,893 1,889 1,909 1,944 1,962 2,001 2,027 2,081 2,161 2,250 2,348 2,424 2,501 2,586 2,700 2,819 2,974 3,112 3,268 3,601

Total 87,127 86,894 87,291 87,487 87,681 87,876 88,081 88,273 88,458 88,632 88,794 88,947 89,087 89,216 89,334 89,443 89,542 89,632 89,714 89,782 89,842


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.75

Median age males 38.0 38.0 37.9 38.0 38.0 38.0 37.9 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.7 38.8 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3














Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario D: Natural ChangeYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 629 622 616 610 608 603 594 586 578 571 565 559 554 551 549 548 549 550 551 555

Female 599 592 586 581 579 574 566 558 551 544 538 532 528 525 523 522 522 523 525 528

All Births 1,227 1,214 1,202 1,191 1,187 1,177 1,160 1,145 1,129 1,116 1,103 1,091 1,082 1,076 1,072 1,071 1,071 1,073 1,077 1,083

TFR 2.18 2.15 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input

DeathsMale 440 424 421 415 415 408 410 410 411 414 417 420 425 429 433 436 441 446 453 459

Female 486 442 429 429 426 416 414 411 410 412 410 413 414 417 421 426 428 432 438 444

All deaths 926 866 850 843 841 824 824 821 821 826 827 833 839 846 853 862 870 878 891 903

SMR: males 128.6 122.8 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 130.8 119.7 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 129.7 121.2 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.7 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.4 83.2




Deaths input

In-migration from the UK Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Out-migration to the UK Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Migration - Net FlowsUK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overseas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Net migration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net change +301 +348 +352 +348 +346 +352 +336 +323 +308 +290 +276 +258 +243 +230 +219 +208 +201 +195 +186 +180

Crude Birth Rate /000 14.06 13.86 13.66 13.49 13.39 13.22 12.98 12.76 12.55 12.36 12.17 12.01 11.88 11.78 11.71 11.67 11.65 11.64 11.66 11.70

Crude Death Rate /000 10.61 9.89 9.67 9.55 9.49 9.26 9.22 9.16 9.13 9.14 9.13 9.17 9.21 9.26 9.32 9.39 9.46 9.53 9.65 9.76

Crude Net Migration Rate /000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 5,983 6,006 5,987 5,997 5,990 5,941 5,887 5,831 5,770 5,700 5,627 5,558 5,496 5,443 5,400 5,369 5,349 5,341 5,342 5,354

5-10 6,310 6,546 6,747 6,932 7,034 7,126 7,193 7,185 7,196 7,167 7,172 7,156 7,090 7,022 6,951 6,876 6,793 6,708 6,631 6,563 6,507

11-15 5,046 4,986 4,876 4,906 5,041 5,155 5,328 5,560 5,716 5,856 5,937 5,971 5,975 5,999 5,980 5,990 5,983 5,934 5,881 5,825 5,764

16-17 2,163 2,146 2,130 2,089 1,934 1,917 1,957 1,960 2,009 2,099 2,165 2,244 2,366 2,397 2,395 2,386 2,360 2,404 2,424 2,400 2,377



75-84 4,642 4,714 4,765 4,821 4,893 5,030 5,166 5,379 5,546 5,730 6,201 6,573 6,900 7,104 7,254 7,335 7,457 7,504 7,564 7,607 7,469

85+ 1,936 1,903 1,898 1,908 1,933 1,942 1,974 1,992 2,042 2,121 2,210 2,309 2,382 2,459 2,550 2,669 2,788 2,947 3,089 3,254 3,612

Total 87,127 87,428 87,776 88,128 88,475 88,821 89,174 89,510 89,833 90,141 90,431 90,706 90,964 91,207 91,437 91,655 91,864 92,065 92,260 92,445 92,625


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.40

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.73

Median age males 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.1 38.2 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.7 38.9 39.0 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.6 39.7 39.8 39.8



Population impact of constraintNumber of persons







Change in Labour Force over previous year +49 +46 -3 +44 -14 -33 +46 +43 -83 -74 -97 -59 -20 -57 +38 +52 -8 +33 +2 +8


Change in over previous year -215 +218 +263 +308 +248 +235 +311 +308 -82 -73 -96 -58 -20 -56 +38 +51 -8 +33 +2 +8


Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario D: Natural Change re-based to 2014 MYEYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 618 616 619 614 612 607 598 591 583 576 569 562 557 552 549 547 546 545 546 548

Female 589 587 589 584 583 578 570 563 555 548 542 535 530 526 523 521 520 519 520 522

All Births 1,207 1,203 1,208 1,198 1,194 1,185 1,168 1,153 1,138 1,124 1,111 1,098 1,087 1,078 1,072 1,068 1,065 1,065 1,066 1,071

TFR 2.14 2.13 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input * *

DeathsMale 457 427 418 412 412 405 407 408 408 410 413 416 421 425 428 431 436 440 447 453

Female 495 459 428 428 425 416 413 410 409 410 408 410 411 413 416 421 423 427 432 437

All deaths 952 886 846 839 837 821 820 817 817 821 822 827 832 838 844 852 859 867 879 890

SMR: males 133.3 124.5 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 133.3 124.5 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 133.3 124.5 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.7 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.4 83.2




