[Title will be auto-generated] by GCVSDPA

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan Background Report 10 Housing Need and Demand Assessment November 2010

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Housing Market Partnership Housing Need and Demand Assessment November 2010

HNDA W

Contents Chapter

Page

FOREWORD ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1

INTRODUCTION Policy Context Purpose of the HNDA Report Structure

DEVELOPING THE HNDA PROCESS Working in Partnership: Our Remit Structures Engaging ‘wider network’ stakeholders Quality Control Approval of the HNDA Monitoring and Review

OVERVIEW OF THE HNDA MODEL Developing the HNDA model The model and its components: an overview Validating the model

MARKET COMMENTARY Economic Context Demographic Context Social Context The Housing Market Other Key Drivers of Change Conclusion

THE GCV HOUSING MARKET AREA FRAMEWORK Deriving the Housing Market Area framework

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE IN THE GCV AREA Introduction Population Change by component Population Change by Age Household Change

HOUSING SUPPLY AND DEMAND / NEED COMPARISON Introduction Planning Periods Comparison of Housing Supply and Demand/Need Overview Household Tenure Projections to 2016, 2020 and 2025 Tenure Split Household Projection Scenarios Household Tenure Projection Summary Results Projected Tenure Change – Validation of Results Existing Need Comparisons of Supply with Demand/Need Comparison of Private Sector Demand and Supply Comparison of Affordable Sector Supply and Need Intermediate sector

TA01 TA02 TA03 TA04 TA05 TA06

HOUSEHOLD GROUPS WITH SPECIFIC HOUSING REQUIREMENTS Context Families Young People Older People People with a Disability Minority Ethnic Households Asylum Seekers and Refugees Migrant Workers from the European Union Students Homeless People Domestic Abuse Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Religion/Belief Gypsies/Travellers Travelling Showpeople

TECHNICAL APPENDICES A Housing Market Area Framework Current Housing Supply/ Stock Profile Gross Current/Backlog Need Affordability Study House Price Analysis Review of Supply and Demand/ Need for Housing

153

List of Tables/Figures Chapter 1 Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2

Core Outputs Process Checklist

Chapter 2 Figure 2.1

GCV HMP Structure

Chapter 3 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2

Overview of the HNDA Model Location of Core Outputs within the HNDA

Chapter 4 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11 Figure 4.12 Figure 4.13 Figure 4.14 Figure 4.15 Figure 4.16 Figure 4.17

Employment profile by Local Authority Employment profile by Local Authority Percentage of local authority datazones within 15% most deprived Distribution of 15% most deprived datazones Percentage of population that are income deprived Percentage of working age population that are employment deprived Percentage of children in low income households Disability Living Allowance Claimants per 100,000 Average Life Expectancy Tenure Structure (% households) House Sales (SNS) Lower quartile prices (SNS) Median prices (SNS) New Build Mean Prices (SNS) Average house prices, 2009-2010 (Sasines) Growth in average house prices, 2004 to 2010 (Sasines) Lower quartile house prices vs low income (Sasines)

Figure 4.18 Figure 4.19

Percentage of households travelling to work by car (SNS) Percentage of households without access to a car (SNS)

Chapter 5 Figure 5.1

GCV Housing Market Area Framework

Chapter 6 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5 Figure 6.6

Figure 6.7 Figure 6.8 Figure 6.9 Figure 6.10 Figure 6.11 Figure 6.12 Figure 6.13 Figure 6.14 Figure 6.15 Figure 6.16 Figure 6.17 Figure 6.18 Figure 6.19 Figure 6.20 Figure 6.21 Figure 6.22 Figure 6.23 Figure 6.24 Figure 6.25 Figure 6.26 Figure 6.27 Figure 6.28 Chapter 7 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 Figure 7.4

Estimated and Projected Population – HNDA scenarios Estimated and Projected Net Migration Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 Net Migration 2007/08 by Origin for 8 Council areas in Glasgow and Clyde Valley Area Net Migration 2007/08 by Age for 8 Council areas in Glasgow and Clyde Valley Area Estimated and Projected Natural Change Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 Estimated and Projected Net Migration Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 - Comparison HNDA Planning Scenario and 2006 Structure Plan Update projections Estimated and Projected Natural Change Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 - Comparison HNDA Planning Scenario and 2006 Structure Plan Update projections Estimated and Projected Population Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 - Comparison HNDA Planning Scenario and 2006 Structure Plan Update projections Estimated and Projected Annual Population Change by Council area Change 2001 to 2008 in Natural Change for 8 Council areas in Glasgow and Clyde Valley Area Estimated/Projected Population (‘000s) in GCV Area by Age Estimated/Projected Population (‘000s) in GCV Area by Age, without rise in pensionable age Population GCV area Age Pyramid - Comparison of estimate for 1991 with 2008 Population GCV area Age Pyramid - Comparison of estimate 2008 with projection 2025 Population Change 2001-2008 by Age Profile Cluster of Sub Areas in the GCV area Population Glasgow Age Pyramid - Comparison of estimate 2008 with projection 2025 Population Rest GCV Age Pyramid - Comparison of estimate 2008 with projection 2025 Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Number of Children by Council area Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Working Age Population by Council area Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Pensionable Age Population by Council area Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Population Age 75+ by Council area Estimated and Projected Annual Change of Population in Communal Establishments Estimated and Projected Households - HNDA scenarios Comparison of estimated and projected annual change in households 2001-2008 Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Households by Type - GCV area Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Households by Age of HRP - GCV area Estimated and Projected Households Glasgow and Clyde Valley area 1991 to 2025 Comparison of HNDA Planning Scenario and 2006 Structure Plan Update projections Estimated and Projected Annual Household Change by Council area

Summary of Household Projections for GCV Area 2008-25 Current Housing Need: Total Need and Those Able/Unable to Address Needs in the Market (Upper Estimate) - LA level Projection C2 High Affordability - Comparison of private supply and demand (including Lower Estimate Backlog Need) at 2020 Projection C2 High Affordability - Comparison of private supply and demand (including Lower Estimate Backlog Need) at 2025

Figure 7.5 Chapter 8 Table 8.4.1 Table 8.4.2 Table 8.5.1 Table 8.5.2 Table 8.5.3 Table 8.5.4 Table 8.5.5 Table 8.5.6 Table 8.6.1 Table 8.6.2 Table 8.6.3 Table 8.6.4 Table 8.6.5 Table 8.8.1 Table 8.8.2 Table 8.8.3 Table 8.10.1 Table 8.10.2 Table 8.10.3 Table 8.10.4 Table 8.10.5 Table 8.10.6 Table 8.11.1 Table 8.11.2 Table 8.13.1 Table 8.14.1 Table 8.14.2 Table 8.14.3 Table 8.14.4 Table 8.14.5 Table 8.14.6 Table 8.14.7 Table 8.15.1

Summary of GCV Area Housing Need Requirement in Accordance with Housing Needs Assessment Supply/Need Comparison Model 2008-2025 Housing for older people, March 2009 Care homes for older people: homes and places by local authority, March 2009 Limiting long-term illness [LLTI] or disability by local authority area, 2007-2008 Housing for people with physical disabilities by local authority, March 2009/ 2010 Care homes for adults with physical disabilities: homes and places by local authority, March 2009 Care homes for adults with mental health problems: homes and places by local authority, March 2009 Adults with learning disabilities known to local authorities, and those living in their own tenancy, 2007 Care homes for adults with learning disabilities: homes and places by local authority, March 2009 Inter-censal change in Lanarkshire, 1991 – 2001 Minority ethnic population 2001 Minority ethnic households 2001 Households including a person with a limiting long term illness [LLTI], by minority ethnic group, 2001 Tenure of minority ethnic households, 2001 NINo registrations to adult overseas nationals entering the UK, 2002/03 – 2009/10 NINo registrations to adult overseas nationals by world area of origin, 2009-10 NINo registrations to nationals of EU accession states, cumulative total 2002-2010 Homelessness statistics, GCV area, 2009-10 Homeless applications by household type, 2009-10 Main reason for applying for assistance, 2009-10 [%] Types of prevention activity undertaken, 2009-10 Summary of total homelessness prevention activity by GCV local authorities, 2009-10 Homelessness applications where a household member reported sleeping rough the night before applying for assistance, 2009-10 Households presenting as homeless as a result of domestic abuse, 2009-10 Accommodation provided to women’s aid groups Current religion of people [%], 2001 Gypsy/traveller households by local authority and type of site [July 2008, January 2009] Gypsy/traveller households by local authority and type of site [5 year and 8 year mean] Gypsy/traveller households on encampments at time of count [Summer & Winter] Use of encampment locations: January 2008 – July 2008 – January 2009 Council site provision for gypsies/travellers, 2009 Private site occupancy, January 2007 – January 2009 Estimate of need for year-round pitch provision in GCV area 2010 – 2015: supply and demand comparison Provision for travelling showpeople, 2010

Foreword This is the first comprehensive Housing Need and Demand Assessment (HNDA) for the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Area – covering all housing tenures across the eight constituent Council areas. Its preparation has required new ways of joint working to integrate planning and housing perspectives, resulting in the establishment of the GCV Housing Market Partnership (HMP). The HNDA has to serve a range of purposes. As well as being a Background Report (BR10) to the Strategic Development Plan Main Issues Report, it also provides important supporting evidence for the eight local authorities’ Local Housing Strategies and Local Development Plans. Meeting these different requirements has involved complex analysis, at different geographical scales and different projection periods, both in terms of projected demand for private or market housing (owner occupied and private rented), and projected need for affordable housing (social rented and intermediate sector). A key component of this modelling is the assessment of affordability as a means of identifying the tenure of projected households. Independent consultants were appointed to undertake this specialised component of the analysis, in the process developing an innovative and more sophisticated behavioural model of the housing system. The HMP Core Group is satisfied that the approach adopted in preparing the HNDA is consistent with the spirit of the Scottish Government’s published HNDA Guidance. It is important to say something about the status of this document. It is presented here as a Working Draft, and a wide range of stakeholder organisations, as well as interested groups and individuals, are invited to respond to the draft and offer their comments and suggestions. The closing date for this consultation is Friday 14 January 2011. All responses received will then be considered by the HMP Core Group, which will be able to go forward with a more inclusive appreciation and informed understanding to prepare the final HNDA report, to be presented to the constituent Councils for their approval. The HNDA will then be submitted in spring 2011, with confidence that it is robust and credible, to the Scottish Government’s Centre for Housing Market Analysis. Preparation of the HNDA has been a complex undertaking, made all the more challenging by the economic downturn. I should like to express my appreciation to my housing and planning colleagues in the eight authorities, and in the GCV team, for their expertise and commitment. The HNDA is an important step in planning for the homes which households in the GCV area will require. Thank you in anticipation for your interest in it, and for taking the time to respond – your contribution to the process is very valuable.

Fergus J Macleod Chair: GCV Housing Market Partnership Planning Policy and Property Manager, Regeneration and Planning, Inverclyde Council November 2010

Acknowledgements This Working Draft of the Housing Need and Demand Assessment is a complex document, underpinned by a considerable amount of research and analysis. Many organisations have made important contributions in terms of information and advice. The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Housing Market Partnership wishes to record its gratitude to the staff of the following organisations for their time and commitment, whether in providing data or offering of their experience and insight. Without their cooperation it would not have been possible to produce such a comprehensive document. East Dunbartonshire Council East Renfrewshire Council Glasgow City Council Inverclyde Council North Lanarkshire Council Renfrewshire Council South Lanarkshire Council West Dunbartonshire Council Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority General Register Office for Scotland: Household Estimates & Projections Scottish Government: Centre for Housing Market Analysis Scottish Government: Housing Investment Division Scottish Government: Statistics Group The Scottish Housing Regulator Access Apna Ghar Housing [part of Sanctuary Group] Age Scotland Arklet Housing Association Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain Council of Mortgage Lenders Clyde Gateway Urban Regeneration Company Equality Scotland [an initiative of Trust, Hanover Scotland and Bield HAs] Glasgow Centre for Population Health Glasgow & West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations Govanhill Housing Association Homes for Scotland Inclusion Scotland Ownership Options Scotland Positive Action in Housing Scottish Association of Landlords Scottish Federation of Housing Associations Scottish Women’s Aid Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain (Scottish Section) Southside Housing Association West of Scotland Regional Equality Council Optimal Economics Oxford Economics Tribal Group

Introduction _________________________________________________________ 1.1

This Housing Need and Demand Assessment (HNDA) relates to the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan area, comprising eight constituent local authorities: • East Dunbartonshire Council • East Renfrewshire Council • Glasgow City Council • Inverclyde Council • North Lanarkshire Council • Renfrewshire Council • South Lanarkshire Council; and • West Dunbartonshire Council (excluding the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park). Extensive experience of joint working between the authorities in the City Region has been developed through the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority (GCVSDPA) and the GCV Local Housing Strategy Group.

Policy Context 1.2

The statutory basis for the HNDA is contained in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which requires local authorities to: • •

carry out an assessment of housing provision and provision of related services, and prepare, and submit to the Scottish Ministers, a Local Housing Strategy.

The assessment of housing provision must include: •

the nature and condition of the housing stock

•

the needs of persons in the area for housing accommodation

•

the demand for, and availability of, housing accommodation

•

the needs of persons in the area for, and the availability of, housing accommodation designed or adapted for persons with special needs.

1.3

The Local Housing Strategy (LHS) provides the strategic direction for addressing housing need and demand at a local authority level, and informs future investment in housing through the authority’s Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP).

1.4

The Scottish Government’s discussion document ‘Firm Foundations’ (2007) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) reinforces the commitment to increasing the supply of new homes, and notes that the planning system should enable the development of well designed, energy efficient, good quality housing in sustainable locations, and 1

should allocate a generous supply of land to meet identified housing requirements across all tenures. The important role of the HNDA is identified: “Housing need and demand assessment provides the evidence base for defining housing supply targets in local housing strategies and allocating land for housing in development plans. The assessment should be undertaken at a functional housing market area level and consider the operation of the housing system as a whole, covering all tenures”. [Scottish Government (2010) SPP, paras. 66-91]

1.5

The HNDA therefore has to provide accurate and reliable data as input to LHS, the SDP and LDP. It must be robust enough to support the eight GCV Councils in their policy-making role as housing and planning authorities.

1.6

To ensure greater consistency the Scottish Government issued its HNDA Guidance in March 2008, and in the same year established the Centre for Housing Market Analysis (CHMA). The Guidance sets out the framework that local authorities should follow to assess how local housing markets operate if the HNDA is considered by CHMA to be ‘robust and credible’ then the approach used will not normally be open to debate at a development plan examination1.

Purpose of the HNDA 1.7

The HNDA is intended to assist policy development, decision-making and resourceallocation processes for the GCV area by: •

enabling the eight local authorities to develop long-term strategic views of housing need and demand to inform local housing strategies and development plans;

•

enabling the eight constituent local authorities to think spatially about the nature and influence of the housing markets in respect to the GCV area;

•

providing robust evidence to inform policies aimed at providing the right mix of housing across the whole housing market/all tenures – both market and affordable housing;

•

providing evidence to inform policies about the level of affordable housing required, including the need for different types and sizes of affordable housing;

•

supporting local authorities to develop a strategic approach to housing through consideration of housing need and demand in all housing sectors – owner occupied, private rented and affordable – and assessment of the key drivers and relationships within the housing market.

1.8

The approach differs from that previously used in preparing the GCV Joint Structure Plan and from that adopted in preparing LHS documents (which generally consider need and demand at LA and sub-LA geographies).

1.9

The HNDA provides estimates of the number of additional new homes that are required to meet need and demand for the private and social housing sectors

This policy does not override the provisions of Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. 2

including affordable housing and housing for particular needs. The estimates are presented at various geographies in order to fulfil strategic planning requirements for each local authority – at housing market and sub-market area levels, which generally cross Council administrative boundaries, as well as at local authority and other subarea geographies. 1.10

To ensure clarity for purposes of technical assessment, brief definitions used in the HNDA are outlined here, and expanded upon in appropriate sections later in the document. Housing need refers to households without housing or living in housing which is inadequate or unsuitable. It is unlikely that these households will be able to meet their needs in the housing market without some assistance. Housing demand is the quantity and type/quality of housing which households wish to buy or rent in a particular area and are able to afford. Intermediate housing products are available at a cost below full market value to meet an identified need and include: subsidised low cost housing for sale (discounted, shared ownership or shared equity); low cost housing without subsidy (entry-level housing for sale) if offered below full market value; and mid market renting. Housing market areas are geographical areas which are relatively self-contained in terms of housing demand, i.e. a large percentage of people moving house or settling in the area will have sought a dwelling only in that area.

Report Structure 1.11

1.12

The HNDA seeks to assess a range of key issues including: •

the balance between housing supply and demand/need

•

the scale of need for affordable housing and the demand for market housing

•

the extent to which affordability is an issue

•

the extent to which low demand is an issue.

The HNDA serves as a crucial evidence base in preparing the LHS and both the Strategic and Local Development Plans. As such it needs to be fit for purpose if housing and planning policies are themselves to be sound. “A housing need and demand assessment should be considered robust and credible if, as a minimum, it provides all of the core outputs, meets all of the requirements of the process criteria in the checklists below and has made reasonable assumptions based on the information available, which will be confirmed by the Scottish Government.” [Scottish Government (2008) HNDA Guidance, page 7]

1.13

The HNDA also needs to be fit to support specific policies with regard to housing, such as Affordable Housing Policies that may be contained in Local Plans or Local Development Plans.

1.14

The core outputs judged necessary as a minimum for the HNDA to be considered ‘robust and credible’ by the Scottish Government’s CHMA, are listed in the HNDA Guidance, and reproduced below as Table 1.1. The process criteria checklist is reproduced as Table 1.2. The HNDA is structured to clearly meet both the process criteria and core outputs.

1.15

The HNDA consists of a further seven Chapters:

1.16

•

Chapter 2 details the procedures adopted by the GCV authorities, describing the Housing Market Partnership, quality control mechanisms, and intentions for future monitoring and review

•

Chapter 3 describes the HNDA modelling process, including an overview of the model and its components

•

Chapter 4 provides a Market Commentary on the trends in the GCV housing system, with particular reference to the recent recession

•

Chapter 5 describes the Housing Market Area system, including definition of Housing Market Areas and Housing Sub Market Areas

•

Chapter 6 provides a commentary on Demographic Change in the GCV area

•

Chapter 7 summarises the results of the Housing Supply and Demand/Need Comparisons

•

Chapter 8 provides a strategic assessment of Household Groups with Specific Housing Requirements.

The HNDA is supported by a series of detailed Technical Appendices: • • • • • •

TA01 A Housing Market Area Framework TA02 Current Housing Supply/Stock Profile TA03 Gross Current/Backlog Need TA04 Affordability Analysis TA05 House Price Analysis TA06 Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing

Figure 1.1

Core Outputs

Estimates of current dwellings in terms of size, type, condition, tenure, occupancy and location.

Analysis of past and current housing market trends, including balance between supply and demand in different housing sectors and price/affordability. Description of key drivers underpinning the housing market.

Estimate of total future number of households.

Estimate of household groups who have specific housing requirements e.g. families, older people, minority ethnic groups, disabled people, young people, etc.

Estimate of current number of households in housing need.

Estimate of future households that will require affordable housing.

Estimate of future households requiring market housing.

Estimate of total future households requiring either affordable or market housing.

Figure 1.2

Process Checklist

Approach to identifying housing market area(s) is consistent with accepted approaches to identifying housing market areas2.

Housing market conditions are assessed within the context of the housing market area and any component markets contained within it.

Involves key stakeholders.

Contains a full technical explanation of the methods employed, with any limitations noted.

Assumptions, judgements and findings are fully justified and presented in an open and transparent manner, in particular in relation to economic growth, demographic change and migration, income estimates and translation of the assessment of need and demand at housing market area level into housing supply targets.

Uses and reports upon effective quality control mechanisms.

Explains how the assessments findings have or will be monitored and updated (where appropriate).

Source: Scottish Government, March 2008, HNDA Guidance, page 7

Local Housing System Analysis Good Practice Guide, Communities Scotland, 2004 http://www.lhs.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/cs_006031.p df sets out a range of accepted approaches to identifying housing market areas. 5

Developing the HNDA Process _________________________________________________________ Working in Partnership: Our Remit 2.1

The GCV authorities have gained considerable experience of successfully working together to deliver the Structure Plan over many years, and this has been built upon for the HNDA. The new Housing Market Partnership (HMP) signals a significant change in approach to strategic planning of housing requirements in the GCV area, in response to recent encouragement from the Scottish Government: It is clear that if we are to make a step change in housing supply, it must be based on effective strategic planning. This means that housing and planning policies will need to be grounded in a robust and credible understanding of housing markets. They must also be effectively linked to the delivery of housing through planning of land supply, practical land assembly and investment….. In most cases [development of a strategic approach to housing] will mean working in partnership with two or more local authorities to devise a strategic solution to need across a wider area. This builds on current thinking and best practice in Scotland. [Scottish Government, 2007, Firm Foundations, Discussion Document] While joint approaches in some parts of the country are well developed, greater co-operation on housing provision will be important to achieving the delivery of the housing supply increase which is needed. Local authorities are encouraged to explore new and enhanced ways of joint working within wider housing market areas. [Scottish Government and CoSLA, 2008, Local Housing Strategy Guidance, para. 20] Housing market areas may significantly overlap and will rarely coincide with local authority boundaries. Local authorities are therefore encouraged to co-operate regionally in housing market partnerships, which may also include other organisations such as housing associations and developers. [Scottish Government, 2010, Scottish Planning Policy, Housing, para. 68]

2.2

2.3

The GCV HMP aims: •

to share information and intelligence, including relevant contextual material and policy information

•

to assist with the development of an HNDA and to ensure its findings are disseminated and regularly reviewed

•

to support core members in the analysis and interpretation of housing market intelligence.

The GCV HMP therefore seeks to develop a clear shared understanding of the operation of the housing market across the city region.

2.4

In addition a long term strategic view is required which addresses both the interaction of various tenures in the housing system and the actual dynamics of housing systems, which operate across local authority administrative boundaries.

2.5

The GCV HMP also aims to encourage and support dialogue between various players at regional level; in doing so a greater multi-disciplinary perspective on the operation of the housing system/market, complementing existing activity at local authority level is achieved.

2.6

The majority of the research and analysis supporting the HNDA has been conducted by staff of the eight constituent authorities. Two senior planning analysts with Glasgow City Council provided ‘internal consultancy’ particularly in relation to demographic projections, testing of housing market system geography, and housing supply/demand comparison. The core GCVSDPA team provided support with coordination and administration, wider engagement and technical work. The authorities funded a temporary post of HNDA Project Manager to promote and coordinate activities.

2.7

As well as being consistent with the HNDA Guidance, this approach has provided the following benefits: •

improved understanding of components, such as current/backlog need, through jointly debating issues relating to methodology, data sources and their limitations, assumptions required, and the explanation of differences between authorities

•

enhanced understanding of the GCV housing system

•

combining the experience gained by planning and housing professionals in the strategic analysis of housing market issues.

2.8

As part of the wider technical work for the Strategic Development Plan, GCVSDPA commissioned Oxford Economics in May 2009 to provide an overview of the economic implications of the recession, and again in February 2010 to provide more detailed economic modelling. This provided useful context for the HNDA as well as informing specific decisions, such as on migration assumptions.

2.9

It was also considered appropriate to appoint specialist external consultants, to undertake the task of modelling the Affordability Analysis for the HNDA, leading to tenure projections. Tribal Group with Optimal Economics were commissioned, and worked closely with the GCV HMP to develop an innovative approach which sought to increase understanding of household behaviour within housing markets.

2.10

As well as quantitative data derived from analytical work and modelling, the HMP sought to complement this with more qualitative information in order to highlight specific issues and provide a better understanding and commentary on the operation of the GCV housing system.

2.11

Much of this additional commentary came from interviews with a range of external stakeholders.

Structures 2.12

Given the scale and diversity of the GCV area, the HMP has a ‘Core + Network’ structure, enabling it to manage both the technical work involved in preparation of the HNDA, and wider engagement activity. Figure 2.1

2.13

GCV HMP Structure

The HMP Core Group comprises: •

planning and housing representatives from the eight constituent local authorities. This group provides detailed understanding of the local planning context and of local housing issues and markets, and is responsible for preparing the statutory Strategic and Local Development Plans and Local Housing Strategies

•

representatives of the GCVSDPA, charged with preparing the Strategic Development Plan, and with coordinating the preparation of the HNDA

•

a representative of the Scottish Government’s area team within the Housing & Investment Division.

2.14

Beyond the core membership of the HMP it is recognised that there is a wider network of key stakeholder/interest groups with a contribution to make including, social and private landlords, developers and builders, funders, and representatives of particular housing needs groups. Some of these have an interest in the supply side of housing, while others are concerned with aspects of need/demand. The HMP has sought to complement rather than replicate the well developed existing consultation structures for both the LHS and LDP processes in each local authority.

2.15

Two sub groups support the work of, and report to, the HMP Core Group: •

the Planning Sub Group addresses technical Planning issues, and is made up of planning officers representing the eight GCV authorities;

•

the Housing Sub Group addresses technical Housing issues, and is made up of housing officers representing the eight GCV authorities.

2.16

The HMP Core Group is accountable, in turn, through the GCVSDPA Steering Group to the GCVSDPA Joint Committee The HMP Core Group ensured progress on key tasks for the HNDA by means of a detailed work programme, reviewed on a monthly basis. A progress report on the HNDA has been a standing item on the agendas of both the Steering Group and Joint Committee.

2.17

The HMP and the HNDA process have strong support and commitment from all eight GCV authorities. Responsibility for chairing the HMP Core Group and sub groups has been shared, at various times including Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire Councils. A positive approach to team work has developed, permitting constructive debate about issues arising and shared decision making.

2.18

Given the very broad corporate responsibilities held by many of the authorities’ Directors of Housing and of Planning, specific efforts in the form of reports and briefing meetings were made to ensure their understanding and support of the HNDA process.

Engaging ‘wider network’ stakeholders 2.19

The HMP Core Group has sought to engage with wider network stakeholders in various ways, including face-to-face meetings, briefing seminars on key issues, by way of a summary leaflet, and as a virtual network using an HNDA page on the GCV website. It also maintains dialogue with the GCV LHS Group and the CHMA.

2.20

The majority of the larger housing developers active in the GCV area are members of the representative trade body, Homes for Scotland. Our engagement with this key group of stakeholders included: •

an initial briefing meeting on the role of the HNDA and the process being adopted for the GCV area

•

a tripartite meeting involving Homes for Scotland, South Lanarkshire Council and GCVSDPA to resolve disputed sites and agree the housing land audit

•

other authorities reviewing their housing land audits in consultation with Homes for Scotland

•

inviting representatives of Homes for Scotland to attend a meeting of the HMP Core Group to discuss implications of the recession for the industry, and progress on the HNDA.

2.21

Some local authorities also undertook local consultation/engagement with developers related to their specific local circumstances.

2.22

Another key group of stakeholders is Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), of which there are over 100 active in the GCV area. As well as having a local community focus, the group also includes a number of national and specialist housing associations. There are two large stock transfer associations: River Clyde Homes (established to take transfer of the majority of Inverclyde Council’s housing stock) and Glasgow Housing Association (established to take Glasgow City Council’s housing stock). It was agreed that all local authorities should use their usual liaison mechanisms to keep RSLs in their area up to date and engage with the HNDA process. In practice, of course, various components of the HNDA necessitated requests for data as input to the analyses. 9

2.23

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations is a national representative body, of which many associations in the GCV area are members. Following a meeting with a representative of the policy team, a briefing seminar on the HNDA process was held in January 2010. This was attended by representatives of six national or regional associations and several local associations.

2.24

The Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations represents a number of RSLs. Most are community-based associations in Glasgow City, but with some members in other authority areas. Informal briefings were held with a representative and with the Director Designate, and an offer made to give a briefing seminar to Forum members.

2.25

The private rented segment of the market is growing in significance. It is very diverse ranging from landlords with a single property to let, to companies with substantial property portfolios. Contact was made with the representative body, the Scottish Association of Landlords.

2.26

An important function of the HNDA is to assess the range of particular needs arising in Household Groups with Specific Housing Requirements – including older people households, those with disabilities or long term limiting illness, students, minority ethnic communities, Gypsies/ Travellers and travelling showpeople.

2.27

Representatives from the following organisations took part in the initial engagement process: Age Scotland Glasgow Centre for Population Health Inclusion Scotland Ownership Options Scotland Positive Action in Housing Scottish Women’s Aid Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain (Scottish Section) West of Scotland Regional Equality Council.

2.28

A number of housing associations have developed considerable expertise and experience in meeting particular needs, and the following associations assisted with issues relating to their specific area of expertise: Access Apna Ghar Housing [part of Sanctuary Group] Arklet HA Equality Scotland [an initiative of Trust, Hanover Scotland and Bield HAs] Govanhill HA Southside HA.

2.29

In drafting the HNDA we drew on the expertise of consultants Oxford Economics, Tribal Group and Optimal Economics, as well as the CHMA. The Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) was contacted through its consultant in Scotland, who provided various CML documents and briefing papers to assist us in better understanding relevant specific aspects of the housing market.

Quality Control 2.30

It is important that the outputs of the HNDA are both valid and reliable, as they form the key evidence base for both Strategic and Local Development Plans and for Local Housing Strategies. The HMP Core Group devoted considerable time and attention to detail to ensure the quality of results. A four stage approach was adopted: I. Getting the methodology and modelling processes right – where appropriate agreeing the use of ‘procedure notes’ and data gathering pro formas to ensure improved consistency between the eight authorities II. Collecting the best available data III. Using alternative approaches or data sources for triangulation purposes, and IV. Checking the credibility of our interpretation of results by comparison between authorities or against qualitative information or other means.

2.31

The guiding principle is one of openness about data sources and their limitations, referencing information, and acknowledging assumptions required and judgements made. The Technical Appendices to this HNDA provide full details of validation procedures for various stages of the assessment.

2.32

For the most part the Scottish Government’s HNDA Guidance (2008) served as the methodological handbook, and we are confident that we have fulfilled the spirit of the Guidance in delivering all the Core Outputs and meeting the process criteria. In two areas we developed new approaches which are considered to be at least as robust and credible as those in the Guidance: Affordability Analysis and Household Groups with Specific Housing Requirements. In both cases we liaised closely with the Scottish Government’s representative on the Core Group and with the CHMA to ensure the validity of the approach taken.

2.33

Affordability Analysis: In attempting to determine levels of housing need and demand, it is important to analyse the likely ability of households to meet their own housing requirements in the market now and in the future, so that housing need can be determined. Those households without the means to meet their own housing needs will therefore be dependent on social rented housing. A similar affordability test has to be applied both to backlog need and to projected households. For our purposes it seemed important also to try to ascertain the likely extent to which the private rented sector and the intermediate sector could potentially be expected to contribute to meeting housing need/demand.

2.34

In the past the Structure Plan had simply identified the proportion of households likely to require private sector housing, predominantly owner occupation. The remaining households were assumed to require social rented housing. The projected tenure ratio was based on historic patterns of tenure change. Local Housing Strategies adopted a different approach, focussing on new households and attempting to measure ‘affordability’ using the ratio of household income to house price and applying affordability thresholds (e.g. 3.5 times gross household income for single earner households, 2.9 times for double income households, or up to 25% of gross household income for private rental).

2.35

The HNDA Guidance advises the use of income : house price ratios and affordability thresholds. As this is a rather complicated area of analysis, the HMP Core Group decided to appoint consultants Tribal Group with Optimal Economics so that their specialist expertise could be brought to bear. The approach, fully explained in Technical Appendix TA05 Affordability Analysis, seeks to model the behaviour and housing choices made by households in different age cohorts. It recognises, for instance, the inter-tenure moves which occur, particularly among households in the 25-35 age band, as many move from an initial temporary period of private rental into long term settled tenure of owner occupation. Income is also identified as a relatively weak predictor of tenure compared to employment status. Developing this new approach was time-consuming and challenging. The task completed, the HMP Core Group is satisfied that its decision to deviate from the Guidance in this way was fully justified by gaining a more sophisticated understanding of the operation of different aspects of the GCV housing market.

2.36

Household Groups with Specific Housing Requirements: The HNDA Guidance is limited with regard to the very broadly defined and diverse category known as Household Groups with Specific Housing Requirements. Reference was therefore made to previous guidance issued by the former Communities Scotland3 in developing an approach to meet GCV’s requirements for the HNDA. It should be noted that the HNDA is concerned with supply and demand of housing to meet these needs, rather than with support services.

Approval of the HNDA 2.37

The HNDA Guidance suggests that the HMP would sign off the HNDA. This inevitably has implications for current SDPA structures (which have a planning focus) as well as for appropriate approval processes within the GCV constituent authorities.

2.38

As a statutory part of the planning system in Scotland, the GCVSDPA has established procedures and structures for processing strategic planning issues and documents such as the Strategic Development Plan – principally the eight-authority Steering Group and Joint Committee. This mechanism would be appropriate for agreeing and ‘signing off’ the HNDA as a key source document for the SDP and LDPs.

2.39

However, the HNDA is a statutory requirement under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and is a key building block for the LHS, it also requires to be approved by individual housing authorities.

2.40

Throughout the preparation of the HNDA, the process involved a strong partnership approach, including planning and housing staff from all eight authorities.

Monitoring and Review 2.41

The housing system is complex and dynamic and for this reason, it is not possible to provide definitive estimates of demand and need, or an assessment of market conditions. However, the HNDA provides valuable insights into how the GCV housing system currently operates and is likely to operate in the future. As such, it can serve as a shared evidence base to inform local authorities and their partners in developing housing supply targets in their LHS, and in allocating land to meet these targets through housing policies in Local Development Plans.

Local Housing Systems Analysis: Good Practice Guide (September 2004) Chapter 11: “Community Care Housing Needs Assessment”. Communities Scotland. 12

2.42

Future projections of population, households and of housing need and demand, are always subject to a degree of uncertainty – the further forward the projection the greater this becomes. The following factors should be noted in particular: •

the 2001 Census, the starting point for various population assumptions, is now out of date

•

the impact of inward migration from accession states in the expanded European Union (EU), and whether this will continue

•

demographic change in the form of an ageing population may increase the need and demand for housing which has to meet particular needs

•

the recession has had a significant impact on the housing system, severely reducing new supply and developer capacity, and affecting household demand and need; the long term consequences are not clear

•

the potential of the ‘intermediate’ housing sector to meet segments of need and demand, especially in the context of planned fiscal restraint over a number of years.

2.43

A number of these points are developed more fully in other sections of the document. These are clearly important issues as the HNDA process models future housing need and demand and supply requirements over a period of up to 15 years.

2.44

The GCV HMP will undertake a comprehensive review of the HNDA on a five-yearly basis, linked to the review of Development Plans and Local Housing Strategies. This will provide an opportunity to take account of data from the 2011 Census, as well as evidence of changes in demographics, market circumstances and relevant policy impacts, and will ensure that strategic planning for housing across the GCV area is kept as up to date as practicable.

2.45

The HMP will also provide a means for the eight authorities to jointly research specific issues or review individual components as appropriate on an interim basis, between formal reviews. This will ensure that the authorities maintain a current and shared understanding of the evolving nature of the GCV housing system.

Overview of the HNDA Model _________________________________________________________ Developing the HNDA model 3.1

This Chapter seeks to provide a broad overview of the HNDA model, so that the general reader may understand how the various components fit together to deliver the Core Outputs required by the Scottish Government. It simplifies what has proved to be a complex process; those requiring more technical detail on each of the major components are referred to the relevant Chapters or Technical Appendices.

3.2

The model builds on the analytical expertise built up among staff in the constituent authorities and the core team in relation to: the GCV Joint Structure Plan, particularly in terms of demographic projection and housing market assessment for the private or market sector; and local authorities’ Housing Needs Assessments for the social rented sector, and for particular needs. Various additional studies have been undertaken to help develop a more rounded and integrated understanding of the GCV housing system.

3.3

It should be noted that the model is primarily a means of conducting an analytical assessment of current and future housing market conditions. Although the HNDA provides an important part of the evidence base, it is a separate activity from policy development and appraisal, which has started on the GCV SDP and will be undertaken in the preparation and finalisation of Local Housing Strategies and Development Plans.

3.4

This distinction – between the inputs and assumptions used in modelling the housing system/market, and policy – is not a hard and fast one, since the task involved in producing a robust and credible HNDA requires a number of trade-offs between each. An agreed understanding and appreciation of current policy and how it has influenced the assumptions around the data inputs has been one of the important roles of the HMP Core Group in reaching the stage we are now at.

The model and its components: an overview 3.5

An Overview of the HNDA Model is illustrated overleaf in the form of a block diagram (Figure 3.1). The key components are described briefly below, together with an indication of the Core Output to which they contribute.

3.6

Stock Profile: This part of the HNDA examines the existing housing stock in the GCV area, and is analysed fully in Technical Appendix TA02 Current Housing Supply/Stock Profile.

3.7

This produces CORE OUTPUT 1: Estimates of current dwellings in terms of size, type, condition, tenure, occupancy and location.

Figure 3.1 Overview of the HNDA model Population base year estimate

Housing stock base year estimate

Households base year estimate

Market Appraisal

Demographics

Economic Outlook of Scenarios (Oxford Economics)

Projected population (LA, LA sub-area and sub-market area)

Core Output 2 Market commentary

Core Output 3 Projected households (LA, LA sub-area and sub-market area)

Housing stock base year estimate

Core Output 1 Stock profile

Core Output 5 Current / backlog housing need

Market Sector Housing Demand Assessment

Affordable Sector Housing Needs Assessment

Housing stock base year estimate

Affordability Tenure Assessment (Tribal / Optimal Economics) Private rented stock projections by LA and LA sub-area

Local demand by SMA

Split demand between mobile and local

Projected households and backlog need that can afford mainstream private market housing by HMA framework

Projected households and backlog need requiring social rented housing Core Output 4 Estimate of household groups and specific housing requirements

Comparison of projected stock and local demand by SMA

Comparison of local surplusses with mobile demand

Core Output 7 Local shortfalls requiring additional land release

Core Output 7 Wider HMA shortfalls requiring additional land release

Mobile demand by HMA

Core Output 6 Assessment of potential intermediate sector

Core Output 6 Shortfalls requiring additional social rented supply

Social rented stock projections by LA and LA sub-area

Comparison of projected stock and households by LA and LA sub-area

3.8

A Market Commentary assessing the recent and projected drivers of change and development in the GCV housing market is provided in Chapter 4.

3.9

This produces CORE OUTPUT 2: Analysis of past and current housing market trends, including balance between supply and demand in different housing sectors and price/affordability. Description of key drivers underpinning the housing market.

3.10

Demographic projections of Population and Households: The projections underpin subsequent components of the model. Two projection scenarios have been identified for the HNDA, using different assumptions relating to migration: a lower migration scenario [also known as scenario A] which assumes that, after the initial five years or so, the net migration will be constant, at a rate of -1,050 per year, for the remainder of the projection period to 2025; and a planning scenario [known as scenario C] which assumes a constant net migration of +1,050 per year for ten years, with a resumption of further trend growth thereafter. The ten year delay before improvement in migration resumes has been incorporated in the planning scenario in response to the economic appraisal by Oxford Economics, and is due to the economic downturn.

3.11

A commentary on the patterns of Demographic Change in the GCV Area is provided in Chapter 6. Technical Appendix TA06 Review of Supply and Demand for Housing details population and household projections. The report by Oxford Economics, Economic Outlook and Scenarios for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley City-Region, is published as Background Report BR05 to the GCV Strategic Development Plan Main Issues Report.

3.12

This produces CORE OUTPUT 3: Estimate of total future number of households.

3.13

Household Groups with Specific Housing Requirements are identified and assessed in some detail in Chapter 8.

3.14

This produces CORE OUTPUT 4: Estimate of household groups who have specific housing requirements e.g. families, older people, minority ethnic groups, disabled people, young people, etc.

3.15

Current/Backlog Need: This component examines those households considered to be currently in housing need (at March 2009), including the various categories of household identified in the HNDA Guidance: homeless, concealed, overcrowded, with support needs, in poor quality accommodation, and experiencing harassment.

3.16

Technical Appendix TA03 Gross Current/ Backlog Need details the approach adopted, methodology and results, together with the assumptions made by each authority.

3.17

This produces CORE OUTPUT 5: Estimate of current number of households in housing need.

3.18

Affordability Study/Tenure Assessment: The HMP Core Group commissioned consultants Tribal Group with Optimal Economics to undertake this analysis. It is a key component of the HNDA model, allowing an assessment to be made of tenure of newly arising and migrant households, and those currently in housing need (backlog need). The consultants have developed an innovative behavioural economics approach to tenure analysis, which attempts to more accurately reflect the complex decisions made by households in relation to their housing requirements at different stages in life. It incorporates also inter-tenure flows recognising the dynamic and inter-connected nature of the housing system. This contrasts with the conventional and more static approach, using assumed income:house price ratios to determine affordability thresholds.

3.19

The assessment was applied to new and emerging households and to households in backlog need. Outputs from this component of the modelling work were used as inputs to the market and affordable sector supply and demand/need comparisons. The Study explored also the future potential for demand in the relatively new ‘intermediate’ housing sector.

3.20

Technical Appendix TA04 Affordability Analysis provides the Final Report of the Affordability Study by Tribal [with Optimal Economics], detailing the methodology, assumptions and results. TA05 House Price Analysis provides contextual information.

3.21

Affordable Sector Housing Needs Assessment: This component adopts a methodology consistent with the approach detailed in the HNDA Guidance, using outputs from the Affordability Study/Tenure Assessment and the assessment of Current/Backlog Need to quantify projected households unable to meet their needs in the market and thus requiring social rented housing. Consideration is also given to the potential future role of the ‘intermediate’ housing sector – principally shared equity/shared ownership – to meet some of these needs. A detailed explanation of the methodology and results may be found in Technical Appendix TA06 Review of Supply and Demand for Housing: A Housing Market Area Framework.

3.22

This produces CORE OUTPUT 6: Estimate of future households that will require affordable housing.

3.23

Market Sector Housing Demand Assessment: This component incorporates local and mobile demand within the context of the Housing Market Framework identified for the GCV area, and described in Chapter 5. Market housing includes both owner occupied and privately rented housing. As the HNDA Guidance provides limited direction on a preferred approach to assessing market housing demand, the ‘all stock, all households’ approach previously developed for the GCV Structure Plan has been adopted, using outputs from the Affordability Study/Tenure Assessment to quantify projected demand. The approach compares projected households with projected supply to reveal shortfalls (or surpluses). It incorporates local and mobile demand within the context of the Housing Market Framework identified for the GCV area.

