Rural Community Gateway

7-Mar-2008 @ 16:35PM

Norette Ferns

If you are interested in the issue of affordable housing, you may want to take a look at the Gateway's event report from the Rural Housing Services annual conference 2008. The theme of the conference was delivering affordable housing.

The Highlands of Scotland are empty, their is no shortage of space their, yet a building plot can cost 70,000, with outline planning permission, land with no permission, goes for as little as 15,000 which gives you an idea, of the desperation for housing.

The sad thing is, that many of the people who oppose planning aplications, and thus drive the price of land beyond that of the local people, are people who are incomers to the areas, and have perhaps moved there to retire in peace and tranquility.

Their is nothing wrong with that, but while its happening, and no new houses are being given planning permission, it means that for every family that goes to live in the area, a family has to leave.

Planning laws should be relaxed in rural areas, if you buy a piece of land, on an island, which is struggling for population in winter, (when all the holiday home owners are back home in the cities, why should anyone have the right to stop you building on your piece of land.

Basically there needs to be a rigorously enforced policy of making affordable housing available in the community and this needs to be done through Housing Associations. This type of property must not be available for purchase and similarly people should be prevented from buying council houses. Social housing stocks are at a very low level and this problem must be reduced.
If the creation of adequate stocks of Social Housing are not actively pusued then we will end up with a countryside where only those with money can live.
Finally the problem of the acquistion of the second homes needs to be attended to. Too many communities are becoming weekend communities. Measures need to deal with this growing problem - massive hikes in Council Taxes for those with second residences.
Ed Archer

I agree with Steve about the use of brownfield sites. But define Brownfield in the islands? There aren't any, except where necessary re-development is ongoing like in Balivanich. There is nowhere else to build houses except of decrofted plots. Plus, when we're talking about costs - for those on a tight budget, or struggling to manage in any way, Brownfield adds considerably to the cost with all the additional site investigations are required, so you could add to the comment about support for site site sevicing and say that if you impose a Brownfield first ruling, you're also going to have to make provision to support financially those who then build on these sites. It doesn't work both ways - people are either enabled to afford housing or the environment is put first at the cost of everything else.

AS a full time mother of a family of 6, now my youngest is old enough to go to school, in order to get into the housing market I would have to get a least 2 jobs to enable the purchase of a house to fit my family. (we already have 1 full time earner!) I have thus set up a self build housing association in an attempt to find a solution to affordable and sustainable rural housing. Planning may be a main issue in future, but at the moment sourcing affordable land seems almost impossible. The Forestry Commission NFLS Land for Affordable Housing, although an obvious choice, has many areas of ambiguity. How about an opinion poll on NFLS?

Planning restrictions may be one factor but of equal, if not greater importance, is the high cost of sites even in remote rural areas. In addition to site purchase costs bringing electricity to a site and providing waste storage facilities adds greatly to house costs. Kit houses can be built for a reasonable cost but when one adds the extras the final costs become prohibitive to those working and living in rural areas, except for those fortunate enough to be employed in lucrative employment, eg oil industry. Some form of assistance towards site servicing would help significantly.

Both articles are correct in part. The issue has no single cause. The planning system has limited the availability of land for building and so driven up land values. Local authorities have failed to identify need and control the mix of housing in their areas and the whole financial system has allowed, even encouraged, the purchase of second homes for limited holiday use. In many coastal & scenic areas this has made it impossible for local folk to afford houses. Private enterprise building homes for rent is to be encouraged providing the rent is controlled. Purchasing & building homes to sit empty should attract a premium in council tax - eg pay double.

I agree that we need to ensure we have affordable housing for those who wish to remain in the community in which they were brought up.

I don't believe however that building on 'virgin' land should be allowed unless it is to expand a pre-existing major settlement, and that it is done in a way that ensures harmony with existing building styles, and that the necessary roads/public transport/sewerage/schools infrastructure is in place in advance to minimise strain on existing services.

I also believe that the first areas where any housing should be placed in on reclaimed (or reclaimable) brown-field sites, preserving wherever possible greenfield sites for agriculture and amenity.