Deaths input * *

In-migration from the UK Male 1,592 1,832 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Female 1,582 1,812 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All 3,174 3,644 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SMigR: males 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Out-migration to the UK Male 1,836 1,838 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Female 1,850 1,843 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All 3,686 3,681 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SMigR: males 40.5 40.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 39.6 39.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 87 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All 187 279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 72 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All 163 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SMigR: males 35.6 35.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 35.1 35.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Migration - Net FlowsUK -512 -37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overseas +24 +117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Net migration -488 +80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net change -233 +397 +362 +358 +357 +364 +348 +336 +321 +303 +289 +271 +255 +240 +227 +215 +206 +198 +187 +181

Crude Birth Rate /000 13.87 13.81 13.81 13.64 13.54 13.38 13.14 12.92 12.71 12.51 12.31 12.13 11.98 11.85 11.75 11.68 11.62 11.59 11.59 11.61

Crude Death Rate /000 10.94 10.17 9.67 9.56 9.49 9.27 9.23 9.16 9.12 9.13 9.11 9.14 9.17 9.21 9.26 9.32 9.37 9.44 9.55 9.65

Crude Net Migration Rate /000 -5.61 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 5,920 5,942 5,941 5,964 5,971 5,958 5,924 5,871 5,812 5,743 5,669 5,599 5,533 5,474 5,422 5,380 5,348 5,327 5,315 5,314

5-10 6,310 6,489 6,658 6,841 6,950 7,050 7,105 7,106 7,138 7,127 7,147 7,145 7,116 7,067 6,999 6,926 6,844 6,758 6,677 6,603 6,538

11-15 5,046 4,952 4,841 4,877 4,999 5,104 5,268 5,486 5,636 5,779 5,867 5,911 5,908 5,935 5,934 5,956 5,964 5,951 5,917 5,864 5,806

16-17 2,163 2,105 2,066 2,042 1,918 1,910 1,945 1,946 1,993 2,076 2,137 2,214 2,329 2,361 2,368 2,368 2,346 2,369 2,385 2,395 2,390



75-84 4,642 4,709 4,761 4,814 4,881 5,013 5,146 5,354 5,515 5,694 6,156 6,519 6,838 7,040 7,189 7,272 7,394 7,443 7,505 7,551 7,421

85+ 1,936 1,893 1,889 1,902 1,930 1,940 1,971 1,989 2,036 2,110 2,194 2,287 2,355 2,426 2,511 2,623 2,737 2,888 3,023 3,181 3,527

Total 87,127 86,894 87,291 87,653 88,011 88,369 88,733 89,081 89,417 89,738 90,041 90,330 90,601 90,856 91,096 91,324 91,539 91,745 91,943 92,130 92,311


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.73

Median age males 38.0 38.0 37.9 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.8 39.0 39.2 39.3 39.5 39.6 39.7 39.8 40.0










Change in Labour Force over previous year -152 +156 -30 +28 -20 -37 +44 +43 -81 -75 -97 -58 -20 -53 +39 +45 -7 +40 +12 +19


Change in over previous year -404 +321 +237 +292 +242 +230 +309 +308 -80 -73 -95 -57 -20 -52 +39 +44 -7 +40 +11 +18


Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario E: Experian Job GrowthYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 628 644 677 681 681 676 667 655 643 642 639 637 636 634 634 631 630 630 630 631

Female 598 614 645 649 648 644 635 624 613 611 609 607 605 604 603 601 600 600 600 601

All Births 1,226 1,258 1,322 1,330 1,329 1,320 1,302 1,279 1,256 1,253 1,248 1,244 1,241 1,238 1,237 1,233 1,230 1,231 1,231 1,232

TFR 2.18 2.15 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input

DeathsMale 440 428 430 425 424 416 417 416 415 418 421 424 429 434 438 441 446 451 458 463

Female 486 447 442 443 441 431 428 423 422 425 424 427 430 433 437 442 445 450 456 461

All deaths 926 875 873 868 865 847 845 839 837 842 845 852 859 867 875 884 891 900 913 924

SMR: males 128.6 122.8 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 130.8 119.7 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 129.7 121.2 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.8 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.5 83.2




Deaths input


Female 2,042 2,319 1,728 1,551 1,531 1,523 1,452 1,449 1,645 1,632 1,632 1,632 1,621 1,629 1,588 1,594 1,642 1,609 1,608 1,604

All 4,095 4,663 3,478 3,128 3,091 3,080 2,939 2,936 3,336 3,311 3,312 3,315 3,291 3,308 3,224 3,235 3,331 3,265 3,259 3,250

SMigR: males 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Out-migration to the UK Male 1,251 957 1,544 1,715 1,730 1,725 1,787 1,783 1,574 1,583 1,577 1,572 1,581 1,576 1,622 1,620 1,576 1,614 1,618 1,629

Female 1,260 959 1,550 1,711 1,722 1,712 1,762 1,755 1,547 1,548 1,546 1,543 1,557 1,549 1,598 1,595 1,551 1,585 1,596 1,605

All 2,511 1,916 3,095 3,426 3,451 3,437 3,550 3,539 3,121 3,130 3,123 3,115 3,138 3,125 3,220 3,214 3,127 3,199 3,214 3,234

SMigR: males 27.6 20.5 31.6 34.8 35.2 35.3 36.8 37.1 33.0 33.1 32.9 32.7 32.8 32.5 33.3 33.1 32.1 32.6 32.5 32.6

SMigR: females 27.0 19.9 30.6 33.6 34.1 34.3 35.7 36.1 32.3 32.2 32.1 31.9 32.0 31.7 32.5 32.3 31.3 31.7 31.8 31.8

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 87 87 87 90 88 88 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87

All 186 186 186 194 188 189 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97

All 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217

SMigR: males 47.5 46.2 44.0 43.6 43.8 44.1 44.4 45.0 45.6 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.4 45.3 45.2 45.0 44.7 44.5 44.3