3.24

A detailed explanation of the methodology and results may be found in Technical Appendices TA01 A Housing Market Framework, and TA06 Review of Supply and Demand/ Need for Housing.

3.25

This produces CORE OUTPUT 7: Estimate of future households requiring market housing.

3.26

Figure 3.2 summarises where the various Core Outputs may be found within the HNDA. Figure 3.2 Location of Core Outputs within the HNDA Core Output

Description

Location within the HNDA

Estimates of current dwellings in terms of size, type, condition, tenure, occupancy and location

Technical Appendices TA02 Current Housing Supply/ Stock Profile and TA06 Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing Chapter 4: Market Commentary

Estimate of total future number of households

Chapter 6: Demographic Change in the GCV Area; also TA06 Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing

Estimate of household groups who have specific housing requirements, e.g. families, older people, minority ethnic groups, disabled people, young people, etc.

Chapter 8: Household Groups with Specific Housing Requirements

Estimate of current number households in housing need

TA03 Gross Current/Backlog Need provides ‘gross’ figures after discounting for in-situ solutions. TA04 Affordability Analysis splits the backlog need figures to indicate those households which could/could not afford to meet their own needs in the market

Estimate of future households that will require affordable housing

TA04 Affordability Analysis, and TA06 Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing

Estimate of future households requiring market housing

TA01 A Housing Market Framework, TA04 Affordability Analysis, and TA06 Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing

Estimate of total future households requiring either affordable or market housing

The sum of Core Outputs 6 and 7

Validating the model 3.27

Any such modelling work is only as good as the methodology adopted, the sources of data, and the assumptions and judgements applied. The HMP Core Group adopted a rigorous approach to the work, and all data sources, their limitations and assumptions adopted are identified and explained in the relevant chapters and Technical Appendices. 18

3.28

Additional steps were also taken to triangulate our results at specific stages, for example in relation to backlog need, and in terms of population and household projections. These steps are detailed in the appropriate Technical Appendices.

3.29

The ‘all stock, all households’ approach adopted for private sector/market housing produces a residual figure which can be categorised as non-market housing. These figures were compared with the figures from the Housing Needs Assessment approach adopted for the affordable sector, consistent with HNDA Guidance. In doing so, discrepancies were identified. As both model components use largely the same inputs, in terms of household projections and inter-tenure flows, additional work had to be undertaken to explain these differences.

3.30

The key difference relates to the modelling of household terminations and intertenure flows. These have been modelled by Tribal/OE based on behavioural assumptions. In the case of the social rented sector, household terminations and outflows usually give rise to a re-let of the vacated property. Recent turnover rates are available to help inform projected future supply, and are used in the Housing Needs Assessment; such data is unavailable for the private sector. This is discussed more fully in Technical Appendix TA06 Review of Supply and Demand for Housing.

3.31

Two final caveats should be noted. Firstly, it is not possible to model future policy decisions, but these will impact actual outcomes. For example, the model identifies potential demand for ‘intermediate’ housing products, but as these require public subsidy in one form or another, outcomes are supply constrained and dependent on public spending plans. Secondly, the economic downturn has introduced significant uncertainty into the housing market, both in terms of demand and supply. Some allowance has been made for this in certain key assumptions, but the full implications of the recession and recovery from it are still by no means clear.

Market Commentary _________________________________________________________ 4.1

This chapter provides a high-level consideration of the housing market context in terms of those factors which underpin market demand, by providing information on the socio-economic and other differences, by local authority, that create differences in demand and level of need across the City Region. This should be read in conjunction with Chapter 5 (demographic change), Chapter 6 (housing supply and demand/need comparisons) and Technical Appendices TA02 (current housing supply and stock profile) and TA04 (Tribal affordability analysis) which provide an overview of the demand/need and supply elements of the housing system.

4.2

The two key issues are the overall level of demand/need for housing which is driven by the overall change in the number of households and the tenure choices which households make. In this context, the main considerations are: • Economic context; • Demographic context; • Social context; • Other key drivers of change; and • Housing market trends

Economic Context 4.3

The general context of downturn, recession and protracted recovery is well known, as is the significant effect on the housebuilding industry. There is a full economic discussion in the Oxford Economics report prepared in support of the Main Issues Report, Background Report 5: Economic Outlooks and Scenarios for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley City-Region.

4.4

The Chancellor’s budget of June 2010 and Spending Review of October 2010 set the political and economic context for the next few years. The overriding issue is reduction in the structural deficit, through a combination of spending reductions and taxation increases, approximately 70% of the former and 30% of the latter. The main issue for retailing is likely to be the increase in VAT to 20%, which will take effect on 1 January 2011. The range of goods subject to VAT will not be extended, so the impact will be on those goods currently subject to VAT. In recent years, competition has kept the cost of goods down (including the restoration of the 17.5% VAT rate, absorbed by some retailers), and this could offset part of this impact in terms of price increases, but it is debatable how realistic this prospect is, given the fact this is a second VAT increase; also the relative weakness of the pound sterling and the increasing cost of imports. Recent figures released by ONS show an increase in the price of clothing and footwear over the last year. So, it is likely that prices will increase and expenditure will be squeezed. The general context of wage restraint in both the public and private sectors will reinforce any pressure on expenditure from price increases. Few employers are likely to offer general pay increases, and a two year pay freeze has been announced for the public sector. Also, both consumer price index and retail price index measures of inflation have been increasing, to 3.4% 20

and 5.1% respectively. This will squeeze disposable income even further as the costs of travelling to work rise, for example. Any consequential increase in interest rates will have a further impact. 4.5

In terms of banking, although the Bank of England base rate has been maintained at 0.5%, the availability of mortgage products continues to be constrained. First time buyers require typically between 20% and 30% deposit to access most products, and in Scotland the average required deposit is 21%. With regard to wider borrowing, there has been a notable decline in household debt, in terms of secured and unsecured credit. The Bank of England has reported that, in August 2010, new unsecured lending fell behind debt repayment, and although secured credit availability increased in the second quarter of 2010, demand was down. Overall, the main issue has been the withdrawal of overseas lenders from the UK market, further reinforced by much more stringent lending conditions imposed by the FSA on mortgage lending. The consequence is that overall level of lending to first time buyers has fallen sharply. This is not surprising as ease of access to credit rather than house prices was the critical factor in home ownership. In terms of home ownership, the most likely determining factor in owner-occupation is employment status.

4.6

In the context of employment, Glasgow and the Clyde Valley largely mirrors the ‘shape’ of the wider national and Scottish forecasts with a sharp contraction followed by a number of years of modest decline as public sector cuts begin to bite. The recovery is steady, rather than spectacular in jobs, and medium term outlooks offer only modest employment growth prospects, perhaps a third of the pre-recession decade. Private services offer the main source of employment growth and the key difference to pre recession is the much more challenging outlook for employment in public services. It is widely anticipated that it will be up to or beyond a decade before economic and associated employment growth returns to pre-2008 levels. Over the course of the slow recovery decade (2010-2020) growth is projected at a relatively modest (in the context of the decade just past) 3,250 net jobs per annum and 2.4% GVA growth for Glasgow / Clyde Valley before moderating to an annual average 1,500 jobs per annum and 1.9% growth in the period 2020-2035.

4.7

Current employment is considered by local authority in Figure 4.1 below. Figure 4.1 Local Authority East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Scotland

Employment profile by Local Authority

Resident Employment 2008 78.3

Unemployment 2008 (2009) 1.5 (2.7)

Economically Inactive (2009-2010) 20

77.0 66.6 70.5 72.1 75.5 77.8 72.6

1.2 (2.4) 3.7 (5.5) 3.8 (5.3) 2.7 (5.0) 2.5 (4.2) 2.2 (4.2) 3.8 (5.7)

22 30 25 22.4 23.5 23.7 25

72.9

2.8 (4.5)

Sources: BR05 table 3.7 and NOMIS

4.8

For those in employment, average earnings and resident-to-workplace ratios can also be considered, in Figure 4.2 below. Figure 4.2 Local Authority E Dunbartonshire E Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde N Lanarkshire Renfrewshire S Lanarkshire W Dunbartonshire GCV Scotland

Employment profile by Local Authority

Average weekly wage – residence 551.2 540.6 454.7 428.8 419.1 471.1 457.5 412.6 457.3 457.0

Average weekly wage – employment 445.5 387.7 474.5 388.5 458.4 494.1 424.6 408.2 457.8 455.5

Resident to workplace ratio 1.24 1.39 0.96 1.10 0.91 0.95 1.08 1.01 1.00 1.00

Source: BR05 table 3.9

4.9

It is clear, from the tables above, that employment and economic activity varies between local authority areas, with East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire experiencing greater levels of employment and lower economic inactivity other areas, notably Glasgow City, Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire. However, all areas have seen unemployment rise in the most recent year of 2009, a trend across Scotland as well. Average resident wages are higher in East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire, but average employment wages fall, and this coupled with the resident to workplace ratios for these areas indicates a significant commuter presence sustaining jobs in Glasgow City. This shows part of a picture of relative disadvantage in Glasgow City, Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire compared to East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire in particular. As well as the jobs losses evident above and the relative advantages and disadvantages which exist across Glasgow and the Clyde Valley, recovery will be slow over the post-recession decade.

4.10

The financial crisis of the last two years has, among many other effects, led to a very sharp reduction in the availability of mortgage credit. The principal factor has been the withdrawal of overseas lenders from the UK market. This has been further reinforced by much more stringent lending conditions imposed by the FSA on mortgage lending. The consequence is that overall level of lending to first time buyers has fallen sharply. There is also some evidence from house builders that buyers are much more cautious than before and that the tendency of prospective buyers to withdraw from purchases has risen.

4.11

It is in some ways ironic that while stagnant or even falling house prices are making housing more “affordable” in conventional terms, lack of finance is making housing less accessible.

Demographic Context 4.12

Chapter 6 provides a full assessment of demographic change, which should be referred to in detail, and this chapter provides a summary of the main demographic outputs.

4.13

In terms of general profile, Glasgow is a location where young people move to and settle, tending to move outward to the rest of the Clyde Valley to form families. This has implications for the age structures of the population in Glasgow and in the rest of the Clyde Valley, which are different, and consequently for market demand for housing in different locations.

4.14

For children, the number of children has reduced by 33,000 during the years from 2000 to 2008, although this is projected to stabilise in 2008, at around 315,000, and to be sustained at this level for the medium term future.

4.15

The working age population has increased by 29,000 over the period 2000 to 2008, to a level of 1,118,000 with varying degrees of increase are projected for the medium term future, depending upon the scenario selected, ranging from 8,00 per annum to 2,700 per annum to 2025.

4.16

For those of retirement age, there was a constant level until 2000 and a more recent increase of around 1,000 per annum to 2008 (322,000 total) which is projected to rise overall (1000 per annum) to 2025, albeit with initial decline to 2016 and rise thereafter. This includes the effect of a rise in the pensionable age which has limited much faster growth of this demographic group.

4.17

So, in general, over the last 17 years, there have been reductions in the numbers of children and young adults and significant increases of those of middle-age and elderly. For the next 17 year period (2008 to 2025) it is projected that the numbers of young adults and middle age will decrease, with little change in the number of children and a rise in the pre-retirement and elderly age groups – overall an ageing population.

4.18

This demographic picture varies across Glasgow and the Clyde Valley, with Glasgow predicted to face a considerable reduction in young adults and increases in the numbers of children and older adults. For the rest of the Clyde Valley, the number of middle-aged adults is expected to reduce with a sizeable increase in the number of pre-retirement and older/elderly adults. This is combined with a decline in the numbers of children in the rest of the Clyde Valley, in contrast to the increase in children in Glasgow and, in later years, also in East Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire.

4.19

In terms of the working population, rises are projected to 2016 for Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and East Renfrewshire, with declines in East Dunbartonshire, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire. Thereafter, these rises will slow down, leading to an overall working age population change in 2025 of some 13,000 to 46,000 in excess of 2008.

4.20

There is a general ageing of the population. The numbers of pensionable age are expected to reduce in Glasgow and increase in South Lanarkshire, East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire to 2016, with substantial rises in those of pensionable age after 2016 in all areas, particularly in North and South Lanarkshire.

4.21

Higher concentrations of single person households are mainly in Glasgow City, but also include parts of Renfrewshire (Paisley and Linwood).

4.22

Larger than average households are predominantly to be found in South Lanarkshire and in parts of North Lanarkshire and East Dunbartonshire.

4.23

The largest households are primarily located in areas of predominantly owner occupied housing, e.g. East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Kilmacolm in Inverclyde, and western Renfrewshire.

4.24

Overall, the GCV area as a whole is projected to gain 96,000 to 113,000 households over the period 2008 - 2025 with all areas gaining households and the biggest gains being in Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire.

Social Context 4.25

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley has 59% of all datazones within the top 15% most deprived in Scotland, according to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2009. This is a decrease from 68% in 2006, with the biggest change occurring within Glasgow, which accounts for 31% of the 15% most deprived datazones. The spatial and local context can also be considered in terms of the percentage of datazones within a local authority boundary which fall within the 15% most deprived (Figure 4.3) and also the spatial distribution in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley (Figure 4.4).

Figure 4.3

Percentage of local authority datazones within 15% most deprived

60 East Dunbartonshire

East Renfrewshire 40 Glasgow City 30

Inverclyde North Lanarkshire

Renfrewshire 10

South Lanarkshire

West Dunbartonshire 2004

2006

2009

Source: SIMD

Figure 4.4

Distribution of 15% most deprived datazones

Source: SIMD

4.26

Income and employment deprivation can be considered in more detail, as this will relate to affordability issues at the local authority and also housing market level (Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6). The picture is not uniform; East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire have the lowest levels of multiple deprivation and lowest levels of income and employment deprivation. Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, Inverclyde and North Lanarkshire have the highest levels of multiple, income and employment deprivation. This is reinforced by consideration of the percentage of children within low income households (Figure 4.7). Figure 4.5 30

Percentage of population that is income deprived

25 20 15 10

2002

2005

2008

Source: SIMD 25

Figure 4.6

Percentage of working age population that is employment deprived

25 20 15 10 2002 5

2005

2008

Source: SIMD

Figure 4.7 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Percentage of children in low income households

2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Source: SIMD

4.27

The next area of consideration is general health in terms of disability and life expectancy. Disability rates (Figure 4.8) are variable between authorities, but there is a similar pattern to that of deprivation, with Glasgow City displaying the highest claimant rate and East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire displaying the lowest rate. All rates are increasing within Glasgow and the Clyde Valley. This may be a concern in terms of housing stock provision to meet special needs. Average life expectancy (Figure 4.9) reinforces the general comparative picture, notwithstanding the greater expected longevity of females. East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire have the highest average life expectancies for both genders, and notably the life expectancy for males in these two authorities has been equal or higher to that of females in Glasgow City. Also of significance is the fact that average male life expectancy in Glasgow has climbed above 70 years. In fact, all local authorities have seen evidence of an increase in expectancy over the last decade. 26

Figure 4.8

Disability Living Allowance Claimants per 100,000

Figure 4.9

Average Life Expectancy

10000

9000 East Dunbartonshire Female

80 8000

East Dunbartonshire Male East Renfrewshire Female East Renfrewshire Male

East Dunbartonshire Glasgow City Female

East Renfrewshire

7000

Glasgow City Male

Glasgow City

Inverclyde

6000

Inverclyde Male

North Lanarkshire

5000

Inverclyde Female

North Lanarkshire Female

Renfrewshire

North Lanarkshire Male

South Lanarkshire

Renfrewshire Female

West Dunbartonshire

Renfrewshire Male South Lanarkshire Female South Lanarkshire Male

4000

West Dunbartonshire Female West Dunbartonshire Male

3000

65 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 2002 2003 2004 200 5 2006 2007 2008

Source: SNS

The Housing Market 4.28

This section considers the housing market, and is based upon general market review, scrutiny of housing market data and assessment work in TA04. A general housing market overview is considered in the first instance, followed by review of house sales and prices related to lowest quartile income.

4.29

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley is home (2008) to 804,000 households: this represents about 37% of all Scottish households. Because the GCV area, in itself, accounts for a large part of the Scottish population it is broadly reflective of the country as a whole in the structure of its housing market. However, there are some key differences between Scotland and the GCV area and, more importantly, differences within the area. There is, proportionately, a slightly smaller owner occupied sector and a rather larger social rented sector than for Scotland. The Private Rented sector is also relatively small in the GCV area. About 35% of households are in the social rented sector in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley, heavily influenced by the nature of the Glasgow market which accounts for 35% of households in the area, and to a lesser degree by West Dunbartonshire. The breakdown for 2008 is shown in Figure 4.10. Figure 4.10

Tenure Structure (% households)

Source: TA04

4.30

Broadly, the authorities fall into three groups. • Large social rented sectors with relatively small owner occupied sectors: Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire. • Predominantly owner occupied with small social rented sectors: Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire.

East

• National average split: Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Lanarkshire. South Lanarkshire’s tenure pattern shows some of the same characteristics as East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire while the Private Rented Sector is very small in all areas other than Glasgow.

4.31

Median household income in the two areas dominated by Owner Occupation – East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire - is around 20% above the Scottish median figure, while Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire have median incomes 10% of more below the Scottish figure, Inverclyde’s figure is 9% below Scotland’s and the other authorities have median incomes between 5% below and 1% over the Scottish figure. Similarly, while, according to Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, 17% of Glasgow’s working age population, 17% of Inverclyde’s working population and 16% of West Dunbartonshire’s working population were employment deprived in 2008, the comparable figures for East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire were just 7%.

4.32

Owner Occupation will remain by far the dominant tenure and will probably increase its overall share of the market to 67% of the total. The social rented sector will decline in market share terms and by about 1% – 2% in absolute terms.

4.33

These changes will be much less dramatic than in the last 10 – 20 years and reflect a housing system which is stabilising. The growth of owner occupation may be slowed by more difficult conditions in the housing finance market and if this is the case then the private rented sector will probably grow quite strongly – possibly by 50% or more. In this situation there would be some growth in demand for social renting but by far the main effects would be in the private rented sector. Growth in home ownership will not be evenly spread – the main growth will be in Glasgow (provided migration is strong) and Lanarkshire with quite modest growth in other areas.

4.34

Although the social rented sector will stabilise, the pattern of change will be very uneven. The sector will decline steadily in Glasgow while there will be strong demand pressures, which may not be easily accommodated, in South Lanarkshire, East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire.

4.35

The housing market has been depressed in terms of land prices, house prices and housing supply. There is a mixed opinion on house prices, as to whether these have risen or fallen in the three months to August 2010, but there has been an overall increase in house prices in a year-on-year basis from 2009 to 201, although the market in Scotland in 2010 is around 2% below peak (2008 peak) as opposed to 12% below peak (as in 2009). New buyer enquiries have fallen in Scotland during 2010, although the volume of transactions has risen from the slump in 2007 and 2008.

4.36

New starts have declined some 22% in 2009/2010 in Scotland, compared with 2008/2009, and completions have fallen by 17% over the same period. However, new build social sector completions have increased by some 20% over the same period, although this is still behind demand, and there has been a slight fall in the Scottish public sector housing stock. The Affordable Housing Investment Programme has delivered a 30% increase in properties over the same period, some 8,000 properties, the highest total recorded.

4.37

In Glasgow and the Clyde Valley, house sales (Figure 4.11) have slumped noticeably for the local authorities with the larger shares of house sales, less so for those with lower shares, but in all cases the fall is to approximately 1999 levels of sales. This analysis is reinforced by further work in terms of house price analysis (Technical Appendix TA05).

Figure 4.11

House Sales (SNS)

16,000 East Dunbartonshire

14,000

East Renfrewshire 12,000 Glasgow City 10,000 Inverclyde 8,000

North Lanarkshire

6,000

Renfrewshire

4,000

South Lanarkshire

2,000

West Dunbartonshire

4.38

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

House prices have increased in all areas from 1999 to 2008, tailing off in 2008 for lower-quartile prices in particular. Prices have been higher in East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire, even for the lower quartile (Figure 4.12) and median (Figure 4.13) price ranges. However, prices have latterly fallen of in 2009, even if new build prices have recovered in some areas (Figure 4.14 and Technical Appendix TA05).

Figure 4.12

Lower quartile prices (SNS)

1 3 0 ,0 0 0 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 E as t D u n b a r t o n sh i r e

1 1 0 ,0 0 0

E a s t R e n f r e w sh ir e 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 G l a sg o w C i t y 9 0 ,0 0 0 In v e r c ly d e

8 0 ,0 0 0 7 0 ,0 0 0

N o r t h L a n a r k sh ir e

6 0 ,0 0 0

R e n f r e w sh ir e

5 0 ,0 0 0

S o u t h L a n a r k sh ir e

4 0 ,0 0 0

W est D u n b a r t o n sh i r e

3 0 ,0 0 0 9 9 9 1

0 0 0 2

1 0 0 2

2 0 0 2

3 0 0 2

4 0 0 2

Figure 4.13

5 0 0 2

6 0 0 2

7 0 0 2

8 0 0 2

Median prices (SNS)

230,000 210,000 E ast Dun ba rton sh ire

190,000

E ast Renfrew sh ir e 170,000 Gla sg ow City 150,000 Inver cly de 130,000

No rth La na rk sh ire

110,000

Renfre w sh ir e

90,000

Sou th La na rk sh ire

70,000

Wes t Dun ba rton sh ire

50,000 9 9 9 1

0 0 0 2

1 0 0 2

2 0 0 2

3 0 0 2

4 0 0 2

5 0 0 2

6 0 0 2

7 0 0 2

8 0 0 2

Figure 4.14

4.39

New Build Mean Prices (SNS)

This can be shown spatially in terms of housing sub market areas, mapping average house prices for 2009-2010 (Figure 4.15) and changes over 2004-2010 (Figure 4.16), also lower quartile versus lower incomes (Figure 4.17). There is a spatial pattern to affordability, with house prices highest in the East Dunbartonshire and western Glasgow area, lowest in Inverclyde, West Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire. Significant price growth is evident in East Renfrewshire and Airdrie-Coatbridge. A similar picture exists for the lower quartile of house prices, although growth is significant in the Cumbernauld area. Affordability is likely to be a particular problem where there are concentrations of low income in areas of high house prices, as shown in Figure 4.17 for western Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire.

Figure 4.15

Figure 4.16

Average house prices, 2009-2010 (Sasines)

Growth in average house prices, 2004 to 2010 (Sasines)

Figure 4.17

Lower quartile house prices vs low income (Sasines)

Other key drivers of change 4.40

The other key drivers of change relate to sustainability, in particular with regard to travel behaviour. Other than Glasgow City, around 60% to 70% of households use the private car to travel to work (Figure 4.18). This may reflect levels of car ownership (Figure 4.19) – in Glasgow City, around 50% of households have no access to a car – but it is uncertain as to whether lack of a car is by circumstances (affordability or parking availability) or by choice (accessibility).

Figure 4.18

Percentage of households travelling to work by car (SNS)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 4.19

1999-2000 2001-2002 2003-2004 2005-2006

Percentage of households without access to a car (SNS)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Conclusion 4.41

The two key parameters are the overall level of demand/need for housing which is driven by the overall change in the number of households (the outcome of natural change in the population, migration and average household size) and the tenure choices which households make.

4.42

Population change and the formation of new households are expected to result in continued demand for new housing. An aging population with increased incidence of disability will require refurbished or replacement dwellings, suitable for their needs, where such housing stock is not adequate. There is a trend towards smaller households, but the wider economy may act against this in the short to medium term. Also, smaller households do not necessarily translate into a need for less living space.

4.43

The housing market has been characterised by house price growth and localised affordability issues until the economic downturn of late 2007 onwards. House prices have fallen with some return to growth perhaps evident for the new build sector, although the lack of competitive mortgage lending has perhaps increased problems with affordability, in particular for first-time buyers who must find larger deposits to secure a mortgage. This adds to the problem of affordability for certain groups and in some areas, despite the fact there is no strategic ‘supply’ issue underpinning lack of affordability. It is possible that house prices will continue to be volatile over the next few years.

4.44

Wider factors other than housing supply should also be considered as impacting upon affordability, in particular accessibility.

The GCV Housing Market Area Framework _________________________________________________________ 5.1

The HNDA Guidance encourages local authorities to assess housing need and demand in terms of housing market areas. HMAs are defined as geographical areas which are relatively self-contained in terms of housing demand, i.e. a large percentage of people moving house or settling in the area will have sought a dwelling only in that area.

5.2

The use of a Housing Market Area (HMA) framework was developed in the 1980s for the Strathclyde Structure Plan; this was revised for the 2000 Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan and updated in 2006. The framework relates to the operation of functional housing markets relating to demand for private/market housing. A comprehensive review of the HMA framework has been conducted for this HNDA.

5.3

With regard to the consideration of housing need (i.e. predominantly the requirement for social rented housing), the GCV HMP Core Group concluded that the most appropriate geographical framework was the eight Local Authority areas made up of 31 sub-areas. This reflects the way in which housing registers and allocation systems for social rented housing are currently operated by Local Authorities and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). For many in housing need, housing choices are constrained by low incomes, but also by allocation policies and availability of property at the time. This approach also recognises that demand for owner occupied and private rented housing, and need for social rented housing, are complementary components of the GCV housing system, but with quite different dynamics and geographies.

5.4

Although cross-boundary movement of tenants is acknowledged, there is limited data currently available to construct any satisfactory understanding of these movements and of any ‘quasi-market’.

5.5

The use of Local Authority areas and sub-areas is consistent with the approach adopted in the past for local Housing Needs Assessments. For some authorities it has been possible and convenient for the same Housing Market Sub Area boundaries, identified in relation to private/market housing demand, to be used also for assessing affordable housing need.

5.6

Although using local authority boundaries as market areas would have the merit of simplicity and more readily available data, this approach is considered unsatisfactory, since local authority administrative boundaries do not represent functional housing markets.

Deriving the Housing Market Area framework 5.7

5.8

The HMA framework used for the GCV area was derived through an iterative process as follows: •

the underlying geography of 63 settlement areas was defined by the eight Councils

•

analysis of new and second-hand house-buying moves, from the Sasines [Land Register], allowed movers’ origin and destination addresses to be linked with sufficient detail to allow construction of an origin/destination matrix showing moves in and between the 63 areas

•

where links between areas were strongest, these areas could be merged; once the matrix was reformulated for the reduced number of areas, the process was repeated

•

four iterations reduced the original 63 settlement areas to thirteen building blocks which formed the basis of the HMA framework; these were examined to determine if they were self-contained or formed part of a wider market area.

The resulting HMA framework comprises: DUMBARTON & VALE OF LEVEN: separate self-contained HMA INVERCLYDE: separate self-contained HMA Wider HMA operating in the EASTERN CONURBATION with 4 Sub Market Areas: o Airdrie and Coatbridge o Motherwell o Clydesdale o Hamilton Wider HMA operating in the CENTRAL CONURBATION with 7 Sub Market Areas: o Greater Glasgow North and West o Strathkelvin and Springburn o Glasgow East o Cumbernauld o Greater Glasgow South o Renfrewshire o East Kilbride Wider HMA operating across the GCV CONURBATION.

5.9

A three-tier system therefore provides the framework for comparing (private sector housing) supply and demand in the GCV area. This tiered structure allows account to be taken of the complexity of the HMAs in the Conurbation by allocating that element of housing demand regarded as mobile across groups of Sub Market Areas. For instance, the limits to mobility between the Eastern and Central Conurbation imply that most mobile demand should be met at this second tier level; only a small proportion of mobile demand should be met at first tier, GCV Conurbation level. Local demand on the other hand should be met at third tier, Sub Market Area level. Dumbarton & Vale of Leven and Inverclyde (excluding Kilmacolm and Quarrier’s Village) operate as self-contained HMAs.

5.10

A detailed explanation of the methodology for defining housing market and sub market areas is given in Technical Appendix TA01: A Housing Market Area Framework.

5.11

Figure 5.1 illustrates the GCV Housing Market Area Framework.

Figure 5.1

GCV Housing Market Area Framework

Demographic Change in the GCV Area _________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION 6.1

As part of the Housing Need and Demand Assessment (HNDA) for the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley (GCV) area, a set of population and household projections has been prepared. The present paper provides a context for these projections, via a commentary on (a) recent demographic change in the GCV area, and (b) the main results of these projections.

6.2

The paper covers the topics: (1) Population change by Component (section 2), (2) Population change by Age (section 3), and, (3) Household change (section 4).

6.3

The paper covers demographic change both Conurbation-wide and at local level. For the latter the paper uses the eight Council areas within the Conurbation and/or the 31 Council sub areas defined for use in Local Housing Strategies.

POPULATION CHANGE BY COMPONENT Figure 6.1

Estimated and Projected Population – HNDA scenarios

Figure 6.1 - Estimated and Projected Population Glasgow and Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 2,000,000

1,950,000

1,900,000

population estimate

1,800,000

planning scenario lower migration scenario

1,750,000

1,700,000

1,650,000

1,600,000

19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 20 05 20 07 20 09 20 11 20 13 20 15 20 17 20 19 20 21 20 23 20 25

population

1,850,000

year

6.4

Figure 6.1 shows that between 1981 and 2003 there was a steady decline in the population of the GCV area: from 1,946,000 in 1981 to 1,745,000 in 2003. This means a total loss of around 200,000 people. In the 1980s the rate of population loss was 12,700 per year. In the 1990s the rate of population loss reduced to 6,900 per year.

6.5

Since 2003, the GCV area population has risen by approximately 10,000: from 1,745,000 in 2003 to 1,755,000 in 2008.

6.6

For the period beyond 2008, the HNDA has identified two scenarios: a planning scenario and a lower migration scenario. More detail on these scenarios will be given below. The planning scenario shows further population growth of 67,000, to a population level of 1,822,000 by 2025. The lower migration scenario shows a more moderate growth of 23,000, to a population level of 1,778,000 by 2025.

Estimated and Projected Net Migration – HNDA scenarios 6.7

The two scenarios identified in the HNDA differ in the migration assumptions used (see Figure 6.2). The planning scenario assumes a constant net migration of +1,050 per year for the next 10 years, with a resumption of further trend growth thereafter. The lower migration scenario assumes that, after the initial years, the net migration will be constant, at a rate of -1,050 per year, for the whole projection period. Further detail on these assumptions, and how they were derived, can be found in the Technical Appendix “Projections of Population and Households – Description of Assumptions and Results”. Figure 6.2 - Estimated and Projected Net Migration Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 5,000

migration estimate

-10,000

planning scenario lower migration scenario

-15,000

-20,000

-8 19 2 83 -8 19 4 85 -8 19 6 87 -8 19 8 89 -9 19 0 91 -9 19 2 93 -9 19 4 95 -9 19 6 97 -9 19 8 99 -0 20 0 01 -0 20 2 03 -0 20 4 05 -0 20 6 07 -0 20 8 09 -1 20 0 11 -1 20 2 13 -1 20 4 15 -1 20 6 17 -1 20 8 19 -2 20 0 21 -2 20 2 23 -2 4

-25,000 19 81

net migration

-5,000

year

6.8

The planning scenario assumes that the improvement over time in the migration position for the Conurbation, which is evident from Figure 6.2, will continue into the future, although at a lower rate than in the past decades. The initial assessment by Oxford Economics has resulted in the assumption of a 10-year delay, due to the economic downturn, before the improvement in migration will resume. The final assessment by Oxford Economics has indicated that the lower migration scenario is more consistent with their assessment of economic prospects for the GCV area.

6.9

Figure 6.3 gives the pattern of net migration flows in 2007/08. It shows that the total net inflow into the Conurbation (2,071) is accounted for by international migration (2,026). There have been sizable net flows into Glasgow from Overseas (3,111), Rest of UK (879) and Rest of Scotland (710). There has been a net flow from Glasgow to Rest of the GCV area (-2,889), particularly to North and South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire.

6.10

This pattern of long-distance migration flow into Glasgow City, with a re-distribution of the population to the Rest of the Conurbation, has led to a substantial rise in the ethnic minority population in Glasgow. A recent study indicates that, between 2001 and 2008, Glasgow’s ethnic minority population (including the category “Other White”) has risen by around 25,000 (from 7.2% of the population in 2001 to 11.4% of the population in 2008).

6.11

Figure 6.4 gives the estimated net migration by age band in 2007/08. The Table shows the sizable net inflow of young adults (3,856, age 15 to 29) into the GCV area, and particularly into Glasgow City (4,797). There have been net outflows from East Dunbartonshire (-456), East Renfrewshire (-388) and Inverclyde (-141). Glasgow City has lost families (-945, age 0 to 14, and -1,295, age 30 to 44) and East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, North and South Lanarkshire have been net gainers of families.

6.12

The above illustrates Glasgow’s position within the Conurbation as an area, where young people move to and settle. Once they are older and form a family, there is a tendency to move out to the Rest of the Conurbation. This has implications for the age structures of the population in Glasgow and in the Rest of the Conurbation, which are different. This issue will be explored further in Section 3.

Estimated and Projected Natural Population Change – HNDA scenarios 6.13

The change in population due to natural change, i.e. the difference between the number of births and deaths, represented an annual gain of about 1,500 in the 1980s, but turned to an average annual loss of nearly 1,000 in the second half of the 1990s. Since 2003/04, there has been a substantial rise to a gain of over 1,000 in 2007/08 (see Figure 6.5). Figure 6.5 - Estimated and Projected Natural Change Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 4,000

natural change population

3,000

2,000

1,000

natural change planning scenario lower migration scenario

-1,000

-2,000

20 2

0 92

20 2

8 71

20 1

6 51

20 1

4 31

20 1

2 11

20 1

0 91

20 1

8 70

20 0

6 50

20 0

4 30

20 0

2 10

20 0

19 9

6 59

19 9

4 39

19 9

2 19

19 9

0 99

19 9

8 78

19 8

6 58

19 8

-3,000

year

6.14

Natural change accounts for the major part of the projected future population growth in the period to 2025. For the HNDA planning scenario, the projected population growth of 67,000 is the result of an accumulated natural change of 41,000 and accumulated net migration gains of 26,000. For the HNDA lower migration scenario, the projected population growth of 23,000 is the result of an accumulated natural change of 35,000 and accumulated net migration losses of 12,000.

6.15

Net in-migration is positively related to natural change, as the inflow of young adult females has a positive impact on the number of births. For that reason the HNDA planning scenario, with a higher migration assumption, also has a higher population gain due to natural change than the lower migration scenario (see Figure 6.5).

6.16

The projected sizable gains in population due to natural change are a feature of the early part of the projection period (see Figure 6.5). After 2018, the ageing population is expected to lead to a falling number of births and a rising number of deaths.

Projected Population Change – Comparison with 2006 Plan projections 6.17

This section gives a comparison of the projection results for the HNDA Planning Scenario and the projection results used for the 2006 Structure Plan Update (2006 Plan). Differences have arisen, due to changes in the migration assumptions and in the outlook on natural change.

6.18

The migration assumptions for the 2006 Plan (see Figure 6.6) were based on an improving trend in migration, estimated for the base period 1992 to 2004. The fluctuations in assumed migration values for the initial years reflect the expected impact of the asylum seeker contract for Glasgow. This contract was for the period up till July 2006, which led to the assumption of a negative impact on net migration after that date. Figure 6.6 - Estimated and Projected Net Migration Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 Comparison HNDA Planning Scenario and 2006 Structure Plan Update projections 5,000

net migration

-5,000

migration estimate

-10,000

planning scenario 2006 Plan Update

-15,000

-20,000

19 81 -8 19 2 83 -8 19 4 85 -8 19 6 87 -8 19 8 89 -9 19 0 91 -9 19 2 93 -9 19 4 95 -9 19 6 97 -9 19 8 99 -0 20 0 01 -0 20 2 03 -0 20 4 05 -0 20 6 07 -0 20 8 09 -1 20 0 11 -1 20 2 13 -1 20 4 15 -1 20 6 17 -1 20 8 19 -2 20 0 21 -2 20 2 23 -2 4

-25,000

year

6.19

In the period 2004 to 2008 actual net migration levels for the GCV area have been higher than projected, which can be explained by the extension of the asylum seeker contract, the arrival of Eastern European migrants, as well as a more positive migration position for migrants to and from England and Wales.

6.20

It has been noted above that, for the HNDA planning scenario, the improvement in net migration is assumed to be delayed by ten years, due to the economic downturn. In the period beyond 2012, therefore, the net migration assumed for that scenario is considerably lower than the net migration assumed for the 2006 Plan.

6.21

It is clear from Figure 6.7, that the improvement in the natural change position for the GCV area in recent years, was much faster than projected for the 2006 Plan. This is mainly the result of a sizable increase in the number of births: from 18,600 in 2001/02 to 20,800 in 2007/08. Over that period, the number of deaths reduced by almost 1,000: from 20,500 in 2001/02 to 19,600 in 2007/08. Figure 6.7 - Estimated and Projected Natural Change Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 Comparison HNDA Planning Scenario and 2006 Structure Plan Update projections 4,000

natural change population

3,000

2,000

1,000

natural change planning scenario 2006 Plan Update

-1,000

-2,000

324

122

20 2

920

20 2

718

20 1

516

20 1

314

20 1

112

20 1

910

20 1

708

20 0

506

20 0

304

20 0

102

20 0

900

20 0

798

19 9

596

19 9

394

19 9

192

19 9

990

19 9

788

19 8

586

19 8

384

19 8

182

-3,000

year

6.22

The combination of actual migration levels, which were higher than projected in the initial years 2004 to 2008 (see Figure 6.6), and a more positive natural change position for the whole projection period (see Figure 6.7), have resulted in higher projected population levels for the HNDA planning scenario, as compared with the 2006 Plan projection (see Figure 6.8).

Figure 6.8 - Estimated and Projected Population Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981 to 2025 Comparison HNDA Planning Scenario and 2006 Structure Plan Update projections 2,000,000

1,950,000

1,900,000

population

1,850,000 population estimate planning scenario

1,800,000

2006 Plan Update

1,750,000

1,700,000

1,650,000

20 25

20 23

20 21

20 19

20 17

20 15

20 13

20 11

20 09

20 07

20 05

20 03

20 01

19 99

19 97

19 95

19 93

19 91

19 89

19 87

19 85

19 83

19 81

1,600,000

year

Estimated Population Change 2001-2008 for Council Sub Areas 6.23

The GCV area has been divided into 31 Council sub areas for use in Local Housing Strategies (see Appendix, Map A1). The Appendix contains a series of Maps and Tables, which show various aspects of recent demographic change for these areas. Maps A2 to A4 show, respectively, the annual population change, the natural change and the net migration for the period 2001 to 2008.

6.24

It is clear from Table A1 and Map A2, that the highest annual rates of population growth have been in two areas in Glasgow, i.e. “Central and West” (1.0% per year) and “Greater Pollok and Newlands/Auldburn” (0.8% per year), and that “Inverclyde East” has had the highest rate of population decline (-1.2% per year).

6.25

A comparison of total population change (Map A2) and net migration (Map A4) shows the effect of natural change on the total population change. Some areas are relatively stable in terms of net migration, but show population decline due to natural change, e.g. “Govan and Craigton”.

6.26

Natural change and net migration can work in the same direction: in “Clydebank”, “Bearsden and Milngavie”, “Maryhill/Kelvin and Canal”, “Johnstone/Elderslie”, “Paisley/Linwood” and “Inverclyde East”, the population has declined through both natural change and net migration loss. On the other hand, the population in “Pollokshields and Southside Central” has grown through both natural change and net migration gain.

6.27

Natural change and net migration can also work in opposite directions: in “Cumbernauld”, “East Kilbride” and “West Renfrewshire”, sizable natural change population gains have compensated for net migration losses, resulting in stable overall populations. Some areas with substantial in-migration have reduced rates of population growth due to natural change, e.g. “Glasgow West”, “East Centre and Calton”, “Rutherglen and Cambuslang”, “Clydesdale” and “Inverclyde West”.

Projected Population Change 2008-2025 for Council Areas 6.28

The migration assumptions for the Council area projections have been based on net migration in the 10-year period 1998-2008. Therefore the projected population change by Council area generally reflects patterns in the recent past (see Figure 6.9 and Appendix, Table A2). It was noted before that the higher projected annual population changes, in comparison with estimated annual population change in 2001-2008, are mainly due to higher natural change.

6.29

Because migration assumptions for Council areas have been based on average net migration in 1998-2008, a comparison with average net migration in 2001-2008, shows up some differences (see Appendix, Table A2). For that reason, the migration assumptions for East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire are higher, and the migration assumption for Glasgow City is lower, than average net migration in 20012008.

Changes in Natural Change Position 2001-2008 for Council Areas 6.30

Between 2001 and 2008 the “natural” population change for the GCV area rose by 3,010 (from a loss of -1,859 in 2001/02 to a gain of 1,151 in 2007/08, see Figure 6.10).

6.31

Figure 6.10 shows that the natural change has not increased for East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire. All other Council areas show an increase, and about half of the overall increase has taken place in Glasgow City (1,543 of 3,010).

6.32

The above change is also reflected in the projections. Table A2 (see Appendix) gives the estimated (for 2001-2008) and projected (for 2008-2016 and 2016-2025) population change, split by the components, i.e. natural change and net migration. For the Planning Scenario, the higher annual “natural” population change, at 2,299 in 2008-2016, compared with -636 in 2001-2008, represents a rise of 2,935. Over half of this rise (1,649=1,121-(-528)) is expected to take place in Glasgow. This is related to the different age profile of Glasgow’s population, compared to the population living in the Rest of the Conurbation.

POPULATION CHANGE BY AGE Estimated and Projected Population by Age – GCV Area 6.33

Figure 6.11 gives details on the age-breakdown of the GCV area population in 1991 to 2025. The Table shows that, since 1991, the population has declined by 68,000, to 1,751,000 in 2000. After that year the population continued to decline until 2003, after which the population started to rise, reaching 1,755,000 in 2008. The population is projected to rise further in both scenarios for the HNDA.

6.34

Figure 6.11 has incorporated the effect of the planned rise in the pensionable age in the definitions of people of working age and of retirement age. The pensionable age is 65 for men, 60 for women until 2010. Between 2010 and 2018 the pensionable age for women increases to 65, and between 2018 and 2020 the pensionable age for both men and women increases to 66.

6.35

Since 1991, the number of children has reduced by 57,000, at an annual rate of 2,700 in 1991-2000 and 4,100 per year in 2000-2008. The numbers are projected to stabilise at the 2008 level of around 315,000. The HNDA planning scenario shows a limited growth to 319,000 and the HNDA low migration scenario shows a small decline to 309,000.