Ian Bailey's comments chime with my thoughts on this.

Yes demand for property is high, but if builders were not achieving the high prices they currently ask (because unrealistic mortgages were no longer available and potential homeowners could not afford these exhorbitant prices), they would not offer the vast sums of cash for building land currently being achieved - reducing the cost of property which could be passed to the home buyer.

We have created a financial monster which will crash the economy if and when a balance is restored.

8-Jan-2008 @ 13:49PM

Norette Ferns

A new planning policy has been put out to consultation by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Planning Policy 3: Planning for Housing encourages councils to release more land for house building.
Read more here:
http://www.ruralgateway.org.uk/item/2107

18-Dec-2007 @ 17:38PM

Norette Ferns

We've had some thought-provoking comments so far on the Great Rural Debate on issues surrounding affordable housing.
What do you think about some of the issues raised so far, such as second homes, problems finding somewhere affordable to rent and what happens if you are not a first-time buyer?

If you have something to say, you may be interested in bursaries available from the Rural Housing Service to enable people from remote and rural communities to attend their annual conference.

The Rural Housing Service are able to offer a limited number of travel and subsistence bursaries for community groups, like community trusts and councils, to attend this conference.

The bursaries are available through a grant from Communities Scotland. The aim is to enable people from remote and rural areas to be able to have their voice heard in the debates on rural housing.

So, if you have something to say about affordable housing and the issues raised in this debate, this is a great opportunity to raise them at an important housing conference.

The conference takes place on 29th February 2008 in Birnam. Affordable housing is this year's theme. The keynote speech will come from the Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell.

If you are interested get in touch with Derek Logie by emailing derek@ruralhousingscotland.org

there are some houses and cottages to rent but only on short term lease which has to be signed for fear of getting the tenant out ? how do tenants have longer term security and landlords & farmers comfortable with the investment of improving their spare houses and converting old barns ect if ? they can even get planning for that ?.

Well we have most of the problems already highlighted - low wages, astronomical house prices etc., and for many years had a workable solution which is that many of us live in caravans that we have built onto. However, they have now been officially deemed 'illegal' so we have been looking at possible solutions to providing affordable housing (which really means rentable) ouselves. So far we haven't got as far as planning problems; the problem here is that none of the landowners want to sell land to us (the Community Company). No-one wants a 'scheme' lowering the tone of their now highly valuable land, despite assurances that we want to do eco-community-self build. So we are looking at buying some forestry land to create new forest crofts under the new legislation, which have the added benefit of automatic planning permission for a house on each croft. Clearly this won't solve everyone's problem - we have at least 76 people living in caravans, but so far it looks like it might at least provide some housing. If we do manage to obtain some land under the 25% affordable housing rule from new developments we intend to facilitate the setting up of housing co-ops which hopefully will allow people on low incomes to afford to self-build-to-rent on community-owned land. All we need now is land!

In some ways the debate on the reason for the shortage, or the growth in prices is academic. The answers all focus around providing units for first-time buyers as they have no 'equity' to keep them climbing the ladder. But there's no thought to what happens next (once they've got 2+ children & need a larger home), or for those who're not a young couple just setting out. As a family of 6 on 1 salary (and to be honest with prices rising faster than salaries, I don't think a 2nd would make much difference), we are unable to afford a house. Developer building (where there is some) is focused on couples/2+1 or the luxury end of the market. We are building a house, but even then, are doing the cheapest possible option as it's all we can manage. So out of the window have to go all principles & hopes for an eco-build. Eco is not cheap. If the government wishes to retain families in rural areas, then housing/building policy cannot focus purely on those with none or 1 child only as they are only a portion of those wishing to remain/return to the area.

The affordability or unaffordability of housing is all relative - it depends on your household income. Therefore the problem in many rural economies is not one of the lack of cheap housing, but one of low wage rates and limited job opportunties particularly for those starting out in their careers.

People generally will not simply go where there is cheap housing unless they can get a job with something approaching a decent salary, which in turn makes the housing affordable to them.