SMigR: females 46.8 45.3 43.0 42.6 42.9 43.3 43.7 44.5 45.3 45.5 45.7 45.8 45.9 45.8 45.7 45.7 45.6 45.3 45.0 44.8

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Migration - Net FlowsUK +1,584 +2,747 +383 -298 -360 -356 -611 -603 +215 +181 +189 +199 +153 +183 +4 +21 +205 +66 +44 +16

Overseas -31 -31 -32 -24 -29 -28 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32


Net migration +1,553 +2,716 +351 -322 -389 -384 -643 -635 +183 +149 +157 +168 +121 +151 -28 -11 +173 +34 +13 -16

Net change +1,852 +3,099 +800 +140 +75 +89 -186 -195 +602 +559 +561 +559 +503 +523 +334 +338 +511 +365 +330 +291

Crude Birth Rate /000 13.92 13.90 14.29 14.31 14.29 14.17 13.99 13.77 13.49 13.37 13.24 13.12 13.02 12.92 12.85 12.76 12.67 12.63 12.58 12.55

Crude Death Rate /000 10.52 9.66 9.44 9.34 9.30 9.09 9.08 9.04 8.99 8.99 8.97 8.99 9.01 9.04 9.09 9.15 9.18 9.24 9.34 9.42

Crude Net Migration Rate /000 17.64 30.00 3.80 -3.46 -4.18 -4.13 -6.90 -6.83 1.96 1.59 1.67 1.77 1.27 1.58 -0.29 -0.11 1.78 0.35 0.13 -0.17


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 6,132 6,430 6,495 6,522 6,520 6,502 6,457 6,387 6,377 6,354 6,330 6,307 6,279 6,262 6,231 6,205 6,197 6,181 6,167 6,155

5-10 6,310 6,626 6,997 7,216 7,325 7,433 7,497 7,474 7,485 7,519 7,569 7,596 7,614 7,632 7,629 7,606 7,573 7,547 7,510 7,470 7,435

11-15 5,046 5,041 5,047 5,091 5,202 5,293 5,440 5,621 5,737 5,887 5,997 6,083 6,122 6,171 6,202 6,236 6,254 6,277 6,293 6,293 6,278

16-17 2,163 2,153 2,169 2,110 1,953 1,923 1,943 1,934 1,971 2,054 2,119 2,195 2,298 2,332 2,349 2,369 2,384 2,411 2,410 2,418 2,432

18-59Female, 64Male 50,117 51,075 52,968 53,203 53,046 52,710 52,275 51,752 51,197 51,153 51,173 51,137 51,195 51,274 51,393 51,388 51,409 51,526 51,637 51,723 51,757

60/65 -74 10,934 11,273 11,644 11,856 11,970 12,075 12,223 12,238 12,304 12,419 12,192 12,154 12,120 12,181 12,308 12,443 12,555 12,722 12,822 12,917 13,018

75-84 4,642 4,749 4,853 4,917 4,983 5,112 5,242 5,442 5,596 5,782 6,247 6,609 6,923 7,125 7,278 7,358 7,465 7,506 7,548 7,574 7,425

85+ 1,936 1,931 1,970 1,990 2,018 2,028 2,061 2,078 2,125 2,214 2,311 2,419 2,505 2,592 2,688 2,810 2,938 3,107 3,257 3,425 3,776

Total 87,127 88,979 92,078 92,878 93,019 93,094 93,182 92,996 92,802 93,404 93,963 94,524 95,083 95,586 96,109 96,443 96,781 97,292 97,657 97,987 98,278


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.73

Median age males 39.0 38.6 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.9 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.4 39.5 39.7



Population impact of constraintNumber of persons +1,945 +3,076 +702 +3 -70 -88 -366 -369 +440 +398 +406 +415 +363 +385 +202 +205 +377 +225 +195 +158

Labour ForceNumber of Labour Force 41,800 42,779 44,409 44,701 44,634 44,459 44,250 43,983 43,719 43,770 43,811 43,841 43,912 43,994 44,075 44,146 44,227 44,360 44,461 44,542 44,624

Change in Labour Force over previous year +978 +1,630 +292 -67 -175 -209 -267 -264 +51 +41 +30 +71 +81 +81 +71 +81 +132 +102 +81 +81


Change in over previous year +660 +1,720 +560 +220 +110 +80 +20 +20 +50 +40 +30 +70 +80 +80 +70 +80 +130 +100 +80 +80


Change in Households over previous year +730 +1,196 +372 +159 +98 +122 +4 -18 +278 +254 +267 +272 +246 +266 +205 +209 +264 +211 +202 +164


Change in over previous year +778 +1,275 +396 +169 +105 +131 +4 -19 +296 +271 +285 +290 +262 +284 +219 +223 +281 +225 +216 +175


Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario F: Key Growth SectorsYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 628 646 681 686 688 685 678 668 658 658 658 656 657 657 658 657 657 658 659 661

Female 598 616 648 653 655 652 645 636 627 627 627 625 626 626 626 626 625 627 627 629

All Births 1,226 1,262 1,329 1,340 1,343 1,338 1,323 1,304 1,285 1,285 1,285 1,281 1,282 1,283 1,284 1,283 1,282 1,285 1,286 1,290

TFR 2.18 2.15 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input

DeathsMale 440 428 431 426 426 417 419 418 418 421 424 428 433 438 442 446 451 456 464 470

Female 486 448 443 444 442 432 430 426 424 428 427 431 433 437 441 447 450 455 461 467