6.36

The working age population has reduced by 43,000 in 1991-2000 (an annual rate of -4,800) and has increased by 29,000 in 2000-2008 (an annual rate of +3,600). At 2008 the working age population is 1,118,000. After 2008 the projected HNDA scenarios give different results: • the planning scenario shows a further rise by 4,100 per year, to 1,150,000 in 2016, with, subsequently, a smaller rise of 1,500 per year, to 1,164,000 in 2025. • the low migration scenario shows a rise by 2,800 per year, to 1,140,000 in 2016, with a subsequent fall by 1,000 per year, to 1,131,000 in 2025.

6.37

Over the full projection period, 2008-2025, the planning scenario envisages a somewhat lower growth in the working age population (of 2,700 per year, compared with 3,600 per year in 2000-2008) and the low migration scenario envisages only limited growth (an increase of 800 per year) in the working age population. However, this includes the effect of the rise in the pensionable age on the working age population. Without the rise in the pensionable age, the working age population would have been projected to reduce by 2,500 per year in the planning scenario, and by 4,400 per year in the low migration scenario, in the period 2008-2025 (see Figure 6.12).

6.38

In 1991-2000, the number of people of retirement age has been almost constant, despite a considerable fall in the overall population. Since 2000, the number of people of retirement age has increased by 1,000 per year, to 322,000 in 2008. After 2008, the retirement-age population is projected to decline by about 500 per year in 2008-2016, and to rise by around 2,200 per year in 2016 to 2025. However, this includes the effect of a rise in the pensionable age. Without this rise in the pensionable age, the projected retirement-age population would have increased much faster, i.e. by over 6,000 per year, as compared with around 1,000 per year, over the whole projection period, 2008-2025 (see Figure 6.12).

6.39

Figure 6.12 gives the projected population change by age-band category, both with and without the planned rise in the pensionable age included, for the total projection period and for the two periods 2008-2016 and 2016-2025.

6.40

Past and projected population change can also be examined by looking at population age/sex pyramids (see Figures 6.13 and 6.14). Figure 6.13 - Population GCV area Age Pyramid - Comparison of estimate for 1991 with 2008 Blue shows an excess in2008

Red shows an excess in1991

90+

Males

Females

0 20,000

6.41

15,000

10,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Figure 6.13 gives a comparison of the age profile of the GCV area population in 1991 and in 2008. Over these 17 years there have been sizable reductions in the numbers of children and young adults (in their twenties or early thirties) and significant increases of middle-aged people (in their forties and fifties) and elderly people (age 70+).

Figure 6.14 - Population GCV area Age Pyramid - Comparison of estimate 2008 with projection 2025 Blue shows an excess in2025

Red shows an excess in2008

90+

Males

Females

0 20,000

6.42

15,000

10,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Figure 6.14 gives a comparison of the age profile of the GCV area population in 2008 and in 2025. The 2025 position reflects the projected value for the HNDA planning scenario. Over these 17 years it is projected that there will be reductions in the numbers of young adults (in their twenties) and middle-aged (in their forties). The number of children is projected to show very little change. This Figure demonstrates the expected ageing of the population, with sizable increases projected for preretirement and elderly people (age 55+).

Estimated Population Age Profile for Council Sub Areas 6.43

Detail on the population age profile for the Council sub areas is given in the Appendix, Table A3. Using statistical analysis, the sub areas have been grouped into clusters with a similar age profile. This led to the following five clusters (see also Appendix, Table A4): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Concentration of young adults, with 35% of the population in age group 16-29 More young adults, with 48% of the population in age group 16-44 Average age profile, with 23% of the population in age group 16-29 Average age profile, with 40% of the population in age groups 0-15 and 45-59 More pre-retirement and elderly, with 56% of the population in the age group 45+

Clusters 3 and 4 have an age profile that is closest to the average for the GCV area. 6.44

Map A5 in the Appendix shows the geographical distribution of these clusters. Cluster 1 consists of one sub area, “Glasgow Central and West”, an area with high numbers of young people and students. Clusters 2 and 3 represent sub areas with, proportionately, higher numbers of young adults. These sub areas are all within Glasgow City. There are relatively more elderly in cluster 3 areas (21% age 60+), than in cluster 2 areas (17% age 60+).

6.45

Outside Glasgow City, there is little difference in the age profiles for the sub areas, with the exception of cluster 5 sub areas “Bearsden and Milngavie” and “Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village”. For these sub areas, the number of pre-retirement and elderly people is well above average (56% age 45+, compared with GCV area average of 47% age 45+).

6.46

The two sub areas “Baillieston, Shettleston and Greater Easterhouse” and “Greater Pollok and Newlands/Auldburn”, which are in Glasgow City, have an age profile that is closer to the profile for the rest of the Conurbation, rather than the profile for the rest of Glasgow City.

6.47

The above illustrates a point made earlier, i.e. that the age profile of Glasgow’s population is significantly different from that of the rest of the Conurbation. The same issue arises, when the population change by age band in 2001-2008 is compared for the various clusters (see Figure 6.15 below).

6.48

The population age 60+ has increased by 1,785 (=544+1,241) per year in the GCV area, but all of this increase has taken place in the “Rest of Conurbation” clusters 4 and 5. In the “Glasgow City” clusters 1 to 3 the population age 60+ has actually decreased.

6.49

The population age 30-44 has reduced by 5,909 per year, but this reduction has almost totally occurred in the “Rest of Conurbation” clusters 4 and 5.

6.50

The population age 16-29 has increased by 3,806 per year in the GCV area. It is clear from Figure 6.15 that more than half of this increase has taken place in the “Glasgow City” clusters 1 to 3.

6.51

Given this discrepancy in the age profile of Glasgow City and the Rest of the Conurbation, the next section will look at projected change for Glasgow City and the Rest of the Conurbation separately, within the context of an analysis by Council area.

Projected Population Change 2008-2025 by Age for Council Areas 6.52

Figure 6.16 shows that, for Glasgow, the number of young adults in their twenties is projected to reduce considerably. Increases are projected in the numbers of children, adults in their thirties/early forties, and adults in their late fifties and sixties. Figure 6.16 - Population Glasgow Age Pyramid - Comparison of estimate 2008 with projection 2025 Blue shows an excess in2025

Red shows an excess in2008

90+

Males

Females

0 6,000

6.53

4,000

2,000

4,000

6,000

Figure 6.17 shows that the projected changes for the Rest of the GCV area are quite different. The number of people in their forties/early fifties is expected to reduce. Sizable increases are projected in the number of people of all ages 55 and over. Figure 6.17 - Population Rest GCV Age Pyramid - Comparison of estimate 2008 with projection 2025 Blue shows an excess in2025

Red shows an excess in2008

90+

Males

Females

0 12,000

8,000

4,000

8,000

12,000

6.54

It was already observed previously that the number of children is expected to be relatively constant over the next 17 years. This is a significant change relative to the situation in 2001-2008, when the number of children reduced by 4,100 per year. The planning scenario projects an initial reduction at 197 per year in 2008-2016, with a subsequent rise of 612 per year in 2016-2025. The lower migration scenario projects reductions of 451 per year in 2008-2016 and 247 per year in 2016-2025 (see Figure 6.18). Figure 6.18 - Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Number of Children by Council area

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV area total

Estimate 2001-2008 -391 -178 -1,430 -305 -319 -404 -357 -315 -3,700

Planning Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 -255 -11 -119 161 534 380 -98 -50 -13 -9 -45 -11 -104 161 -98 -9 -197 612

Lower Migration Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 -278 -55 -131 119 447 -10 -110 -84 -47 -107 -63 -81 -154 34 -116 -64 -451 -247

6.55

Figure 6.18 shows that, in 2008-2016, the number of children is expected to rise in Glasgow City and to decline in the Rest of the Conurbation, with East Dunbartonshire showing the highest reduction. In 2016-2025, the number of children is expected to rise in East Renfrewshire and, under the planning scenario, also in Glasgow City and South Lanarkshire.

6.56

A different geographical split is again evident for the working age population. Under both scenarios, the working age population is expected to rise in 2008-2016, with the largest increases projected for Glasgow City, North and South Lanarkshire, and East Renfrewshire (see Figure 6.19). In East Dunbartonshire, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire the working age population is expected to reduce.

6.57

For the period 2016-2025, the planning scenario shows a slowdown in the rise of the working age population (1,521 per year, compared with 4,058 per year in 20082016). The lower migration scenario indicates that the working age population will reduce after 2016, which will result in a working age population in 2025, which will be around 13,000 above the 2008 level. Figure 6.19 - Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Working Age Population by Council area

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV area total

Estimate 2001-2008 -472 -128 3,541 -238 298 -267 641 -56 3,319

Planning Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 -117 -419 326 64 2,241 1,424 -214 -320 736 460 -103 -177 1,147 617 42 -128 4,058 1,521

Lower Migration Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 -192 -547 231 -63 1,760 236 -260 -395 567 167 -187 -366 920 245 -29 -261 2,810 -986

6.58

The number of people of pensionable age is expected to reduce by about 500 per year during 2008-2016. Numbers are expected to reduce in Glasgow and to increase in North and South Lanarkshire, East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire (see Figure 6.20).

6.59

The population of pensionable age is expected to rise substantially after 2016 in all Council areas, with the highest increases in North and South Lanarkshire. Figure 6.20 - Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Pensionable Age Population by Council area

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV area total

6.60

Estimate 2001-2008 359 279 -1,321 61 641 236 823 30 1,109

Planning Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 134 213 79 217 -1,300 281 -9 70 268 561 7 126 351 735 -44 105 -513 2,307

Lower Migration Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 135 207 75 206 -1,324 231 -9 66 255 541 0 113 342 707 -35 106 -562 2,176

Figure 6.20 shows that, despite an ageing population in the GCV area, the number of people of retirement age is expected to go down by about 500 in 2008-2016. This is due to the planned rise in the pensionable age, which will take place over the projection period. Figure 6.21 - Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Population Age 75+ by Council area

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV area total

Estimate 2001-2008 224 158 -148 56 316 145 445 45 1,241

Planning Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 269 366 178 281 -91 369 89 203 617 915 244 430 640 970 54 204 2,000 3,738

Lower Migration Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 273 364 178 276 -104 344 88 200 610 905 240 421 638 960 60 208 1,984 3,680

6.61

Figure 6.21 shows sizeable increases in the population age 75+, of around 2,000 per year in 2008-16, and around 3,700 per year in 2016-2025. Again the highest increases are projected for North and South Lanarkshire Council areas.

6.62

Tables A5 and A6 (see Appendix) give more detail on the projected population by age-band for the Council areas within the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area.

HOUSEHOLD CHANGE Population in Households and in Communal Establishments 6.63

In 2001, 24,246 people were resident in a Communal Establishment (CE) in the GCV area (see Appendix, Table A7). Between 2001 and 2008, it is estimated that the number of residents in CEs has gone up by 200 per year (see Figure 6.22). In Glasgow and Renfrewshire, the number of CE residents has risen by 435 per year, but elsewhere in the Conurbation there have been significant reductions. These estimates are based on the GROS 2006 estimates of population in CEs by age band for the 8 Council areas. From these estimates, rates by population age band have been derived, and these rates have been applied to the 2008 population estimates, and to the population projections for 2016 and 2025. Figure 6.22 - Estimated and Projected Annual Change of Population in Communal Establishments

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley

6.64

Estimate 2001-2008 -68 -17 407 -15 -29 28 -74 -33 200

Planning Scenario Lower Migration Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 2008-2016 2016-2025 16 24 15 23 15 22 15 22 -110 56 -125 28 8 16 8 15 54 81 52 78 24 42 23 39 72 105 71 102 6 13 6 13 85 358 66 321

The number of CE residents is expected to go up further over the projection period. The largest increases are expected in North and South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire. These expected increases are the result of an ageing population in these Council areas. Estimated and Projected Households – GCV Area Figure 6.23 - Estimated and Projected Households - HNDA scenarios 950,000

900,000 h o u s 850,000 e h o l d 800,000 s

household estimates planning scenario lower migration scenario

750,000

700,000 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 year

6.65

The annual household change in 2001-2008, at 4,900 per year, was only marginally above the annual household change in 1991-2001, at 4,600 per year (Figure 6.23 shows no upward change after 2001 in the slope of the curve). This is somewhat surprising as, in 1991-2001, the population fell by 6,900 per year, and, in 2001-2008, the population rose by 700 per year. That such a change in the population position would have such a small impact on the rate of household change, points to a significant change in the rate of household formation.

6.66

This conclusion is confirmed by a comparison of the actual change in the number of households between 2001 and 2008, with the change that would have occurred if the rate of household formation during the 1990s had continued. Figure 6.24 shows that the estimated annual change, at 4,902 for the GCV area, was 454 lower than the projected change, at 5,356 (based on household formation rates in the 1990s). This difference was entirely due to a lower than projected household growth for Glasgow City: an estimated annual change of 1,253, compared with a projected annual change of 2,600. For the other 7 Council areas, the estimated change has been higher than the projected change. Figure 6.24 - Comparison of estimated and projected annual change in households 2001-2008 changes due to changes due to total stock-based estim change population household projected estimated minus proj size and age formation annual change annual change annual change 2001-2008 2001-2008 2001-2008 2001-2008 2001-2008 East Dunbartonshire 2 43 45 116 71 East Renfrewshire 70 15 85 107 23 Glasgow City 787 1,812 2,600 1,253 -1,347 Inverclyde -120 131 11 14 2 North Lanarkshire 564 556 1,120 1,343 223 Renfrewshire -56 255 199 319 120 South Lanarkshire 793 416 1,209 1,587 378 West Dunbartonshire -61 149 88 163 75 Glasgow & Clyde Valley 1,980 3,376 5,356 4,902 -454

6.67

Figure 6.24 gives a split of the projected annual household change by component. Changes in the population size, and in the age profile of the population, account for 1,980 of the projected annual household change. The remainder, at 3,376 per year, or almost two thirds of the projected change, is due to people forming smaller households. In Glasgow the evidence indicates that the latter component has slowed down considerably in 2001-2008.

6.68

An examination of household changes for Glasgow City over 2001-2008, using data from the Scottish Household Survey (SHS), indicates a virtually constant average household size, of 2.09. This compares with a projected reduction in the average household size from 2.05 in 2001 to 1.94 in 2008, based on household formation rates in the 1990s. For the Rest of the GCV area, SHS data indicates a reduction in average household size (from 2.40 in 2001 to 2.29 in 2008), which corresponds more closely to the projected reduction (from 2.35 in 2001 to 2.26 in 2008).

6.69

This analysis raises questions about the validity of using the household formation rates in the 1990s, as a basis for the HNDA household projections. It is uncertain, however, whether the changes found in 2001-2008 reflect a permanent change in household formation trends, or a temporary difference due to e.g. higher house prices in 2001-2008. The HNDA household projections are used to assess need and demand in the future. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to reduce future requirements, based on a lower rate of household formation in 2001-2008, which could be a result of supply constraints. There was a need to consider, what adjustments should be made to the HNDA household projections.

6.70

For the lower migration scenario (with projection results close to those of the GROS principal projection) it was considered important to be consistent with the methodology applied by GROS in their projections. The GROS methodology is based on household formation between 1991 and 2001, the two Census years, without an adjustment for household formation post 2001 (except for a household calibration at the base year). Therefore, it has been decided to apply the GROS household projection methodology to this option without any adjustment. Implicitly it has been assumed that, following the recent (2001-2008) changes, household formation will get back on track with the trends seen in the 1990s.

6.71

For the planning scenario, a different approach has been chosen to address the above issues. Future household formation trends have been based on household formation in the 1991-2008 period, rather than 1991-2001. This has the advantage that use is made of the most up-to-date information. The more extended period 19912008 was taken as a base, rather than 2001-2008, in order to avoid relying exclusively on household formation in a particular set of circumstances, i.e. higher house prices in 2001-2008, as a basis for projecting the future.

6.72

The impact on the household projection results, of using either of the two approaches on household formation, is limited for the GCV area as a whole. However, as the slowdown in household formation did take place in Glasgow, using the 1991-2008 base period does result in a significant reduction of future household growth in Glasgow. To some extent this is matched by higher future household growth elsewhere in the Conurbation.

6.73

With respect to the household projection results for the GCV area, the planning scenario shows an increase from 804,700 in 2008 to 859,100 in 2016 (annual rate of 6,800) and to 918,400 in 2025 (annual rate of 6,600). The lower migration scenario shows an increase from 804,700 in 2008 to 854,900 in 2016 (annual rate of 6,300) and to 901,100 in 2025 (annual rate of 5,100).

6.74

These household projections indicate an accelerated annual rise in the number of households, relative to the rate of household change in 2001-2008. It is important to emphasize here, that these projections are based on past trends in household formation (in the 1990s) and have been prepared to assess future need and demand. As the result of the economic slowdown, with lower levels of private sector housing completions, and housing completions in the social sector likely to be affected by public sector expenditure constraints, it is expected that actual household growth will be considerably below projected levels in the coming years.

Figure 6.25 - Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Households by Type - GCV area household type 1 adult 2 adults 3+ adults 1 adult with child(ren) 2+ adults with child(ren) total households

6.75

Estimate 2001-2008 projected using SHS 5,567 2,961 1,365 2,728 -644 1,167 1,310 -994 -2,696 -961 4,902 4,902

Lower Migration Scenario Planning Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 2008-2016 2016-2025 6,707 6,377 6,572 5,809 2,062 1,629 1,924 1,302 -821 -1,146 -851 -1,209 1,338 1,424 1,257 1,189 -2,481 -1,699 -2,626 -1,964 6,805 6,585 6,276 5,126

The same warning also applies to the projected households by type (see Figure 6.25). Again, the projected changes by household type reflect household formation trends in the 1990s. Scottish Household Survey (SHS) data for 2001-2008 indicate that the actual rate of growth for single person households (at 2,961 per year) has been far less than projected (at 5,567 per year). For single adult family households the SHS data indicate a drop in numbers (-994 per year), rather than a rise, as projected (1,310 per year). Households with 3 or more adults have risen (1,167 per year) rather than fallen, as projected (-644 per year), and family households with two or more adults have not fallen at the rate projected (a fall of only -961 per year, and not -2,696 per year). In view of the changes in household formation that have taken place in 2001-2008, it is pointed out that the projections by household type must be used with caution and interpreted in the light of the differences, as presented in Figure 6.25 (columns 1 and 2) and Table A8 (see Appendix). Figure 6.26 - Estimated and Projected Annual Change in Households by Age of HRP - GCV area age - household reference person 16 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 59 60 to 74 75+ total households

6.76

Estimate 2001-2008 1,909 -1,708 3,919 -6 788 4,902

Planning Scenario Lower Migration Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 2008-2016 2016-2025 368 -190 240 -410 351 3,488 53 2,677 3,203 -2,502 3,146 -2,777 1,476 3,064 1,444 2,977 1,406 2,725 1,394 2,659 6,805 6,585 6,276 5,126

Figure 6.26 gives the projected changes in the number of households by age of the household reference person. The number of households with a reference person aged 60+ increased by almost 800 per year in 2001-2008 and is projected to grow by about 2,800 in 2008-2016 and by about 5,700 per year in 2016-2025.

Projected Household Change – Comparison with 2006 Plan Projections Figure 6.27 - Estimated and Projected Households Glasgow and Clyde Valley area 1991 to 2025 Comparison of HNDA Planning Scenario and 2006 Structure Plan Update projections 950,000

900,000

h o u s e h o l d s

850,000 household estimates planning scenario 2006 Plan Update 800,000

750,000

700,000 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 year

6.77

The 2006 Structure Plan Update projections showed, for the period 2008-2018, a population growth of 1,300 per year and a household growth of 7,700 per year. Despite the projection of a higher rate of population growth, at 3,500 per year, the HNDA planning scenario shows a lower rate of household growth, at 6,800 per year (see Figure 6.27). It was noted before (in section 2), that the higher annual population changes are mainly due to natural change, in particular a higher number of births. The latter affects the distribution of households by type (more families), but has a limited impact on the projected number of households. Another factor is that the projections for the 2006 Structure Plan update used household formation rates, derived from 1991 and 2001 Census data, for a different set of household types. The HNDA projections have used the household formation rates obtained from GROS, which have also been used in the GROS household projections. Use of the latter rates has reduced the projected annual household growth.

Estimated Household Change 2001-2008 for Council Sub Areas 6.78

Map A6 in the Appendix shows the geographical pattern, within the Conurbation, of annual household change in 2001-2008. A comparison with Map A2, which gives the pattern for the annual population change, shows some differences. This mainly reflects a difference in the rate of change for the average household size, with some sub areas showing a faster reduction, than others. Table A9 in the Appendix gives a comparison of annual population and household change. In several sub areas of Glasgow, the annual population growth exceeds the annual household growth, which indicates an increase in average household size. This will be related to the slowdown in the rate of household formation in Glasgow, which was noted in earlier sections. In contrast, a faster change towards more smaller households has taken place in Glasgow “Central and West” and “East Centre and Calton”, as well as in “Dumbarton/Vale of Leven”, and parts of South Lanarkshire, i.e. “Hamilton” and “Clydesdale”.

Estimated Household Type Profile 2001 for Council Sub Areas 6.79

Detail on the household type profile for the Council sub areas is given in the Appendix, Table A10. Using statistical analysis, the sub areas have been grouped into clusters with a similar household type profile. This led to the following four clusters (see also Appendix, Table A11): 1. Smaller adult and family households – with fewer families - 23% of households 2. Average household profile, with some more families – 28% of households 3. Somewhat larger households, with some more families – 29% of households 4. Larger adult and family households, with more families – 31% of households

6.80

Map A7 in the Appendix shows the geographical distribution of these clusters. Sub areas of Cluster 1, with higher concentrations of single person households, are mainly in Glasgow City, but also include Paisley/Linwood. Cluster 2 sub areas contain more family households relative to Cluster 1 areas and tend to be located in urban areas with a greater concentration of social rented housing, e.g. “Inverclyde East”, “Clydebank”, “Baillieston, Shettleston and Greater Easterhouse” and “Motherwell”. The household size for Cluster 3 sub areas is larger than the Conurbation average. These sub areas are predominantly to be found in South Lanarkshire, and in parts of North Lanarkshire and East Dunbartonshire. Cluster 4 sub areas have the largest households. These sub areas are primarily located in areas of predominantly owner occupied housing, e.g. “Bearsden and Milngavie”, “Eastwood”, “West Renfrewshire” and “Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village”.

Projected Household Change 2008-2025 for Council Areas 6.81

Figure 6.28 gives the estimated and projected annual household change for each of the Council areas. Tables A12 to A15 (see Appendix) give more detail on estimated and projected number of households by household type, and by age of the household reference person (see also Figures 6.25 and 6.26, which present that information at GCV area level). Figure 6.28 - Estimated and Projected Annual Household Change by Council area

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley

6.82

Estimate 2001-2008 116 107 1,253 14 1,343 319 1,587 163 4,902

Planning Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 173 171 225 288 2,533 2,289 86 43 1,511 1,472 359 347 1,653 1,704 264 271 6,805 6,585

Lower Migration Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025 105 70 170 205 2,830 2,123 60 -8 1,309 1,163 255 164 1,350 1,257 198 152 6,276 5,126

As expected, the GCV area annual household growth in 2008-2016 is higher for the planning scenario (6,805 per year), than for the lower migration scenario (6,276 per year). However, that is not the case for Glasgow City. This is a result of the decision to use different household formation trends for the two migration scenarios. For the planning scenario, the positive impact on household growth from higher net migration in Glasgow is “cancelled out” by the use of household formation rates from a base (1991-2008), which includes the lower than average household growth in Glasgow in 2001-2008.

6.83

With respect to the projected household change by household type (Appendix Tables A12 and A13), it was noted before (in paragraph 6.75) that caution is needed in the use of these projections. This applies particularly to Glasgow City, where there was a change in the pattern of household formation in 2001-2008, as compared with the inter-Census period 1991-2001 (see Appendix, Table A8). Future household growth could be significantly different from these projections.

6.84

The projected household change by age of household reference person (Appendix Tables A1 and A15) mirrors the projected population change by age-band (see paragraph 6.33). For example, the sizable increase in the number of older people households (with a household reference person age 60+) in 2008-2016, is projected to take place in the seven Council areas, excluding Glasgow City. After 2016, an increase in older people households is expected for Glasgow City, but at a lesser rate than for other Council areas in the GCV area.

CHAPTER 6 ANNEX List of Tables A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15

Annual Population Change 2001-2008 by Component for GCV Sub Areas Estimated and Projected Annual Population Change by Component Population Age Profile 2008 for Council Areas and Sub Areas in the GCV area Population Age Profile 2008 for Clusters of Sub Areas in the GCV area Estimated and Projected Population GCV area by Age-Band – HNDA planning scenario Estimated and Projected Population GCV area by Age-Band – HNDA low migration scenario Population in Communal Establishments and in Households Estimated Annual Changes by Household Type 2001-2008 Annual Population and Household Change 2001-2008 for GCV Sub Areas Household Type Profile 2001 for Council Areas and Sub Areas in the GCV area Household Type Profile 2001 for Clusters of Sub Areas in the GCV area Estimated and Projected Households by Household Type Estimated and Projected Annual Household Change by Household Type Estimated and Projected Households by Age of Household Reference Person Estimated and Projected Annual Household Change by Age of Reference Person

List of Maps A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Local Authority Sub Areas Annual Population Change 2001-2008 Annual Natural Change 2001-2008 Annual Net Migration 2001-2008 Age Profile Classification 2008 Annual Household Change 2001-2008 Household Type Classification 2001

CHAPTER 6 – ANNEX – TABLES Table A1 - Annual Population Change 2001-2008 by Component for GCV Sub Areas

Council area or sub area Bearsden and Milngavie Strathkelvin East Dunbartonshire Eastwood Levern Valley East Renfrewshire Baillieston and Shettleston and Greater Easterhouse Central and West East Centre and Calton Govan and Craigton Greater Pollok and Newlands/Auldburn Langside and Linn Maryhill/Kelvin and Canal North East Pollokshields and Southside Central West Glasgow City Inverclyde East Inverclyde West Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village Inverclyde Airdrie and Coatbridge Cumbernauld Motherwell North Lanarkshire Johnstone/Elderslie North Renfrewshire Paisley/Linwood Renfrew West Renfrewshire Renfrewshire Clydesdale East Kilbride Hamilton Rutherglen and Cambuslang South Lanarkshire Clydebank DMA Dumbarton/Vale of Leven West Dunbartonshire Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area

% annual population change -0.33% -0.55% -0.47% 0.07% -0.30% -0.03% -0.68% 0.99% 0.12% -0.26% 0.80% -0.43% -0.42% 0.49% 0.61% 0.32% 0.14% -1.23% 0.61% 0.56% -0.57% 0.28% 0.19% 0.13% 0.19% -0.36% -0.13% -0.40% 0.09% -0.02% -0.25% 0.62% -0.01% 0.42% 0.59% 0.37% -0.35% -0.37% -0.36% 0.04%

Source: General Register Office for Scotland - Data Zone estimates

% annual natural change -0.10% -0.02% -0.05% 0.06% -0.01% 0.04% -0.13% -0.01% -0.55% -0.33% 0.17% 0.11% -0.30% 0.15% 0.33% -0.24% -0.09% -0.21% -0.38% -0.08% -0.25% 0.09% 0.36% 0.03% 0.13% -0.25% 0.01% -0.17% 0.08% 0.18% -0.08% -0.17% 0.12% 0.03% -0.11% -0.01% -0.19% -0.08% -0.13% -0.04%

% annual net migration -0.24% -0.53% -0.41% 0.01% -0.28% -0.07% -0.55% 1.00% 0.67% 0.08% 0.64% -0.54% -0.12% 0.34% 0.28% 0.56% 0.23% -1.03% 0.99% 0.63% -0.32% 0.19% -0.17% 0.10% 0.06% -0.11% -0.14% -0.23% 0.01% -0.19% -0.17% 0.79% -0.12% 0.39% 0.69% 0.38% -0.16% -0.30% -0.23% 0.08%

Table A2 - Estimated and Projected Annual Population Change by Component Estimate 2001-2008 TOTAL CHANGE East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV area total NATURAL CHANGE East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV area total NET MIGRATION East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV area total

Planning Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025

Lower Migration Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025

-504 -27 790 -481 620 -436 1,107 -340 729

-237 285 1,475 -321 992 -141 1,395 -100 3,347

-217 442 2,084 -300 1,012 -62 1,513 -33 4,440

-335 175 882 -378 776 -250 1,107 -180 1,798

-395 262 457 -413 600 -334 985 -219 943

-56 37 -528 -210 426 -146 -36 -123 -636

33 127 1,121 -108 755 68 263 40 2,299

1 238 1,443 -127 613 63 225 64 2,519

25 116 1,085 -115 739 59 241 28 2,178

-25 203 1,205 -150 563 26 151 22 1,994

-449 -65 1,318 -271 194 -290 1,144 -217 1,364

-270 158 354 -213 237 -209 1,132 -140 1,049

-218 204 641 -173 399 -125 1,289 -97 1,921

-360 59 -203 -263 37 -309 866 -208 -381

-370 59 -748 -263 37 -360 834 -242 -1,051

Table A3 - Population Age Profile 2008 for Council Areas and Sub Areas in the GCV area Council area or sub area Bearsden and Milngavie Strathkelvin East Dunbartonshire Eastwood Levern Valley East Renfrewshire Baillieston, Shettleston and Gr. Easterhouse Central and West East Centre and Calton Govan and Craigton Greater Pollok and Newlands/Auldburn Langside and Linn Maryhill/Kelvin and Canal North East Pollokshields and Southside Central West Glasgow City Inverclyde East Inverclyde West Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village Inverclyde Airdrie and Coatbridge Cumbernauld Motherwell North Lanarkshire Johnstone/Elderslie North Renfrewshire Paisley/Linwood Renfrew West Renfrewshire Renfrewshire Clydesdale East Kilbride Hamilton Rutherglen and Cambuslang South Lanarkshire Clydebank DMA Dumbarton/Vale of Leven West Dunbartonshire Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area

0-15 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 14.1% 13.6% 14.0% 13.5% 7.7% 10.2% 12.0% 14.1% 11.6% 11.4% 13.1% 12.2% 12.9% 11.7% 12.9% 11.6% 12.8% 12.4% 13.7% 13.9% 13.3% 13.6% 13.4% 13.1% 12.5% 12.2% 13.1% 12.7% 12.5% 13.4% 12.9% 12.8% 12.9% 13.2% 12.6% 12.9% 12.6%

16-29 14.9% 17.1% 16.2% 15.0% 17.5% 15.7% 20.0% 35.4% 25.6% 22.6% 20.1% 21.9% 24.5% 22.7% 23.2% 20.8% 24.1% 19.5% 15.6% 10.9% 17.7% 18.5% 17.4% 18.4% 18.2% 17.0% 16.5% 19.0% 17.8% 13.8% 17.6% 15.8% 17.2% 17.8% 17.8% 17.3% 19.0% 18.4% 18.7% 19.7%

30-44 16.5% 18.4% 17.7% 18.1% 18.8% 18.3% 20.4% 23.8% 21.6% 21.3% 22.2% 25.0% 20.8% 24.4% 25.3% 21.5% 22.5% 18.9% 19.9% 18.0% 19.2% 21.7% 21.7% 21.5% 21.6% 19.9% 19.9% 20.9% 20.8% 20.8% 20.6% 20.2% 20.6% 20.8% 20.8% 20.6% 20.1% 20.1% 20.1% 21.1%

45-59 29.3% 28.1% 28.6% 28.9% 27.5% 28.5% 26.0% 18.6% 21.6% 23.4% 25.3% 24.1% 23.0% 22.6% 22.6% 24.2% 23.1% 26.0% 28.0% 29.7% 26.9% 26.0% 27.0% 25.8% 26.1% 25.6% 29.4% 25.1% 27.0% 30.2% 26.6% 28.0% 26.8% 26.4% 26.8% 26.9% 25.4% 27.1% 26.3% 25.6%

60-74 17.2% 16.1% 16.5% 15.2% 15.3% 15.3% 13.2% 9.1% 13.2% 12.7% 12.0% 11.2% 13.3% 11.1% 10.6% 12.3% 11.8% 15.2% 15.9% 18.4% 15.6% 13.9% 14.4% 14.3% 14.2% 16.1% 14.5% 14.8% 15.4% 16.1% 15.1% 15.9% 14.4% 15.3% 14.2% 15.0% 14.2% 15.1% 14.6% 13.9%

75+ 9.3% 7.5% 8.2% 8.7% 7.2% 8.3% 6.9% 5.4% 7.8% 7.9% 6.3% 6.2% 6.9% 6.2% 6.1% 8.1% 6.7% 7.6% 9.0% 10.2% 8.2% 6.3% 5.6% 6.7% 6.3% 8.0% 6.6% 7.8% 6.8% 6.0% 7.3% 7.6% 7.5% 6.8% 7.6% 7.3% 8.2% 6.8% 7.5% 7.1%

60-74 9.1% 11.0% 12.9% 14.6% 17.3% 13.9%

75+ 5.4% 6.2% 7.7% 7.1% 9.4% 7.1%

Source: General Register Office for Scotland - Data Zone estimates Table A4 - Population Age Profile 2008 for Clusters of Sub Areas in the GCV area Cluster of Sub Areas Concentration of young adults - more 16-29 More young adults - more 16-44 Average age profile - more 16-29 Average age profile - more 0-15 and 45-59 More pre retirement and elderly - more 45+ Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area

0-15 7.7% 12.3% 11.7% 13.2% 12.8% 12.6%

16-29 35.4% 22.6% 23.3% 17.9% 14.4% 19.7%

30-44 23.8% 24.9% 21.3% 20.5% 16.7% 21.1%

45-59 18.6% 23.1% 23.1% 26.7% 29.3% 25.6%

Table A5 - Estimated and Projected Population GCV area by Age-Band - HNDA planning scenario Comparison Results for Change in Pensionable Age Included/Not Included HNDA Planning Scenario Change in pensionable age included 2001 2008 2016 2025

Assuming no change in pensionable age 2001 2008 2016 2025

GCV area GCV area 0 to 15 340,900 315,002 313,425 318,931 0 to 15 340,900 315,002 313,425 318,931 16 to ret 1,094,614 1,117,847 1,150,308 1,163,995 16 to 64/59 1,094,614 1,117,847 1,111,876 1,075,546 ret to 74 199,088 198,168 178,062 165,191 65/60 to 74 199,088 198,168 216,494 253,640 75+ 115,608 124,293 140,293 173,931 75+ 115,608 124,293 140,293 173,931 total 1,750,210 1,755,310 1,782,088 1,822,048 total 1,750,210 1,755,310 1,782,088 1,822,048 East Dunbartonshire East Dunbartonshire 0 to 15 21,966 19,230 17,192 17,094 0 to 15 21,966 19,230 17,192 17,094 16 to ret 66,208 62,901 61,969 58,195 16 to 64/59 66,208 62,901 59,399 52,602 ret to 74 13,041 13,989 12,910 11,533 65/60 to 74 13,041 13,989 15,480 17,126 75+ 7,035 8,600 10,752 14,047 75+ 7,035 8,600 10,752 14,047 total 108,250 104,720 102,823 100,869 total 108,250 104,720 102,823 100,869 East Renfrewshire East Renfrewshire 0 to 15 19,166 17,918 16,964 18,416 0 to 15 19,166 17,918 16,964 18,416 16 to ret 53,755 52,859 55,463 56,041 16 to 64/59 53,755 52,859 53,336 51,041 ret to 74 10,197 11,046 10,251 9,676 65/60 to 74 10,197 11,046 12,378 14,676 75+ 6,292 7,397 8,823 11,349 75+ 6,292 7,397 8,823 11,349 total 89,410 89,220 91,501 95,482 total 89,410 89,220 91,501 95,482 Glasgow City Glasgow City 0 to 15 106,342 96,330 100,600 104,017 0 to 15 106,342 96,330 100,600 104,017 16 to ret 367,242 392,028 409,952 422,767 16 to 64/59 367,242 392,028 398,729 396,005 ret to 74 64,669 56,460 46,792 46,001 65/60 to 74 64,669 56,460 58,015 72,763 75+ 40,457 39,422 38,692 42,010 75+ 40,457 39,422 38,692 42,010 total 578,710 584,240 596,036 614,795 total 578,710 584,240 596,036 614,795 Inverclyde Inverclyde 0 to 15 16,306 14,169 13,387 12,933 0 to 15 16,306 14,169 13,387 12,933 16 to ret 51,438 49,775 48,061 45,185 16 to 64/59 51,438 49,775 46,224 40,889 ret to 74 10,176 10,213 9,430 8,230 65/60 to 74 10,176 10,213 11,267 12,526 75+ 6,230 6,623 7,335 9,162 75+ 6,230 6,623 7,335 9,162 total 84,150 80,780 78,213 75,510 total 84,150 80,780 78,213 75,510 North Lanarkshire North Lanarkshire 0 to 15 65,466 63,235 63,133 63,052 0 to 15 65,466 63,235 63,133 63,052 16 to ret 202,390 204,476 210,363 214,502 16 to 64/59 202,390 204,476 203,097 198,005 ret to 74 35,135 37,406 34,617 31,435 65/60 to 74 35,135 37,406 41,883 47,932 75+ 18,189 20,403 25,339 33,574 75+ 18,189 20,403 25,339 33,574 total 321,180 325,520 333,452 342,563 total 321,180 325,520 333,452 342,563 Renfrewshire Renfrewshire 0 to 15 33,517 30,686 30,325 30,229 0 to 15 33,517 30,686 30,325 30,229 16 to ret 107,830 105,960 105,136 103,543 16 to 64/59 107,830 105,960 101,391 94,751 ret to 74 20,138 20,776 18,879 16,143 65/60 to 74 20,138 20,776 22,624 24,935 75+ 11,365 12,378 14,331 18,197 75+ 11,365 12,378 14,331 18,197 total 172,850 169,800 168,671 168,112 total 172,850 169,800 168,671 168,112 South Lanarkshire South Lanarkshire 0 to 15 59,552 57,052 56,224 57,675 0 to 15 59,552 57,052 56,224 57,675 16 to ret 188,264 192,751 201,930 207,479 16 to 64/59 188,264 192,751 194,415 190,699 ret to 74 34,984 37,629 35,319 33,206 65/60 to 74 34,984 37,629 42,834 49,986 75+ 19,540 22,658 27,777 36,508 75+ 19,540 22,658 27,777 36,508 total 302,340 310,090 321,250 334,868 total 302,340 310,090 321,250 334,868 West Dunbartonshire West Dunbartonshire 0 to 15 18,585 16,382 15,600 15,515 0 to 15 18,585 16,382 15,600 15,515 16 to ret 57,487 57,097 57,434 56,283 16 to 64/59 57,487 57,097 55,285 51,554 ret to 74 10,748 10,649 9,864 8,967 65/60 to 74 10,748 10,649 12,013 13,696 75+ 6,500 6,812 7,244 9,084 75+ 6,500 6,812 7,244 9,084 total 93,320 90,940 90,142 89,849 total 93,320 90,940 90,142 89,849

Table A6 - Estimated and Projected Population GCV area by Age-Band - HNDA low migration scenario Comparison Results for Change in Pensionable Age Included/Not Included HNDA Low Migration Scenario Change in pensionable age included 2001 2008 2016 2025

Assuming no change in pensionable age 2001 2008 2016 2025

GCV area GCV area 0 to 15 340,900 315,002 311,393 309,168 0 to 15 340,900 315,002 311,393 309,168 16 to ret 1,094,614 1,117,847 1,140,329 1,131,459 16 to 64/59 1,094,614 1,117,847 1,102,017 1,043,716 ret to 74 199,088 198,168 177,806 164,273 65/60 to 74 199,088 198,168 216,118 252,016 75+ 115,608 124,293 140,162 173,281 75+ 115,608 124,293 140,162 173,281 total 1,750,210 1,755,310 1,769,690 1,778,181 total 1,750,210 1,755,310 1,769,690 1,778,181 East Dunbartonshire East Dunbartonshire 0 to 15 21,966 19,230 17,006 16,511 0 to 15 21,966 19,230 17,006 16,511 16 to ret 66,208 62,901 61,366 56,444 16 to 64/59 66,208 62,901 58,805 50,904 ret to 74 13,041 13,989 12,891 11,473 65/60 to 74 13,041 13,989 15,452 17,013 75+ 7,035 8,600 10,780 14,060 75+ 7,035 8,600 10,780 14,060 total 108,250 104,720 102,043 98,488 total 108,250 104,720 102,043 98,488 East Renfrewshire East Renfrewshire 0 to 15 19,166 17,918 16,870 17,944 0 to 15 19,166 17,918 16,870 17,944 16 to ret 53,755 52,859 54,709 54,141 16 to 64/59 53,755 52,859 52,601 49,243 ret to 74 10,197 11,046 10,216 9,579 65/60 to 74 10,197 11,046 12,324 14,477 75+ 6,292 7,397 8,823 11,310 75+ 6,292 7,397 8,823 11,310 total 89,410 89,220 90,618 92,974 total 89,410 89,220 90,618 92,974 Glasgow City Glasgow City 0 to 15 106,342 96,330 99,904 99,817 0 to 15 106,342 96,330 99,904 99,817 16 to ret 367,242 392,028 406,104 408,226 16 to 64/59 367,242 392,028 394,923 381,663 ret to 74 64,669 56,460 46,696 45,678 65/60 to 74 64,669 56,460 57,877 72,241 75+ 40,457 39,422 38,594 41,694 75+ 40,457 39,422 38,594 41,694 total 578,710 584,240 591,298 595,415 total 578,710 584,240 591,298 595,415 Inverclyde Inverclyde 0 to 15 16,306 14,169 13,293 12,538 0 to 15 16,306 14,169 13,293 12,538 16 to ret 51,438 49,775 47,699 44,141 16 to 64/59 51,438 49,775 45,866 39,874 ret to 74 10,176 10,213 9,434 8,229 65/60 to 74 10,176 10,213 11,267 12,496 75+ 6,230 6,623 7,328 9,130 75+ 6,230 6,623 7,328 9,130 total 84,150 80,780 77,754 74,038 total 84,150 80,780 77,754 74,038 North Lanarkshire North Lanarkshire 0 to 15 65,466 63,235 62,863 61,901 0 to 15 65,466 63,235 62,863 61,901 16 to ret 202,390 204,476 209,013 210,513 16 to 64/59 202,390 204,476 201,754 194,103 ret to 74 35,135 37,406 34,568 31,292 65/60 to 74 35,135 37,406 41,827 47,702 75+ 18,189 20,403 25,283 33,425 75+ 18,189 20,403 25,283 33,425 total 321,180 325,520 331,727 337,131 total 321,180 325,520 331,727 337,131 Renfrewshire Renfrewshire 0 to 15 33,517 30,686 30,182 29,455 0 to 15 33,517 30,686 30,182 29,455 16 to ret 107,830 105,960 104,463 101,167 16 to 64/59 107,830 105,960 100,716 92,408 ret to 74 20,138 20,776 18,858 16,080 65/60 to 74 20,138 20,776 22,605 24,839 75+ 11,365 12,378 14,298 18,091 75+ 11,365 12,378 14,298 18,091 total 172,850 169,800 167,801 164,793 total 172,850 169,800 167,801 164,793 South Lanarkshire South Lanarkshire 0 to 15 59,552 57,052 55,820 56,125 0 to 15 59,552 57,052 55,820 56,125 16 to ret 188,264 192,751 200,107 202,310 16 to 64/59 188,264 192,751 192,629 185,683 ret to 74 34,984 37,629 35,256 32,976 65/60 to 74 34,984 37,629 42,734 49,603 75+ 19,540 22,658 27,764 36,404 75+ 19,540 22,658 27,764 36,404 total 302,340 310,090 318,947 327,815 total 302,340 310,090 318,947 327,815 West Dunbartonshire West Dunbartonshire 0 to 15 18,585 16,382 15,455 14,877 0 to 15 18,585 16,382 15,455 14,877 16 to ret 57,487 57,097 56,868 54,517 16 to 64/59 57,487 57,097 54,723 49,838 ret to 74 10,748 10,649 9,887 8,966 65/60 to 74 10,748 10,649 12,032 13,645 75+ 6,500 6,812 7,292 9,167 75+ 6,500 6,812 7,292 9,167 total 93,320 90,940 89,502 87,527 total 93,320 90,940 89,502 87,527