Any suggestions that a relaxation of planning regulations will lead to more affordable housing needs to be treated with extreme caution.

Take the example of the southern Machars and Rhins areas of Galloway. There has been a relaxation of planning rules regarding building in the countryside. The result?

1. Increased ribbon development which detracts from the character of towns and villages
2. Increasing numbers of large houses (not the affordable housing for local workers which was suggested would be provided) in the middle of fields occupied mainly by (relatively) well off retired people.
3. Increasing numbers of building plots which have high prices and which are not being developed until more wealthy individuals come along looking for a piece of the countryside.

Meanwhile, there is little in terms of new job creation in these communities from either the public or private sector and hence local young people don't even get the stage of worrying about the affordabilty of housing as they feel forced to move to the larger towns and cities where wages are greater, job opportunities are certainly considerably wider, but where house prices may actually be much higher than in their local rural communities.

young local rural people looking for a home of their own tend to want somewhere near the centre of the village, near the school and shops, and with close neighbours. A new, low maintenace building is ideal. Incomers and holiday-home owners tend to want something older, cuter, more isolated. Any new house that tends to conform to the second category will be sought after by incomers who can pay big prices.

We should therefore relax planning regulations for villages, allowing small blocks of flats to be built for affordable housing - these will never have the value as holiday homes that old croft houses or big new detached houses have.

second, a doubling of the council tax on second homes (whether holiday or buy-to-let) will not increase the affordable housing stock, but it will make more money available to provide the services that planners sometimes cite the lack of as a reason for not granting permision for more housing.

We have just had over 350 houses added to our community, yet the promised increase in wealth for village business' has not materialised, why? Most of the new occupants are city workers and the new 'spend' goes to supermarkets etc before the new villages reach home. One even admitted that after living in the village for six months he had onle 'turned left' into Stirling for the train and had never actually walked into the village centre. The most porbable cause of the influx is the cheap housing compared to buying in Glasgow or Edinburgh, however, the cost od the housing is way beyond us locals and ceratinly beyond our young people.

Although planning can be blamed for many things, when it comes to reasonable house prices, there are many others factors. one is the low paid jobs, the fact that many jobs are subject to outside factors ie tourism and weather. there is also a problem with people from without the area coming in and pushing the house prices.

12-Dec-2007 @ 18:12PM

Andrew Rodger

I think the suggestion that planning restrictions need to be relaxed could be coming at the problem from the wrong direction. There is a varied demand for houses in remote and rural locations, driven by many factors not least second homes and holiday homes, tourism, need for homes for people already in the area and local employment as well as sustaining infrastructure. If housing, as opposed to houses, is to be provided it will more often than not fall to a house builder to provide the stock and they will not be likely to sell to other than the highest bidder unless there are substantial initiatives or subsidies. If the problem is addressed on a smaller scale with infills, conversions, small groups etc there may be scope for more to be achieved on an ad hoc basis and within the grain of the community and with the support of the planing department. In fact I would argue that there is sufficient justification for the planning departments to operate a system which favours such schemes while restricting opportunities for the house builders for sound planning reasons, to permit smaller less profit-oriented developments to take place over a longer period of time. I suggest there may be there is an argument for, effectively, more restriction not less. However, it may also be argued that the planing department cannot be seen to be making such overtly political decisions. Also, being a response to specific local conditions, this may result in a less cogent policy which may seem like "woolly" politics at a natonal scale.

I would add that I think the exclusive focus on "first time buyers" is maybe wrong headed too. There are plenty of people who are not first time buyers who struggle to get out of the rental sector who may have been house owners in the past or who lived in an area where houses were affordable and moved to a new area where it isn't. Increased debt and house repossessions is only going to make things worse.

The main problem with rural housing in Dumfries and Galloway the lack of jobs as people are having to leave to find work and their houses are being snapped up by people from outside the area are paying way over the odds so that the prices are out of reach for ordinary folk. In addition schemes that were meant to be providing new affordable self build housing for young people are have mainly been taken up by retired or semi-retired people, and the Council seem to be ignoring it.