All deaths 926 876 874 870 867 850 849 844 842 848 851 859 867 875 884 893 901 911 925 936

SMR: males 128.6 122.8 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 130.8 119.7 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 129.7 121.2 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.8 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.5 83.2




Deaths input


Female 2,080 2,351 1,750 1,592 1,570 1,552 1,490 1,486 1,688 1,670 1,643 1,680 1,659 1,657 1,625 1,631 1,669 1,631 1,648 1,629

All 4,172 4,727 3,522 3,209 3,171 3,139 3,016 3,011 3,424 3,390 3,335 3,413 3,368 3,366 3,300 3,310 3,386 3,309 3,340 3,301

SMigR: males 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 1,222 927 1,528 1,671 1,682 1,682 1,724 1,718 1,504 1,509 1,535 1,495 1,519 1,520 1,561 1,558 1,524 1,563 1,555 1,580

All 2,434 1,852 3,051 3,345 3,372 3,377 3,473 3,463 3,033 3,052 3,101 3,017 3,061 3,067 3,145 3,140 3,072 3,154 3,132 3,183

SMigR: males 26.8 19.8 31.0 33.8 34.1 34.3 35.5 35.7 31.6 31.7 32.0 31.0 31.2 31.1 31.6 31.4 30.5 31.1 30.6 30.9

SMigR: females 26.2 19.2 30.0 32.6 33.0 33.3 34.5 34.8 30.8 30.8 31.2 30.2 30.5 30.3 30.8 30.6 29.7 30.2 29.9 30.1

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 87 87 87 90 88 88 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87

All 186 186 186 194 188 189 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97

All 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217

SMigR: males 47.5 46.0 43.8 43.3 43.4 43.6 43.8 44.2 44.7 44.6 44.5 44.5 44.3 44.1 43.9 43.8 43.6 43.2 43.0 42.6

SMigR: females 46.8 45.2 42.8 42.3 42.4 42.7 43.1 43.7 44.4 44.5 44.5 44.6 44.5 44.4 44.2 44.1 43.9 43.6 43.3 43.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Migration - Net FlowsUK +1,738 +2,875 +471 -136 -201 -238 -457 -452 +391 +338 +234 +396 +308 +299 +155 +170 +315 +155 +208 +118

Overseas -31 -31 -32 -24 -29 -28 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32


Net migration +1,707 +2,844 +440 -159 -231 -266 -489 -484 +359 +306 +202 +364 +276 +267 +123 +138 +283 +123 +176 +86

Net change +2,006 +3,231 +894 +310 +245 +222 -15 -23 +802 +743 +635 +787 +692 +675 +524 +527 +664 +497 +537 +439

Crude Birth Rate /000 13.91 13.91 14.32 14.34 14.34 14.24 14.07 13.87 13.61 13.51 13.40 13.27 13.18 13.09 13.02 12.94 12.86 12.81 12.75 12.73

Crude Death Rate /000 10.51 9.65 9.42 9.31 9.26 9.05 9.02 8.97 8.92 8.91 8.88 8.89 8.90 8.93 8.96 9.01 9.04 9.09 9.17 9.24

Crude Net Migration Rate /000 19.36 31.34 4.74 -1.71 -2.46 -2.83 -5.20 -5.15 3.81 3.22 2.11 3.77 2.83 2.73 1.25 1.39 2.84 1.23 1.75 0.85


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 6,146 6,458 6,533 6,578 6,594 6,591 6,566 6,514 6,525 6,522 6,506 6,504 6,494 6,490 6,476 6,463 6,467 6,459 6,459 6,455

5-10 6,310 6,636 7,017 7,244 7,368 7,491 7,569 7,563 7,592 7,647 7,719 7,759 7,802 7,843 7,858 7,857 7,845 7,836 7,814 7,794 7,775

11-15 5,046 5,048 5,059 5,107 5,225 5,325 5,479 5,670 5,797 5,960 6,083 6,176 6,231 6,295 6,340 6,391 6,425 6,464 6,496 6,514 6,514

16-17 2,163 2,156 2,175 2,117 1,963 1,936 1,958 1,951 1,991 2,079 2,148 2,226 2,335 2,374 2,395 2,421 2,441 2,473 2,476 2,492 2,512

18-59Female, 64Male 50,117 51,183 53,167 53,465 53,422 53,199 52,847 52,433 51,983 52,062 52,193 52,191 52,386 52,575 52,779 52,884 53,013 53,215 53,397 53,605 53,723

60/65 -74 10,934 11,280 11,657 11,874 11,996 12,109 12,264 12,289 12,364 12,490 12,273 12,240 12,218 12,291 12,429 12,577 12,701 12,881 12,993 13,103 13,217

75-84 4,642 4,751 4,858 4,923 4,992 5,123 5,256 5,459 5,616 5,806 6,276 6,641 6,962 7,169 7,326 7,412 7,524 7,569 7,615 7,648 7,502

85+ 1,936 1,933 1,974 1,995 2,024 2,037 2,071 2,090 2,139 2,230 2,329 2,438 2,527 2,616 2,714 2,838 2,969 3,140 3,292 3,464 3,820

Total 87,127 89,133 92,364 93,258 93,568 93,813 94,035 94,020 93,997 94,799 95,542 96,178 96,964 97,656 98,331 98,854 99,382 100,046 100,542 101,080 101,518


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72

Median age males 39.0 38.6 38.1 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.1 38.1 38.3 38.3 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.5 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.9 39.1 39.2 39.4



Population impact of constraintNumber of persons +2,099 +3,205 +790 +165 +89 +30 -212 -218 +617 +555 +450 +612 +517 +501 +353 +354 +487 +314 +359 +260