Table A7 - Population in Communal Establishments and in Households Estimate 2001

Estimate 2008

Total population East Dunbartonshire 108,250 104,720 East Renfrewshire 89,410 89,220 Glasgow City 578,710 584,240 Inverclyde 84,150 80,780 North Lanarkshire 321,180 325,520 Renfrewshire 172,850 169,800 South Lanarkshire 302,340 310,090 West Dunbartonshire 93,320 90,940 Glasgow & Clyde Valley 1,750,210 1,755,310 Population in Communal Establishments East Dunbartonshire 1,278 804 East Renfrewshire 664 544 Glasgow City 11,895 14,747 Inverclyde 1,148 1,045 North Lanarkshire 2,944 2,740 Renfrewshire 2,160 2,359 South Lanarkshire 3,404 2,885 West Dunbartonshire 753 521 Glasgow & Clyde Valley 24,246 25,646 Population in Households East Dunbartonshire 106,972 103,916 East Renfrewshire 88,746 88,676 Glasgow City 566,815 569,493 Inverclyde 83,002 79,735 North Lanarkshire 318,236 322,780 Renfrewshire 170,690 167,441 South Lanarkshire 298,936 307,205 West Dunbartonshire 92,567 90,419 Glasgow & Clyde Valley 1,725,964 1,729,664

Planning Scenario 2016 2025

Lower Migration Scenario 2016 2025

102,823 91,501 596,036 78,213 333,452 168,671 321,250 90,142 1,782,088

100,869 95,482 614,795 75,510 342,563 168,112 334,868 89,849 1,822,048

102,043 90,618 591,298 77,754 331,727 167,801 318,947 89,502 1,769,690

98,488 92,974 595,415 74,038 337,131 164,793 327,815 87,527 1,778,181

930 665 13,866 1,112 3,172 2,551 3,462 568 26,326

1,142 866 14,371 1,255 3,900 2,926 4,405 686 29,551

927 665 13,748 1,111 3,159 2,540 3,456 570 26,176

1,132 862 14,002 1,246 3,863 2,891 4,377 688 29,061

101,893 90,836 582,170 77,101 330,280 166,120 317,788 89,574 1,755,762

99,727 94,616 600,424 74,255 338,663 165,186 330,463 89,163 1,792,497

101,116 89,953 577,550 76,643 328,568 165,261 315,491 88,932 1,743,514

97,356 92,112 581,413 72,792 333,268 161,902 323,438 86,839 1,749,120

Table A8 - Estimated Annual Changes by Household Type 2001-2008

East Dunbartonshire based on headship rates based on SHS data difference East Renfrewshire based on headship rates based on SHS data difference Glasgow City based on headship rates based on SHS data difference Inverclyde based on headship rates based on SHS data difference North Lanarkshire based on headship rates based on SHS data difference Renfrewshire based on headship rates based on SHS data difference South Lanarkshire based on headship rates based on SHS data difference West Dunbartonshire based on headship rates based on SHS data difference Glasgow and Clyde Valley based on headship rates based on SHS data difference

2+ adults with child(ren)

total households

1 adult

2 adults

3+ adults

1 adult with child(ren)

229 108 -121

154 311 157

-37 -31 6

28 68 40

-258 -340 -82

116 116 0

160 250 90

102 -155 -258

-31 73 104

32 -60 -92

-155 0 155

107 107 0

1,822 174 -1,649

-260 1,036 1,296

-144 963 1,107

520 -726 -1,246

-686 -193 493

1,253 1,253 0

213 106 -107

26 19 -6

-52 -43 10

22 -75 -97

-195 6 201

14 14 0

1,176 723 -452

520 890 370

-130 -122 8

306 113 -193

-528 -262 266

1,343 1,343 0

508 534 26

151 -99 -250

-106 -38 68

86 -159 -245

-320 80 400

319 319 0

1,163 848 -315

608 784 176

-87 168 255

277 -122 -399

-374 -91 283

1,587 1,587 0

295 217 -78

65 -58 -123

-56 196 252

38 -33 -71

-180 -160 19

163 163 0

5,567 2,961 -2,606

1,365 2,728 1,363

-644 1,167 1,811

1,310 -994 -2,303

-2,696 -961 1,736

4,902 4,902 0

Table A9 - Annual Population and Household Change 2001-2008 for GCV Sub Areas

% annual household change 0.15% 0.35% 0.27% 0.32% 0.27% 0.30% -0.19% 2.49% 1.42% -0.03% 0.50% 0.42% -0.42% -0.63% 0.44% -0.15% 0.45% -0.43% 0.78% 1.76% 0.04% 1.21% 0.98% 0.86% 1.00% 0.03% 0.35% 0.43% 0.52% 0.74% 0.41% 1.72% 0.84% 1.43% 1.05% 1.25% -0.27% 1.09% 0.39% 0.64%

difference -0.48% -0.90% -0.74% -0.25% -0.57% -0.34% -0.50% -1.49% -1.30% -0.23% 0.30% -0.85% 0.00% 1.12% 0.17% 0.47% -0.32% -0.81% -0.17% -1.20% -0.61% -0.93% -0.80% -0.73% -0.81% -0.39% -0.48% -0.83% -0.43% -0.76% -0.67% -1.10% -0.85% -1.01% -0.47% -0.88% -0.08% -1.47% -0.76% -0.59%

Table A10 - Household Type Profile 2001 for Council Areas and Sub Areas in the GCV area Council area or sub area

1 adult

2 adults

3+ adults

Bearsden and Milngavie Strathkelvin East Dunbartonshire Eastwood Levern Valley East Renfrewshire Baillieston, Shettleston and Gr. Easterhouse Central and West East Centre and Calton Govan and Craigton Greater Pollok and Newlands/Auldburn Langside and Linn Maryhill/Kelvin and Canal North East Pollokshields and Southside Central West Glasgow City Inverclyde East Inverclyde West Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village Inverclyde Airdrie and Coatbridge Cumbernauld Motherwell North Lanarkshire Johnstone/Elderslie North Renfrewshire Paisley/Linwood Renfrew West Renfrewshire Renfrewshire Clydesdale East Kilbride Hamilton Rutherglen and Cambuslang South Lanarkshire Clydebank DMA Dumbarton/Vale of Leven West Dunbartonshire Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area

23.7% 26.0% 25.1% 25.1% 27.3% 25.7% 33.9% 48.3% 46.3% 42.7% 34.6% 40.9% 43.3% 41.2% 46.2% 40.6% 41.9% 37.1% 30.5% 27.0% 34.6% 29.6% 26.0% 31.4% 29.5% 33.8% 20.6% 37.7% 34.3% 24.5% 33.3% 27.6% 28.1% 30.4% 34.4% 30.0% 36.2% 32.1% 34.2% 34.5%

32.0% 29.3% 30.3% 30.3% 28.2% 29.7% 24.2% 26.0% 24.6% 24.0% 24.3% 25.2% 24.0% 22.3% 24.3% 23.9% 24.4% 24.6% 31.1% 35.9% 27.1% 26.6% 29.0% 27.3% 27.5% 28.3% 30.6% 27.6% 27.7% 32.3% 28.6% 31.1% 29.8% 28.1% 27.6% 29.1% 25.5% 27.3% 26.4% 26.9%

14.8% 14.7% 14.7% 13.4% 13.7% 13.5% 11.0% 11.5% 8.6% 9.2% 10.7% 9.4% 9.4% 8.2% 8.2% 9.3% 9.7% 11.1% 12.0% 11.7% 11.4% 13.9% 14.1% 12.6% 13.4% 10.9% 16.0% 9.6% 12.0% 13.4% 11.2% 13.2% 12.7% 13.5% 11.4% 12.8% 11.5% 12.4% 11.9% 11.7%

1 adult family 2.7% 4.7% 3.9% 2.9% 6.5% 3.9% 10.4% 4.4% 8.6% 8.5% 9.3% 7.5% 9.1% 10.7% 6.4% 9.8% 8.3% 8.6% 3.3% 1.9% 6.7% 7.1% 6.5% 6.9% 6.8% 7.4% 3.4% 7.0% 5.6% 3.1% 6.0% 4.8% 5.1% 6.3% 6.9% 5.8% 8.5% 6.7% 7.6% 6.9%

2+ adults family 26.8% 25.4% 26.0% 28.3% 24.3% 27.2% 20.6% 9.7% 11.9% 15.6% 21.2% 16.9% 14.2% 17.6% 14.9% 16.4% 15.7% 18.6% 23.2% 23.6% 20.2% 22.8% 24.5% 21.8% 22.8% 19.5% 29.3% 18.1% 20.3% 26.6% 20.9% 23.1% 24.3% 21.7% 19.6% 22.3% 18.3% 21.4% 19.8% 20.1%

1 adult family 7.8% 7.9% 5.8% 2.9% 6.9%

2+ adults family 14.9% 20.5% 23.5% 27.7% 20.1%

Source: General Register Office for Scotland - 2001 Census - Crown Copyright Reserved Table A11 - Household Type Profile 2001 for Clusters of Sub Areas in the GCV area Cluster of Sub Areas

1 adult

2 adults

3+ adults

Smaller adult and family households - fewer families Average household profile - some more families Somewhat larger households - some more families Larger adult and family households - more families Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area

43.0% 33.8% 28.3% 24.1% 34.5%

24.9% 26.2% 28.8% 31.3% 26.9%

9.4% 11.7% 13.6% 14.1% 11.7%

Table A12 - Estimated and Projected Households by Household Type

2008 estimate East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 2016 planning scenario East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 2025 planning scenario East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 2016 lower migration East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 2025 lower migration East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley

total households

1 adult households

2 adults households

3+ adults households

1 adult families

2+ adults families

43,227 35,988 284,533 37,156 143,715 79,037 138,354 42,699 804,709

12,340 10,260 128,367 14,419 48,022 29,213 46,539 16,357 305,517

13,827 11,076 64,370 10,070 40,086 22,764 40,779 11,247 214,219

4,696 3,451 22,352 3,094 14,173 6,371 12,654 3,686 70,477

2,158 1,838 29,198 2,998 12,496 5,879 10,319 3,835 68,721

10,206 9,363 40,246 6,575 28,938 14,810 28,063 7,574 145,775

44,607 37,789 304,798 37,846 155,806 81,912 151,581 44,808 859,147

14,358 11,990 148,615 16,256 58,787 33,500 56,726 18,942 359,174

15,307 12,296 64,857 10,495 45,229 24,161 46,235 12,138 230,718

4,132 3,148 20,835 2,632 12,962 5,541 11,446 3,210 63,906

2,494 2,180 33,835 3,205 14,628 6,390 12,504 4,186 79,422

8,316 8,175 36,656 5,258 24,200 12,320 24,670 6,332 125,927

46,149 40,377 325,398 38,231 169,057 85,036 166,915 47,245 918,408

16,593 14,192 169,122 17,935 70,851 37,765 68,412 21,694 416,564

16,510 13,252 65,427 10,627 49,729 25,355 51,623 12,857 245,380

3,039 2,492 19,656 1,943 10,494 4,249 9,216 2,506 53,595

3,005 2,832 38,086 3,450 17,404 7,288 15,468 4,701 92,234

7,002 7,609 33,107 4,276 20,579 10,379 22,196 5,487 110,635

44,065 37,349 307,175 37,632 154,186 81,077 149,154 44,280 854,918

14,205 11,883 149,844 16,179 58,206 33,164 55,868 18,744 358,093

15,169 12,185 65,402 10,456 44,824 23,959 45,588 12,030 229,613

4,093 3,117 21,016 2,621 12,856 5,500 11,286 3,181 63,670

2,440 2,135 33,983 3,167 14,416 6,295 12,233 4,104 78,773

8,158 8,029 36,930 5,209 23,884 12,159 24,179 6,221 124,769

44,693 39,192 326,281 37,560 164,656 82,555 160,468 45,647 901,052

16,132 13,865 169,927 17,660 69,140 36,697 65,923 21,026 410,370

16,133 12,955 65,876 10,506 48,645 24,776 49,914 12,528 241,333

2,948 2,424 19,781 1,914 10,255 4,149 8,881 2,438 52,790

2,849 2,700 37,695 3,336 16,780 6,979 14,679 4,452 89,470

6,631 7,248 33,002 4,144 19,836 9,954 21,071 5,203 107,089

Table A13 - Estimated and Projected Annual Household Change by Household Type Household Type 1 adult East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 2 adults East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 3+ adults East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 1 adult family East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 2+ adults family East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley

Estimate 2001-2008

Planning Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025

Lower Migration Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025

229 160 1,822 213 1,176 508 1,163 295 5,567

252 216 2,531 230 1,346 536 1,273 323 6,707

248 245 2,279 187 1,340 474 1,298 306 6,377

233 203 2,685 220 1,273 494 1,166 298 6,572

214 220 2,231 165 1,215 393 1,117 254 5,809

154 102 -260 26 520 151 608 65 1,365

185 153 61 53 643 175 682 111 2,062

134 106 63 15 500 133 599 80 1,629

168 139 129 48 592 149 601 98 1,924

107 86 53 6 425 91 481 55 1,302

-37 -31 -144 -52 -130 -106 -87 -56 -644

-71 -38 -190 -58 -151 -104 -151 -60 -821

-121 -73 -131 -77 -274 -144 -248 -78 -1,146

-75 -42 -167 -59 -165 -109 -171 -63 -851

-127 -77 -137 -79 -289 -150 -267 -83 -1,209

28 32 520 22 306 86 277 38 1,310

42 43 580 26 267 64 273 44 1,338

57 72 472 27 308 100 329 57 1,424

35 37 598 21 240 52 239 34 1,257

45 63 412 19 263 76 272 39 1,189

-258 -155 -686 -195 -528 -320 -374 -180 -2,696

-236 -149 -449 -165 -592 -311 -424 -155 -2,481

-146 -63 -394 -109 -402 -216 -275 -94 -1,699

-256 -167 -415 -171 -632 -331 -486 -169 -2,626

-170 -87 -436 -118 -450 -245 -345 -113 -1,964

Table A14 - Estimated and Projected Households by Age of Household Reference Person (HRP)

total households

age hrp 16 to 29

age hrp 30 to 44

age hrp 45 to 59

age hrp 60 to 74

age hrp 75+

43,227 35,988 284,533 37,156 143,715 79,037 138,354 42,699 804,709

2,522 1,967 51,114 3,899 15,866 8,955 13,781 4,838 102,942

10,063 8,660 86,878 9,359 41,868 21,696 38,085 11,560 228,169

13,725 11,543 71,564 10,765 40,205 22,431 39,934 12,064 222,231

10,604 8,334 46,257 8,166 30,403 16,770 30,030 9,030 159,594

6,313 5,484 28,720 4,967 15,373 9,185 16,524 5,207 91,773

44,607 37,789 304,798 37,846 155,806 81,912 151,581 44,808 859,147

2,897 2,465 48,406 4,093 17,432 9,701 15,661 5,232 105,887

8,812 7,325 99,223 8,425 39,594 19,433 37,263 10,903 230,978

13,578 12,333 82,157 11,172 46,249 24,581 44,618 13,168 247,856

11,375 9,042 47,505 8,704 33,423 17,602 33,744 10,009 171,404

7,945 6,624 27,507 5,452 19,108 10,595 20,295 5,496 103,022

46,149 40,377 325,398 38,231 169,057 85,036 166,915 47,245 918,408

2,702 2,423 46,521 3,683 18,340 9,336 16,320 4,851 104,176

10,854 9,574 108,777 9,385 44,149 22,445 44,053 13,135 262,372

9,738 9,362 82,839 8,778 42,712 20,320 40,609 10,980 225,338

12,351 10,375 58,135 9,630 38,431 19,508 39,112 11,437 198,979

10,504 8,643 29,126 6,755 25,425 13,427 26,821 6,842 127,543

44,065 37,349 307,175 37,632 154,186 81,077 149,154 44,280 854,918

2,856 2,414 48,367 4,049 17,176 9,557 15,320 5,119 104,858

8,552 7,138 99,532 8,301 38,948 19,101 36,364 10,659 228,595

13,439 12,200 83,278 11,125 45,898 24,406 44,011 13,038 247,395

11,296 8,986 48,136 8,711 33,196 17,495 33,358 9,964 171,142

7,922 6,611 27,862 5,446 18,968 10,518 20,101 5,500 102,928

44,693 39,192 326,281 37,560 164,656 82,555 160,468 45,647 901,052

2,600 2,326 45,732 3,578 17,766 8,989 15,573 4,602 101,166

10,215 9,078 106,763 9,030 42,303 21,376 41,562 12,362 252,689

9,351 9,015 84,281 8,621 41,716 19,762 39,047 10,607 222,400

12,132 10,197 59,642 9,602 37,835 19,220 38,054 11,257 197,939

10,395 8,576 29,863 6,729 25,036 13,208 26,232 6,819 126,858

Table A15 - Estimated and Projected Annual Household Change by Age of Household Reference Person Age of Household Reference Person 16 to 29 East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 30 to 44 East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 45 to 59 East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 60 to 74 East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley 75+ East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley

Estimate 2001-2008

Planning Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025

Lower Migration Scenario 2008-2016 2016-2025

23 4 1,231 35 183 142 228 64 1,909

47 62 -339 24 196 93 235 49 368

-22 -5 -209 -46 101 -41 73 -42 -190

42 56 -343 19 164 75 192 35 240

-28 -10 -293 -52 66 -63 28 -57 -410

-362 -301 -72 -220 -93 -329 -167 -164 -1,708

-156 -167 1,543 -117 -284 -283 -103 -82 351

227 250 1,062 107 506 335 754 248 3,488

-189 -190 1,582 -132 -365 -324 -215 -113 53

185 216 803 81 373 253 578 189 2,677

175 195 1,424 149 691 297 805 183 3,919

-18 99 1,324 51 756 269 586 138 3,203

-427 -330 76 -266 -393 -473 -445 -243 -2,502

-36 82 1,464 45 712 247 510 122 3,146

-454 -354 111 -278 -465 -516 -552 -270 -2,777

108 85 -1,044 14 313 98 372 48 -6

96 89 156 67 378 104 464 122 1,476

108 148 1,181 103 556 212 596 159 3,064

87 82 235 68 349 91 416 117 1,444

93 135 1,278 99 515 192 522 144 2,977

171 125 -286 36 249 111 349 32 788

204 143 -152 61 467 176 471 36 1,406

284 224 180 145 702 315 725 150 2,725

201 141 -107 60 449 167 447 37 1,394

275 218 222 143 674 299 681 147 2,659

Housing Supply and Demand / Need Comparison _________________________________________________________ Introduction 7.1

Having established the approach being adopted by the HMPCG in undertaking the Housing Need and Demand Assessment in Chapters 2 and 3, set the Market Context and Geographical Framework in Chapter 5, and outlined the Demographic Context in Chapter 6, we now turn to assessing the housing supply against demand/need to establish housing requirements.

7.2

A detailed assessment is provided in Appendix TA06 ‘Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing’, this chapter serves to summarise the main findings from this report for the Private and Affordable Sectors.

Planning Periods 7.3

The assessment of the requirement for additional housing land for the private sector covers two distinct time periods, determined through SPP (and former SPP3) by the anticipated adoption of LDPs by 2015 (and a 5 year effective land supply 20152020): 2008-2020 a) one year of completions 2008/2009 b) seven years effective land supply 2009-2016 (2009 HLA) c) urban capacity 2016-2020 2020-2025 urban capacity 2020-2025

7.4

The assessment of the requirement for additional land in the affordable sector (social rented and ‘intermediate housing’) is required for the same time periods as the private sector and crucially to meet LHS requirements 2011-2016. It should be noted that for the purposes of this assessment the affordable sector has been defined as the social rented sector and ‘intermediate housing’ products which have been identified as subsidised Low Cost Home Ownership (ref TA04 ‘Affordability Study’).

Comparison of Housing Supply and Demand/Need Overview 7.5

There are several stages required in order to compare housing supply with demand/need to determine housing requirements as set out in the overview of the HNDA model in Chapter 3. These stages are set out in earlier chapters in this document and more detail is given in the technical appendices, particularly TA06 ‘Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing’.

7.6

The geographical framework to assess housing requirements was established in Chapter 5. It is then necessary to estimate stock and households at the base date, 2008 (TA06 Section 3) and consider Backlog Need (TA03). Having established the base position, population and households are projected to 2016, 2020 and 2025 (TA06 Section 5). The next stage in the process, undertaken by Tribal/Optimal Economics, is to tenure the household projections to ascertain demand/need and more detail about this process is available in TA06 Section 6 and TA04 ‘Affordability Study’. This demand/need now has to be compared against supply, which requires stock projections to 2025 (TA06 Section 7), using two approaches to assess housing need. Finally the supply and demand/need are compared to identify housing requirements by tenure.

7.7

Chapters 5 and 6 have dealt with the early stages in the process, so this chapter will now focus on the stages beginning with the household tenure projections.

Household Tenure Projections to 2016, 2020 and 2025 7.8

As mentioned in Chapter 3 the previous Structure Plan tenuring methodology has been replaced by an Affordability Study undertaken by Tribal/Optimal Economics. Results are presented in Figure 7.1 for the GCV city region. The overall methodology and process adopted by Tribal/Optimal Economics are summarised in TA06 ‘Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing’ Section 6 and further detail can be obtained from TA04 ‘Affordability Analysis’.

7.9

The tenured projections require output within two different geographies. For the private sector, the geographical framework for the comparison of supply and demand is the Housing Market Area (HMA) system that was developed for the 2000 Joint Structure Plan and re-examined and reaffirmed for the 2006 Plan. This framework of HMAs has been reviewed again using more recent data on house-buying moves, the outcome of which is presented in TA01 ‘A Housing Market Framework’. For the affordable (predominantly social rented) housing sector, the relevant geography is at the level of local authorities, and for the defined LA sub-areas within these boundaries.

Tenure Split 7.10

For the purposes of the comparison of supply and demand, two tenure categories are required, the private and affordable sectors. Owner occupied and private rented sectors are combined to present the private sector. Although Tribal/Optimal Economics identify the social rented sector as a tenure, in their study they identify a potential ‘intermediate sector’ which identifies households in the social rented sector who may be able to meet their needs with ‘intermediate sector’ products. Tribal/Optimal Economics defines the ‘intermediate sector’ as those newly-forming households that could access low cost home ownership products if they were available, but excluding those who could afford either owner-occupation or private renting. Affordable housing can therefore be expressed in terms of the minimum and maximum contribution that social renting and LCHO products could make to meeting their needs. Together the social rented sector and potential ‘intermediate sectors’ form the Affordable sector.

Households Projection Scenarios 7.11

7.12

Two sets of household projections, the Planning Scenario (C2) and the Low Migration Scenario (A1) have been prepared for the GCV region (ref TA06 Section 5) and both have been tenured by Tribal/Optimal Economics. The preferred scenario for the SDP MIR is the Planning Scenario (C2) and this working draft HNDA presents the outcomes/results for this scenario. The final draft of the HNDA will also present results for the Low Migration Scenario (A1). High and Low Affordability Assumptions Two affordability assumptions have been applied to the household tenure projections Low and High Affordability (as detailed in TA06 Section 2). The high affordability assumption assumes a willingness to spend a higher proportion of income on private rent, which results in a larger private sector, and low affordability assumes that households will only spend a lower proportion of their income on private rent. The result for the GCV area is that: • Under the low affordability assumption, there is significantly slower growth in owner occupation and growth of 10% in the social rented sector. • Under the high affordability assumption, there is continued growth in owner occupation, albeit at a slower pace than in the past and more modest changes in social and private renting.

7.13

While both levels of affordability show different results, the overall finding is of a more stable tenure profile suggesting that growth in owner occupation has levelled and the decline in the social rented sector is slowing. Uncertainty remains in relation to the role of the private rented sector, and the level of affordability in this sector, which has had an effect on the results/outcomes of the tenure projections under both of these assumptions.

7.14

Although both sets of affordability results will be presented in the final draft HNDA, for the purposes of this working draft, the private sector from this point on adopts planning scenario (C2) high affordability and the social rented sector planning scenario (C2) low affordability. This means that the total private sector demand and social rented sector need would exceed the overall number of projected households at 2025.

Household Tenure Projection Summary Results 7.15

• •

•

Overall the GCV area is seeing a projected increase in households under the Planning scenario from 805,000 at the 2008 base date to 918,000 in 2025, an increase of 113,000 households over the projection period ref Figure 7.1. A summary of the household tenure projection results is given below for both affordability assumptions. Private Sector Planning scenario (C2) high affordability: the private sector increases from 567,000 households in 2008 to 684,000 in 2025, an increase of 117,000 households. Planning scenario (C2) low affordability: the private sector increases from 567,000 households in 2008 to 658,000 in 2025, an increase of 92,000 households. Affordable Sector Planning scenario (C2) high affordability: social rented sector households decrease from 238,000 households in 2008 to 235,000 in 2025, a decrease of around 3,000

•

households with some fluctuation in the intervening years. This shows a slowing decline in the social rented sector, and indicates that the sector is stabilising. Planning scenario (C2) low affordability: social rented sector households increase from 238,000 households in 2008 to 260,000 in 2025, an increase of 22,000 households. This results in a corresponding lower increase in private sector households for the low affordability assumption. Figure 7.1 Summary of Household Projections for GCV Area 2008-25 2008

2025

2008-2025 Change

805,000

918,000

113,000

Private sector C2 High

567,000

684,000

117,000

Private sector C2 Low

567,000

658,000

92,000

Social rented sector C2 High

238,000

235,000

-3,000

Social rented sector C2 Low

238,000

260,000

22,000

All Households Private Sector

Affordable (Social Rented) Sector

* figures may not total due to rounding

Projected Tenure Change – Validation of Results 7.16

The results for the projected tenure change from the Tribal/Optimal Economics affordability study represent a significant change compared to the projected tenure change in the 2006 Joint Structure Plan Alteration. For the 2006 Plan it was projected that the social rented sector would reduce from 257,700 households in 2004 (or 33% of all households) to 197,500 households in 2018 (or 22% of all households). The present HNDA projections (planning scenario C2 – high affordability), used for the private sector housing demand/supply comparison, show a reduction from 237,900 in 2008 (or 30% of all households) to 234,700 (or 26% of all households) in 2025.

7.17

For validation purposes, a parallel exercise has been carried out alongside the affordability study, to project future tenure change for the GCV area. This involved the development of a cohort-component model, which projects future populations by tenure, using assumptions on the net population flows into/out of the various tenures. The projected populations are the basis for projected households by tenure.

7.18

The model uses estimated data for the periods 1991-2001 and 2001-2008. For the projection period 2008-2025, the results are remarkably close to the projections prepared by Tribal/Optimal Economics. The number of social rented households is projected to reduce from 237,900 in 2008 to 235,700 in 2025. This represents a marked slowdown in the rate of decline for the social rented sector (-100 per year in 2008-2025), in comparison with the earlier period (-6,200 per year in 2001-2008).

7.19

The model identifies the following factors, which “explain” the smaller decline of the social rented sector in the projection period: 1. A reduced net population outflow from the social rented sector, due to lower levels of Right-To-Buy sales (RTB). In 2001-2008 the net outflow from the social rented sector was about 12,000 people per year. For the projection period 2008-

2025 the RTB levels are expected to reduce to 1,300 per year (compared with 5,100 per year in 2001-2008). This is expected to result in a smaller net population outflow, of about 4,000 per year. 2. A relatively younger population in the social rented sector. In the early 1990s the population living in social rented housing was, on average, considerably older than the population living in private sector housing. This has changed in recent decades. As a result, the population change due to natural causes (i.e. the difference between births and deaths) is expected to be positive in the projection period. In 2001-2008 the number of people living in the social rented sector reduced by almost 2,000 per year, due to fewer births than deaths. 3. Although the population living in the social rented sector is expected to continue to decline, these people are expected to live in, on average, smaller households. Therefore the number of households is expected to show only a small reduction. Existing Need 7.20

Housing requirements need to take account of existing and future need. Existing need refers to Backlog Need and has been identified as 72,000 units across the GCV area (Figure 7.2). Backlog Need has been considered over and above the household projections. An affordability test has been applied to those in Backlog Need by Tribal/Optimal Economics (TA06) and it is considered that 6,000 of those in Backlog Need could potentially meet their needs in the private market and have been added to the private sector demand. The remaining 66,000 have been added to the affordable sector.

Figure 7.2

Current Housing Need: Total Need and Those Able/Unable to Address Needs in the Market - LA level

Local Authority

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Council Inverclyde Council North Lanarkshire Council Renfrewshire Council South Lanarkshire Council West Dunbartonshire Council Glasgow & Clyde Valley SDPA*

Total Backlog Need

4,074 2,918 28,428 4,117 9,041 6,325 13,417 4,517 72,837

Total - Unable to make their own arrangements (upper)

Total able to afford their own accommodation (lower)

i.e. added to Affordable sector household need 3,712 2,635 28,428 3,536 6,951 5,714 11,607 4,091 66,674

i.e. added to Private sector household demand 362 283 0 581 2,090 612 1,810 427 6,163

* Totals may not sum due to rounding Note: Upper estimates of those in backlog need (and corresponding lower estimates of those able to afford to meet their own needs) are reached when we consider whether households can afford market (PRS) accommodation. The lower estimates of those in backlog need (and corresponding higher estimates of those able to afford to meet their own needs) are reached when we consider whether households can afford Intermediate (LIFT) accommodation. Source: Tribal/Optimal Economics Affordability Study

Comparisons of Supply with Demand/Need 7.21

Comparison of supply with demand and need now follow for the private and affordable sectors

Comparison of Private Sector Demand and Supply at 2025 7.22

In order to establish if there is a requirement for additional land for private housing at 2020 and 2025, the projected effective stock is compared with projected demand. This comparison is carried out within the housing market area framework, taking account of mobile demand i.e. while most demand is localised, there is an element that cannot simply be allocated to a particular area and can be considered to be mobile (house buyers may search in more than one housing sub-market area for a home). Dumbarton & Vale of Leven and Inverclyde HMAs are treated as selfcontained market areas and the concept of mobile demand is not applicable. More detail on local and mobile demand can be found in TA06 ‘Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing’ Section 8.

7.23

Focussing on the end of the projection period in Figure 7.3 at 2025, there are no projected shortfalls in supply at any stage of the supply/demand comparison. There is therefore sufficient land currently allocated for private sector housing to meet demand. 97,000 private sector units are required to be built in the period 2009-2025 in the GCV area and as a rough estimate annual completions would be required in the region of 6,000 units (although this varies across the projection period).

Figure 7.3

Projection C2 High Affordability

Comparison of private supply and demand (including lower estimate Backlog Need*) at 2020 Total Demand Total Supply (Stock) Surplus Required Completions Required Annual Completions (2009-25) *Figures may not add due to rounding

7.24

660,000 662,800 2,800 73,700 6,700

Figure 7.4 shows that a significant factor in the increasing surplus of stock over demand projected between 2020 and 2025 is the impact of Backlog Need. In accordance with HNDA Guidance, it is assumed that Backlog Need should be met over a ten-year period: 2009 to 2019. Consequently, the level of completions required to meet both the increase in private demand and Backlog Need by 2020 is significantly higher than that required to meet private demand only in the following five years. Figure 7.4

Projection C2 High Affordability

Comparison of private supply and demand (including lower estimate Backlog Need*) at 2025 Total Demand Total Supply (Stock) Surplus Required Completions Required Annual Completions (2009-25) *Figures may not add due to rounding

7.25

689,800 700,400 10,604 97,400 6,080

For the purposes of this assessment, and recognising the role of intermediate housing products in helping to meet affordable housing needs, any sites in the Housing Land Audit and Urban Capacity Study that are identified for potential shared equity or shared ownership have been excluded from the projections of private sector supply.

Comparison of Affordable Sector Supply and Need at 2016, 2020 and 2025 7.26

As outlined in the introduction and methodology, the HNDA guidance outlines an approach to assess the requirement for social rented housing - this is essentially the established ‘Housing Needs Assessment’ method. The basic framework of this model has in recent years been used by local authorities to assess local housing needs to help inform LHS development and is a common recognisable approach in the UK to assessing the housing requirement for social renting housing. Although there is some movement between local authorities in the social rented sector, it is less pronounced than in the private sector and the appropriate geography is the local authority area.

7.27

This method has three separate components: current housing (backlog) need, future housing need and affordable housing supply. Net annual housing need is estimated by summing the annual quota of current housing need to the annual newly arising

need and by then subtracting the future annual supply of affordable housing from this total. A negative figure implies a net surplus of affordable housing. 7.28

The summary results are set out by GCV area and local authority for 2016, 2020 and 2025 in Figure 7.5. For the city region the results show a net housing need for nearly 50,000 affordable households by 2016, and an additional 24,000 in net housing need by 2020 and an additional 7,600 by 2025 – in total there is an estimated 81,000 households with a net housing need over the period 2008-25. It should be noted that Backlog Need is included for the years 2009-19. It should also be noted that the LHS time period is 2011-16. Figure 7.5 Summary of GCV Area Housing Need Requirement in Accordance with Housing Needs Assessment Supply/Need Comparison Model 2008-2025 2008-16

2016-20

C2 Low Affordability East Dunbartonshire 4,375 2,038 East Renfrewshire 2,134 954 Glasgow City 31,914 15,689 Inverclyde 3,026 1,396 North Lanarkshire -1,537 -152 Renfrewshire 1,146 -61 South Lanarkshire 9,158 4,302 West Dunbartonshire -249 -154 GCVSDPA 49,967 24,013 NB. Negative figures are surpluses Backlog Need is included for the years 2009-19

7.29

2020-25

2008-25 Total

1,221 204 9,990 412 -1,879 -2,081 1,279 -1,517 7,630

7,634 3,292 57,593 4,834 -3,568 -995 14,739 -1,919 81,610

More detail on the housing supply and demand/need comparisons can be found in Appendix TA06 ‘Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing’.

Intermediate Sector 7.30

In undertaking their Affordability Study, Tribal/Optimal Economics were also asked to identify “of those households unable to meet their housing need in the open market, how many could afford to meet their need using intermediate housing products”. For the purposes of the HNDA, the HMPCG defined the Intermediate Sector as subsidised low cost home ownership (LCHO). Tribal/Optimal Economics in their study identified the Scottish Government’s Low Cost Initiative for First Time Buyers (LIFT) scheme as the most appropriate way to explore ‘intermediate housing’. LIFT provides a range of assistance including new supply, shared equity and open market shared equity.

7.31

Tribal/Optimal Economics, for modelling purposes, identified the intermediate sector as those newly-forming households that could access low cost home ownership products if they were available, but excluding those who could afford either owneroccupation or private renting. Affordable housing needs can therefore be expressed in terms of the minimum and maximum contribution that social renting and LCHO products could make. The intermediate sector figure is therefore expressed as a potential. The maximum potential intermediate level assumes that all of those households which could potentially meet their needs in low cost home ownership products do so because there is no supply constraint, they have a desire to do so, and the household has unrestricted access to mortgage finance. The social rented sector is correspondingly reduced. The minimum potential intermediate sector figure

is zero, which assumes that there is restricted access to LCHO; all households which cannot meet their own needs in the market therefore require to be housed in the social rented sector. 7.32

Figure 7.6 shows the maximum potential number of households that have been assessed as being unable to access market housing (private rented and owner occupation) but who could afford LCHO up to 2016. This identified that under Planning scenario C2 (low affordability) at 2016 the ‘intermediate sector’ could range from zero to 27,000 households if there was no constraint on supply, a desire for the LCHO product, and unrestricted access to mortgage finance. Under Planning scenario C2 (high affordability) the range would reduce: from zero to 5,500 households. The implications of these results will require further consideration. Figure 7.6

Maximum potential LCHO 2016 by LA (Tribal/Optimal Economics)

Local Authority East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCVSDPA - refers to new households

C2 Low Affordability 786 659 3,138 2,127 7,567 3,738 6,942 2,152 27,109

C2 High Affordability 0 0 0 1,064 1,514 747 1,388 861 5,574

7.33

These estimates for a potential intermediate sector should be treated with caution as identified by Tribal/Optimal Economics:

•

The intermediate sector is relatively new so limited statistical information is available.

•

Supply is limited and dependent on a degree of subsidy.

•

There is a lack of real understanding of the choices people will make; even if intermediate products are available, households may not choose to take up the product.

•

The Tribal/Optimal Economics approach is limited, as it focuses on new households only. Intermediate sector housing may be attractive to existing households. Thus it could free up currently occupied social rented or private rented houses, as well as meeting some of the housing requirements of new households.

•

Access to mortgage finance may hinder households moving into this sector.

•

Access to wealth (i.e. initial deposit) has not been taken into account in the analysis.

Household Groups with Specific Housing Requirements ___________________________________________________________________

8.1

Context

Introduction 8.1.1 The HNDA provides an overview of the main issues to be considered in addressing the housing requirements of various household groups with specific needs, using published national data where appropriate to ensure consistency. It provides the basis on which each of the GCV authorities can refine their individual assessments and develop appropriate housing and planning policies, through the LHS and LDP, to address these specific requirements. 8.1.2 Although progress has been made over the years, through a variety of measures, inequalities persist in Scotland and the UK. For those people affected, discrimination may result in social exclusion, restricted employment opportunities, and restrictions in access to goods and services, including housing, health, education, and social services. Some people may experience discrimination on several grounds (multiple discrimination). The HMP, through its eight constituent local authorities, operates within a complex legal and policy framework which commits it to prevent discrimination and promote equal opportunities. 8.1.3 The HNDA Guidance requires HMPs to assess the ‘housing requirements of specific household groups’. Local Authorities also have statutory duties, principally through the Equality Act 2010, to eliminate unlawful conduct, advance equality of opportunity, foster good relations, and to take into account the needs of people relating to age, disability, sex, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation and transgender. The Act also introduces a new requirement for public bodies to have due regard to the need to reduce the inequalities of outcome that result from socio-economic disadvantage. The Equality Act, enacted in April 2010, updates, streamlines and strengthens previous equalities legislation. 8.1.4 The Scottish Human Rights Commission promotes and protects the human rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, which form part of the law of Scotland through the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998, together with other human rights guaranteed by a wide range of other international conventions and treaties ratified by the UK. For the most part, as a result of the Equality Act, the UK will already comply with a proposed future EU Article 13 Equal Treatment Directive.

Other Equalities issues 8.1.5 The Concordat4 agreed between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA) sets out the new relationship between the Scottish Government and local government and accepts that although the Scottish Government will set policy direction, it will stand back from micro-managing service delivery. The Government’s purpose within the national performance framework is “to focus the Government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth”. Based on the Government’s National Outcomes and, under a common framework, Local Outcomes which take account of local priorities, the approach is intended to free up local authorities and their partners to meet varying local needs. Local authorities are expected to set out their contribution to the National Outcomes; National Outcome 6 states that “we have tackled the significant inequalities in Scottish society”. Scottish Planning Policy and Guidance 8.1.6 The planning system in Scotland tries to embed consideration of equalities issues through its Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and Planning Advice Notes (PANs). Policy contained in SPP, and advice in the PANs, are material considerations to be taken into account in development plans and in the development management process. 8.1.7 A more ‘inclusive’ approach to design is emerging – a way of designing products and environments so that they are usable and appealing to everyone regardless of age, ability or circumstances5 and which involves working with users to remove barriers in the social, technical, political and economic processes underpinning building and design. PAN 78 Inclusive Design6 proposes the creation of environments that can be used by everyone – regardless of age, gender or disability. As good practice guidance, it “sets out the roles of those instrumental in delivering more inclusive environments – from developers to designers, local authorities to Access Panels..”

Building Standards 8.1.8 Barrier-free is defined as housing and its environment designed to allow for the needs of almost everyone. This includes:

people with temporary or permanent impaired mobility due to accident, illness or old age and who may use a wheelchair for some of the time

people who have difficulty with steps, bending down or reaching or who lack dexterity

people with impaired sight or hearing

people with impaired memory, learning or reasoning

people pushing and manoeuvring prams.

Concordat between The Scottish Government and local government [the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities]. 14 November 2007. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government/CoSLA. 5 Adapted from definition by English Partnerships. 6 PAN 78 Inclusive Design. March 2006. [Planning and Building Standards Advice Note.] Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Development Department/ Scottish Building Standards Agency.