Change in Labour Force over previous year +1,064 +1,704 +344 +26 -83 -138 -178 -175 +153 +133 +62 +184 +173 +153 +163 +173 +204 +163 +184 +153




Change in Households over previous year +785 +1,245 +407 +222 +162 +173 +69 +47 +354 +325 +297 +358 +318 +325 +277 +282 +323 +262 +282 +222




Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario G: Job StabilisationYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 628 628 620 611 605 597 586 575 564 563 561 561 560 561 562 562 563 565 567 570

Female 598 598 590 582 576 568 558 548 537 536 534 534 534 534 535 536 536 538 540 543

All Births 1,226 1,227 1,210 1,192 1,180 1,165 1,145 1,123 1,102 1,098 1,095 1,094 1,094 1,095 1,097 1,098 1,100 1,104 1,107 1,112

TFR 2.18 2.15 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input

DeathsMale 440 425 420 413 411 403 404 403 402 405 408 411 415 419 422 425 430 434 440 445

Female 486 444 432 431 427 418 415 411 410 413 412 416 418 421 425 430 432 436 442 447

All deaths 926 869 852 843 839 821 819 814 812 817 820 826 833 840 847 855 862 870 881 891

SMR: males 128.6 122.8 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 130.8 119.7 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 129.7 121.2 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.8 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.5 83.2




Deaths input


Female 1,728 1,518 1,499 1,478 1,501 1,505 1,462 1,458 1,628 1,620 1,625 1,608 1,595 1,605 1,573 1,576 1,599 1,587 1,596 1,594

All 3,467 3,052 3,016 2,980 3,032 3,045 2,960 2,955 3,302 3,288 3,299 3,266 3,239 3,260 3,193 3,198 3,244 3,219 3,236 3,231

SMigR: males 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 1,576 1,766 1,781 1,785 1,751 1,729 1,752 1,745 1,564 1,559 1,553 1,567 1,583 1,573 1,614 1,613 1,594 1,608 1,607 1,615

All 3,140 3,527 3,556 3,574 3,510 3,472 3,529 3,519 3,155 3,154 3,137 3,164 3,190 3,173 3,251 3,252 3,214 3,244 3,237 3,253

SMigR: males 34.5 38.5 39.0 39.5 39.2 39.1 40.1 40.4 36.6 36.6 36.2 36.4 36.5 36.2 36.8 36.7 36.2 36.4 36.1 36.1

SMigR: females 33.7 37.5 38.1 38.6 38.3 38.2 39.2 39.6 35.9 35.7 35.4 35.6 35.7 35.3 36.0 35.9 35.3 35.4 35.3 35.3

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 87 87 87 90 88 88 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87

All 186 186 186 194 188 189 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97

All 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217

SMigR: males 47.5 47.2 47.5 47.8 48.4 48.7 49.1 49.7 50.3 50.2 50.1 50.0 49.9 49.8 49.6 49.5 49.4 49.1 49.0 48.7

SMigR: females 46.8 46.5 46.9 47.3 48.0 48.6 49.1 49.9 50.7 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.7 50.6 50.5 50.4 50.3 50.0 49.8 49.6

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Migration - Net FlowsUK +327 -476 -540 -594 -478 -427 -569 -564 +147 +134 +162 +102 +49 +87 -57 -54 +31 -25 -1 -21

Overseas -31 -31 -32 -24 -29 -28 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32


Net migration +296 -507 -571 -618 -507 -455 -601 -596 +115 +102 +130 +70 +17 +55 -89 -86 -1 -57 -33 -53

Net change +595 -149 -213 -268 -165 -111 -275 -287 +405 +382 +406 +338 +279 +309 +161 +157 +237 +177 +193 +168

Crude Birth Rate /000 14.02 14.00 13.83 13.67 13.56 13.41 13.20 13.00 12.74 12.65 12.56 12.49 12.44 12.41 12.41 12.39 12.38 12.40 12.41 12.44

Crude Death Rate /000 10.60 9.91 9.74 9.66 9.64 9.45 9.45 9.42 9.39 9.41 9.40 9.43 9.47 9.52 9.58 9.65 9.70 9.77 9.88 9.97

Crude Net Migration Rate /000 3.38 -5.78 -6.53 -7.08 -5.83 -5.24 -6.93 -6.90 1.33 1.17 1.49 0.80 0.20 0.62 -1.01 -0.97 -0.02 -0.64 -0.37 -0.60


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 6,015 6,002 5,946 5,908 5,864 5,806 5,721 5,633 5,606 5,576 5,551 5,528 5,504 5,495 5,480 5,471 5,475 5,479 5,490 5,502

5-10 6,310 6,544 6,689 6,812 6,856 6,899 6,905 6,847 6,806 6,786 6,787 6,776 6,752 6,720 6,688 6,649 6,606 6,571 6,537 6,509 6,490

11-15 5,046 4,987 4,857 4,856 4,944 5,017 5,143 5,304 5,397 5,508 5,574 5,609 5,597 5,607 5,594 5,585 5,566 5,547 5,519 5,494 5,463

16-17 2,163 2,124 2,073 2,006 1,854 1,825 1,842 1,831 1,864 1,940 1,997 2,063 2,151 2,171 2,167 2,165 2,155 2,162 2,158 2,152 2,140

18-59Female, 64Male 50,117 50,191 49,820 49,388 49,001 48,568 48,074 47,569 47,031 46,932 46,909 46,844 46,821 46,809 46,837 46,760 46,689 46,643 46,633 46,629 46,586

60/65 -74 10,934 11,218 11,443 11,602 11,690 11,776 11,904 11,908 11,961 12,057 11,819 11,766 11,713 11,755 11,862 11,977 12,066 12,203 12,275 12,341 12,412

75-84 4,642 4,727 4,777 4,827 4,890 5,017 5,145 5,343 5,494 5,673 6,124 6,474 6,775 6,963 7,103 7,171 7,264 7,290 7,322 7,340 7,188

85+ 1,936 1,915 1,912 1,922 1,949 1,961 1,996 2,016 2,067 2,156 2,254 2,363 2,447 2,533 2,627 2,747 2,872 3,034 3,179 3,342 3,683

Total 87,127 87,722 87,574 87,360 87,092 86,926 86,815 86,540 86,253 86,657 87,040 87,446 87,784 88,063 88,372 88,533 88,690 88,926 89,103 89,296 89,464


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.40

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.74

Median age males 39.0 38.9 38.9 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.6 39.6 39.7 39.8 39.8 39.9 40.0 40.1 40.2 40.3



Population impact of constraintNumber of persons +688 -146 -221 -293 -188 -159 -325 -330 +373 +351 +379 +318 +259 +289 +141 +130 +203 +133 +150 +121


Change in Labour Force over previous year +277 -185 -280 -276 -268 -269 -265 -262 -0 0 -0 -0 0 +0 -0 -0 +0 -0 -0 0


Change in over previous year 0 -0 0 +0 0 -0 -0 0 -0 0 -0 -0 0 +0 -0 -0 +0 -0 -0 0


Change in Households over previous year +274 +4 -26 -13 -1 +40 -37 -58 +205 +193 +214 +193 +165 +188 +141 +139 +156 +130 +138 +102


Change in over previous year +292 +5 -28 -14 -1 +43 -39 -62 +219 +206 +229 +206 +176 +201 +150 +148 +167 +138 +147 +109


Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario H: Past Trends Job GrowthYear beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 628 628 619 609 603 595 584 572 561 559 557 556 556 556 557 557 557 559 561 563

Female 598 598 589 580 574 566 556 545 534 532 531 530 529 529 530 530 531 533 534 536

All Births 1,226 1,226 1,208 1,190 1,177 1,161 1,140 1,117 1,095 1,091 1,088 1,086 1,085 1,085 1,087 1,087 1,088 1,092 1,095 1,099

TFR 2.18 2.15 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input

DeathsMale 440 425 420 412 411 403 403 402 402 404 407 410 414 418 421 424 428 432 438 443

Female 486 444 431 430 427 417 415 411 409 412 411 415 417 420 424 429 431 435 440 445

All deaths 926 869 851 843 838 820 818 813 811 816 818 825 831 838 845 853 859 867 879 888

SMR: males 128.6 122.8 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 130.8 119.7 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 129.7 121.2 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.8 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.5 83.2




Deaths input


Female 1,720 1,510 1,491 1,470 1,494 1,498 1,455 1,451 1,621 1,612 1,617 1,601 1,588 1,598 1,566 1,569 1,592 1,580 1,589 1,588

All 3,450 3,035 3,000 2,964 3,017 3,029 2,945 2,940 3,287 3,272 3,283 3,251 3,224 3,245 3,179 3,183 3,230 3,205 3,222 3,218

SMigR: males 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 1,584 1,774 1,790 1,793 1,759 1,737 1,759 1,753 1,572 1,567 1,561 1,575 1,590 1,580 1,621 1,621 1,601 1,615 1,614 1,621

All 3,157 3,544 3,572 3,589 3,526 3,487 3,544 3,534 3,171 3,170 3,152 3,179 3,205 3,188 3,266 3,267 3,228 3,258 3,251 3,266

SMigR: males 34.7 38.7 39.2 39.8 39.4 39.4 40.4 40.7 36.9 36.9 36.6 36.7 36.9 36.6 37.2 37.2 36.6 36.9 36.6 36.6

SMigR: females 33.9 37.7 38.3 38.8 38.6 38.5 39.5 39.9 36.2 36.1 35.8 35.9 36.1 35.7 36.4 36.3 35.8 35.9 35.8 35.8

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 87 87 87 90 88 88 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87

All 186 186 186 194 188 189 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97

All 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217

SMigR: males 47.5 47.2 47.6 47.9 48.5 48.9 49.3 49.9 50.5 50.4 50.4 50.3 50.2 50.1 50.0 49.9 49.8 49.6 49.4 49.2

SMigR: females 46.8 46.5 47.0 47.4 48.1 48.7 49.3 50.2 51.0 51.1 51.1 51.1 51.1 51.0 50.9 50.8 50.7 50.5 50.3 50.1

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Migration - Net FlowsUK +293 -509 -572 -625 -509 -458 -599 -594 +116 +102 +131 +72 +19 +57 -87 -83 +2 -54 -29 -49

Overseas -31 -31 -32 -24 -29 -28 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32


Net migration +261 -540 -604 -649 -538 -486 -631 -626 +84 +70 +99 +40 -13 +25 -119 -115 -30 -85 -61 -80

Net change +561 -182 -247 -302 -199 -145 -309 -322 +368 +345 +369 +300 +240 +271 +123 +119 +199 +139 +155 +131

Crude Birth Rate /000 14.02 14.00 13.82 13.66 13.55 13.39 13.18 12.97 12.71 12.61 12.52 12.45 12.40 12.36 12.36 12.35 12.34 12.35 12.37 12.40