The key aim of barrier-free housing is to allow people to reach the entrance to their dwelling from a road or parking area and move around the dwelling, access essential rooms including the bathroom, and operate all fittings, services and controls. Good practice in all housing design should give equal emphasis to the needs of less able members of society as it does to the comfort, convenience, safety and security of the occupants in general. 8.1.9 In Scotland all new homes receiving public funding support must be designed to meet the ‘Houses for Varying Needs’ standard, (Part 1). Part 2 of the standard relates to housing with integral support. 8.1.10 The Building Regulations (Domestic) define the minimum functional requirements to be met for all new housing. The Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2007 extended standards to address ‘liveability’. This is based around, and developed from, issues included in ‘Housing for Varying Needs’ and the Lifetime Homes concept. However, “it is important for designers to recognise that the guidance given is the minimum to comply with the functional standard and that this may not always equate to recognised good practice 7 for accessibility and the provision of fully inclusive environments.”

The 2010 revision of the Building Regulations for new domestic properties has increased various standards, including those relating to security, noise reduction and carbon reduction. 8.1.11 Some local authorities have complementary planning policies. For example, Glasgow’s recently adopted City Plan 2 (2009)8 now expects all housing providers, in projects of 20 dwellings or above, both houses and flats, to provide 10% to wheelchair standard, or housing that is readily adaptable to meet the standard.

PAN 78 Inclusive Design, 2006. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Development Department/ Scottish Building Standards Agency (page 9). Glasgow City Plan 2, Part 3 Development and Design Policies: Residential: Policy RES 4 Barrier Free Homes. 2009. Glasgow City Council.

8.2

Families

8.2.1 The needs of families are central to the work of local authorities in determining the housing needs and demands within their area. The composition of family households are wide ranging and diverse, ranging from single parent households to multigenerational families, couples with no children and single people. An emerging issue is that of the growth of new households following relationship breakdown where parents have custody or overnight access to children from the relationship and require accommodation which is larger than the typical size normally associated with a single person household. The findings of the HNDA largely cover the housing needs of families but we recognise the need to ensure a wide range of housing types and sizes are available in areas which are affordable to households across the income spectrum.

8.3

Young People

8.3.1 As shown by the Tribal Affordability Study, young people’s choices are constrained by their income and ability to access the private sector because of the need to provide large deposits for mortgages or private renting, The most significant issue for young households is being able to afford to access the ‘property ladder’ without parental or other supports. Some younger households find difficulty in gaining access to social rented housing as they lack priority need points when assessed against other priorities. Similarly, younger households are more likely to require housing of an appropriate size near to locations where they work or study.

8.4

Older People

Introduction 8.4.1 The HNDA is based on published national statistics alongside information provided by each local authority on older people households in their area. This has been augmented following discussions with Age Scotland. Policy Framework 8.4.2 Adding Life to Years (2002)9 recognised that 95% of over 65s live at home [approximately 90% in mainstream and 5% in sheltered or very sheltered], the majority in good health, which should be preserved and enhanced. Only 20% needed help to stay at home. The remainder lived in care homes. In addition, improved primary care and community services would allow a proportion of potential hospital in-patients to be cared for at home. 8.4.3 The debate about how best to address the needs of older people and ensure services are fit for purpose in the future, is set out in various consultation papers and engagement processes, including:

Reshaping Care for Older People programme was launched by the Scottish Government, CoSLA and the NHS in 2009 to engage all interests in reshaping care and support services so that they meet policy objectives in ways that are sustainable.

Housing: Fresh Thinking, New Ideas (2010)10 discussion document includes the housing requirements of an ageing population as one of many issues in the years ahead, and seeks to identify radical new ways to generate investment in affordable housing.

Wider Planning for an Ageing Population – Housing and Communities (2010) identifies a number of important issues relating to housing, suggests appropriate outcomes, and seeks feedback. Underlying this work is the view that current ways of working and delivering services for older people are no longer sustainable. New ways of delivering services, new models of care, and new ways of generating investment, may need to be developed.

8.4.4 The depth of the recent recession, together with the Coalition Government’s Spending Review 201011 to reduce the deficit, will have serious implications for all sectors of the economy, public services and the welfare system. The date at which the State Pension Age will start to rise to 66 has been brought forward to 2018 “in order to ensure this is fiscally sustainable”. An Ageing Population – Demographic Trends 8.4.5 An analysis of the changing demography across the GCV area is set out in Chapter 5 “Demographic Change in the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Area”. This includes discussion and projections relating to population and households by age structure.

Adding Life to Years. Report of the Expert Group on Healthcare of Older People (2002) Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. 10 Housing: Fresh Thinking New Ideas. Housing Policy Discussion document (2010) Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. 11 Spending Review 2010. HM Treasury. Cm 7942 (October 2010).

Housing for Older People 8.4.6 National and local policy is firmly based on the principle of enabling older people to continue to live independently at home or in their community, with appropriate levels of support where required. . 8.4.7 In relation to the private sector, each local authority has published its Scheme of Assistance in accordance with the Housing (Scotland) Act, 2006. These Schemes provide a range of services and support to help older people remain in their home, principally through the provision of grant assisted home adaptations and information, advice and practical support to help maintain or repair their homes. Sheltered and other specialist housing 8.4.8 Table 8.4.1 details the availability of sheltered and other specialist housing for older people, provided by local authorities or housing associations, at March 2009. The figures should be treated with some caution as there are clearly gaps in the data, and there may be some differences in recording mechanisms between authorities and housing associations. This, together with stock transfer to housing associations in Glasgow City and Inverclyde, may explain some of the variation in LA/HA provision between different authority areas. The table suggests that, across the GCV area, there are considerable numbers of houses with community alarms (provided by local authorities) and of sheltered houses (provided both by LAs and HAs, but the majority provided by housing associations). 8.4.9 Since 2001, across the GCV area, the number of very sheltered units increased considerably, from 493 in 2001 to 1,103 in 2009; in seven out of eight authority areas numbers more than doubled. Data from local authorities suggests that numbers have continued to increase between March 2009 and 2010. The number of sheltered housing units, declined slightly across the GCV area from 9,188 in 2001 to 9,001 in 2009 numbers remained more or less stable in three authorities, declined in three authorities, and increased in only two authorities (North Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire). This reflects a slow national decline since 2001, as older sheltered complexes were closed or converted to very sheltered/extra care. There has been a tendency towards decline in medium dependency properties.

TABLE 8.4.1

HOUSING FOR OLDER PEOPLE, MARCH 2009

Authority

Housing for Older People provided by LAs or HAs Very Sheltered

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City

Inverclyde

North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire

South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

Sheltered

Local Authority Housing Association Total 156 260 416 230 102 152 102 382 * * 537 3,042 537 3,042 * * 61 440 61 440 1,224 89 615 89 1,839 331 109 509 109 840 1,268 139 316 139 1,584 269 128 189 128 458

Of which Wheelchair adapted

Medium Dependency

Dwellings with Community Alarm

40 n.a. 40 9 n.a. 9 * n.a. * n.a. 64 n.a. 64 15 n.a. 15 114 n.a. 114 n.a. -

n.a. 343 44 387 * 523 523 * 365 365 187 187 107 486 593 290 268 558 230 123 353

530 n.a. 530 360 n.a. 360 * n.a. * n.a. 5,147 n.a. 5,147 297 n.a. 297 1,783 n.a. 1,783 1,532 n.a. 1,532

GCV

1,165 1,165

3,478 5,523 9,001

242 n.a. 242

970 1,996 2,966

9,649 n.a. 9,649

Scotland

498 3,032 3,530

15,632 16,935 32,567

1,934 1,934

6,519 7,272 13,791

32,623 32,623

Sources: Housing Statistics, Scottish Government. Local Authorities from S1B returns by local authorities to the Scottish Government, Communities Analytical Services [augmented by LA own data]. Housing Association data provided by the Scottish Housing Regulator from the Annual Performance and Statistical Return [APSR]. * Local authority stock transferred to Glasgow Housing Association [in the case of Glasgow City Council] and to River Clyde Homes [in the case of Inverclyde Council]. nil n.a. not available

8.4.10 Table 8.4.1 does not include private sector retirement/sheltered housing developments, as no consistent data was available for all authorities. However, there are known to be a number of developments across the GCV area – for instance, 508 private sheltered homes were identified in South Lanarkshire and 115 in East Dunbartonshire. Supply continues to grow, and around 150 one and two bedroom private retirement apartments have recently been completed in Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire. A similar number are at the planning stage in East Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire. These developments will include some ‘assisted living’ apartments, which aim to bridge the gap between conventional retirement flats and a care or nursing home.

100

Telecare 8.4.11 Telecare is the remote or enhanced delivery of health and social care to people in their own homes by means of telecommunications and computerised systems. The term usually refers to equipment and detectors that provide continuous, automatic and remote monitoring of care needs, emergencies and lifestyle changes, using information and communications technology (ICT) to trigger human responses or to shut down equipment to avoid danger12. Community alarm systems, often referred to as ‘first generation’ telecare, are widely available in Scotland, and allow an individual to contact a call centre 24 hours a day for information or an emergency response. Alarm systems have replaced wardens in some sheltered housing developments. 8.4.12 In line with the Shifting the Balance of Care agenda, the National Telecare Development Programme was launched in 2006, followed in 2008 by publication of the Scottish Government’s Telecare Strategy13. The programme also provided initial funding to promote development of ‘second generation’ telecare services. This advanced technology can automatically: Monitor the home environment to trigger appropriate responses: e.g. smoke, flood and carbon monoxide detectors; extreme temperature detectors to detect failure of central heating in winter; bogus caller and security systems. Monitor movement activity: fall detectors; wandering alarms to safeguard people with memory loss or who become confused; bed occupancy sensors which can turn lights on when someone gets up and send an alarm if they do not return to bed; infrared movement detectors in rooms can trigger investigation if there is lack of movement for an excessive period Monitor vital body signs (‘Telehealth’ equipment) such as pulse, respiration and blood pressure, and trigger intervention when unusual patterns are detected. Following an assessment of needs, appropriate equipment is made available in packages designed to meet specific individual needs. 8.4.13 Recent evaluation of telecare and telehealthcare initiatives14 15 suggests that they have considerable potential to deliver better care to all, across a spectrum of needs, in their own home, using technology to integrate services more cost-effectively and efficiently. There is scope to offer services – both for preventative care and acute care – for older people, and for those with sensory impairments, physical disabilities, mental health problems and learning disabilities. It may gradually become part of everyday life16. Challenges to be met include availability of infrastructure, standardisation of equipment, and funding for further development. 12

Telecare in Scotland (2010) Age Scotland policy paper, prepared by Dr Tony O’Sullivan of Newhaven Research. 13 Seizing the Opportunity: Telecare Strategy 2008-2010 (2008) Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Joint Improvement Team. 14 Beale, Sophie, Sanderson, Diana and Kruger, Jen (2009) Evaluation of the Telecare Development Programme. Report by York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, for the Scottish Government Joint Improvement Team. 15 Jarrold, Kara and Yeandle, Sue (2009) A weight off my mind: Exploring the impact and potential benefits of telecare for unpaid carers in Scotland. Report by the Centre for International Research on Care, Labour and Equalities, University of Leeds, for Carers Scotland. Funding from Scottish Government Telecare Development Programme Joint Improvement Team. 16 Telehealthcare: Time for Action. Report of Scottish Science Advisory Council One-Day Forum on Telehealthcare Technologies for Assisted Living, held at the University of Edinburgh on 27 October 2009.

101

8.4.14 While endorsing the principle of improved support and care for older people in their own homes, potentially with an increasing role for telecare technologies, Age Scotland sounds an important warning17: “Local services and the design of communities is intrinsically important for the future of care for older people, particularly if the direction of travel is towards more care at home. We would not support a future that sees older people cared for at home but unable to leave their houses or participate in their local community.”

Dementia 8.4.15 The Scottish Government recently published Scotland’s National Dementia Strategy (2010)18, with support from CoSLA, Alzheimer Scotland and The Scottish Dementia Working Group. The document estimates that there are approximately 71,000 people with dementia in Scotland, around 2,300 of whom are under the age of 65 [on a pro rata basis to population, this would equate roughly to 23,700 with dementia, 750 of whom under age 65, in the GCV area]. This figure is expected to double over the next 25 years. Prevalence of dementia increases with age, from approximately 1.5% of those aged 65 to 69, to 33% of those aged 90 and over. The majority of those with dementia (64%) live at home, while the remainder live in care homes; up to 70% of the care home population may have dementia. It is estimated that the NHS and local authorities in Scotland currently spend between £600m and £700m per annum on care and treatment associated with dementia. The equivalent of a further £1billion or more is contributed each year by carers. Care Home Provision 8.4.16 Table 8.4.2 details the number of care homes and registered places for older people in the GCV authorities at March 2009. In all authority areas the majority of places are in the private sector. The total number of places available has increased in six of the eight authority areas, between March 2000 and March 2009, most notably so in Inverclyde and North Lanarkshire. East Renfrewshire and Glasgow City have each experienced a decline in the number of places over the period – of 8% and 7% respectively.

Scottish Government Debate: Reshaping the future care of older people (2009) Policy paper by Age Scotland (page 4). 18 Scotland’s National Dementia Strategy (2010) Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.

102

TABLE 8.4.2

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE: HOMES AND PLACES by LOCAL AUTHORITY, MARCH 2009

Authority

Care Homes

Registered places by sector for adults aged 65+ LA / NHS

Private

Voluntary

Total – All Sectors

East Dunbartonshire

548

550

% change in places Mar 2000 – Mar 2009 7%

East Renfrewshire

310

152

496

– 8%

Glasgow City

672

3,305

424

4,401

– 7%

Inverclyde

653

257

913

38%

North Lanarkshire

265

1,932

2,197

31%

Renfrewshire

182

926

250

1,358

13%

South Lanarkshire

324

2,092

333

2,749

10%

West Dunbartonshire

190

405

605

GCV

259

1,670

10,171

1,428

13,269

Scotland

963

5,336

29,211

4,296

38,843

– 1%

Source: Care Homes, Scotland, 2009. Scottish Government National Statistics published 27 April 2010 based on SCHC1 [Scottish Care Home Census] Return March 2009 – Annex Tables 1, 2 and 3. Note: The number of care homes, and places in care homes, as registered with the Care Commission.

Future Requirements 8.4.14 Population and household projections for the GCV area reflect the wider national pattern of an ageing population. Over the projection period 2008-2025 there will be a sizeable increase in the number of older people households (i.e. with a household reference person aged 60+), though some variation may occur between local authority areas. 8.4.15 Most older people prefer to remain in their own home for as long as possible, with appropriate levels of support and care. This will be facilitated by future developments in telecare and assistive technologies and a requirement for mainstream housing in all tenures which is adaptable to changing needs. 8.4.16 A consequence of this change in approach to care provision is increasing demand for very sheltered or extra care housing, both in the private and social rented sectors, rather than conventional sheltered housing.

103

8.5

People with a Disability

Context 8.5.1 Disabled people19 make up approximately one fifth of Scotland’s population, up from 14% in 1991, yet often experience high levels of inequality compared to non-disabled people. For example, only about half of disabled people of working age (50%) are in work, compared with 80% of non-disabled people of working age. Employment rates vary greatly according to the type of impairment a person has – the lowest employment rate is among those with mental health problems (21%). Households containing at least one person with a disability are also more than twice as likely to live in social rented accommodation (28% compared to 11% of households with no disabled member). In contrast, 74% of households containing no member with a disability or long-term illness are in private ownership but only 54% of households with a disability or long term illness. People who have ever experienced homelessness are more likely to have a disability or long-term illness. Households with disabled members may also be more likely to experience financial exclusion and poverty, and require state benefits. 8.5.2 Table 8.5.1 estimates the number of households with one or more persons with a limiting long-term illness (LLTI) or disability, based on the Scottish Household Survey 2007-8. It is important to note that this uses a wider definition – including limiting long-term illness as well as disability (physical or mental impairment). The proportion of households containing a member with a LLTI or disability ranges from 26% to 42% [Scotland average 33%], and in the case of six authorities is lower than the proportion recorded at the 2001 Census. This variation could be due to demographic changes, variation in self-assessed circumstances, or sample size in the SHS. While this provides an order of magnitude of the number of households directly affected by LLTI or disability, it should not be considered a proxy for adaptation requirements. Interrogating the SHS source data further reveals that households comprised of older people are considerably more likely to contain someone with a long-standing health problem or disability. This is also the case for households with a net annual income below £15,000, explained in part by the lower income profile of older households. 8.5.3 The needs of disabled people and wheelchair users are being addressed either through adaptations to mainstream housing or in design of more accessible new housing. However this approach results in only a limited stock of suitable housing, restricting choice for these household groups. In addition, in both owner occupied housing and rented housing some adaptations may be removed when there is a change in occupier to households without disabilities. Independent living may be facilitated in various ways, including a mix of inclusive design, ‘telecare’ and assistive technology, and personal support services.

High Level Summary of Equality Statistics: Key Trends for Scotland (2006) Scottish Executive National Statistics Publication. Also: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Equality/disability (updated September 2009).

104

TABLE 8.5.1

LIMITING LONG-TERM ILLNESS [LLTI] or DISABILITY by LOCAL AUTHORITY AREA, 2007-2008

Authority

All Households [2008]

Households with one or more persons with a limiting long-term illness Number

Percentage

43,227

11,239

26%

Percentage at 2001 Census 33%

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City

35,988

10,077

28%

32%

284,533

105,277

37%

43%

Inverclyde

37,156

15,606

42%

40%

North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire

143,715

56,049

39%

43%

79,037

30,824

39%

38%

South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

138,354

48,424

35%

40%

42,699

15,372

36%

42%

GCV

804,709

292,868

36%

41%

Source: Scottish Household Survey 2007 and 2008

Client Groups 8.5.4 It was agreed that the HNDA would assess the accommodation needs of Disabled People at local authority summary level. The following paragraphs consider the housing related circumstances of three key client groups: people with physical disabilities, mental health problems, and learning disabilities.

Physical Disability and Sensory Impairment Background 8.5.5 In 2005 it was estimated that 96,000 people in Scotland were registered wheelchair users20 - including users living in communal establishments such as nursing homes, and a very broad spectrum of age groups and complexity of circumstances. This figure should be treated with some caution due to regional differences in identifying and recording ‘registered’ NHS service users. It may be an underestimate as an additional number of wheelchair users may obtain services from private or voluntary sector providers rather than the NHS.

Moving Forward: Review of NHS Wheelchair and Seating services in Scotland (Pub. 2006). NHS in Scotland.

105

8.5.6 In terms of sensory impairment, there were estimated to be 35,588 people registered as blind or partially sighted in 200921. Of these, the majority [56%] were blind and the remainder partially sighted. 62% were female, 75% were aged over 65, and 33% had additional disabilities. The Royal National Institute of Blind People [RNIB] considers that the true figure for those who are blind or partially sighted in Scotland is much higher at around 180,000. RNIB has recently warned that the number in Scotland could double by 2030 as a result of an aging population and growing risk factors such as Type 2 diabetes, and has called for a national prevention strategy22. The majority of people who are blind or partially sighted may be able to live in mainstream housing with appropriate adaptations and assistive technology. 8.5.7 The Royal National Institute for Deaf People [RNID] estimates that there are some 758,000 people who are deaf or hard of hearing in Scotland. Many will have undiagnosed hearing loss. There can be substantial waiting lists for NHS audiology services, and many may purchase hearing aids privately. Assistive technology is developing rapidly to meet the daily needs of hearing impaired people, such as telecommunications, alerting devices (such as door bells and smoke alarms) and broadcast media. Housing for People with Physical Disabilities 8.5.8 Local Authorities Schemes of Assistance details the support, including financial support, to help people with disabilities adapt their private sector home to meet their needs. Assistance, including mandatory grant provision, is set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 2006. Households in the social rented sector receive support from their landlords to provide equipment or adapt their home to meet the needs of disabled people in their household. 8.5.9 It is possible to make a rather crude estimate of the mismatch at national Scotland level between the number of wheelchair users and adapted housing provision in the social rented sector (see box below). There are no accurate and consistent numbers for wheelchair users at local authority level. As the GCV area has around one third of the Scottish population, a pro rata allocation of the mismatch would suggest around 7,000 – 12,600 social rented houses. This is of the same order of magnitude as figures collected in a survey in 2009 by Inclusion Scotland, a voluntary sector consortium of disability-led organisations and individual disabled people23. Five GCV authorities provided an estimate of unmet need of 6,835, based on the number of disabled people on the waiting list for designed or adapted housing [this excluded East Dunbartonshire, Glasgow City and Renfrewshire].

Registered Blind and Partially Sighted Persons, Scotland 2009. (2009) The Scottish Government National Statistics Publication. 22 www.rnib.org.uk press release 14 June 2010. 23 Homes for Life: FOI Research into accessible housing for disabled people in Scotland (June 2009). Paisley: Inclusion Scotland.

106

Estimated of wheelchair users compared to adapted housing, Scotland Scottish estimate of wheelchair users - if 46% in social rented accommodation - if 28% in social rented accommodation Social rented supply adapted for wheelchair use Mismatch

= 96,000 = 44,000 = 6,000 = 38,000

= 27,000 6,000 21,000

Notes: All figures rounded to nearest thousand Estimate of wheelchair users is at 2005, from Moving Forward (2006) NHS Proportion in social rented at 46% derived from Scottish Household Survey 2005 and 2006 and used in an answer in the Scottish Parliament by Stewart Maxwell, August 2007 (referred in www.inclusionscotland.org ). Proportion at 28% assumes similarity of wheelchair users to all disabilities and is also derived from Scottish Household Survey 2005 (Para. 7.5.1 above) The figure of 6,000 supply of adapted social rented houses is a 2009 figure derived from Housing Statistics for Scotland (see Table 7.5.2 below) This assumes each wheelchair user requires an adapted home; some, however, may be in care homes.

8.5.10 Table 8.5.2 below provides data on current social rented housing in the GCV area for people with physical disabilities. The possibility arises of differences in the interpretation of the criteria for housing adapted for people with physical disabilities, particularly in respect of the South Lanarkshire figures. The majority of housing for people with physical disabilities is suitable for ambulant disabled people, with fewer properties adapted for wheelchair use. This may be due to unsuitability of properties for conversion or higher costs involved.

107

TABLE 8.5.2 Authority

HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES by LOCAL AUTHORITY, MARCH 2009/ 2010 Adapted for wheelchair use

HA [2009] 3

Total

LA [2010] 388

HA [2009] 4

Total

661

Inverclyde

North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire

Other adapted

HA [2009] 7

Total

391

LA [2010] n.a.

889

566

118

133

n.a.

134

n.a.

207

229

546

103

649

461

South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

963

114

1,077

7,320

129

7,449

186

151

179

330

GCV

1,104

1,296

2,400

8,414

1,481

9,895

1,179

1,182

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City

LA [2010] 10

Ambulant disabled

Scotland 2,492 3,322 5,814 16,422 5,119 21,541 6,398 1,737 8,135 Sources: Housing Statistics for Scotland – Scottish Government. Local authority data based on S1B returns to the Scottish Government, Communities Analytical Services (Housing Statistics). Housing Association data provided by the Scottish Housing Regulator. n.a. not available * LA stock transferred to Glasgow Housing Association and River Clyde Homes [Inverclyde] The Table uses latest data available. 2010 data for Housing Associations not yet available. Housing adapted for wheelchair use – dwellings built or adapted to give extra floor area, whole house heating, and special bathroom, kitchen and other features. Ambulant disabled housing – dwellings for people with disabilities who are not confined to wheelchairs. It is built or adapted to general needs housing standards, but has a level or ramped approach, WC or bathroom at entrance level and other special features. Other specially adapted housing – dwellings with other adaptations, such as those with renal dialysis equipment.

8.5.11 Table 8.5.3 details Care Homes for adults with physical disabilities, by local authority area. Across the GCV area there are 13 care homes offering 239 places, spread across three authority areas. These may be provided by statutory or voluntary sector agencies, and cater for various disabilities. While the relatively high number of places in Glasgow City is understandable given the city’s population, the similar number of places in Inverclyde is perhaps more unexpected. This is likely to be accounted for, at least in part, by the various services offered at Quarrier’s Village for adults with disabilities such as sensory impairments and epilepsy.

108

TABLE 8.5.3

CARE HOMES FOR ADULTS WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES: HOMES AND PLACES by LOCAL AUTHORITY, MARCH 2009

Authority

Care Home Provision Care Homes

Registered Places

East Dunbartonshire

East Renfrewshire

Glasgow City

111

Inverclyde

106

North Lanarkshire

Renfrewshire

South Lanarkshire

West Dunbartonshire

GCV

239

Scotland

547

Source: Care Homes, Scotland, 2009. Scottish Government National Statistics published 27 April 2010 based on SCHC1 [Scottish Care Home Census] Return March 2009 – Annex Table 1. Note: The number of care homes, and places in care homes, as registered with the Care Commission.

Future Requirements 8.5.12 It is acknowledged that there is currently a shortfall in the GCV area in the availability of suitable housing, whether purpose designed or adapted, to meet the requirements of physically disabled people. It is likely that demand will increase in future.

Mental Health Problems Background 8.5.13 Mental Health continues to be a policy priority for Government and the NHS in Scotland. It is seen as an integral part of public health, and just as important as physical health to the overall wellbeing of individuals and communities. 8.5.14 The long-stay hospitals serving the GCV area such as Dykebar, Gartloch, Hartwood, Hawkhead, Lennox Castle, Leverndale and Woodilee have been gradually closed as new support services have been developed to meet residents’ needs.

109

8.5.15 Towards a Mentally Flourishing Scotland (2009)24 is the most recent statement of Government policy and action to improve mental health in Scotland. The approach is based on a social model of health, which recognises that our mental state is shaped by our social, economic, physical and cultural environment, including people’s personal strengths and vulnerabilities, their lifestyles and health-related behaviours, as well as various external socio-economic factors. Each person’s experience differs. The emphasis is inclusive and positive with an emphasis on mental wellbeing rather than on stigmatising mental illness. Housing and Mental Health 8.5.16 Following the closure of long-stay psychiatric hospitals, there has been a move to more diverse housing. The vast majority of those with mild mental health problems live in mainstream housing. Over 80% of people with severe and enduring mental health problems also live in mainstream housing25, with the rest living in supported housing or other specialist accommodation. Housing providers include local authorities, housing associations, voluntary organisations and health services. Many live in owner occupied housing. 8.5.17 Many people with mental health problems in acute psychiatric wards require suitable move-on accommodation, with appropriate arrangements for support. 8.5.18 People with mental health problems may also have housing problems and may be vulnerable to homelessness. 8.5.19 The majority of people with mental health problems live in mainstream accommodation, possibly with some form of support service to help them maintain their tenancy/home. 8.5.20 Table 8.5.4 details registered care homes and places for adults with mental health problems, by local authority, at March 2009. Across the GCV area there were some 30 registered care homes providing 419 places for adults with mental health problems. Over 70% of these places were in Glasgow City. There was no such provision in East Renfrewshire, North Lanarkshire or West Dunbartonshire. Such provision must meet 19 national care standards.26 It may include group accommodation with peer and professional support, and may be provided by local authorities, housing associations or voluntary sector agencies.

Towards a Mentally Flourishing Scotland: Policy and Action Plan 2009-2011 (2009). Scotland’s mental health improvement plan. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. 25 Mental Health and Social Exclusion (2004) Social Exclusion Unit Report, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 26 National Care Standards: Care Homes for People with Mental Health Problems. Revised March 2005. Edinburgh: Scottish Government [ www.carecommission.com ]

110

TABLE 8.5.4 CARE HOMES FOR ADULTS WITH MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS: HOMES AND PLACES by LOCAL AUTHORITY, MARCH 2009 Authority

Care Home Provision Care Homes

Registered Places

East Dunbartonshire

East Renfrewshire

Glasgow City

299

Inverclyde

North Lanarkshire

Renfrewshire

South Lanarkshire

West Dunbartonshire

GCV

419

Scotland 81 1,052 Source: Care Homes, Scotland, 2009. Scottish Government National Statistics published 27 April 2010 based on SCHC1 [Scottish Care Home Census] Return March 2009 – Annex Table 1. Note: The number of care homes, and places in care homes, as registered with the Care Commission.

8.5.21 The housing needs of many people experiencing mental health problems can be met in mainstream accommodation.

Learning Disabilities Background 8.5.22 The term learning disabilities covers a broad spectrum of individual circumstances, and people’s needs can change during their lifetime. The HNDA has adopted the following definition, based on work by the Mental Health Foundation and the review in 2000 of services in Scotland for people with Learning Disabilities, The Same as You? 27 : People with learning disabilities have a significant, lifelong condition that started before adulthood, that affected their development and which means they need help to: understand information, learn skills, and cope independently.

It is taken here to include people with autistic spectrum disorders. 8.5.23 Accommodation requirements for those with mild to moderate learning disabilities may be met within mainstream housing with support, supported tenancies or group accommodation, while those with more complex or multiple needs may require constant and highly intensive support and the facilities of a registered care home.

The Same As You? A Review of Services for People with Learning Disabilities (2000) Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Also: Learning Disabilities: The Fundamental Facts (1993) London: Mental Health Foundation.

111

8.5.24 Support for most people with learning disabilities is provided at home by relatives. This is often a lifelong commitment/responsibility: 25% of people with learning disabilities have a carer aged 65 or over 20% have two carers aged 70 or over, and 11% have one carer aged 70 or over28. 8.5.25 The Same as You? (2000) attempted to quantify how many people in Scotland have a learning disability, recognising that there may be some variation across the country:

20 people for every 1,000 have a mild or moderate learning disability, and 3 to 4 people for every 1,000 have a profound or multiple disability.

This would suggest a Scotland-wide figure of some 120,000 people who have a learning disability. 8.5.26 The review also identified evidence suggesting that the number of people with learning disabilities has been increasing by around 1.2% per year and may continue to do so. Further, more people with learning disabilities will live longer, so their needs will also change. For instance, older people with learning disabilities tend to have more mental health problems. 8.5.27 However, The Same as You? also estimated that only around 25% of people with learning disabilities are in regular contact with local authorities or the health service in Scotland – the rest are supported by their families at home with no requirement for specialist support. 8.5.28 Increasingly services are no longer focussed on buildings, whether in a hospital or Day Centre. People with learning disabilities are now living in the community, often with their own tenancy in a house or small group accommodation. The majority of people with learning disabilities can live in mainstream accommodation, with floating support and telecare. Additional support may be provided in ‘group living’ and ‘core and cluster’ models. For some, specialist design may be required to incorporate assistive technology. 8.5.29 Table 8.5.5 details adults with learning disabilities known to the GCV local authorities, and those living in their own tenancies or owner occupiers, at 2007. The figures for those living in their own tenancy or owner occupiers show variation from authority to authority. However, care should be taken not to read too much into these figures. A further examination of the source data for time series 2003 to 2007 indicates a gradual increase from 24% of those known to local authorities in 2003 to 33% at Scotland level, but considerable variation from year to year for a number of individual authorities.

The Same As You? A Review of Services for People with Learning Disabilities (2000) Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

112

TABLE 8.5.5 ADULTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES KNOWN TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES, and those living in their OWN TENANCY, 2007 Authority

Adults with Learning Disabilities known to Local Authorities

Adults with Learning Disabilities Living in Their Own Tenancy or Owner Occupiers

Males

Females

Total

Adults known per 1,000 population

Total

Estimate of adults as % those known to LA

218

172

390

4.6

180

46%

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City

223

197

420

5.9

148

35%

1,508

1,155

2,663

5.5

1,247

47%

Inverclyde

244

210

454

6.8

143

31%

North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire

738

629

1,367

5.3

433

32%

550

305

855

6.2

174

20%

South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

521

422

943

3.8

250

27%

264

196

460

6.2

163

35%

Scotland

13,049

9,826

22,875

5.5

7,497

33%

Source: ‘The Same as You?’ Annual Survey 2007, The Scottish Government. (Annex A and Annex I.) Notes: Adults known per 1,000 population: this is the number of adults with learning disabilities known to local authorities per 1,000 of the population aged 16 and above. The numbers of adults as a percentage of all adults known to a local authority are estimates as the figures may not have come from the same base of individuals.

8.5.30 Care Home provision for adults with learning disabilities, by local authority, at March 2009, is shown in Table 8.5.6. The voluntary sector is crucial in such provision. The same statistical source29 at March 2006 published a breakdown by sector indicating that, across the GCV area, 65% of registered places were in the voluntary sector, 18% in the private sector, and 17% in LA/NHS sector. Between 2006 and 2009 there has been a slight increase of 1 additional care home and 20 registered places in the GCV area, contrasting with a reduction in both care homes and places across Scotland as a whole in the same period. All such care homes must meet the 20 national care standards30 which are grouped according to a person’s journey through the service: Before moving In, Settling in, Day-to-day life, and Moving on. 29

SEHD Community Care Statistics – SCHC Return March 2006

National Care Standards: Care Homes for People with Learning Disabilities. Revised September 2005. Edinburgh: Scottish Government [ www.carecommission.com ]

113

What is also clear is the relatively small average size of most care homes – ranging from 4 places to around 14, with few exceptions. This reflects the shift in thinking to providing support in the community, in group housing or core and cluster models. TABLE 8.5.6 CARE HOMES FOR ADULTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES: HOMES AND PLACES by LOCAL AUTHORITY, MARCH 2009 Authority

Care Home Provision Care Homes

Registered Places

East Dunbartonshire

East Renfrewshire

Glasgow City

125

Inverclyde

North Lanarkshire

149

Renfrewshire

South Lanarkshire

117

West Dunbartonshire

GCV

578

Scotland

311

2,857

8.5.31 Predicting future requirements for specialised accommodation for adults with learning disabilities is not altogether straight forward. From the above analysis the following points can be made:

While there is likely to be a gradual increase in numbers of people with learning disabilities, the majority are likely still to be supported by their parents and other relatives in the family home. A significant but variable number of adults will be able to maintain their own tenancy, with appropriate levels of support services. The voluntary sector is likely to continue to have a key role in such support.

There is likely to be an increasing demand for support services of various kinds, including telecare and assistive technology in the home setting.

There are various models for the provision of more intensive support, some of which require specially designed accommodation. These models are continuing to evolve.

There is considerable variation in existing provision between authorities resulting from factors such as variation in numbers known to each authority, or local policy decisions relating to priorities and preferred models of support.

114

8.6

Minority Ethnic Households

Introduction 8.6.1 The HNDA provides an overview of the accommodation needs of Minority Ethnic households at local authority level. The Census sets out the minority ethnic categories used by the majority of local authorities for monitoring and analytical purposes. All local authorities have in place a Single Equality Scheme in which they set out their priorities relating to equalities including race. 8.6.2 Each local authority provided information on minority ethnic households in their area, using the 2001 Census as a key data source, augmented where available with data from local housing registers, and local research studies. 8.6.3 Between 1991 and 2001 the total population of Scotland increased by 1.3%, but the minority ethnic population increased much more rapidly – by 62.3%31. In 2001 it represented 2% of the total population of Scotland, 2.8% of the GCV population. A similar pattern of disparate growth may have happened since 2001, though the minority ethnic population will still account for a relatively small proportion of the total population. 8.6.4 The pattern of growth appears to have been uneven between different groups. For instance, a partnership of North and South Lanarkshire Councils, with Communities Scotland, commissioned ODS Consulting to assess the housing needs of minority ethnic households across the two Council areas32. The level of inter-censal change between 1991 and 2001 – reflecting both natural change and migration – was assessed across different minority ethnic groups, indicating very substantial change over the ten year period, together with variability between ethnic groups and between the authorities (see Table 8.6.1). TABLE 8.6.1

INTER-CENSAL CHANGE IN LANARKSHIRE, 1991 – 2001

Ethnic Group

North Lanarkshire % change 1991 – 2001

South Lanarkshire % change 1991 – 2001

White Irish Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese Other Asian Black Caribbean Black African Black Other Other

+ 20% + 45% + 76% -+ 37% + 40% + 71% + 52%

+ 44% + 77% + 45%

Sub Total

+ 32%

-- 24% + 61% -- 11% + 40% + 24% -- 25%

-- 40% -- 15%

+ 5%

31 31

+39%

Analysis of Ethnicity in the 2001 Census: Summary Report (2004). Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, Office of the Chief Statistician. Assessing the Housing Needs of Minority Ethnic Communities in Lanarkshire. (2006) ODS Consulting on behalf of South and North Lanarkshire Councils and Communities Scotland.

115

Source: Assessing the Housing Needs of Minority Ethnic Communities in Lanarkshire. (2006) ODS Consulting on behalf of South and North Lanarkshire Councils and Communities Scotland.

8.6.5 Glasgow City Council has recently assessed the change in the minority ethnic population between 2001 and 200833. The report concludes that the city’s minority ethnic population grew from 5.4% in 2001 to 8.1% in 2008, the largest percentage increase being in the African group (up 215%). 8.6.6 Various factors are likely to have contributed to this probable rapid growth in minority ethnic population since 2001, including the significant numbers of asylum seekers granted refugee status, and the accession of 10 new member states to the European Union, leading to new patterns of migration across the EU’s internal borders. Minority Ethnic Population and Households 8.6.7 Table 8.6.2 details the distribution of the minority ethnic population across the GCV authorities in 2001. The minority ethnic population accounts for around 2.9% of the total population. By far the largest component is of Pakistani and Other South Asian background. The minority ethnic population is not evenly distributed, ranging from under 1% in Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire to 3.1% in East Dunbartonshire, 3.9% in East Renfrewshire and 5.4% in Glasgow City. There is also some variation in the distribution by minority ethnic background. Glasgow has the largest minority ethnic population in Scotland, with almost a third (31%) of the total Scottish minority ethnic population living in the city; this is followed by Edinburgh (18%). 8.6.8 Table 8.6.3 details the distribution of minority ethnic households across the GCV authorities in 2001. The distribution is similar to population, but there are proportionately fewer minority ethnic households, implying larger household sizes.

33 Population by Ethnicity in Glasgow: Estimates of Changes 2001 – 2008 for Community Planning Partnership areas and Neighbourhoods. 14 September 2010. Glasgow City Council.

116

TABLE 8.6.2

MINORITY ETHNIC POPULATION 2001

Authority

Total Population No. [100%]

White

Indian

East Dunbartonshire

108,243 [100%]

104,893 [96.9%]

1,533 [1.4%]

East Renfrewshire

89,311 [100%]

85,875 [96.1%]

Glasgow City

577,869 [100%]

Inverclyde

Pakistani & Other South Asian 734 [0.7%]

[0.5%]

[0.8%]

1,935 [2.2%]

[0.4%]

[0.5%]

546,359 [94.5%]

4,173 [0.7%]

17,587 [3.0%]

3,876 [0.7%]

[1.0%]

84,203 [100%]

83,453 [99.1%]

[0.2%]

North Lanarkshire

321,067 [100%]

317,026 [98.7%]

[0.2%]

Renfrewshire

172,867 [100%]

170,728 [98.8%]

[0.3%]

South Lanarkshire

302,216 [100%]

298,812 [98.9%]

[0.2%]

West Dunbartonshire

93,378 [100%]

92,712 [99.3%]

[0.1%]

[0.2%]

GCV

1,749,154 [100%]

1,699,858 [97.2%]

8,191 [0.5%]

24,351 [1.4%]

6,788 [0.4%]

[0.6%]

5,062,011 [100%]

4,960,334 [98.0%]

15,037 [0.3%]

39,970 [0.8%]

16,310 [0.3%]

30,360 [0.6%]

Scotland

686

172

527

Source: 2001 Census. Table CAST07: Ethnic Group – People Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

117

571 [0.5%]

341

113

474

5,874

151 [0.2%]

1,988 [0.6%]

[0.2%]

314 [0.4%]

607

608

919 [0.3%]

440

[0.4%]

[0.3%]

1,162 [0.4%]

[0.2%]

103

Other Minority Ethnic Background

512

[0.1%]

461

536

Chinese

630 [0.4%]

718

224

988 [0.3%]

143

196

9,966

TABLE 8.6.3 Authority

MINORITY ETHNIC HOUSEHOLDS 2001

Total Households

Ethnic Group of Household Reference Person White

Indian

No. [100%]

Pakistani & Other South Asian 192 [0.5%]

Chinese

Other Minority Ethnic Background

East Dunbartonshire

42,206 [100%]

41,291 [97.8%]

[1.0%]

East Renfrewshire

34,950 [100%]

34,120 [97.6%]

[0.5%]

[1.2%]

[0.3%]

[0.4%]

Glasgow City

271,596 [100%]

261,877 [96.4%]

1,374 [0.5%]

4,664 [1.7%]

1,466 [0.5%]

[0.8%]

Inverclyde

36,691 [100%]

36,424 [99.3%]

[0.1%]

North Lanarkshire

132,619 [100%]

131,481 [99.1%]

[0.1%]

Renfrewshire

75,355 [100%]

74,728 [99.2%]

[0.2%]

South Lanarkshire

126,496 [100%]

125,497 [99.2%]

[0.1%]

West Dunbartonshire

40,781 [100%]

40,586 [99.5%]

[0.1%]

[0.2%]

GCV

760,694 [100%]

746,004 [98.1%]

2,551 [0.3%]

6,382 [0.8%]

2,343 [0.3%]

[0.4%]

2,192,246 [100%]

2,161,597 [98.6%]

4,935 [0.1%]

10,600 [0.5%]

5,400 [0.2%]

[0.4%]

Scotland

425

186

148 [0.4%]

427

52 [0.1%]

175

502

132

135

330

273 [0.2%]

[0.2%]

[0.3%]

108

188

164

174

2,215

[0.3%]

[0.1%]

[0.2%]

124

53 [0.1%]

[0.4%]

150 [0.4%]

196 [0.3%]

212 [0.2%]

283 [0.2%]

3,414

9,714

Source: 2001 Census. Table CAST08: Ethnic Group of Household Reference Person Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

8.6.9 It is important to recognise that minority ethnic groups are not evenly distributed geographically within authorities, but tend to cluster in certain areas where there are family and community networks, or other services which are culturally sensitive – for instance, shops, community facilities and places of worship. In addition, availability of appropriate and affordable housing is another important factor, as most minority ethnic groups tend to favour owner occupation or private rental (see section below on Tenure).

118

Household Composition 8.6.10 The Scotland level analysis34 of Occupancy Rating35 indicates that the White groups have the lowest proportion of households living below the occupancy rating standard (‘officially’ overcrowded), ranging from 7% to 15%; 22% of Indian households are below the rating standard; 24% of Chinese households; 29% to 31% of Pakistani and Other South Asian, and Caribbean, households are below the rating standard. 8.6.11 The same Scotland level analysis also considers Multiple Family Households. While only 1.1% of White Scottish people (and a similar proportion for other White groups) live in households which contain 2 families, 7.5% of Indian people and 12.7% of Pakistani people live in households which consist of two or more families. 2.3% of Pakistani people live in households comprising 3 or more families. In terms of single person households, 14.6% of White Scottish people, 20.3% of White Irish, 17.7% of Caribbean and only 3.3% of Pakistani people lived on their own in 2001. 8.6.12 Table 8.6.4 details those households in the GCV area, by ethnic group, where a household member has/does not have a Limiting Long Term Illness. The White groups have a higher rate of limiting long term illness than minority ethnic groups. However, this is likely to reflect the generally older age profiles of White groups – as the population ages, a higher proportion of people have long term illness or disability.