Crude Death Rate /000 10.60 9.92 9.74 9.67 9.65 9.46 9.46 9.44 9.41 9.43 9.42 9.46 9.50 9.55 9.61 9.69 9.74 9.81 9.92 10.02

Crude Net Migration Rate /000 2.99 -6.16 -6.91 -7.45 -6.20 -5.61 -7.30 -7.26 0.98 0.81 1.14 0.45 -0.15 0.28 -1.35 -1.31 -0.34 -0.97 -0.69 -0.91


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 6,012 5,996 5,936 5,895 5,847 5,785 5,696 5,604 5,573 5,539 5,511 5,484 5,456 5,444 5,426 5,414 5,415 5,417 5,425 5,436

5-10 6,310 6,542 6,685 6,805 6,846 6,885 6,888 6,826 6,781 6,757 6,754 6,738 6,710 6,673 6,637 6,593 6,546 6,507 6,469 6,437 6,415

11-15 5,046 4,986 4,854 4,852 4,938 5,009 5,133 5,293 5,383 5,492 5,556 5,587 5,573 5,580 5,562 5,551 5,528 5,505 5,474 5,444 5,410

16-17 2,163 2,123 2,072 2,004 1,851 1,822 1,839 1,827 1,859 1,934 1,990 2,056 2,143 2,162 2,157 2,153 2,143 2,148 2,143 2,135 2,122

18-59Female, 64Male 50,117 50,167 49,773 49,318 48,909 48,454 47,938 47,412 46,852 46,732 46,687 46,600 46,555 46,522 46,527 46,429 46,336 46,269 46,237 46,211 46,147

60/65 -74 10,934 11,217 11,440 11,598 11,684 11,768 11,894 11,896 11,947 12,042 11,802 11,746 11,691 11,731 11,835 11,947 12,034 12,168 12,237 12,300 12,367

75-84 4,642 4,727 4,776 4,825 4,888 5,014 5,142 5,339 5,489 5,667 6,118 6,467 6,766 6,953 7,092 7,159 7,251 7,276 7,307 7,324 7,170

85+ 1,936 1,914 1,911 1,921 1,947 1,959 1,993 2,014 2,064 2,153 2,250 2,358 2,443 2,527 2,621 2,741 2,865 3,027 3,171 3,333 3,673

Total 87,127 87,688 87,506 87,259 86,957 86,757 86,612 86,303 85,981 86,349 86,695 87,063 87,364 87,604 87,875 87,998 88,117 88,315 88,454 88,610 88,740


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.41

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.75

Median age males 39.0 38.9 38.9 39.1 39.2 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.6 39.6 39.6 39.6 39.7 39.8 39.9 39.9 40.0 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.4



Population impact of constraintNumber of persons +654 -179 -253 -325 -219 -190 -355 -360 +341 +320 +347 +287 +228 +259 +111 +101 +174 +105 +122 +94


Change in Labour Force over previous year +258 -204 -298 -294 -286 -287 -283 -279 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18


Change in over previous year -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18


Change in Households over previous year +261 -8 -39 -25 -14 +27 -50 -71 +191 +179 +200 +179 +150 +174 +126 +125 +142 +115 +123 +88


Change in over previous year +279 -9 -41 -27 -15 +29 -53 -76 +204 +191 +213 +191 +160 +185 +135 +133 +151 +123 +131 +94


Components of Population Change Burnley Scenario Hi: Past Trends Job Growth re-based to 2014 Year beginning July 1st …………..2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32

BirthsMale 628 644 677 668 662 654 642 630 617 614 611 608 605 602 601 598 595 594 592 592

Female 598 614 645 636 630 622 612 600 588 585 582 579 576 574 572 569 567 566 564 564

All Births 1,226 1,258 1,322 1,303 1,292 1,276 1,254 1,230 1,205 1,199 1,193 1,187 1,181 1,176 1,173 1,167 1,162 1,159 1,157 1,156

TFR 2.18 2.15 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 2.08 2.09

Births input

DeathsMale 440 428 430 422 421 412 413 412 411 413 416 419 424 428 431 434 439 443 449 454

Female 486 447 442 441 437 427 424 419 418 420 419 423 425 428 432 436 439 443 448 453

All deaths 926 875 873 863 858 839 837 831 829 834 836 842 849 856 863 871 877 886 897 907

SMR: males 128.6 122.8 120.0 116.3 114.1 109.4 107.3 104.6 101.9 99.5 97.4 95.2 93.5 91.6 89.6 87.6 85.9 84.3 83.2 81.9

SMR: females 130.8 119.7 116.0 115.2 113.6 110.0 107.8 105.3 103.3 101.6 99.2 97.6 95.6 93.8 92.0 90.6 88.6 87.1 85.8 84.5

SMR: persons 129.7 121.2 117.9 115.7 113.8 109.7 107.5 104.9 102.6 100.6 98.3 96.4 94.5 92.7 90.8 89.0 87.2 85.6 84.5 83.2




Deaths input


Female 2,042 2,319 1,456 1,450 1,480 1,485 1,442 1,438 1,617 1,608 1,613 1,595 1,580 1,589 1,554 1,557 1,582 1,564 1,573 1,570

All 4,095 4,663 2,931 2,924 2,989 3,004 2,919 2,914 3,279 3,264 3,274 3,239 3,208 3,226 3,155 3,159 3,209 3,172 3,188 3,181

SMigR: males 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 1,260 959 1,824 1,813 1,773 1,749 1,772 1,766 1,576 1,571 1,565 1,581 1,598 1,589 1,633 1,633 1,612 1,631 1,631 1,640

All 2,511 1,916 3,642 3,630 3,554 3,513 3,570 3,560 3,179 3,178 3,161 3,191 3,221 3,206 3,289 3,291 3,249 3,291 3,285 3,303

SMigR: males 27.6 20.5 37.2 37.5 37.1 37.0 38.1 38.4 34.7 34.7 34.4 34.7 34.9 34.7 35.4 35.3 34.8 35.1 34.9 35.0

SMigR: females 27.0 19.9 36.0 36.3 36.0 36.0 37.0 37.5 33.9 33.8 33.7 33.9 34.1 33.8 34.6 34.5 34.0 34.3 34.2 34.2

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 87 87 87 90 88 88 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87

All 186 186 186 194 188 189 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186

SMigR: males 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMigR: females 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Female 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97

All 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217

SMigR: males 47.5 46.2 44.0 44.4 44.9 45.3 45.8 46.4 47.1 47.1 47.2 47.2 47.2 47.2 47.2 47.2 47.1 46.9 46.8 46.7

SMigR: females 46.8 45.3 43.0 43.4 44.1 44.7 45.3 46.2 47.1 47.3 47.5 47.7 47.8 47.9 47.8 47.9 47.9 47.7 47.6 47.5

Migrants input * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Migration - Net FlowsUK +1,584 +2,747 -711 -706 -565 -509 -652 -646 +100 +86 +113 +48 -13 +20 -134 -132 -41 -119 -97 -122

Overseas -31 -31 -32 -24 -29 -28 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32 -32


Net migration +1,553 +2,716 -742 -730 -594 -537 -683 -678 +68 +54 +81 +16 -45 -12 -166 -164 -73 -151 -129 -154

Net change +1,852 +3,099 -294 -290 -160 -100 -266 -279 +445 +419 +438 +361 +288 +309 +144 +132 +212 +122 +130 +95

Crude Birth Rate /000 13.92 13.90 14.38 14.22 14.13 13.98 13.76 13.54 13.26 13.13 12.99 12.88 12.77 12.67 12.61 12.52 12.45 12.40 12.35 12.33

Crude Death Rate /000 10.52 9.66 9.50 9.42 9.38 9.19 9.18 9.15 9.11 9.12 9.11 9.14 9.18 9.22 9.28 9.35 9.40 9.47 9.58 9.68

Crude Net Migration Rate /000 17.64 30.00 -8.08 -7.96 -6.50 -5.88 -7.50 -7.47 0.75 0.59 0.88 0.18 -0.49 -0.13 -1.78 -1.76 -0.78 -1.62 -1.38 -1.64


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

0-4 5,979 6,132 6,430 6,393 6,374 6,342 6,299 6,243 6,153 6,124 6,087 6,051 6,012 5,969 5,936 5,895 5,857 5,830 5,801 5,779 5,759

5-10 6,310 6,626 6,997 7,141 7,215 7,297 7,336 7,292 7,288 7,297 7,323 7,328 7,320 7,313 7,280 7,234 7,179 7,127 7,069 7,013 6,963

11-15 5,046 5,041 5,047 5,045 5,136 5,215 5,351 5,525 5,633 5,771 5,867 5,936 5,954 5,978 5,990 6,003 5,998 5,995 5,989 5,965 5,930

16-17 2,163 2,153 2,169 2,086 1,925 1,893 1,911 1,901 1,936 2,015 2,076 2,149 2,245 2,274 2,284 2,297 2,301 2,316 2,303 2,308 2,316

18-59Female, 64Male 50,117 51,075 52,968 52,439 51,990 51,507 50,962 50,407 49,818 49,692 49,644 49,551 49,501 49,461 49,460 49,352 49,257 49,194 49,160 49,128 49,046

60/65 -74 10,934 11,273 11,644 11,807 11,900 11,992 12,129 12,138 12,197 12,302 12,067 12,020 11,973 12,021 12,133 12,254 12,350 12,497 12,579 12,656 12,738

75-84 4,642 4,749 4,853 4,898 4,957 5,083 5,210 5,409 5,562 5,744 6,204 6,561 6,869 7,064 7,210 7,284 7,383 7,414 7,448 7,468 7,315

85+ 1,936 1,931 1,970 1,976 1,998 2,006 2,038 2,055 2,103 2,190 2,287 2,394 2,478 2,562 2,656 2,775 2,900 3,063 3,209 3,373 3,718

Total 87,127 88,979 92,078 91,785 91,495 91,335 91,236 90,969 90,690 91,135 91,554 91,992 92,353 92,640 92,949 93,093 93,224 93,436 93,559 93,689 93,783


65+ / 16-65 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.39

0-15 and 65+ / 16-65 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.74

Median age males 39.0 38.6 38.1 38.2 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.6 38.8 38.9 38.9 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.6 39.7 39.8 40.0 40.1



Population impact of constraintNumber of persons +1,945 +3,076 -392 -406 -274 -241 -407 -412 +326 +303 +329 +264 +196 +223 +64 +52 +132 +39 +54 +20


Change in Labour Force over previous year +978 +1,630 -315 -311 -302 -303 -299 -295 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18


Change in over previous year +660 +1,720 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18 -18


Change in Households over previous year +730 +1,196 -27 -7 +6 +48 -30 -52 +217 +201 +221 +198 +166 +185 +133 +131 +150 +117 +123 +86


Change in over previous year +778 +1,275 -29 -8 +6 +52 -32 -55 +231 +215 +236 +212 +177 +198 +142 +139 +160 +125 +131 +91

Burnley SHMA :

P202 10003369v15

Documents

Burnley SHMA