Analysis of Ethnicity in the 2001 Census: Summary Report (2004). Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, Office of the Chief Statistician. Chart 2.2, page 33. The Occupancy Rating is similar to the Bedroom Standard, and as calculated by GROS relates the actual number of rooms in a household to the number required by that household based on the age of the household members and the relationship between them. A positive occupancy rating means that there are more rooms than are ‘required’ by that household. A negative rating indicates fewer rooms than are ‘required’. A zero rating indicates the actual number of rooms to be the same as the number ‘required’. 35

119

TABLE 8.6.4 HOUSEHOLDS INCLUDING A PERSON WITH A LIMITING LONG TERM ILLNESS [LLTI], BY MINORITY ETHNIC GROUP, 2001 LA Area

Total Households

Minority Ethnic Group [Number and percentage of total households in ethnic group] White

LLTI 13920

NO LLTI 28286

33% 11269

LLTI 13633

NO LLTI 27658

23681

33% 10978

32% 118078

153518

43% 14807

Indian

LLTI

Pakistani & Other S Asian LLTI NO LLTI 73 119

Chinese

LLTI 35

NO LLTI 113

Other M E Background LLTI NO LLTI 27 123

152

NO LLTI 273

23142

36% 59

127

38% 184

243

24% 23

18% 25

32% 114716

147161

32% 489

885

43% 1978

2686

25% 341

1125

20% 554

1661

21884

44% 14744

21680

42% 20

25% 30

40% 57035

75584

40% 56623

74858

13% 54

121

38% 209

293

11% 42

146

28% 107

166

43% 28324

47031

43% 28134

46594

31% 45

42% 60

104

22% 24

111

39% 61

135

38% 50258

76238

38% 49927

75570

34% 61

113

37% 147

183

18% 42

170

31% 81

202

40% 16957

23824

40% 16889

23697

35% 11

45% 22

20% 20

29% 15

42% 310648

450046

42% 305644

440360

35% 878

1673

43% 2693

3689

42% 533

1810

23% 900

2514

EDC

ERC

GCC 36%

23%

NLC

SLC

WDC

GCV 41% 41% Source: 2001 Census, Table CAST08

34%

42%

23%

26%

Tenure 8.6.13 Table 8.6.5 examines the tenure patterns of minority ethnic groups, based on 2001 Census data. This reveals the following broad patterns:

The majority of the Indian group in all GCV authority areas are owners, followed in seven areas by private rental. The figures for Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire are very small and percentages should be treated with caution.

The majority of the Pakistani & Other South Asian group are also owners, followed by private rental. As with the Indian group, there is some movement into social rented tenure – mainly from a Council rather than a housing association.

The majority of Chinese are owners followed by private rental.

The Other group is diverse and is more evenly spread across tenures, with above average representation in private rental.

Across all ethnic groups, East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire have high levels of ownership, reflecting relative affluence of these areas.

120

TABLE 8.6.5 Ethnic Group

TENURE OF MINORITY ETHNIC HOUSEHOLDS, 2001

Tenure [% within Ethnic group] Owned

White Council OtherSR PRS

Authority EDC

ERC

GCC

NLC

SLC

WDC

GCV

33354 81% 5661 14% 706 2% 1570 4%

28408 83% 3570 10% 727 2% 1415 4%

126779 48% 68972 26% 35463 14% 30663 12%

21991 60% 9276 25% 2558 7% 2599 7%

76376 58% 42187 32% 5409 4% 7509 6%

48580 65% 16148 22% 4527 6% 5473 7%

84325 67% 30007 24% 3512 3% 7653 6%

21727 54% 11969 29% 4381 11% 2509 6%

441540 59% 187790 25% 57283 8% 59391 8%

1846 72% 152 6% 111 4% 442 17%

Owned Indian

397 93%

Council

167 90%

7 2%

OtherSR

6 3%

Owned

170 10

4 1%

PRS

12 6%

Owned Chinese

383

40 9%

136 92%

Council

1% OtherSR

PRS

Owned

PRS

2 1%

32 24%

4 8%

14 7%

30%

19%

20%

21%

18%

34171 81% 5691 13% 711 2% 1633 4%

29143 83% 3585 10% 729 2% 1493 4%

131828 49% 70197 26% 36304 13% 33267 12%

22134 60% 9317 25% 2574 7% 2666 7%

77154 58% 42354 32% 5444 4% 7667 6%

49012 65% 16201 21% 4552 6% 5590 7%

85083 67% 30109 24% 3526 3% 7778 6%

21847 54% 12010 29% 4393 11% 2531 6%

450372 59% 189464 25% 58233 8% 62625 8%

20 19%

244 11%

47% 79

816

49%

29%

4 8%

37%

521 24%

1% 24

44%

127

5 10%

58%

22%

165 52

38%

18%

1577 67% 248 11% 101 4% 417 18%

14%

PRS

29%

OtherSR

17 9%

2 2%

35 73%

16%

634

9 17%

184 87% 6%

4 8%

4099 64% 520 8% 440 7% 1323 21%

1310 38% 754 22% 298 9% 1052 31%

OtherSR

Council

324

101

101 75%

3 6%

12%

10%

22%

81%

Owned

114

152 81%

76% Council

All H’holds

1 1%

Other

206 14%

7 14%

16%

37 73%

61 12%

254

2 6%

77% 6

68%

126

25%

12 7%

76% 55

849 58%

374

11%

6 19%

19 14%

75% 15

7 4%

29%

74%

16%

38%

155 89%

3% 7

13 24%

2735 59% 392 8% 410 9% 1127 24%

84 90%

15 9%

337

108 82%

25%

90%

5% OtherSR

1 2%

100

13 7%

89% Council

106

125 71%

4% Pakistani & Other South Asian

40 74%

1% PRS

831 60%

23 35%

7 2%

5 8%

Source: 2001 Census, Table CAST08 Percentages rounded to nearest integer; totals may not sum due to rounding. For some ethnic groups the numbers are very small and the % figure may be misleading and should be treated with caution. The figures relate to the 2001 Census, prior to large scale transfer of Council housing stock in Glasgow City and Inverclyde to RSLs.

121

Issues raised by voluntary sector agencies 8.6.14 As part of our consultation process, we engaged with a number of organisations who advocate on behalf of minority ethnic people. During this process, a number of issues were highlighted:

There are different needs between the traditional minority ethnic communities and more recent migrants from Eastern Europe and Africa with different economic and housing circumstances.

Similar to the White Scottish population, there are affordability issues for many minority ethnic households. Some in older tenemental property may be unable to afford the high costs of necessary repairs and refurbishment, without some form of assistance.

More good quality affordable housing is required of suitable size for larger minority ethnic households.

There is an increasing demand for accommodation for older people in the traditional minority ethnic groups, particularly sheltered housing. There may be difficulties for some communities (particularly Pakistani and south Asian) in moving to sheltered accommodation because of the move away from the traditional multi generational family support network. However, this does not appear to be as problematic for the Chinese community.

Future Requirements 8.6.15 Although the majority of minority ethnic households live in the private sector, and are likely to continue to do so, there is evidence of increasing need for access to social rented housing. There is an increasing demand for good quality, affordable housing in areas where people from minority ethnic communities feel safe, whether this is in the private or social sector. 8.6.16 A number of minority ethnic households in the private rented sector experience problems relating to overcrowding and condition of property, and these issues need to be addressed. 8.6.17 There is also likely to be increasing need for support services for older minority ethnic households, including sheltered provision which can meet cultural requirements.

122

8.7

Asylum Seekers and Refugees

8.7.1 Glasgow City is currently the only local authority in Scotland contracted by the Home Office to provide accommodation for Asylum Seekers. However, other asylum seekers live with friends or relatives within the other GCV authority areas. At August 200636 there were over 5,000 asylum seekers in Scotland, the vast majority in Glasgow City; only 82 were living with friends or relatives, dispersed across ten other authority areas. 8.7.2 Research in 200537 noted that asylum seekers tended to be relatively young and well educated, and that 88% aspired to remain in Scotland. 8.7.3 Research in 200638 on public attitudes to asylum seekers and refugees, found a greater tolerance in Scotland than in England, at least to the principle of asylum, but also identified considerable hostility and prejudice. This tended to revolve around a perceived threat to jobs, and impact on public services, particularly housing. On being granted ‘leave to remain’, an asylum seeker has the same housing and social security entitlements as a UK citizen. 8.7.4 According to the Home Office39, at the end of June 2010 there were 2,205 Asylum Seekers supported in accommodation in Glasgow, excluding unaccompanied asylum seeking children and those in initial accommodation. This number is less than the Council estimate of around 5,000 asylum seekers living in the city, possibly accounted for by increasing numbers living with friends and relatives. In the initial years of the active dispersal programme, Glasgow mainly received families, which was appropriate to the accommodation facilities and support services available, such as local schools; this also helped to support communities. More asylum seekers are now making their own way to Glasgow to be near family and communities, making it a more organic process based on informal networks. Fewer families and more single people are now seeking asylum in Glasgow, and this brings a different profile of needs. There are around 100 unaccompanied asylum seekers (under 18) coming to Glasgow each year. 8.7.5 When asylum seekers gain refugee status, on average around 70% of families stay in Glasgow, where they will have built up social networks. For single people, the movement patterns are quite different with around a third moving away, a third remaining in Glasgow, and a third losing contact with services. 8.7.6 When asylum seekers have a positive decision, the process is for them to present as homeless if they wish to remain in Glasgow. If they live in a Glasgow Housing Association (GHA) property, in normal circumstances they can stay there, with GHA providing an alternative property to the Home Office. This allows people to remain in the communities they know. However, some overcrowding has been reported, due to natural expansion of families, or other contributory factors.

COSLA Strategic Migration Partnership. www.asylumscotland.org.uk/asylumstatistics The Impact of Asylum Seekers on the Glasgow Economy. A Report to COSLA Refugees and Asylum Seekers Consortium (2005). University of Strathclyde: Fraser of Allander Institute for Research on the Scottish Economy. 38 Lewis, Miranda (2006) Warm Welcome? Understanding Public Attitudes to Asylum Seekers in Scotland. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. 39 Control of Immigration: Quarterly Statistical Summary, 26 August 2010. The Home Office. 37

123

8.7.7 Until recently, there were many ‘legacy’ cases in Glasgow, where asylum seekers had been waiting for 7 years or more for a decision on their application. Case Resolution by the UK Border Agency resulted in over 700 households being given status in 2009. The ‘New Asylum Model’ means that in future such cases should be dealt with more quickly. 8.7.8 Recent research40 has highlighted difficulties experienced by newly recognised refugees in gaining access to appropriate housing in Glasgow, due to various factors, including:

A shortage of permanent accommodation in areas perceived by them to be safe; and lack of appropriately sized accommodation for larger refugee families.

Fear and actual experience of racial harassment.

An ongoing need for impartial specialist services to help refugees navigate the housing system, particularly in the transition from asylum seeker to refugee status. More clarity is required in the roles and responsibilities of the various statutory and voluntary sector agencies involved in supporting refugees.

8.7.9 The report recognised policy and process changes which will impact on refugees. It also noted that many issues raised – including debt, rent charges, satisfaction with landlords and the location of housing – are experienced by many people in Glasgow, but are compounded by the specific circumstances of refugees and their increased potential vulnerability to homelessness. 8.7.10 About two-thirds of those interviewed for the research were ‘very likely’ to continue to remain in Glasgow, offering many positive reasons and an appreciation of the city and its people, despite difficulties experienced in relation to their housing. 8.7.11 The UK Border Agency Immigration Removal Centre for Scotland is located in South Lanarkshire at Dungavel House. It was opened as an IRC in 2001 and has 190 bed spaces and a range of other services. As at 30 June 2010 there were 200 adults in detention at Dungavel solely under Immigration Act powers; 115 of these had sought asylum at some stage41. Voluntary Sector Perspective 8.7.12 Various voluntary sector agencies are involved in offering information, advice and support to asylum seekers and refugees. At January 2010, Positive Action in Housing (PAiH) was dealing with 444 such households. These included: 168 cases (38%) waiting for two apartment housing 230 families (52%) waiting for 3 or 4 apartment housing 46 families (10%) waiting for 5, 6 or 7 apartment housing. Most of this caseload snapshot relates to households waiting for social rented accommodation in Glasgow and surrounding areas. Households would either be in temporary accommodation, or in unsuitable or overcrowded permanent accommodation, awaiting permanent housing which meets their needs. Based on their caseload, PAiH highlighted the shortage of affordable, larger sized houses.

Netto, Gina and Fraser, Anne (2009) Navigating the Maze: Refugee Routes to Housing, Support and Settlement in Scotland. Heriot Watt Unibversity. Research commissioned by Scottish Refugee Council and Access Apna Ghar Housing Association Ltd. 41 Control of Immigration: Quarterly Statistical Summary, 26 August 2010. The Home Office.

124

Future Implications 8.7.13 As numbers of asylum seekers and refugees increase, it is likely that the majority will remain in Glasgow City; however, it is also possible that households may migrate to neighbouring authorities .

125

8.8

Migrant Workers from the European Union

8.8.1 EU nationals are allowed to come to the UK to work without having to apply for a visa, with a reciprocal arrangement in place for UK citizens to work in Europe. The Scottish Government has sought to attract bright, hard-working and motivated people to live, study and work in Scotland, helping to address the demographic challenge of an ageing population. 8.8.2 In 2004, ten countries joined the EU: Cyprus and Malta together with eight Eastern European states (the A8 accession states) – Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. While allowing A8 nationals the right to live and work in the UK, transitional measures were put in place by the Government to regulate access to the labour market (the Worker Registration Scheme, or WRS) and to restrict access to benefits (the notion of ‘no recourse to public funds’). Between May 2004 and March 2007, around 45,000 migrants from the A8 countries registered to work in Scotland – the majority of these from Poland42. No restrictions were placed on workers from Cyprus and Malta. 8.8.3 In 2007 a further two countries acceded to the EU (A2 accession states) – Bulgaria and Romania. Tighter regulations currently apply to nationals of these countries who wish to work in the UK. GCV Area 8.8.4 It is possible to estimate the number and changing pattern of migrant workers using data published by the UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on National Insurance Number (NINo) Registrations to adult overseas nationals entering the UK. However, this needs to be treated with some caution, since it does not record individuals who may have subsequently moved out of the area, elsewhere in the UK, or back abroad. A number of GCV authorities have commissioned local studies which provide more local detail, including Glasgow City (and Glasgow Housing Association separately), and a joint project commissioned by North and South Lanarkshire Councils. 8.8.5 Table 8.8.1 indicates the changing numbers of NINo registrations to adult overseas nationals between 2002/03 and 2009/10. There was an increase across most local authorities from 2005/06, with numbers reducing a couple of years later. Glasgow City recorded the largest numbers – peaking at 10,400 in 2007/08 – while a number of other authorities saw similar percentage growth. The most limited change was in Inverclyde.

www.careers-scotland.org.uk

126

TABLE 8.8.1

NINo REGISTRATIONS TO ADULT OVERSEAS NATIONALS ENTERING THE UK, 2002/03 – 2009/10

Authority

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

E Dunbartonshire E Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde N Lanarkshire Renfrewshire S Lanarkshire W Dunbartonshire

100 90 3060 190 280 240 320 90

110 80 2890 160 250 240 310 90

130 100 3930 250 340 290 400 90

170 120 6670 310 810 710 770 160

310 280 9200 250 1530 1120 1090 280

200 140 10400 280 1450 1050 860 220

160 110 8560 220 990 690 680 150

130 100 6770 140 530 500 400 140

GCV

4370

4130

5530

9720

14060

14600

11560

8710

Source: DWP NINo Registrations database. Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not sum due to rounding method used.

8.8.6 This may be broken down by World Area of Origin, as shown below in Table 8.8.2 for NINo Registrations to Adult Overseas Nationals in 2009/10. What is interesting is that, particularly for Glasgow City, there are substantial numbers from Asia and the Middle East, and Africa. These numbers are likely to include refugees and family reunions. EU Accession States nevertheless remain the single largest source of migrant workers for North and South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and West Dunbartonshire. The GCV area accounted for around 24% of the Scottish total of NINo registrations to adult overseas nationals (36,330) in 2009-10. TABLE 8.8.2 Authority

NINo REGISTRATIONS TO ADULT OVERSEAS NATIONALS by WORLD AREA OF ORIGIN, 2009-10 Total

World Area of Origin EU

EU Accession States

Other European

Africa

Asia & Middle East

The Americas

Australasia & Oceania

Unknown

E Dunbartonshire E Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde N Lanarkshire Renfrewshire S Lanarkshire W Dunbartonshire

130 100 6770 140 530 500 400 140

30 10 820 80 30 50 50 20

30 30 1570 20 320 200 180 50

110 10 10 10 10 -

10 1050 30 60 20 20

30 40 2860 20 100 150 100 40

10 10 240 20 10 20 -

10 10 110 10 20 20 -

20 -

GCV

8710

1090

2400

150

1190

3340

310

180

Source: DWP NINo Registrations database. Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not sum due to rounding method used.

127

8.8.7 Table 8.8.3 below provides an indication of the cumulative impact on GCV authorities of EU enlargement, by examining NINo registrations to nationals of the twelve EU Accession State over the period from January 2002 to March 2010. Some 64% of the GCV total of 26,910 are recorded in Glasgow City, followed by North Lanarkshire (15%), South Lanarkshire (8%) and Renfrewshire (8%). The remaining four authorities have around 1% of the GCV total each. Only Glasgow City has representation from all twelve states. While the Czech and Slovak Republics have significant numbers, by far the majority across all eight GCV authorities come from Poland; indeed all eight authorities have more workers from Poland than from all the other states combined. TABLE 8.8.3

Authority

Total [EU Access. States Natls.]

NINo REGISTRATIONS TO NATIONALS OF EU ACCESSION STATES, CUMULATIVE TOTAL 2002-2010 EU Accession States Rep of Estonia

Czech Rep.

Slovak Rep.

Hung.

Rep of Latvia

Rep of Lith.

Poland

Rep of Slovenia

Malta

Cyprus

Bulg.

Rom.

320

240

260

190

17100

1110

2230

280

480

640

11680

110

370

300

170

North Lanark. Renfrew.

3950

120

140

210

100

3250

2240

1920

South Lanark. West Dunbarton.

2270

220

160

150

1310

470

330

GCV

26910

360

1420

2820

730

770

880

19090

110

180

520

East Dunbarton. East Renfrew. Glasgow City Inverclyde

Source: DWP NINo Registrations database. Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not sum due to rounding method used.

8.8.8 According to Careers Scotland43, A8 migrants, compared to the Scottish working age population, tend to be:

Younger Disproportionately male Less likely to have dependents Much less likely to be on benefits More likely to be working full-time More likely to be in low-paid, low-skilled work.

Many A8 migrants are paid at or marginally above the National Minimum Wage.

Key Messages – Migrants from the A8 Countries. www.careers-scotland.org.uk

128

8.8.9 Research at UK level by Joseph Rowntree Foundation44 found that some migrants lived in overcrowded and poor quality housing yet most expressed satisfaction with their accommodation relative to their expectations. 8.8.10 A8 migrants are housed largely in private rented accommodation, due mainly to relatively easy access to such accommodation and more limited access to alternatives. New migrants stay initially with friends or relatives before moving into their own private rented housing. This is easier for single person or couple households but many migrant households with children are now relying on the social rented sector for accommodation, often through the homelessness route. 8.8.11 As yet, few migrants have entered the owner occupied housing market, possibly due to their low incomes. However, as migrants become more established and enter higher-paid employment, their choices will become greater in terms of tenure and location. 8.8.12 Discussions were held with relevant agencies involved with issues affecting migrant workers: Positive Action in Housing (PAiH), the West of Scotland Regional Equality Council and Govanhill Housing Association. Key points from these groups were:

Many migrants would prefer to be housed in social rented accommodation, but there is limited availability, especially of suitably sized property to accommodate the larger family sizes of various minority ethnic groups

Some migrant workers expressed interest in accessing low cost home ownership if mechanisms, such as shared equity were available to them.

Unlawful eviction and even destitution have arisen for some migrants

Future Implications 8.8.13 Migrant workers are largely housed in the private rented sector, some with the assistance of employers. While there appears to be little evidence of shortage, accommodation is of poor quality and that some migrants are living in unsatisfactory or overcrowded conditions. There is likely to be increased pressure on local authorities in relation to inspection and enforcement action to improve standards. 8.8.14 The transition arrangements for A8 and A2 nationals are due to end in 2011 and 2014 respectively. The implications are not clear but could include further demand for social housing and recourse to homelessness services and benefits in the event of unemployment.

Anderson, Bridget, Ruhs, Martin, Rogaly, Ben and Spences, Sarah (2006) Fair Enough? Central and East European migrants in low-wage employment in the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

129

8.9

Students

8.9.1 The GCV area is served by a wide range of further and higher education institutions, concentrated within Glasgow City. The sector has enjoyed substantial growth over the past decade as Scottish Government policy has sought both to increase participation rates, underpinning the knowledge economy, and to attract growing numbers of EU and other overseas students. For example, Glasgow City Council estimates that the city’s student population grew from around 77,000 in 1999 to 85,000 in 2006, studying at five university level institutions and eleven colleges (prior to the very recent merger of a number of FE colleges). 8.9.2 Many new undergraduate students secure accommodation in a hall of residence, whilst returning students share privately rented accommodation, creating a strong market segment, particularly in parts of Glasgow City. The private rented sector has traditionally offered choice and a flexible response to demand. More recently specialist student housing companies have entered the market and have absorbed some of the rapid growth in student numbers. 8.9.3 Changes in legislation in the past decade have started to drive up standards in the private rented sector, particularly when the mandatory licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) by local authorities was introduced in October 200045 . 8.9.4 Compulsory Landlord Registration was introduced in April 200646 to improve standards in the private rented sector, remove poor landlords from the market, and give tenants improved safeguards. 8.9.5 As a result of the recent growth in student numbers and demand for convenient, affordable and safe accommodation, several new purpose-designed residences have been built in and around Glasgow city centre. 8.9.6

Glasgow City accounts for 90% of student accommodation, concentrated across the city’s west end and the city centre/ inner east end, serving the city’s three universities and specialist higher education institutions. Specialist private companies provide around 29% of the city’s student residences. Provision is also located in Renfrewshire, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire to serve the local universities and further education colleges. .

Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000, as amended Under Part 8 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 [an HMO is defined as a house or flat where three or more people, not part of the same family, live as their only or main home, and share cooking, washing or toilet facilities] 46

130

8.10

Homeless People

Policy Framework47 8.10.1 Local Authorities have statutory duties towards homeless households as set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Section 25 of the Act, as amended, defines the categories of household regarded as having a priority need for accommodation, and further details may be found in the Code of Guidance on Homelessness48. 8.10.2 The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 requires local authorities to provide a minimum of temporary accommodation, advice and assistance to all applicants assessed as homeless, regardless of whether they have been assessed as being in priority need. 8.10.3 The main focus of the Homelessness Etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 is that any household assessed as being unintentionally homeless is entitled to settled accommodation by 2012. Section 11 of the 2003 Act is focussed on the prevention of homelessness by alerting local authorities when eviction or repossession proceedings have been raised against a household. This enables the local authority to provide direct assistance to the household to prevent homelessness occurring. . The Patterns of Homelessness 8.10.4 The best guide to the number of homeless people in Scotland is the number of applications made to local authorities by people presenting as homeless. Every time a household presents as homeless, the local authority is required to complete an ‘HL1 form’ which is submitted to the Scottish Government. Across Scotland, there has been a steady rise in homeless applications in the years to 2005/ 2006, with a levelling off or gradual decline since then. The GCV authorities have tended to mirror this pattern, with the exception of South Lanarkshire which has seen an increase in homeless applications since 2005/ 2006. 8.10.5 Some households do not present as homeless, for a variety of reasons. Such hidden homelessness is difficult to quantify and may result in under-estimation of the scale of homelessness. 8.10.6 Table 8.10.1, provides a summary of the pattern of homelessness in the GCV area for the financial year 2009/ 2010.

The paragraphs on Policy Framework are drawn from the Summary of Homelessness Legislation, page 55, in: The Scottish Government, August 2010, Operation of the Homeless Persons Legislation in Scotland: 2009-10. A National Statistics Publication for Scotland. 48 Code of Guidance on Homelessness. Guidance on legislation, policies and practices to prevent and resolve homelessness. 2005. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

131

TABLE 8.10.1 Authority

HOMELESSNESS STATISTICS, GCV AREA, 2009-10 All homeless applications

Assessed as homeless

Assessed as homeless & in Priority Need

Repeat applications No.

% of all assessed as homeless

343 217 7,282 354 1,841 963 2,059 1,207

% of all assessed as homeles s 79 83 90 94 81 96 86 98

6 18 456 40 124 84 155 84

1 7 6 11 6 8 7 7

14,266

967

No.

% of all h’hold s [2008]

No.

% of all homeless applic’ns

No.

E. Dunbartonshire E. Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde N. Lanarkshire Renfrewshire S. Lanarkshire W. Dunbartonshire

666 353 10,640 576 2,975 1,236 3,054 2,061

2 1 4 2 2 2 2 5

434 263 8,077 376 2,264 1,008 2,398 1,236

65 75 76 65 76 82 79 60

GCV

21,561

16,056

Source: The Scottish Government, August 2010, Homelessness Statistics: Annual Reference Tables: 2009-10. ‘Assessed as homeless’ contains all cases with an assessment date within the financial year 2009-10 and an assessment decision of homeless; this includes Homeless – priority unintentional, Homeless – priority intentional, Homeless – nonpriority, Threatened with homelessness – priority unintentional, Threatened with homelessness – priority intentional and Threatened with homelessness – non-priority. ‘Assessed as homeless & in priority need’ contains all cases with an assessment date within the financial year 2009-10 and an assessment decision of homeless and in priority need; this includes Homeless – priority unintentional, Homeless – priority intentional, Threatened with homelessness – priority unintentional, and Threatened with homelessness – priority intentional. ‘Repeat Applications’ refers to applications reassessed as homeless within a year of closure of a previous application. Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

8.10.7 There is some variation between the GCV authorities in terms of the proportion of households assessed as homeless in terms of the legislation, ranging from 60% in West Dunbartonshire to 82% in Renfrewshire. There is also a range in terms of the proportion of households assessed as homeless that are deemed to be in priority need – ranging from 79% in East Dunbartonshire to 98% in West Dunbartonshire. Finally, there is significant variation between the eight authorities in relation to repeat applications from households previously assessed as being homeless, with East Dunbartonshire accounting for 1% compared to Inverclyde with 11%. 8.10.8 Table 8.10.2 provides a breakdown of the composition of households applying as homeless in 2009-10. Although there is some variation between authorities, some clear patterns emerge. Across the GCV area, over half of all applicants are single people (62%), Single men account for 41% of all applications, single women 21% and single parent households 26%. The ‘other’ category comprises couples with or without children (11%).

132

TABLE 8.10.2

HOMELESS APPLICATIONS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2009-10

Authority Single Person

E. Dunbartonshire E. Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde N. Lanarkshire Renfrewshire S. Lanarkshire W. Dunbartonshire GCV

All applic’ns

Household Type

Male No. % 35 231

Other

Single Parent

Female No. % 24 160

Male No. % 6 38

Female No. % 21 140

No. 97

% 15

No. 666

% 100

151 4,932 306 983 653 937 741

43 46 53 33 53 31 36

75 2,124 138 557 286 628 524

21 20 24 19 23 21 25

5 421 9 369 76 376 208

1 4 2 12 6 12 10

80 1,859 82 636 147 666 399

23 17 14 21 12 22 19

42 1,304 41 430 74 447 189

12 13 7 14 5 15 8

353 10,640 576 2,975 1,236 3,054 2,061

100 100 100 100 100 100 100

8,934

4,492

1,502

4,009

2,624

21,561

100

Source: The Scottish Government, August 2010, Homelessness Statistics: Annual Reference Tables: 2009-10. Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

Prevention of Homelessness 8.10.9 The Scottish Government has been increasing the emphasis on prevention in line with the wider commitment to promote social inclusion. Of key importance is the requirement in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 for local authorities to develop Homelessness Strategies to set out plans for ‘preventing and alleviating homelessness’ in the local authority’s area. 8.10.10 Understanding the causes of homelessness may help to assist in prevention activity, although a number of factors are related to wider socio-economic issues. The main reasons for applying for assistance in 2009-10 are shown in Table 8.10.3 below. Clearly relationship breakdown of one form or another is mainly responsible for homelessness applications. By contrast, rent arrears or mortgage default accounted for only 5% of homelessness applications in 2009-10 (average across the GCV area).

133

TABLE 8.10.3

MAIN REASON FOR APPLYING FOR ASSISTANCE, 2009-10 [%] Asked to leave

Relationship Breakdown/ dispute Within the household

Termination of tenancy/ mortgage due to arrears; action by landlord; loss of tied accommod’n; applicant terminating secure accomm.

Discharge from prison/ hospital/ care/ other institution

E.Dunbartonshire

E.Renfrewshire

Glasgow City Inverclyde N.Lanarkshire Renfrewshire S.Lanarkshire W.Dunbartonshire

27 40 28 28 39 38

GCV

Authority

Other

Total

[incl. emergency, harassment, overcrowding, fleeing nondomestic violence, and all other reasons]

100%

100

19 21 28 34 26 27

12 12 12 14 16 9

8 6 3 8 4 5

35 23 28 16 17 20

100 100 100 100 100 100

100

Source: The Scottish Government, August 2010, Homelessness Statistics: Annual Reference Tables: 2009-10. Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

8.10.11 A variety of prevention activities were undertaken for those applicants assessed as ‘threatened with homelessness’ or ‘not homeless’, during 2009-10, in all eight GCV authorities. This activity is detailed in Tables 8.10.4 and 8.10.5 below. There is a wide variation in the nature and intensity of prevention activity undertaken across the GCV authorities, which, in part, reflects the circumstances of presenting households, and in part local policy and practice decisions. At GCV level, for example, the most common prevention activities are ’assessment of support needs’, ‘assistance in finding alternative accommodation’, and ’provision of independent financial, legal or housing advice’.

134

TABLE 8.10.4 Authority

E. Dunbarton. E. Renfrew. Glasgow City Inverclyde N. Lanark. Renfrew. S. Lanark. W. Dunbarton.

All cases assessed as threatened homeless, or not homeless, and closed in period 2009-10 322 [100] 93 [100] 1,004 [100] 62 [100] 309 [100] 70 [100] 836 [100] 68 [100]

TYPES OF PREVENTION ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN, 2009-10

Types of Prevention Activity undertaken for those Threatened with Homelessness or Not Homeless [Applications closed in 2009-10] 1 Assessmnt of support needs

9 [3] 24 [26] 154 [15] 10 [16] 100 [32] 5 [7] 131 [16] 8 [12]

2 Basic housing support (e.g. to manage finances or living alone) 4 [1] 1 [1] 41 [4] 5 [8] 20 [6] 4 [6] 64 [8] 5 [7]

3 Provision of independent financial, legal or housing advice

4 Assistance in dealing with landlords/ mortgage providers

5 Assistance in claiming benefits

6 Assistance in maintaining or finding employment, education or training

7 Direct financial assistance

8 Use of rent deposit/ guarantee scheme

9 Assistance with costs of ‘essential goods’

10 Assistance with any addictions

11 Involvement of Social Work or Health/ Community Care services

12 Other services: Counselling, Mediation, Befriending or Mentoring

13 Assistance in finding alternative accomodn

[24] 5

[5] 21

[5] 139

[23]

[14]

[2]

[1]

[0]

[7] 13

[0]

[6]

[4]

[4] 0

[4] 0 [1]

[0]

[4]

[6]

[4]

[4] 0

[1]

[0]

[1]

[4]

[5]

[5] 7

[4]

GCV

2,764 441 144 304 183 89 5 39 210 42 65 81 101 [100] [16] [5] [11] [7] [3] [0] [1] [8] [2] [2] [3] [4] Source: Scottish Government, National Statistics Publication for Scotland. Operation of the Homeless Persons Legislation in Scotland: National and Local Authority Analyses 2009-10. Detailed Tables [Table 30]. Figures in [ ] brackets are percentages, which have been rounded to nearest integer. The percentage figures do not add to 100, as most authorities undertake fewer prevention activities than the total number of cases assessed as threatened homeless or not homeless; East Renfrewshire total (198%) implies most cases are offered more than one prevention activity.

135

[0] 44

3 [1]

[15] 0

1 [0]

[11]

[1]

[6]

[21] 47

[6]

[2]

[7]

[22] 13

[1]

[13]

[1]

[40] 224

1 [1]

[0]

[5]

[1]

[6]

[6] 37

1 [0]

[1]

[13]

[0]

[3]

[1] 5

32 [0]

1 [16]

[0]

[2]

[0]

[2]

[2] 12

[0]

[7]

[0]

[1] 2

11 [19]

[6]

[78]

[0]

[2]

[0] 0

[0]

[3]

[9] 73

[0]

[2]

[3]

[0] 0

[5]

[9]

[8]

[0]

[10] 391 [14]

TABLE 8.10.5

SUMMARY OF TOTAL HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION ACTIVITY BY GCV LOCAL AUTHORITIES, 2009-10

Authority

All cases assessed as ‘threatened homeless’, or ‘not homeless’, and closed in period 2009-10

Total of prevention activities undertaken for those ‘threatened homeless’ or ‘not homeless’ and application closed in 200910 No.

322

167

As % of all cases assessed as ‘threatened homeless’ or ‘not homeless’ 52%

93 1,004 62 309 70 836 68

185 776 57 243 28 588 51

198% 77% 92% 79% 40% 70% 75%

2,764

2,095

76%

[100%]

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV

Source: Scottish Government, National Statistics Publication for Scotland. Operation of the Homeless Persons Legislation in Scotland: National and Local Authority Analyses 2009-10. Detailed Tables [Table 30]. Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

Youth Homelessness 8.10.12 Youth homelessness persists in Scotland, despite various efforts to tackle the problem. The introduction of homelessness strategies placed a new emphasis on prevention, paying explicit attention to young people. Those aged 16 and 17 and care-leavers aged 18–20 are accorded priority need status. Children’s legislation gives some protection up to age 1849. Nevertheless, young people aged 16 to 24 face a disproportionate risk of homelessness compared to their elders: they account for just over a third of all recorded homeless people in Scotland, but make up only 14% of the adult (16+) population in Scotland50. Data on youth homelessness has some limitations – in particular it is only possible to count young people who are in contact with services. Rough Sleepers 8.10.13 The number of people sleeping rough is relatively small. Table 8.10.6 indicates that, in Glasgow City and Renfrewshire, up to 5% of those applying as homeless had slept rough the night before applying. These figures have been steadily reducing over the past three years for most GCV authorities51 largely as a result of work targeted at tackling rough sleeping. 49

Anderson, Isobel and Thomson, Stephen, 2005, More Priority Needed: the impact of legislative change on young homeless people’s access to housing and support. Shelter. 50 Scottish Council for Single Homeless website, accessed 7 September 2010, based on 2002-03 dataset.

This data is based on the HL1 dataset, so it only records those sleeping rough who have contacted services; it may therefore be an underestimate.

136

TABLE 8.10.6 HOMELESSNESS APPLICATIONS WHERE A HOUSEHOLD MEMBER REPORTED SLEEPING ROUGH THE NIGHT BEFORE APPLYING FOR ASSISTANCE, 2009-10 Authority

Total number of homelessness applications 2009-10

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

Applications where a household member reported sleeping rough the night before applying for assistance 2009-10 Average number per month 1 1 41 2 1 5 n/a 6

666 353 10,640 576 2,975 1,236 3,054 2,061

% of all applications 2 4 5 3 0 5 n/a 3

Source: The Scottish Government, August 2010, Homelessness Statistics: Annual Reference Tables: 2009-10. Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

8.10.14 There may be a small group of former, current and potential rough sleepers who are difficult to reach due to complex multiple needs and challenging behaviour. Conclusion 8.10.15 As we get closer to 2012, local authorities and other housing providers will come under increasing pressure in relation to the use of and demand for their housing stock, and related homelessness and support services, as a consequence of meeting the requirements of the 2003 Homelessness Act.

137

8.11

Domestic Abuse

8.11.1 Domestic abuse and violence necessitate the provision of specialist temporary and supported accommodation for households, whether male or female, across the GCV area to provide a place of safety for those affected. 8.11.2 Table 8.11.1 indicates the level of current need for temporary accommodation as a result of domestic abuse, by local authority area, based on Scottish Government figures for households presenting as homeless during 2009-10. The definition includes applications for homelessness assistance due to ‘Dispute within the household: violent or abusive’, but excludes homelessness applications to a local authority recorded as being due to ‘Dispute within household/relationship breakdown: non-violent’ and those ‘Fleeing non-domestic violence’. The accuracy of the data is therefore dependent on the accuracy of recording of the main reason for the application for homelessness assistance, which in turn is largely dependent on selfdisclosure by the applicant. The figures as a percentage of all homelessness applications indicate significant variation between the GCV authorities. The GCV average of 12% is slightly above the Scottish average of 10%. TABLE 8.11.1

HOUSEHOLDS PRESENTING AS HOMELESS AS A RESULT OF DOMESTIC ABUSE, 2009-10

Authority

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

Applications for homelessness assistance due to violent or abusive dispute within household 105 29 791 61 370 166 357 339

As % of all homelessness applications for the authority 16 8 7 11 12 13 12 16

2,218

12 [Scotland Av. = 10%]

GCV

Source: The Scottish Government, published 31 August 2010. Homelessness Statistics: Annual Reference Tables: 2009-10. Table 22 (a and b) Main reason for applying for assistance by local authority 2009-10.

Supply of Temporary and Refuge Accommodation 8.11.3 By far the majority of households presenting as homeless as a result of domestic abuse, are accommodated in temporary accommodation provided by local authorities, with a relatively smaller proportion accommodated in refuge accommodation provided by Women’s Aid organisations. There are 14 Women’s Aid organisations affiliated to Scottish Women’s Aid [SWA] in the GCV area, with at least one such organisation in each local authority area.

138

8.11.4 Refuge accommodation is designated only for households experiencing domestic abuse. The other accommodation is used by local authorities to meet the needs of other households deemed homeless. This accommodation includes various types and sizes. The circumstances of different households will vary greatly, for instance in terms of the size and composition of the household, and in terms of the length of stay required. 8.11.5 Although funding through the domestic abuse refuge development programme has increased the number of refuge spaces in Scotland, issues of substandard provision and inadequate provision remain. Table 8.11.2 offers a profile52 of Refuge accommodation (at Q4 2007); 41% of this was shared accommodation across the GCV area, better than the profile in Scotland as a whole (50% shared accommodation). TABLE 8.11.2

ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED TO WOMEN’S AID GROUPS

Authority

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV

Accommodation provided (households) (Q4 2007) Shared 23 8 24 16 6

Self Contained 10 6 34 14 19 17 10

Total 10 6 57 8 38 19 33 16

110

187

Source: Scottish Women’s Aid

Accommodation Profile. February 2008. Edinburgh: Scottish Women’s Aid.

139

8.12

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Households

8.12.1 Communities Scotland published research in 2005 on the housing and support needs of older lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Scotland53, together with good practice guidance for service providers54 While the majority of the people interviewed were content with their current housing circumstances, a significant minority had experienced harassment in their home or neighbourhood, which in some cases had forced them to move home. Almost half the participants in the study felt they may experience barriers in the future in accessing quality services – particularly residential care – due to age (linked to a lack of respect), financial constraints, gender identity or sexual orientation. 8.12.2 The HMP therefore concluded, in terms of the HNDA process, that sexual orientation and gender identity issues were predominantly equality issues relating to service delivery rather than to provision of specially designed properties. Such issues require management solutions rather than bricks and mortar solutions, and would be most appropriately examined by authorities in the Local Housing Strategy.

Housing and support needs of older lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Scotland. Research Report 54 [research summary published as Precis No. 67]. June 2005. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland. Ensuring equality for older lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Scotland. Homepointer No. 40. June 2005. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland

140

8.13

Religion/ Belief

Background 8.13.1 For many people their religious faith and beliefs significantly influence their lives and some may wish to live within easy reach of a place of worship or particular school, or to live close to others sharing a religion or belief. Religion/ Belief in the GCV area 8.13.2 Table 8.13.1 illustrates the pattern of religious belief across the GCV authorities, based on the religion, religious denomination or body that people belonged to at the time of the 2001 Census. TABLE 8.13.1

CURRENT RELIGION OF PEOPLE [%], 2001

Current Religion

Authority EDC 43.05

ERC 41.5

GCC 31.52

IC 38.22

NLC 37.55

RC 41.54

SLC 43.68

WDC 35.74

22.55

20.7

29.2

35.79

34.52

23.15

22.12

33.41

5.57

5.27

4.06

5.32

4.09

4.73

4.64

4.28

0.08

0.14

0.21

0.07

0.06

0.08

0.07

0.05

Hindu

0.5

0.23

0.21

0.06

0.07

0.03

Jewish

0.04

3.5

0.19

0.01

0.02

0.06

0.02

Muslim

0.71

2.15

3.08

0.18

0.6

0.36

0.37

0.23

Sikh

0.78

0.47

0.41

0.1

0.06

0.17

0.06

0.07

Another religion None

0.34

0.37

0.66

0.3

0.23

0.34

0.29

0.22

22.04

22.7

13.47

16.72

23.82

22.51

19.39

4.33

4.68

7.76

6.5

6.1

5.71

6.12

6.56

108,243 100%

89,311 100%

577,869 100%

84,203 100%

321,067 100%

172,867 100%

302,216 100%

93,378 100%

Church of Scotland Roman Catholic Other Christian Buddhist

Not answered All People

Source: Census 2001, Table KS07: Current Religion.

8.13.3 In the main, over two-thirds of the population identify themselves as Christian, while around one in five are not affiliated to any traditional religious faith. There is a higher incidence of people in East Renfrewshire of the Jewish faith. The Muslim and Sikh faith groups are concentrated in Glasgow City and the neighbouring authorities of East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire. Some 42% of the Muslim population of Scotland and 36% of the Sikh population live in Glasgow City.

141

8.14

Gypsies/ Travellers

8.14.1 Gypsies/Travellers are a small but distinctive ethnic and cultural minority within the Scottish population. It is recognised that Gypsies/Travellers have specific requirements and should receive the same level of protection from prejudice and discrimination as other ethnic minority groups. There is a lot of diversity amongst Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland, including Scottish Gypsies/ Travellers, Irish Travellers, and European Roma. 8.14.2 Although not recognised as an ethnic minority group, there are also a small number of New Age Travellers, who choose to live an alternative travelling lifestyle for ideological reasons. Travelling Showpeople and Circus families are occupational travellers. 8.14.3 A key national data source is Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland: The Twice Yearly Count; the most recent results published by the Scottish Government are the summer count in July 2008 and the winter count in January 2009. We were able to supplement this with results of more qualitative research contained in the 2007 report, An Accommodation Needs Assessment of Gypsies/Travellers in West Central Scotland55 which was jointly commissioned by seven of the eight constituent local authorities, excluding North Lanarkshire. . Data for North Lanarkshire was obtained from the Council’s own accommodation needs assessment56, and other authorities also provided updating information where available. 8.14.4 This section of the HNDA is primarily concerned with provision of sites for Gypsies/Travellers who live for all, or part of the year, in a caravan or other mobile accommodation. 8.14.5 The ‘Twice Yearly Counts’, undertaken in January and July are based on an estimate of households living on official Council/RSL sites, private sites and unauthorised encampments. They do not include Gypsy/Traveller households living in bricks and mortar homes. At July 2007, 848 households were recorded as living on official Council and RSL sites, private sites and unauthorised encampments. Applying an average household size of 3.4, the (mobile) population based on the summer 2007 Count would be some 2,883. 8.14.6 Some flaws are recognised in the Twice Yearly Count. For instance, owners of private sites are under no obligation to participate in the Count, and owners of holiday/touring sites may be reluctant to disclose that they accept Gypsies/Travellers. It will potentially underestimate numbers if some encampments are not identified on the day the Count is taken. In addition, Gypsies/Travellers themselves tend to value their privacy. Nevertheless the Count is currently the best available national source of statistical information about the Gypsy/Traveller population in Scotland using sites and encampments, and offers an indication of trends in accommodation, travelling patterns and population size.

An Accommodation Needs Assessment of Gypsies/Travellers in West Central Scotland (June 2007). Report by Craigforth. An Interim Report on the Accommodation Needs of Gypsies/Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in North Lanarkshire. Stage 1 Report (April 2010) North Lanarkshire Council, Housing Development Section. 56

142

Current Demand and Supply in the GCV area 8.14.7 The number of Gypsy/Traveller households by local authority area and by type of site is indicated in Table 8.14.1 below. TABLE 8.14.1

GYPSY/TRAVELLER HOUSEHOLDS BY LOCAL AUTHORITY AND TYPE OF SITE [July 2008, January 2009] SUMMER [July 2008]

WINTER [January 2009]

AUTHORITY LA/RSL

Enc

Total

LA/RSL

Enc

Total

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

5 0 0 0 0 0 30 23

0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0

0 0 0 0 38 7 0 0

5 0 0 0 38 7 99 23

5 0 0 0 0 0 28 21

0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0

0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 6 54 21

GCV Total Category as % of Total

58 34%

69 40%

45 26%

172 100

54 63%

26 30%

6 7%

86 100

[Population estimate]* [Scotland] [Households by category]

197

235

153

585

184

292

42%

22%

36%

100

56%

22%

100

Notes: LA/RSL – Official site provided by a Local Authority or RSL Pr – Private site Enc – Unauthorised encampment * Population estimate: multiply households by assumed average household size of 3.4 persons

Source: ‘Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland – The Twice Yearly Count’ No.14: July 2008, and No.15: January 2009 In recognition of the variability of household numbers from year to year, Table 6.15.2 gives the same information, but averaged over 5 years and 8 years; this smoothes out short term variation and may provide a better indication of requirements for planning purposes.

8.14.8 Using the 8 year mean figures (Table 8.14.2), a number of patterns emerge:

South Lanarkshire accounts for some 60% of the Gypsy/Traveller households in the GCV area; West Dunbartonshire accounts for 15% and North Lanarkshire 12%, the remaining households being distributed across four of the other authorities

East Renfrewshire Council had no Gypsy/Traveller households (after correcting for misrecording of a travelling showpeople’s site)

South Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire and East Dunbartonshire had very limited or no unauthorised encampment activity, while this was more noticeable in North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and, to a lesser extent, Inverclyde and Glasgow City; this may suggest that there is less unofficial encampment activity where there is sufficient authorised or private provision to meet needs

Around one in five households is on an unauthorised encampment

A very significant proportion of the Gypsy/Traveller households in South Lanarkshire – over two-thirds – are located on private sites; this is twice the national average.

143

TABLE 8.14.2

GYPSY/TRAVELLER HOUSEHOLDS BY LOCAL AUTHORITY AND TYPE OF SITE [5 YEAR AND 8 YEAR MEAN] 5 YEAR MEAN [2004-2008]

8 YEAR MEAN [2001-2008]

AUTHORITY LA/RSL

Enc

Total

LA/RSL

Enc

Total

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire ^ Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

5 0 1 0 1 0 25 19

0 0 0 0 0 0 58 0

0 0 0 2 13 11 3 1

5 0 1 2 14 11 86 20

4 0 2 0 2 0 24 18

0 0 0 0 6 0 55 0

0 0 2 3 8 8 2 2

4 0 4 3 16 8 81 20

GCV Total Category as % of Total

51 37%

58 42%

30 22%

139 100

50 37%

61 45%

25 18%

136 100

[Population estimate]* [Scotland] [Households by category]

173

197

102

473

170

207

462

39%

20%

41%

100

42%

22%

37%

100

Notes: LA/RSL – Official site provided by a Local Authority or RSL Pr – Private site Enc – Unauthorised encampment ^ Figures quoted in the Twice Yearly Count for private site provision in East Renfrewshire were counted erroneously, as these relate to a site for travelling showpeople in Barrhead [Craigforth, 2007, An Accommodation Needs Assessment of Gypsies/Travellers in West Central Scotland, page 122]. For accuracy the figure has been adjusted here to zero. * Population estimate: multiply households by assumed average household size of 3.4 persons. Percentages rounded to nearest integer. Source: ‘Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland – The Twice Yearly Count’ No.14: July 2008 [Table 10]

8.14.9 The relationship between supply and relatively footloose demand is not simple; in a real sense these figures represent supply of official or private sites as much as demand – households tend to gravitate to where there is a suitable site/pitch. However, geographical distribution may change over time, and may alter if additional supply of Council, RSL or private sites were introduced to the system. 8.14.10 There are no authorised short-stay sites or ‘stopping places’ in the GCV area. The local authorities have tended to focus attention on year-round sites. 8.14.11 Table 8.14.3 records the number of Gypsy/Traveller households on unauthorised encampments on the day of the Summer and Winter Counts from 2005 to 2009, by local authority area. As anticipated, travelling activity in summer is much higher than in winter. There is also, however, a high degree of variability from year to year. North Lanarkshire appears to have a relatively higher degree of encampment activity in both summer and winter in most years, while Renfrewshire mainly displays summer only activity.

144

TABLE 8.14.3

GYPSY/TRAVELLER HOUSEHOLDS ON ENCAMPMENTS AT TIME OF COUNT [SUMMER & WINTER]

Authority

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

No. of locations known to be used as encampments* 0 0 1 5 6 12 2 4

GCV Total

2005

Summer 2006 2007

2008

2005

2006

0 0 0 0 3 4 6 0

0 0 0 5 5 22 7 0

0 0 2 3 17 6 0 5

0 0 0 0 38 7 0 0

0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0

0 0 0 3 5 0 2 0

0 0 0 0 19 0 2 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0

Winter 2007 2008

2009

Note: Where figures vary between Counts No.14 and No.15, the higher figure has been used. Source: ‘Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland – The Twice Yearly Count’ No.14: July 2008 and No.15: January 2009.

8.14.12 Table 8.14.4 examines use of unauthorised encampments in the six months prior to the Summer 2008 and Winter 2009 Counts. TABLE 8.14.4 USE OF ENCAMPMENT LOCATIONS JANUARY 2008 – JULY 2008 – JANUARY 2009 Authority

Average encampment size

Number of locations used as encampments

Number of times occupation occurred of any encampment in the 6 months:

Total number of caravans involved in the 6 months:

Jan 08 July 08

July 08 Jan 09

Jan 08 July 08

July 08 Jan 09

Jan 08 July 08

July 08 Jan 09

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

0 0 1 5 5 12 2 4

0 0 1 5 6 6 0 2

0 0 3 3 6 13 0 4

0 0 2 2 16 10 0 4

0 0 15 18 66 34 0 17

0 0 9 15 256 36 0 11

0 0 4.8 6.6 14.6 3 0 3.5

GCV Total

150

327

7.6

Source: ‘Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland – The Twice Yearly Count’ No.14 July 2008 and No.15: January 2009. The table reflects the pattern previously noted: more significant encampment activity is located in North Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire, with lesser activity in Glasgow City, Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire. The size of individual encampments can vary considerably, so average size (right hand column) is a somewhat crude measure. For instance, it could be skewed by a single unusually large gathering for a one-off event. However, North Lanarkshire would appear to have an unusually large average encampment size (14.6), while the other GCV authorities range from 3 caravans to 6.6. This may suggest that encampments are in fact usually composed of a single family (or extended family), or a small group of friends travelling together. Data from the Count suggests that the Scottish average encampment size has been relatively stable at around 5 for several years. Length of stay is variable from a few days to one or two weeks.

145

Council/ RSL Site Provision 8.14.13 All the Council sites in the GCV area offer year-round accommodation. Tenancies of year-round sites are unrestricted in length, and tenants are permitted leaves of absence, generally of up to 12 weeks per year (for work, travelling, visiting relatives or holidaying), while retaining their tenancy. 8.14.14 Generally speaking, more detailed and accurate information is available relating to Gypsies/Travellers living on Council managed sites (based on Council management records), than is available for private sites or unauthorised encampments. For instance, the Gypsy/Traveller population living on Council/RSL sites is younger than the general Scottish population, this national pattern being reflected also on the GCV sites. In addition, the over 60s account for a smaller proportion of the Gypsy/Traveller population than the Scottish population as a whole, possibly reflecting a desire, or requirement on health grounds, to move to housed accommodation. 8.14.15 There are currently five Gypsy/Traveller sites available for use across the GCV area, offering 71 pitches, provided by four local authorities (Table 8.14.5). Craigforth noted in their West Central Scotland study (2007) that West Dunbartonshire Council had agreed in principle to consider the development of a new site, subject to funding being made available. TABLE 8.14.5 Authority & Sites

COUNCIL SITE PROVISION FOR GYPSIES/TRAVELLERS, 2009 Total Pitches

Pitches Avail. To Let

Tenancy Change

Waiting List

Turned Away

Glasgow City

Inverclyde

Renfrewshire

South Lanarkshire [2 sites]

West Dunbartonshire

GCV Total

East Dunbartonshire

Let

Tenancy Profile <1 1–5 5 years year Years and over

East Renfrewshire

North Lanarkshire

Sources: ‘Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland – The Twice Yearly Count’ No.15: January 2009. Also: An Interim Report on the Accommodation Needs of Gypsies/Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in North Lanarkshire. Stage 1 Report (April 2010) North Lanarkshire Council, Housing Development Section. * The Council’s Report (2010) indicates that no pitches are usable and the site is currently closed.

146

8.14.16 Key points identified from the above study include:

four local authorities make no provision for Gypsies/Travellers – East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire

the Glasgow City site has a recent history of significant under-occupation, with a maximum occupancy of 2 or 3 households

East Dunbartonshire’s site is only one third occupied

The site in West Dunbartonshire is a popular and stable site: 13 out of 20 tenancies are over 5 years [of which 8 exceed 10 years], there is low turnover and a significant waiting list

both the South Lanarkshire sites, are stable and popular, with many long tenancies, low turnover, and considerable waiting lists.

Private Sites 8.14.17 Privately owned sites are used by Gypsies/Travellers who either do not want to access Council/RSL sites or are unable to do so. They include year-round residential sites and those used on a more seasonal basis. Private sites are often established by Gypsies/Travellers themselves and usually cater for specific families or extended families. This tends to mean they accommodate groups of people from largely the same ethnicity.57 8.14.18 There are five ‘official’ private sites in the GCV area, all in South Lanarkshire, providing a total of 71 pitches. Four of these sites are all-year-round sites which are specifically for the use of Gypsies/Travellers. The remaining site, at Crawford, is categorised for the Count as all-year-round, and is designed to operate as both a holiday site and a site for Gypsies/Travellers. Craigforth (2007) indicated that it operated an extended season (roughly March – November) with a regular clientele returning each year mainly for work purposes; it was also used as a short stay ‘stopping place’. South Lanarkshire Council granted planning consent for two additional private sites, with a total capacity of 8 pitches, within the last 18 months. These were not listed in the January 2009 Count, the most recently published, and no further details are available. Given their small size it is likely that each of these will be owned by a family/extended family or other close-knit group. Table 8.14.6 records occupancy over the period January 2007 – January 2009. TABLE 8.14.6

PRIVATE SITE OCCUPANCY, JAN. 2007 – JAN. 2009 Pitches * available

South Lanarkshire

Occupancy Jan 07 67

July 07 86

Jan 08 23

Comments July 08 69

Jan 09 26

Year round, mostly continuously occupied

Notes: * Planning consent was granted for two new private sites, with 8 pitches, after the January 2009 Count, and this additional provision has been excluded from this table. The West of Scotland Study by Craigforth collected data over the winter period 2006/07 and identified private site occupancy of 56; the discrepancy illustrates the speed with which occupancy can change. Sources: ‘Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland – The Twice Yearly Count’ No.11: January 2007 – No.15: January 2009. Also: An Accommodation Needs Assessment of Gypsies/Travellers in West Central Scotland (June 2007). Report by Craigforth. Also: South Lanarkshire Council.

‘Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland – The Twice Yearly Count’ No.15: January 2009.

147

Establishing Future Requirements 8.14.19 Increasing numbers of Gypsies/Travellers are becoming more permanently settled, including in bricks-and-mortar housing, possibly travelling only for short spells in the summer months. 8.14.20 Craigforth (2007) revealed the extent to which households are becoming more settled on sites. Only 40% of those interviewed travelled for significant periods of time (over 4 weeks per year), with 30% travelling for 2 to 4 weeks, usually on holiday and/or to visit family. Around 30% do not travel at all, mainly for health reasons or due to disability. In other words, for 60% of the population patterns of travel are very limited – and not dissimilar to the holiday breaks enjoyed by many in the ‘settled’ community. This shift in lifestyle may permit better access to education and health services, and employment opportunities. It seems likely that the trend will continue. But for many, for a variety of reasons, conventional housing will not be suitable in the long term. It is therefore important to continue to prioritise the provision of appropriate and suitably located sites so that people may have some choice about where to live. 8.14.21 Craigforth (2007), while recognising the inherent difficulties and limitations of available data, attempted a supply and demand comparison to quantify future pitch requirements. While using the Twice Yearly Count for some data, their model was also informed by their interviews with a sample of Gypsy/Traveller households. An allowance was made for future household formation of 35 households over 5 years. Craigforth concluded that there was a shortfall of some 53 pitches across the area. This study, however, included Argyll and Bute and the Ayrshire authorities (eleven authorities in total), but excluded North Lanarkshire. 8.14.22 Using the same modelling approach (Table 8.14.7) with data for the eight GCV authorities, a revised figure of a shortfall of 23 pitches has been derived. For reasons noted earlier, this may be an under-estimate. 8.14.23 Given the nature of travelling patterns, cross-boundary cooperation between GCV authorities is important and should be promoted as good practice in detailed planning of future provision.

148

TABLE 8.14.7 ESTIMATE OF NEED FOR YEAR-ROUND PITCH PROVISION IN GCV AREA 2010 – 2015: SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON Supply Total pitch provision [71 Council and 71 private] Baseline position – pitch occupancy [8 year mean for Council (50) and private (61)] = Pitch provision which is unoccupied and available for use Wanting to move from sites to housing [assume 25% of site-based population] TOTAL

142 - 111 31 13 44

Need Seeking pitch – current Waiting List [26 Council; assume 0 private] Wanting to move from house to pitch [use Craigforth figure as default] On encampments but wanting official site living [use Craigforth figure as default] Future household formation over next 5 years [pro rata from Craigforth figure] TOTAL

- 26 -7 -9 - 25 - 67

Shortfall Need for new pitches

Notes: 1. The 8 year mean occupancy figures for Council and private sites have been used to average out anomalies 2. The Craigforth conclusion that 1 in 4 households living on Council sites expressed an interest in moving to a house has been applied to the Council 8 year mean occupancy figure of 50; this assumes no households on private sites wish to move to a house 3. In the absence of alternative evidence, the Craigforth figures for households ‘wanting to move from a house to a pitch’ and households ‘on encampments but wanting official site living’ have been used as a default. The five year average 2005-2009 of households on encampments in the GCV area at the Winter Count is 10.4 households, so the default of 9 is equivalent to assuming 87% of encampment households want official site living 4. The estimate of ‘future household formation’ has been derived as a proportion of the 111 occupied pitches – pro rata the Craigforth figure of 35 new households from 153 occupied pitches 5. No allowance has been made for pitch turnover; this would offer additional supply giving flexibility for, say, visiting family members. Source: Model and some data extracted from An Accommodation Needs Assessment of Gypsies/Travellers in West Central Scotland (June 2007) by Craigforth. Also data from previous tables.

Housed Gypsies/Travellers 8.14.24 The recent Review of the system of Twice Yearly Counts in Scotland58 discussed at some length ‘Housed Travellers’ [pp.16-18], who are not included in the current Count arrangements. From stakeholder consultation and Gypsy/Traveller interviews, it concluded that in some areas permanent housing may account for more than half of the Gypsy/Traveller population. Based on views gleaned from knowledge of family networks, the Review identified Glasgow and North and South Lanarkshire as areas where there may be a significant housed population or ‘uncounted’ population living on very small yards, in some cases attached to houses. 8.14.25 Craigforth (2007) came to the view that the majority of housed Gypsies/Travellers were in owner occupied housing, with a known major concentration in and around the Larkhall area in South Lanarkshire. The study noted that 1 in 4 of those interviewed living on sites/encampments expressed an interest in moving to bricks and mortar housing; for the vast majority, however, this was of no interest.

Britain, Amanda et al (2010) Review of the Twice Yearly Count of Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland. Report by Craigforth. Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research [Housing, Regeneration and Planning].

149

8.14.26 Housing may be used temporarily for a range of reasons, including providing safety and security for young children or during periods of family illness or crisis; as a winter base to avoid harsh weather conditions; to provide settled periods for children’s education; or as an investment (Lomax et al, 2000)59. 8.14.27 As a result of the recent enlargement of the EU by accession of a number of Eastern European states, a Roma community has grown up, mostly located in Glasgow City.

Lomax, Delia, Lancaster, Sharon and Gray, Patrick (2000) Moving On: A Survey of Travellers’ Views. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

150

8.15

Travelling Showpeople

8.15.1 The HNDA assesses the accommodation needs of travelling showpeople, in terms of the number of ‘yards’ required, at local authority level. 8.15.2 Glasgow City Council, with the majority of GCV sites, undertook a comprehensive survey to gain an understanding of the current provision of suitable accommodation for Travelling Showpeople. A number of established sites may have to be relocated because of major regeneration proposals, in Glasgow and South Lanarkshire, including, the M74 extension, facilities for the 2014 Commonwealth Games and various Clyde Gateway projects. 8.15.3 Showpeople are self-employed business people who travel the country, often within extended family groups. The community has a strong and distinctive culture, traditions and identity. 8.15.4 Travelling showpeople require a permanent base or depot (traditionally known as a ‘yard’) where they can store, maintain and repair their equipment and where they can store their caravans and other vehicles, when they are not travelling for the purpose of their business. This has traditionally been known as the ‘winter quarters’ site as historically it has only been through the winter months when a permanent base has been required. 8.15.5 Traditionally, in Scotland, travelling showpeople lived in large caravans and travelled around the country between March and October, usually returning to winter quarters in October. These winter quarters are often temporary sites. Significant changes have occurred in this traditional travelling pattern, and the community has generally become more settled. These changes include:

A reduction in the number of traditional fairs has resulted in a diversification of showpeople’s activities, involving more localised travelling and the need for more permanent bases on which to live and store/maintain equipment.

Travelling showpeople and their families now live mainly in permanently sited chalets/ static ‘mobile’ homes, which offer higher standards of accommodation and amenities than caravans. Whereas traditional winter quarters were simply for a caravan, now there is often need for space for a (bigger) chalet and also a car and a touring caravan for occasions when fairs are further afield and commuting is not possible. Space for storage of equipment is also required, including when equipment has to be parked while in transit between major events.

Many showpeople aspire to own their own yard and a number have bought their sites or negotiated longer leases. But from a planning point of view, they are often only granted short term ‘temporary’ planning consent, partly as sites are identified for future regeneration, and partly as chalets are considered not to be permanent structures. Despite repeated renewal this approach reduced security.

Some showpeople have chosen to live in houses, some having found difficulty in locating suitable property for a yard, or in obtaining permanent planning consent. If there is no suitable place to store and maintain equipment at their home, this may need to be kept elsewhere.

8.15.6 Generally the number of sites for travelling showpeople has diminished, as a result of redevelopment or through compulsory purchase. Some existing showpeople sites have become overcrowded.

151

Current provision in the GCV area 8.15.7 Only four of the eight GCV local authorities have sites for travelling showpeople, and over 90% are located within Glasgow. The remaining are in East Renfrewshire, North Lanarkshire, and South Lanarkshire. This is summarised in Table 8.15.1. TABLE 8.15.1

PROVISION FOR TRAVELLING SHOWPEOPLE, 2010

Authority

No. of Sites

No. of Pitches

Area [ha.]

Av. Density

East Renfrewshire Glasgow City North Lanarkshire South Lanarkshire

1 50 1 2

25 713 12 62

? 19.78 ha.* 0.75 ha. 2.5 ha.

? 36/ha. 16/ha. 25/ha.

GCV

812

* No area given for 2 sites in Glasgow, accommodating 20 pitches. Excluding these sites would result in average density for Glasgow City of 35/ha. Source: Local authority data, 2010.

8.15.8 The profile of the sites includes:

sites vary in size from 2 pitches to 50 pitches; only 79 [around 10%] of these pitches are traditional ‘winter only’ quarters, the vast majority being ‘all year round’ pitches

densities vary from as low as 9/ha. up to over 100/ha. on one site – average density 36/ha.; however a number of sites are significantly under-occupied

less than two out of three pitches have permanent planning consent; and almost one in four is unauthorised or has ‘unknown’ planning status; the rest have time limited/temporary consents which may be renewable

some Glasgow sites are in industrial areas which are not considered suitable for residential use

there is significant variation in the standard of facilities, site layout and amenities available to residents.

Future Requirements 8.15.9 Consultation with the Showmen’s Guild indicated that the current numbers of travelling showpeople and their families is expected to increase slightly. The HMP is satisfied that there is no strategic need to plan for additional future accommodation requirements for travelling showpeople. Any requirements arising will be addressed through local authorities’ LDPs. 8.15.10 No circus proprietors are based in the GCV area and there are no yards used as winter quarters. Therefore, there is no need to make provision for this specific group of showpeople in the HNDA.

152

Technical Appendices _________________________________________________________

153

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Housing Market Partnership Housing Need and Demand Assessment Technical Appendix 01 A Housing Market Area Framework November 2010

HNDA W

Contents 1

Introduction

Section A – Private Sector 2 3 4

Analysis of Sasines Data Identification of Building Blocks Identification of Housing Market Areas

Section B – Affordable Sector 5

Affordable sector

Conclusions

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16

Matrix of House-Buying Moves 2002-08 - Original 63 Audit Areas Percentage Self-containment - Original 63 Audit Areas Matrix of House-Buying Moves 2002-08 - Iteration 1 - 30 Areas Percentage Self-containment - Iteration 1 - 30 Areas Matrix of House-Buying Moves 2002-08 - Iteration 2 - 23 Areas Percentage Self-containment - Iteration 2 - 23 Areas Matrix of House-Buying Moves 2002-08 - Iteration 3 - 17 Areas Percentage Self-containment - Iteration 3 - 17 Areas Matrix of House-Buying Moves 2002-08 - Iteration 4 – Final 13 Building Blocks Percentage Self-containment - Iteration 4 - Final 13 Building Blocks Changes in Percentage Self-containment 1988-2008 – Final 13 Building Blocks 1996-2002 Sasines Percentage self-containment and linkages – Destination -based 1996-2002 Sasines Percentage self-containment and linkages – Origin-based Identification of pairings where both measures of self-containment increase expressed as sum of increases Testing of linkages for Cumbernauld, East Kilbride, Renfrewshire and Airdrie & Coatbridge Housing Market Area Framework

List of Diagrams Diagram 1A Diagram 1B Diagram 2 Diagram 3

Audit Areas 2002 & Revised Audit Areas 2009 Audit Areas 2009 Housing Market Areas Local Authority Sub-Areas and Local Authority Boundaries

Introduction

1.1

Strategic Planning Policy (SPP) identifies the need to relate housing supply and demand to housing market areas (HMAs) an “HMA is a geographical area where demand for housing is relatively self contained.” (SPP, 2010, para 68). Housing Market Areas are unlikely to coincide with Local authority boundaries. Authorities are therefore encouraged to cooperate regionally to define functional housing market area boundaries to determine housing requirements.

1.2

The authorities of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley have worked together as a city region since 1996 preparing the 2000 and 2006 Structure Plans and now, under the new planning system, the 2011 Strategic Development Plan. The Housing Market Area (HMA) system, defined for the 2000 Structure Plan and reconfirmed for the 2006 Plan, provides the framework for comparing private sector supply and demand, based on an analysis of house-buying moves over the 1988-97 and 1996-02 periods respectively. This paper presents in Section A the outcome of an updated analysis of Sasines1 data covering the period 2002-08 to test the validity of the current HMA system.

1.3

Under the new planning and housing systems, the Scottish Government has introduced a new approach to planning for housing based on Housing Need and Demand Assessment Guidance (2008). Alongside SPP (and former SPP3) and Local Housing Strategy Guidance, authorities are asked to work together in a Housing Market Partnership producing an HNDA to provide the evidence base for identifying housing requirements by HMAs across all tenures to inform SDPs, LHSs and LDPs. An established mechanism is in place for the private sector which is reviewed in Section A.

1.4

With regard to the consideration of housing need (i.e. essentially the requirement for affordable housing including social rented housing), the GCV Housing Market Partnership came to the conclusion that the most appropriate geographical framework remained the 8 Local Authority areas together with 31 sub-areas that nest to local authority boundaries. This is set out in Section B.

1.5

This report is set out in two sections structured as follows:

•

This paper presents in Section A the outcome of an updated analysis of Sasines data covering the period 2002-08, and to test the validity of the current HMA system and considers whether any changes are required to the HMA system. This involves a twostage process: the identification of areas to form the building blocks of the system; and the examination of the inter-relationships between the building blocks to identify housing market operating over a wider area.

•

Section B of this report considers the geography of the Affordable Sector, which includes the social rented sector.

Sasines data refers to the Sasine Register held by the Registers of Scotland which has a statutory requirement to record house sales

Section A - Private Sector 2

Analysis of Sasines Data

Audit Areas 2.1

The authorities of the Glasgow and the Clyde valley identified for the 2000 Structure Plan a housing market area system, providing a framework for comparing private sector supply and demand, based on an analysis of house-buying moves which was reconfirmed for the 2006 Structure Plan. The starting point for the HMA system is the 63 audit areas defined by the eight Councils as geographically contained units to represent communities and settlements. As part of the preparatory work for the SDP a review of Audit Areas, which are used as a building block for a variety of policy areas, was undertaken in 2009 to ascertain the appropriateness of this geography. Some authorities proposed minor boundary changes to Audit Areas to better reflect communities such as using natural geographic boundaries and roads to more appropriately delineate boundaries such as in Glasgow City. A number of authorities made more significant changes such as Inverclyde, West Dunbartonshire and South Lanarkshire (see Diagram 1A). Sixty three audit areas remain but the geography of some of these has changed and the revised audit area list and mapping is shown in Diagram 1B. These are the basic geographic units used in the SDP review of HMAs.

Sasines data 2.2

The review is based on an analysis of house-buying moves (new and second hand sales) over a six-year period (2002-08) sourced from the Register of Sasines. As with the original analyses, the starting point was the construction of an origin/destination matrix for the 63 audit areas (see Table 1). Although the total number of audit areas remains the same, there have been some adjustments by individual local authorities to some of the audit areas under the 2009 Audit Area review (ref 2.1). Post-code information was used to identify the destination audit areas (using a postcode unit to audit area lookup table), but the standard Sasines data acquired each year only provides town/settlement for origin of buyer. This is satisfactory for most of the SDPA, but causes particular problems when it comes to the subdivision of Glasgow into its 11 audit areas. The origin address is often given as ’Glasgow’ but Glasgow city straddles four housing sub market areas therefore enhanced Sasines data, that provides the post-code of the buyer, was acquired for the financial year 2007/08. This, together with the previously acquired 2002 enhanced dataset was used to ‘book-end’ the time-series of Sasines data. The two years of enhanced data was used to sub-divide origins within Glasgow for the intervening years. A similar approach was used for Greenock following its sub-division into two separate audit areas: Greenock West and the remaining Greenock area.

2.3

Sasines data is used to analyse the housing market in terms of each area’s self containment and the strength of links between them. These have been measured in two ways that can be expressed in terms of the following questions: Destination-based analysis – what is the destination of house-buyers originating from a particular area? Origin-based analysis – what is the origin of house-buyers in a particular area?

2.4

Sales involving moves from outside the SDPA were excluded to ensure that the originbased analysis is directly comparable with the destination-based analysis, which does not include moves out of the SDPA.

2.5

Self-containment can therefore be expressed as either the percentage of all movers buying in Area X whose origin is Area X (origin-based analysis) or the percentage of all movers whose origin is Area X who buy in Area X (destination-based analysis).

2.6

As with the measurement of self-containment, linkages can be measured in relation to both origins and destinations. Four different measures can be obtained by analysing moves in both directions against the total number of origin and destinations for each area.

Identification of Building Blocks

3.1

The 63 settlement areas used in this analysis vary substantially in terms of both their size and level of self-containment. Table 1 is a matrix of all the house buying moves within and between the 63 areas in the 2002-08 period. It shows that the number of sales varies from only 51 in Uplawmoor to nearly 19,000 in the Southside of Glasgow. Table 2 shows that the percentage self-containment ranges from 5% and 16% in Dalserf to 72% and 75% in Cumbernauld.

3.2

Building blocks will either form separate HMAs or the lowest level in a tiered HMA system. In the latter situation, local demand and supply will be compared for each of these areas. This raises the possibility of local shortfalls requiring land release to meet demand specifically at this level. It would only be appropriate that land release decisions are made specifically for areas where levels of self-containment are substantial (as originally set out in PAN 38)2. For this reason, it was decided to set a minimum level of self-containment for each building block at 65%, as previously.

3.3

The first stage was to identify the areas where self-containment is less than 65% (on one or both measures) and to merge them with other areas with which they have a significant link. The simplest measures of the links between areas are (a) the absolute numbers moving between them, and (b) those numbers expressed as a percentage of all sales. Difficulties arise in assessing the significance of these linkages given the substantial variation in the size of each area. To overcome this problem use has been made of an approach which, rather than measuring linkages directly, measures the increase in selfcontainment which results when two areas merge.

3.4

Table 2 shows the level of self-containment in each of the 63 audit areas. Significant links are identified by the increase in self-containment that results when two areas merge. The potential merger of each area with all other areas is tested to identify (a) whether self-containment is higher in the new area than found in either of the two original areas, and (b) mergers that produce the biggest increase in self-containment. Generally, if more than one potential merger is identified, the merger which produces the largest increase in self-containment is made.

Level of self-containment originally set out in PAN38 which is now superseded and advice on HMAs is now much more limited. The HNDA Guidance refers to former Communities Scotland research which acknowledges self-containment (Communities Scotland Housing Market Areas in Scotland: definition and review, 2003).

3.5

As areas are merged, the matrix of moves is reformulated for the smaller number of areas, and the process is repeated. The mergers made in the first three stages, or iterations, are set out below.

First Iteration 3.6

The first iteration results in the number of areas reducing from 63 to 30. This involves the merger of 54 areas to form 21 new areas. The other 9 areas did not merge. The areas merged are as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Vale of Leven with Dumbarton and Milton/Bowling Bearsden with Milngavie Glasgow West End with Glasgow North and City Centre and Drumchapel Springburn with Bishopbriggs Kirkintilloch with Lenzie and Northern Villages Glasgow East End with Easterhouse Cumbernauld with Kilsyth & Villages Glasgow South Side with Govan and Pollok and Castlemilk Giffnock, Thornliebank, Clarkston & Busby with Newton Mearns and Eaglesham & Waterfoot Rutherglen with Cambuslang Barrhead with Neilston and Uplawmoor Paisley/Linwood with Renfrew and North Renfrewshire and Johnstone/Elderslie West Renfrewshire with Kilmacolm & Quarriers Village Port Glasgow with Greenock Greenock West with Gourock and Inverkip & Wemyss Bay Blantyre with Hamilton Larkhall with Dalserf Airdrie with Coatbridge Bellshill with Motherwell and Wishaw Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesmahagow with Douglas Valley Lanark with North Clydesdale

3.7

In most cases, mergers occur where the increase in self-containment is maximised for both original areas. For example, Bearsden and Milngavie have significant links with a number of other areas, but the merger with each other produces the biggest increase in selfcontainment for both of them.

3.8

In some circumstances, mergers involving more than two areas are made. If, for example, the links between three areas are such that the merger of any two increase selfcontainment, all three areas are merged. One example of this in the first iteration involves Kirkintilloch, Lenzie and the Northern Villages

3.9

Mergers do not have to be exclusively between two or more areas with self-containment under 65%. Mergers are made where one area is over 65% if that is the strongest link. For example Coatbridge’s strongest link is with Airdrie and the two areas are merged despite self-containment in Airdrie of over 65%.

3.10 One merger is made which breaches the 65% rule. Vale of Leven and Dumbarton are merged despite both being over 65% self-contained. The main reason for the merger is the scale of the increase in self-containment (22.3%), the second largest of all the potential mergers in all the iterations. 3.11 At the other end of the spectrum, three small areas with low levels of self-containment are merged despite no significant linkages being identified i.e. City Centre, Uplawmoor and Dalserf. The lack of potential mergers for these areas is a result of either very small size or links spread over a number of other areas. They have been merged with the area with which they have the strongest links i.e. Glasgow West End, Barrhead/Neilston and Larkhall respectively. 3.12 A number of areas were identified at this stage which have relatively low self-containment and have linkages with other areas, but where the most appropriate merger is not clear cut. No mergers were made at this stage to allow examination of linkages with larger groupings of areas in subsequent iterations. The areas are Moodiesburn, Strathaven and Bothwell & Uddingston. 3.13 Apart from the three areas listed in the previous paragraph, a further five areas did not merge at this stage. These are Clydebank, East Kilbride, Stonehouse, Carluke, South Clydesdale. Crossford, a small area with low self-containment but with no clear linkages, is also not merged at this stage. 3.14 At this stage, the number of areas with a self-containment level above 65% on both measures has only increased from five to seven. Further mergers are required to ensure all areas are above 65%. Second Iteration 3.15 Table 3 shows the reformulated matrix of moves between the new set of 30 areas and Table 4 shows their levels of self-containment. The new set of areas was tested for potential mergers, resulting in a reduction in the number of areas from 30 to 23. This involves the merger of 14 areas to form 7 new areas. The other 16 areas did not merge. The areas merged are as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bearsden/Milngavie with Glasgow West End/North/City Centre/Drumchapel Springburn/Bishopbriggs with Kirkintilloch/Lenzie/Northern Villages Glasgow South Side/Pollok/Govan/Castlemilk with Giffnock/NewtonMearns/ Eaglesham Paisley/Linwood/Renfrew/North Renfrewshire/Johnstone/Elderslie with West Renfrewshire/Kilmacolm Greenock/Port Glasgow with Greenock West/Gourock/Wemyss Bay & Inverkip Blantyre/Hamilton with Larkhall/Dalserf Carluke with Lanark/North Clydesdale

3.16 One area was identified at this stage which has relatively low self-containment and has linkages with other areas, but the most appropriate merger is not clear cut. No merger was therefore made at this stage for Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesmahagow/Douglas Valley to allow examination of linkages with larger groupings of areas in subsequent iterations.

Third Iteration 3.17 Table 5 shows the reformulated matrix of moves between the new set of 23 areas and Table 6 shows their levels of self-containment. The new set of areas was tested for potential mergers, resulting in a reduction in the number of areas from 23 to 17. This involves the merger of 11 areas to form 5 new areas. The other 12 areas did not merge. The areas merged are as follows: 1 2 3 4 5

Clydebank with Bearsden/Milngavie/Glasgow West End/North/City Centre/ Drumchapel Rutherglen/Cambuslang with Glasgow South Side/Pollok/Govan/ Castlemilk/Giffnock/Newton Mearns/Eaglesham Barrhead/Neilston/Uplawmoor with Paisley/Linwood/Renfrew/North Renfrewshire/Johnstone/Elderslie/West Renfrewshire/Kilmacolm Stonehouse with Blantyre/Hamilton/Larkhall/Dalserf South Clydesdale and Crossford with Carluke/Lanark/North Clydesdale

Fourth Iteration 3.18 Tables 3, 5 and 7 show the reformulated matrix of moves following each of the first three iterations, while tables 4, 6 and 8 set out the revised level of self-containment. At this stage there are 17 areas (Table 8). Four areas have self-containment levels well below 65%. As in the previous analyses, these areas (Moodiesburn, Strathaven, Bothwell & Uddingston, and Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesmahagow/DouglasValley) have been deliberately kept separate to test for potential mergers at each stage of the process. 3.19 Moodiesburn has links with Cumbernauld, Glasgow East End and Springburn/Strathkelvin. Examination of these links led to the conclusion that, on balance, Moodiesburn should continue to be merged with Cumbernauld. Evidence since the 2000 Structure Plan is, however, showing increasing links with Springburn/Strathkelvin and this will be monitored for the next SDP. 3.20 The other three areas listed in paragraph 3.21 have been merged as follows: a) Strathaven with East Kilbride although there are also significant links with Hamilton/Blantyre/Larkhall/Stonehouse b) Bothwell & Uddingston with Hamilton/Larkhall/Blantyre/Stonehouse, although there are also significant links with the Bellshill area in particular c) Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesmahagow/Douglas Valley with the rest of Clydesdale although there are also significant link with Hamilton sub-market area 3.21 The new matrix of moves between the remaining 13 areas and their self-containment are shown in Tables 9 and 10. Table 11 compares self-containment levels derived from the 2002-08 data with the previous exercises based on 1988-1997 and 1996-02 data. In the original exercise, all 13 areas had self-containment levels above 65%. However, subsequent updates have identified both Strathkelvin & Springburn (on one selfcontainment measure) and Glasgow East (on both measures) falling below 65%. On the evidence of 2002-08 data on it own, these areas show a stronger link with Moodiesburn, and this is an issue that will be examined for the next SDP. It would not be appropriate to make such significant alteration on the basis of only one set of data, albeit the most recent.

Identification of Housing Market Areas (HMAs)

4.1

Having established the thirteen building blocks that will form the basis of the HMA system, the next stage was to determine whether they are self-contained or form part of a wider market area i.e to test whether the assumptions on the wider market area system identified in 2000 and 2006 remain valid. This involved examining the inter-relationships between building blocks in terms of the self-containment of each building block and the linkages between them.

Self-containment 4.2

As was mentioned in para 3.2, Government advice in PAN 38 referred to HMAs as “areas in which self-contained housing market operates” but the only reference to the defining level of self-containment is the phrase “substantial majority”. Continuing previous practice first used by SRC and subsequently for the GCVSP, 80% self-containment was used as the benchmark against which linkages with other areas were considered.

Linkages 4.3

The most significant linkages between building blocks were identified using the methodology used in the previous stage, i.e. where their merger would produce an increase in self-containment. Linkages were also examined in terms of both the percentage of all sales and the absolute volume of sales.

4.4

The matrices in Tables 9, 12 and 13 show, respectively, the number of sales, the destination-based analysis and the origin-based analysis of percentage self-containment and links. Table 14 identifies those pairings of building blocks that would produce an increase in self-containment if merged.

4.5

Consideration of this information led to the following conclusions: (A) Dumbarton & Vale of Leven and Inverclyde should continue to be treated as separate self-contained HMAs. These areas have the highest level of self-containment (over 80% on both measures) and, based on the methodology used to define the building blocks, have no significant linkages with other areas. (B) There is a wider HMA operating in the eastern part of the conurbation. Hamilton, Motherwell and Clydesdale continue to form the core of the wider market operating in the Eastern Conurbation. Percentage self-containment in Hamilton, Motherwell and Clydesdale ranges from 65 to 75% and each area has significant linkages with the other two. Self-containment in these areas has reduced from 70-78% range observed in 2000.

(C) There is a wider HMA operating in the central part of the conurbation. Greater Glasgow North & West, Strathkelvin & Springburn, Glasgow East and Greater Glasgow South continue to form the core of the wider market operating in the Central Conurbation. In Greater Glasgow North & West, Strathkelvin & Springburn, Glasgow East and Greater Glasgow South percentage self-containment ranges from 55% to 75% and each area has significant links with one or two of the other areas. Self-containment in these areas has reduced from 67-80% range observed in 2000 4.6

As in 2000 and 2006, further consideration was give to the position in the remaining areas as follows: • Renfrewshire has a high level of self-containment (77% and 81%), but has a significant linkage with Greater Glasgow South. • Airdrie & Coatbridge also has a high level of self-containment (74% and 81%), but has a significant link with Motherwell. • Cumbernauld has lower self-containment (68% and 72%) and has a significant link with Strathkelvin & Springburn. • East Kilbride has similar levels of self-containment (73% and 72%), but it has linkages with both Greater Glasgow South and Hamilton.

4.7

At this stage the four core building blocks in the Central Conurbation and the three core building blocks in the Eastern Conurbation were merged to allow testing for links between them and the four areas in question. Matrices (a) to (c) in Table 15 show the number of sales, the destination-based analysis and the origin-based analysis of percentage selfcontainment and percentage links. Matrix (d) in Table 15 identifies those pairings that would produce an increase in self-containment if merged.

4.8

Table 15 shows that Airdrie & Coatbridge has significant links with both Central and Eastern Conurbation areas, but the strongest link is with the latter. Both Cumbernauld and Renfrewshire have significant links with only the Central Conurbation. In the case of East Kilbride, significant links are identified with both Central and Eastern Conurbation areas. Table 15 Matrix (b) shows that 19% of buyers in East Kilbride come from the core of the Central Conurbation compared to 6% from the Eastern Conurbation – a very similar pattern to that identified in the 1996-02 analysis. Matrix (c) shows that, in terms of moves from East Kilbride, the equivalent figures are 14% and 12%, both up from the 1996-02 analysis, but substantially so for the moves to the Eastern Conurbation.

4.9

It is clear that Cumbernauld and Renfrewshire should continue to be included in the Central Conurbation HMA and Airdrie & Coatbridge in the Eastern Conurbation HMA. For East Kilbride, despite increasing links with the Eastern Conurbation, there remains a clear case for continued inclusion in the Central Conurbation.

4.10 The final consideration concerned the relationship between the Central and Eastern Conurbation HMAs. The updated analysis shows a slight increase, both in numerical and percentage terms, in the linkages between the two areas. On that basis, the conclusion that the HMA system requires to recognise the wider HMA operating across the Conurbation remains valid.

4.11 Analysis of the updated Sasines dataset shows that there are some differences in the patterns and strength of linkages compared with the two previous analyses, but they tend to be marginal. Where marginal changes occur in areas in which the earlier data was ambiguous, e.g Moodiesburn, they can have implications for the HMA system. However, in general terms, there is a substantial degree of consistency over time in the strength of the linkages between each part of the SDPA. This outcome provides a greater degree of confidence in the robustness of the Housing Market Area system. Apart from minor amendments the pattern of the HMAs has not changed. 4.12 Table 16 and Diagram 2 show the structure of the GCV HMA system. The way in which the comparison of supply and demand is managed in the new system is explained in TA07 ‘Review of Supply and Demand/Need for Housing’. Section B of this report considers the geography of the Affordable Sector, including the social rented sector.

Section B - Affordable Sector 5

Affordable Sector

5.1

It was outlined in the introduction to this paper that the GCV HMP separates the housing market into the Private and Affordable sectors and these sectors each have their own market areas. Demand for market housing and need for social rented housing are complementary components of the GCV housing system, but with quite different dynamics.

5.2

HNDA Guidance identifies affordable housing as comprising social rented; subsidised low cost housing for sale (discounted, shared ownership or shared equity); low cost housing without subsidy (entry level housing for sale); and private rented accommodation at midmarket rent. The term intermediate housing product is used to cover all types of affordable housing which are not social rented. The HMPCG in developing its methodology to undertake the HNDA identified that there is insufficient information available to separate the above elements from private sector market housing and concluded that it is only possible to identify subsidised low cost home ownership as an intermediate product. The decision was taken that the market would be split into the Private and Affordable sectors with the latter comprising of the social rented sector and those who could potentially afford subsidised low cost home ownership if the product was available to them. The Affordable sector, therefore, as well as containing the social rented sector also includes the ‘Intermediate sector’. The GCV HMP has identified the ‘Intermediate sector’ as publicly subsidise low cost housing for sale, predominantly shared equity/ownership, available at a cost below full market value. This is a relatively new sector in the housing market and there is limited information available, particularly its role in the future as this is restricted by the availability of public funding. Due to its reliance on public funding it is also appropriate to consider this sector within the local authority market area.

5.3

The most appropriate framework for comparing supply and demand in the private sector is the three tier market area system set out in Section A of this report. For the Affordable sector, the most appropriate geographical framework is the individual local authority with nested sub areas below. It is considered that in regard to housing need (i.e. essentially the requirement for affordable housing including social rented housing) this sector is restricted by the operation of housing policy within administrative boundaries. This reflects the practical reality of the way in which application and allocation systems for most social rented housing are currently operated by local authorities. For many in housing need, their housing choices are constrained by low incomes, but also by allocation policies. This approach also recognises that demand for market housing and need for social rented housing are complementary components of the GCV housing system, but with quite different dynamics.

5.4

Although there is some cross-boundary movement of tenants, unlike the private sector there is insufficient data currently available on which to base a housing market area framework operating beyond local authority boundaries.

5.5

Diagram 3 shows the Affordable sector market areas (i.e. local authority boundaries) and the 31 local authority sub areas. The use of Local Authority areas and sub-areas is consistent with the approach commonly adopted in the past for local Housing Needs Assessments. For some authorities, these conveniently coincide with the Housing sub Market Area boundaries used in the private sector.

Conclusions

6.1

The GCV HMP has identified two different housing sectors, the Private and Affordable sectors operating within two distinct functional market areas. •

The most appropriate framework for the private sector is the three tier housing market area system consisting of o Tier 1 – Conurbation o Tier 2 – Central and Eastern Conurbation o Tier 3 - 11 Housing Sub Market areas and two discrete market areas

•

The Affordable sector consists of the social rented and intermediate sectors and the most appropriate framework for this sector is the 8 local authority boundaries and at the local level within 31 local authority sub areas

TABLE 1 Matrix of House-Buying Moves 2002-08 Original 63 Audit Areas

TOTAL

Cumbernauld

Moodiesburn

Kilsyth/Villages

Easterhouse

East End

Northern Villages

Lenzie

Kirkintilloch

Bishopbriggs

Springburn

City Centre

North

West

Drumchapel

Milngavie

Bearsden

Clydebank

1,856 371 325 1,567 4 22 46 73

16 35 26 22

97 136 48 2,560

28 26 5 161

10 8 1 78

9 9 0 128

56 83 21 571

12 16 0 60

0 6 8 6

3 3 0 8

3 3 0 9

0 3 0 10

1 0 0 4

7 3 1 6

17 9 0 27

6 0 0 2

1 0 0 5

11 4 0 22

0 1 1 6

5 2 2 52

13 6 4 77

6 1 0 13

75 35 76 344

1,177 267 34 1,157

201 528 11 318

20 0 145 132

761 188 191 9,326

155 91 43 1,012

26 7 0 201

8 5 4 111

36 18 2 158

17 11 1 36

14 8 0 88

25 19 2 78

32 32 10 248

0 0 4 27

2 0 0 16

13 5 3 82

11 9 1 62

7 4

21 5

3 0

61 25

273 82

96 27

17 6

1,119 338

2,131 51

97 301

172 38

158 41

29 9

33 27

44 8

158 87

11 10

3 5

51 45

25 9

5 0 1

4 1 0

2 2 0

17 13 14

23 32 30

5 12 20

12 6 0

162 134 44

245 183 44

64 14 6

1,335 576 68 342 1,238 58 68 125 1,235

44 32 295

52 50 150

243 79 35

69 6 6

13 6 44

37 30 82

133 31 71

1 1 14 0

0 7 16 2

0 1 3 0

1 10 49 9

19 48 112 11

5 41 38 2

0 5 12 3

53 53 698 83

15 41 166 37

3 12 257 25

31 35 211 141

36 65 118 35

125 150 59 19

262 35 78 6

28 527 33 4

9 35 5,949 492

3 0 509 600

7 23 24 4

24 23 173 17

34 18 191 104

0 3 0 7 1 13 0

0 2 1 7 2 30 1

0 1 2 1 1 3 0

2 20 15 48 16 57 2

6 18 15 86 8 172 0

1 13 8 43 3 46 3

0 4 0 12 2 6 0

8 146 141 523 160 1,580 33

5 55 56 140 58 426 1

1 22 24 37 14 287 0

8 87 294 28 20 121 6

8 59 108 28 14 91 3

30 223 144 9 10 47 1

2 66 110 12 3 56 0

11 70 25 10 0 20 0

5 117 207 127 97 520 26

0 49 99 15 2 71 7

269 43 10 179 4,886 197 24 225 1,080 0 28 12 0 15 7 10 97 51 1 1 0

0 0 1 8 1 0 0 0 6 27

2 5 0 2 2 0 0 0 5 24

0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3

8 8 1 12 12 4 2 0 21 56

13 12 1 22 16 7 0 0 14 62

3 5 0 2 7 1 1 0 9 18

0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 1 11

198 104 13 93 116 42 13 0 132 307

37 22 5 31 47 9 2 1 29 86

22 7 5 18 22 3 0 0 6 30

20 13 0 31 43 5 2 0 19 30

12 9 0 12 18 2 2 0 18 35

3 2 0 6 4 2 1 0 5 16

2 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 4 15

2 3 0 12 4 0 0 0 2 11

52 46 5 184 378 3 6 0 19 63

0 0 0 18 28 0 0 0 12 13

0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 3

9 12 2 19 16 2 1 0 11 20

4 2 0 18 15 2 0 0 4 17

4 3 5 2 0 3 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 5 0

13 3 7 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 5 0

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

64 11 16 2 3 7 0 1 3 15 0 2 3 12 3

24 13 17 8 4 5 4 5 4 21 0 5 7 19 1

8 1 10 3 1 0 0 2 5 6 1 3 0 3 0

13 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0

59 30 114 49 12 43 18 24 10 117 14 40 14 107 7

15 14 17 8 4 0 5 5 10 23 6 15 25 47 7

0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 12 2 6 8 51 0

0 8 6 0 1 3 0 0 0 18 2 0 6 5 0

9 6 4 0 0 3 0 2 0 13 1 9 6 22 6

5 1 1 2 0 3 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 17 1

2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 1 0 11 2

0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 0 1 5 3

28 22 17 8 1 2 0 0 1 70 14 137 75 153 20

0 0 12 0 1 2 0 0 0 6 0 11 8 12 1

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 3 1

5 3 9 2 1 0 0 2 2 32 3 12 12 46 9

4 3 5 0 3 0 0 0 1 5 5 9 3 30 4

0 1

0 0

1 1

0 0

0 1

0 0

0 10

0 0

0 5

0 0

0 2

0 0

0 1

4 5

0 5

0 1

1 5

0 1

3 1 0

1 2 6

0 0 0

7 11 8

10 15 7

5 4 3

0 0 0

59 102 41

19 44 20

7 21 5

18 51 29

8 34 11

14 19 8

9 9 2

4 7 3

117 354 225

29 115 25

12 6 4

109 81 28

36 100 23

1 1 0

5 2 2

0 0 0

8 3 3

4 10 1

3 0 0

0 4 0

70 22 0

29 22 3

23 10 0

25 15 3

18 3 6

13 3 2

2 1 0

3 2 1

113 51 21

18 26 7

4 4 2

32 26 7

13 9 5

0 0 0

1 0 1

0 0 0

0 0 3

2 2 1

0 1 1

0 0 0

2 3 17

0 7 7

0 0 0

2 0 11

0 0 1

0 2 2

0 0 0

2 0 0

2 8 11

0 2 12

1 0 0

0 6 3

2 1 4

Dumbarton

Destination Area

WD Vale of Leven WD Dumbarton WD Milton/Bowling WD Clydebank ED Bearsden ED Milngavie GC Drumchapel GC West GC North GC City Centre GC Springburn ED Bishopbriggs ED Kirkintilloch ED Lenzie ED Northern Villages GC East End GC Easterhouse NL Kilsyth/Villages NL Cumbernauld NL Moodiesburn GC Govan GC Pollok GC Southside GC Castlemilk ER Giffnock/Thornliebank/Clarkston/Busby ER Newton Mearns ER Eaglesham/Waterfoot SL Rutherglen SL Cambuslang ER Barrhead ER Neilston ER Uplawmoor RF Renfrew RF Paisley/Linwood RF North Renfrewshire RF Johnstone/Elderslie RF West Renfrewshire IC Kilmacolm & Quarriers Village IC Port Glasgow IC Greenock IC Greenock West IC Gourock IC Inverkip & Wemyss Bay SL East Kilbride SL Strathaven SL Bothwell/Uddingston SL Blantyre SL Hamilton SL Larkhall SL Dalserf SL Stonehouse NL Airdrie NL Coatbridge NL Bellshill NL Motherwell NL Wishaw SL Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesmahagow SL Douglas Valley SL Crossford SL Carluke SL Lanark SL North Clydesdale SL South Clydesdale

Vale of Leven

WD WD

Milton/Bowling

Origin Area LA WD WD

0 1 0 1 0 0 2,431 2,335

0 0 0 148

0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 11 4 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 8 8 0 5 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 18 0 1 3 2 4,043 4,131 1,626 581 18,507 5,664 1,690 3,450 3,205 2,444 1,253 1,256 10,813 1,871 692 6,454 2,395

TABLE 1 Matrix of House-Buying Moves 2002-08 Original 63 Audit Areas

TOTAL

Greenock West

Greenock

Port Glasgow

West Renfrewshire

IC Kilmacolm & Quarriers Village

Johnstone/Elderslie

North Renfrewshire

Paisley/Linwood

Renfrew

Uplawmoor

ER ER

Neilston

Barrhead

Cambuslang

Rutherglen

ER Eaglesham/Waterfoot

Newton Mearns

ER Giffnock/Thornliebank/C larkston/Busby

Castlemilk

Southside

Destination Area

Pollok

Govan

12 0

15 9

37 37

0 3

6 1

3 6

0 0

2 6

0 3

3 5

1 1

0 0

4 5

22 12

15 9

3 1

7 3

0 1

6 0

0 3

0 21 26

0 11 6

2 75 80

0 2 0

0 10 16

0 4 20

0 1 1

1 2 7

0 5 1

0 0 0

0 2 1

0 0 0

0 14 5

0 27 19

0 31 11

0 2 0

0 4 6

3 1 5

0 3 1

0 0 2

0 4 0

7 15

7 0

54 18

0 0

6 1

5 1

1 0

2 1

5 2

0 1

0 0

2 1

6 4

8 2

1 0

4 0

1 0

0 0

0 1

0 0

237 63 44

63 47 30

851 300 240

18 2 6

246 38 65

246 51 73

21 4 6

56 18 24

48 18 23

28 8 7

9 2 1

9 2 0

56 11 9

167 31 34

87 14 20

14 6 4

161 24 26

57 12 5

4 1 3

14 10 0

18 0 13

46 18 17

25 6 3

156 69 46

6 0 0

7 6 9

22 5 7

0 2 1

24 6 3

8 7 5

3 5 2

1 0 0

0 0 0

3 7 1

19 16 8

4 3 2

3 1 0

5 1 1

2 0 0

3 0 1

2 0 0

0 0 0

6 12 140

3 6 82

37 24 678

0 0 26

2 5 113

2 5 118

0 0 16

1 0 146

3 5 179

0 0 12

0 0 4

1 0 5

2 0 31

4 6 78

0 6 39

1 0 7

1 6 37

0 0 8

0 0 2

0 0 14

0 0 8

33 6 1 1 20 6 34 6 2,747 363 599 1,452 536 343 33 26 56 96 53 102 5 11 59 37 51 28 33 110 8 23 1 1 270 56 466 248 74 0 38 38 36 33 5 5 5 1 2 0 12 5 7 5 7 1 23 59 2 2 6 6 14 2 44 12

114 4 71 77 884 953 9,612 447 1,194 459 90 964 501 99 37 3 90 466 83 55 129 24 7 22 14 13 19 483 59 47 64 164

9 0 4 3 9 23 195 260 31 19 0 130 51 3 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 103 6 0 8 16

5 0 15 7 133 231 1,335 46 1,486 467 71 88 43 44 16 1 31 140 8 11 21 7 2 1 1 1 6 363 16 5 7 45

4 0 6 16 2 0 1 1 30 1 17 25 9 0 12 12 91 6 53 22 154 14 25 17 822 74 480 165 21 1 99 21 305 57 55 23 1,490 32 25 10 49 168 6 2 36 10 1,525 336 21 5 616 1,433 39 2 8 4 7 3 4 1 5 1 0 2 16 1 7 5 121 5 42 15 10 1 3 5 11 0 3 0 16 3 7 6 5 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 5 4 3 0 1 1 3 0 4 0 2 1 6 1 2 2 222 76 192 131 12 5 14 10 8 0 18 31 3 0 53 124 50 10 94 133

2 0 3 3 29 83 63 2 13 33 4 9 2 758 89 6 20 298 9 27 11 5 0 1 0 1 1 10 1 1 2 8

0 0 2 1 14 23 23 2 5 6 0 1 1 82 202 4 6 64 2 8 4 0 1 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 2 1 9 0 5 1 0 7 0 3 4 20 0 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

5 12 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 22 15 0 14 1 8 16 11 2 7 0 79 231 61 11 34 7 40 172 19 13 19 1 57 217 94 35 99 40 3 3 2 0 2 1 8 29 17 4 12 7 11 52 6 5 14 2 0 10 1 0 3 0 8 23 5 2 5 1 6 25 8 1 4 1 17 201 11 9 7 0 12 52 7 0 5 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1,559 321 205 24 67 13 385 6,676 349 383 440 43 171 235 1,454 22 86 13 34 487 44 1,037 281 20 52 306 96 144 1,317 99 6 41 25 12 175 280 8 18 28 11 11 48 3 22 32 4 22 46 1 8 17 1 11 17 2 22 27 3 5 12 7 17 22 0 15 11 10 33 10 2 5 2 1 4 4 4 5 1 1 8 1 0 7 1 2 10 2 2 0 0 4 35 11 3 7 1

0 0 5 0 10 3 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 11 25 14 5 12 13 671 244 32 41 20 1 0 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 4 7 19 0 3 2 0 4 0 2 0 0 9 37 25 6 16 11 216 1,883 334 306 167 4 0 0 1 5

0 0 0 0 9 0 16 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 7 2 4 0 8 35 307 348 182 67 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 25

0 5 10

9 10 45

0 0 1

0 1 10

0 0 4

0 0 1

1 9 14

1 5 11

0 1 2

0 0 0

0 0 5

2 7 22

0 3 7

0 1 3

0 1 6

0 0 3

0 1 1

0 0 1

0 0 0

108

20 15 7

5 18 7

46 76 22

5 5 0

16 28 8

10 17 6

1 2 1

24 21 11

53 38 16

4 4 2

0 0 1

1 0 0

6 0 3

11 29 15

2 6 6

1 1 2

3 2 3

0 0 1

1 1 2

0 6 1

0 0 0

2 2 7

0 0 0

6 15 11

2 0 0

1 1 2

0 3 5

1 0 2

2 3 6

1 8 4

0 0 0

0 0 1

0 1 0

0 0 0

5 1 6

2 3 0

1 0 1

0 1 1

0 0 0

0 1 1

0 0 2

0 0 0

1 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 3 4 0 0 4,227 551 3,805 3,055 1,584 485

0 0 84

8 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6,094 3,457 20,354 970

2 0 5,276

0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2,682 9,899 2,881 1,794 3,000 772 1,150 3,121 1,038

TABLE 1 Matrix of House-Buying Moves 2002-08 Original 63 Audit Areas

TOTAL

South Clydesdale

TOTAL

North Clydesdale

Lanark

Carluke

Crossford

Douglas Valley

Wishaw

SL Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/ Lesmahagow

Motherwell

Bellshill

Coatbridge

Airdrie

Stonehouse

SL SL

Dalserf

Larkhall

Hamilton

Blantyre

SL Bothwell/Uddingston

Strathaven

East Kilbride

Destination Area

IC Inverkip & Wemyss Bay

Gourock

1 0

0 0

4 5

1 1

3 0

0 1

3 1

1 0

0 0

0 1

1 1

0 4

3 1

1 4

0 1

1 0

0 0

0 3

1 0

0 0

2,661 2,367

0 1 2

0 1 0

0 6 5

0 0 0

0 3 7

0 6 2

1 3 4

1 2 0

0 0 0

0 2 5

0 3 3

1 0 0

0 3 1

0 1 3

0 0 0

0 1 0

0 0 0

0 1 1

0 0 2

0 0 1

146 4,056 2,841

0 0

1 0

2 4

2 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

3 0

2 0

1 0

4 0

1 0

0 1

0 0

1 0

0 0

1 0

1,360 585

25 7 7

16 3 9

120 29 48

27 11 24

78 23 32

15 7 12

86 13 41

10 6 3

2 0 0

8 1 2

53 13 22

44 15 15

20 11 8

46 15 20

30 13 14

7 3 3

5 1 0

6 3 3

48 10 28

22 2 9

12 2 2

15 4 3

16,643 5,363 2,056

1 3 2

1 0 2

29 9 6

3 2 0

15 5 4

5 0 3

12 1 2

2 1 1

0 0 0

1 0 0

9 3 1

11 6 7

11 5 1

9 3 2

10 0 5

2 1 1

2 0 0

5 1 0

0 0 2

0 0 0

0 0 2

3,578 2,461 2,417

0 0 19

1 0 11

1 4 130

0 0 26

2 6 277

0 0 42

1 6 89

0 0 36

0 0 1

0 0 9

3 5 93

3 5 138

0 0 76

1 0 69

0 0 54

1 0 40

0 0 6

0 11 7

2 0 37

0 1 12

0 0 4

0 0 13

734 1,243 11,642

1 0 1 3 4 1 27 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 11 11 2 8 6 23 312 157 687 104 1 0 0 0 3

1 13 0 3 1 42 2 7 1 64 4 46 17 348 0 37 4 123 2 88 0 33 0 144 1 143 1 8 1 3 0 1 4 9 11 52 5 5 2 5 7 8 2 0 20 1 152 4 84 4 114 2 231 7 1 7,238 1 126 0 33 0 104 2 489

1 0 11 0 5 0 63 2 8 4 3 9 12 1 1 0 2 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 162 699 7 5 151

27 0 23 16 8 11 66 3 7 5 2 22 41 1 1 0 5 17 3 3 9 0 1 6 1 1 1 40 12 860 52 275

4 0 2 1 6 1 43 6 3 3 2 28 88 1 0 0 0 23 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 95 5 25 666 493

9 1 21 11 14 6 88 2 3 11 3 21 48 3 1 0 2 19 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 150 67 135 235 4,437

2 0 6 0 2 2 12 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 17 25 21 9 197

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 5

1 0 2 1 1 1 7 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 46 1 7 50

15 2 72 21 10 9 53 1 4 4 0 4 3 3 0 0 0 13 2 4 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 25 6 19 16 94

27 1 48 56 11 11 41 2 4 1 0 15 20 1 0 0 4 12 1 2 3 2 0 8 0 2 1 19 3 26 13 81

14 0 20 10 10 2 52 3 1 3 0 11 27 1 1 0 4 8 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 29 8 218 38 180

11 2 19 9 19 7 62 2 4 2 0 15 12 1 0 0 3 27 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 29 9 48 29 326

9 0 16 6 2 5 60 2 4 4 0 3 11 1 0 0 0 7 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 17 4 20 11 129

0 0 6 1 3 1 17 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 20 10 5 7 62

2 0 2 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 2 18

0 0 1 0 2 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 1 2 10

3 0 4 3 7 4 34 0 2 2 0 4 3 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 2 9 3 58

1 0 2 0 2 7 16 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 9 1 6 1 22

0 0 1 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 13

2 0 2 1 1 1 12 0 1 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 1 0 23

1,953 430 6,775 2,937 6,147 4,404 18,978 1,115 3,973 3,177 497 4,038 3,956 1,543 510 51 3,083 11,298 2,512 2,266 2,607 730 1,156 3,161 1,091 1,500 771 10,000 1,233 1,831 1,673 8,314

171

1,082

1,784

0 0 1

0 0 2

4 36 41

1 86 7

8 13 57

4 8 16

6 45 78

36 61 13

6 1 0

2 0 255 5 4 3,746

2 1 745

4 12 126

3 12 99

5 14 100

3 19 6

3 4 1

2 4 2

7 8 14

1 4 7

0 2 5

0 2 4

116 675 5,712

751

3,329

147

5,845

1 2 3

0 2 0

46 84 42

7 15 18

357 149 36

53 57 22

133 312 95

31 49 64

1 1 1

5 10 6

96 148 112

172 84 58

2,165 326 96 665 2,601 676 155 516 2,847

4 33 11

4 15 10

7 7 8

11 73 169

16 18 23

3 31 52

0 14 11

4,191 5,699 4,587

372

898

0 0 1

0 0 0

10 11 17

4 13 7

1 6 17

3 1 7

8 38 43

6 28 35

0 1 1

3 3 7

2 7 22

1 2 13

0 5 24

8 15 62

5 11 221

43 40 10

81 6 5

2 46 29

5 12 1,186

12 20 114

4 5 64

12 1 36

247 342 2,044

619

1,185

0 0 6 2 5 1 14 2 0 2 5 4 5 2 9 4 1,452 723 9,996 1,476 2,767 1,829 6,655 1,856

0 1 4 3 8 5 20 5 5 6 35 71 265 44 558 0 2 3 3 2 4 6 8 6 8 7 13 48 324 518 37 563 5,531 5,101 4,144 4,611 4,609 823 258 281 1,942 1,092 625 625 208,264

TABLE 2 Percentage Self-containment - Original 63 Audit Areas

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Audit Areas

WD WD WD WD ED ED GC GC GC GC GC ED ED ED ED GC GC NL NL NL GC GC GC GC ER SL SL ER ER ER ER ER RF RF RF RF RF IC IC IC IC IC IC SL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL

Vale of Leven Dumbarton Milton/Bowling Clydebank Bearsden Milngavie Drumchapel West North City Centre Springburn Bishopbriggs Kirkintilloch Lenzie Northern Villages East End Easterhouse Kilsyth/Villages Cumbernauld Moodiesburn Govan Pollok Southside Castlemilk Giffnock/Thornliebank/Clarkston/Busby Newton Mearns Eaglesham/Waterfoot Rutherglen Cambuslang Barrhead Neilston Uplawmoor Renfrew Paisley/Linwood North Renfrewshire Johnstone/Elderslie West Renfrewshire Kilmacolm & Quarriers Village Port Glasgow Greenock Greenock West Gourock Inverkip & Wemyss Bay East Kilbride Strathaven Bothwell/Uddingston Blantyre Hamilton Larkhall Dalserf Stonehouse Airdrie Coatbridge Bellshill Motherwell Wishaw Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesmahagow Douglas Valley Crossford Carluke Lanark North Clydesdale South Clydesdale

Origin-based Self-containment

Destination-based Self-containment

69.7 66.2 17.8 63.1 41.4 38.8 24.8 56.0 39.7 14.6 37.3 50.3 51.1 35.7 42.4 51.1 30.7 62.6 72.1 36.8 44.7 33.0 50.6 23.3 37.4 46.9 33.8 37.8 36.2 49.1 39.6 39.2 50.6 59.1 57.9 45.8 50.5 38.4 58.0 59.6 31.9 45.8 30.0 72.4 56.7 47.0 39.8 53.4 60.7 5.2 37.8 65.6 57.0 51.7 45.6 62.1 41.4 32.8 13.5 58.0 52.2 47.5 62.5

76.3 67.1 17.6 63.3 28.5 32.5 25.0 50.4 37.6 17.8 38.7 38.6 50.5 20.9 42.0 55.0 32.1 38.9 75.7 45.1 45.1 42.0 47.2 26.8 28.2 35.2 30.5 40.1 46.9 47.9 41.6 23.8 58.1 67.4 50.5 57.8 43.9 36.3 58.3 60.3 33.5 47.3 32.0 72.4 47.4 31.1 36.4 66.7 58.3 16.2 45.3 67.7 65.3 52.2 56.4 61.8 45.2 31.4 16.4 61.1 56.7 42.4 51.8

TABLE 3 Matrix of House-Buying Moves 200208

Bearsden/ Milngavie

Drumchapel/ West/ North/ CityCentre

Bishopbriggs/ Springburn

Kirkintilloch/ Lenzie/ Northern Villages

East End/ Easterhouse

Cumbernauld/ Kilsyth/Villages

Moodiesburn

Govan/ Pollok/ Southside/ Castlemilk

Giffnock/ NewtonMearns/ Eaglesham

4,222 141 33 188 14 11 35 6 3 66 8 15 1 90 15 7 8 5 2 0 14 0 2 7 15 3 0 1 2 0 4,914

281 78 220 12 15 32 16 2 115 16 2,560 239 765 17 20 29 27 6 109 15 110 2,173 1,248 67 94 64 20 20 180 49 506 1,998 15,110 684 355 555 205 97 1,934 752 30 72 820 3,491 304 397 86 164 326 42 25 163 276 360 2,807 88 203 123 154 31 58 163 1,281 505 199 7,550 218 295 1,088 256 22 38 241 162 402 171 5,377 207 107 48 15 23 221 402 279 306 249 1,080 120 16 123 361 3,279 311 168 865 152 70 18,482 2,928 17 34 413 54 14 103 24 6 2,116 4,125 24 47 333 104 29 608 41 33 1,821 203 6 9 73 11 4 9 3 2 318 118 152 149 735 125 64 157 42 28 1,895 355 18 38 198 10 8 37 12 5 232 53 10 10 59 7 3 6 1 3 37 16 4 20 83 2 6 1 4 1 88 21 15 27 158 31 15 76 33 5 668 661 0 1 22 3 4 14 3 5 69 33 2 8 61 9 3 148 13 9 59 13 15 29 252 39 35 248 64 33 324 115 4 1 14 6 6 25 11 4 33 19 1 1 10 5 3 10 6 1 15 1 18 34 252 111 62 615 208 136 239 40 19 27 246 101 37 458 98 45 226 89 3 3 5 11 5 30 10 7 58 9 0 3 10 0 2 10 6 1 17 4 3 2 24 12 2 23 3 4 18 9 1 2 33 2 6 31 7 1 23 15 1 4 0 1 2 18 4 2 4 2 4,043 5,757 26,442 6,655 4,953 12,684 7,146 2,395 30,875 10,054

Port Glasgow/ Greenock

West Renfrewshire/ Kilmacolm

Renfrew/ Paisley/ Johnstone/ NorthRenfrewshire

Barrhead/ Neilston/ Uplawmoor

Clydebank

Destination Area Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton/ Milton&Bowling Clydebank Bearsden/ Milngavie Drumchapel/ West/ North/ CityCentre Bishopbriggs/ Springburn Kirkintilloch/ Lenzie/ Northern Villages East End/ Easterhouse Cumbernauld/ Kilsyth/Villages Moodiesburn Govan/ Pollok/ Southside/ Castlemilk Giffnock/ NewtonMearns/ Eaglesham Rutherglen/ Cambuslang Barrhead/ Neilston/ Uplawmoor Renfrew/ Paisley/ Johnstone/ NorthRenfrewshire West Renfrewshire/ Kilmacolm Port Glasgow/ Greenock Greenock West/ Gourock/ Inverkip/WemyssBay East Kilbride Strathaven Bothwell/Uddingston Blantyre/ Hamilton Larkhall/ Dalserf Stonehouse Airdrie/ Coatbridge Bellshill/ Motherwell/ Wishaw Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesmahagow/ DouglasValley Crossford Carluke Lanark/ NorthClydesdale South Clydesdale TOTAL

Rutherglen/ Cambuslang

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Origin Area 1 2 Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton/ Milton&Bowling

Iteration 1 - 30 Areas 11

12 7 15 190 45 17 347 44 24 882 121 3,910 19 80 17 7 10 323 24 49 404 12 14 65 163 19 11 10 12 7 6,860

10 2 1 67 9 3 23 5 4 251 67 20 1,168 445 20 2 5 15 2 1 11 2 1 3 12 1 1 1 1 0 2,153

71 74 52 460 56 30 173 44 37 1,037 143 78 314 13,386 682 126 127 55 13 10 69 8 11 78 82 18 4 7 5 6 17,256

14 5 16 285 8 8 48 15 7 203 38 11 12 963 1,871 127 71 7 6 8 8 1 1 21 9 3 1 1 2 2 3,772

7 3 3 33 5 1 16 5 0 48 7 6 4 132 52 3,014 900 5 0 1 7 0 1 4 11 1 1 3 1 0 4,271

TABLE 3 Matrix of House-Buying Moves 200208

Larkhall/ Dalserf

4 14 2 5 4 1 13 10 0 162 177 20 29 38 5 24 9 2 273 233 48 123 57 8 77 25 3 138 226 29 13 18 2 42 79 4 4 4 1 38 60 2 9 5 0 8 2 0 5 6 1 44 75 25 9 21 12 45 286 5 204 713 89 20 130 64 6 38 23 8,571 568 15 670 10,047 77 24 62 529 9 31 46 35 307 15 22 107 39 6 12 14 10,632 13,364 1,081

0 0 0 12 2 11 7 1 0 9 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 10 0 1 12 6 4 2 22 17 46 29 76 8 281

3 1 1 0 1 4 86 49 6 0 2 3 40 17 4 3 3 1 45 33 4 1 7 4 0 0 7 5 0 1 1 3 0 3 7 12 2 3 9 7 61 38 24 10 8 6 24 25 253 143 19 47 12 25 1,186 178 120 1,034 7 61 1,942 1,717

TOTAL

Blantyre/ Hamilton

Lanark/ NorthClydesdale

Bothwell/Uddingston

South Clydesdale

1 0 0 11 1 0 10 2 1 9 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 18 46 1 57 74 255 7 21 26 3 7 4 2 563

Carluke

Strathaven

4 9 2 3 6 2 6 6 0 3 9 2 3 7 2 7 7 0 98 201 62 133 174 21 5 38 5 20 18 3 5 11 0 12 12 1 40 143 27 304 144 39 2 45 11 23 24 6 5 7 0 16 12 0 79 495 70 88 166 17 13 244 15 14 25 3 6 287 21 63 185 6 2 12 2 2 5 0 67 71 6 28 51 11 31 8 2 9 2 0 849 5 1 7 5 1 1,974 13 1 3 2 1 2 7,238 162 40 245 19 1 126 699 12 72 27 0 33 7 860 160 22 5 593 156 327 5,831 211 0 33 26 29 205 1,131 0 36 86 13 53 62 4 80 11 150 178 23 8 172 40 542 672 147 0 35 26 16 81 60 0 11 13 6 39 29 1 17 7 17 50 36 1 15 12 15 40 9 2 5 4 5 11 4 3,213 9,996 1,476 2,767 8,484 1,893

Crossford

Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Les mahagow/ DouglasValley

Bellshill/ Motherwell/ Wishaw

Stonehouse

East Kilbride

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

17 Greenock West/ Gourock/ Inverkip/WemyssBay

Iteration 1 - 30 Areas

0 0 2 22 0 2 15 2 1 14 3 4 0 10 1 0 1 4 2 1 23 2 2 6 25 17 1 36 105 324 625

5,174 4,056 4,201 24,647 6,039 4,394 13,595 7,205 2,937 30,644 7,647 7,994 2,104 19,159 3,337 4,317 3,362 10,000 1,233 1,831 9,987 1,900 675 11,557 14,477 1,145 342 2,044 1,743 518 208,264

TABLE 4 Percentage Self-containment - Iteration 1 - 30 Areas

LA 1 WD WD WD 2 WD 3 ED ED 4 GC GC GC GC 5 GC ED 6 ED ED ED 7 GC GC 8 NL NL 9 NL 10 GC GC GC GC 12 ER SL SL 11 ER ER 13 ER ER ER 14 RF RF RF RF 15 RF IC 16 IC IC 17 IC IC IC 18 SL 19 NL 20 NL 21 NL NL 22 NL NL 23 SL 24 SL SL 25 SL SL SL 26 SL SL 27 SL 28 SL 29 SL SL 30 SL

Audit Areas Vale of Leven Dumbarton Milton/Bowling Clydebank Bearsden Milngavie Drumchapel West North City Centre Springburn Bishopbriggs Kirkintilloch Lenzie Northern Villages East End Easterhouse Kilsyth/Villages Cumbernauld Moodiesburn Govan Pollok Southside Castlemilk Giffnock/Thornliebank/Clarkston/Busby Newton Mearns Eaglesham/Waterfoot Rutherglen Cambuslang Barrhead Neilston Uplawmoor Renfrew Paisley/Linwood North Renfrewshire Johnstone/Elderslie West Renfrewshire Kilmacolm & Quarriers Village Port Glasgow Greenock Greenock West Gourock Inverkip & Wemyss Bay East Kilbride Strathaven Bothwell/Uddingston Blantyre Hamilton Larkhall Dalserf Stonehouse Airdrie Coatbridge Bellshill Motherwell Wishaw Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesmahagow Douglas Valley Crossford Carluke Lanark North Clydesdale South Clydesdale

Origin-based Self-containment

Destination-based Self-containment

81.6

85.9

63.1 51.7

63.3 37.7

61.3

57.1

57.8

52.5

63.9

56.7

55.5

59.5

74.6

75.2

36.8 60.3

45.1 59.9

53.9

41.0

48.9

57.0

55.5

54.2

69.9

77.6

56.1

49.6

69.8

70.6

58.7

61.4

72.4 56.7 47.0 58.4

72.4 47.4 31.1 68.7

59.5

59.7

37.8 74.2

45.3 80.6

69.4

75.2

46.2

48.9

13.5 58.0 59.3

16.4 61.1 60.2

62.5

51.8

TABLE 5 Matrix of HouseBuying Moves 2002-08 Iteration 2 - 23 Areas

Carluke & Lanark/NClydesdale

South Clydesdale

TOTAL

Crossford

Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesm ahagow/ DouglasValley

Bellshill/ Motherwell/ Wishaw

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

Stonehouse

Blantyre/ Hamilton & Larkhall

Bothwell/Uddingston

Strathaven

East Kilbride

Inverclyde

Renfrewshire & Kilmacolm

Barrhead/ Neilston/ Uplawmoor

Rutherglen/ Cambuslang

Glasgow South & Eastwood

East End/ Easterhouse

Moodiesburn

Cumbernauld/ Kilsyth/Villages

Strathkelvin & Springburn

GlasgowNW & Bearsden/Milngavie

Clydebank

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton/ Milton&Bowling

Origin Area 1 2

4,222 141

281 2,560

298 1,004

27 37

16 27

2 6

32 29

131 124

12 7

10 2

85 79

11 9

9 6

2 0

3 3

8 11

1 0

4 5

14 4

2 1

0 0

4 1

0 0

5,174 4,056

221 25

616 55

20,529 1,331

1,200 6,962

225 289

117 287

619 485

2,915 553

205 62

68 12

813 102

137 16

208 49

64 5

140 32

202 34

11 1

175 53

187 47

20 7

12 13

140 11

24 2

28,848 10,433

7 5 56 147 12

3 4

Destination Area Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton/ Milton&Bowling Clydebank GlasgowNW & Bearsden/Milngavie Strathkelvin & Springburn

5 6 7 8 9

Cumbernauld/ Kilsyth/Villages Moodiesburn East End/ Easterhouse Glasgow South & Eastwood Rutherglen/ Cambuslang

6 3 35 74 15

22 15 58 140 24

279 244 1,444 4,087 380

564 681 704 547 133

5,377 249 218 176 41

207 1,080 295 76 33

171 306 7,550 968 608

155 44 136 24 1,344 347 27,651 1,003 2,024 3,910

5 4 23 318 20

59 44 221 1,421 89

45 7 143 739 287

11 0 27 85 21

23 16 304 102 63

30 12 183 211 191

2 1 10 10 3

123 77 273 151 42

57 25 233 244 79

8 3 48 31 4

1 0 7 10 0

7 4 57 83 11

2 1 15 17 4

7,205 2,937 13,595 38,291 7,994

12 13 14 10 11 15 16 17 18

Barrhead/ Neilston/ Uplawmoor Renfrewshire & Kilmacolm Inverclyde East Kilbride Strathaven Bothwell/Uddingston Blantyre/ Hamilton & Larkhall Stonehouse Airdrie/ Coatbridge

1 105 15 5 2 0 14 2 7

6 170 14 15 0 2 19 1 18

82 1,120 172 185 23 69 296 11 286

15 207 18 46 7 12 86 8 173

3 54 5 33 3 13 75 6 208

2 33 4 5 5 9 37 1 136

9 194 7 76 14 148 273 10 615

436 2,535 162 1,329 102 72 491 16 279

19 97 17 323 24 49 416 14 65

1,168 465 7 15 2 1 13 1 3

326 6 12 16,902 282 79 451 6,737 18 62 7 7,238 19 1 126 18 1 33 86 12 626 12 1 36 99 8 80

2 8 2 162 699 7 182 86 11

2 37 10 40 12 860 356 13 150

5 64 9 264 99 182 7,378 115 201

1 2 0 18 46 1 131 255 7

4 47 13 44 9 45 224 6 8,571

4 65 8 75 21 286 843 38 568

1 2 1 25 12 5 153 23 15

0 4 1 10 0 1 18 4 2

0 13 7 19 5 16 133 14 49

0 11 1 4 2 1 25 2 6

2,104 22,496 7,679 10,000 1,233 1,831 11,887 675 11,557

19 Bellshill/ Motherwell/ Wishaw Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesmaha 20 gow/ DouglasValley 21 Crossford

273

138

458

315

163

172

542

819

670

10,047

396

14,477

3 0

8 13

16 2

10 6

7 1

30 10

67 21

19 11

1 1

21 5

1 1

35 11

26 13

16 6

141 68

26 3

24 9

62 31

529 46

17 46

66 37

17 1

1,145 342

22 Carluke / Lanark/NClydesdale 23 South Clydesdale TOTAL

3 0 4,914

1 2

4 61 22 1 4 3 4,043 32,199 11,608

10 4 7,146

5 54 65 22 2 18 6 7 2,395 12,684 40,929 6,860

2 0 2,153

15 6 32 19 32 135 11 57 414 8 2 5 4 5 15 2 6 12 21,028 7,484 9,996 1,476 2,767 10,377 563 10,632 13,364

54 105 2,518 141 3,787 14 8 68 324 518 1,081 281 3,659 625 208,264

TABLE 6 Percentage Self-containment - Iteration 2 - 23 Areas

LA 1 WD WD WD 2 WD 3 ED ED GC GC GC GC 4 GC ED ED ED ED 5 GC GC 6 NL NL 7 NL 8 GC GC GC GC ER SL SL 9 ER ER 10 ER ER ER 11 RF RF RF RF RF IC 12 IC IC IC IC IC 13 SL 14 NL 15 NL 16 NL NL NL NL 17 SL 18 SL SL 19 SL SL SL 20 SL SL 21 SL 22 SL SL SL 23 SL

Origin-based Self-containment

Destination-based Self-containment

81.6

85.9

63.1 71.2

63.3 63.8

66.7

60.0

55.5

59.5

74.6

75.2

36.8 72.2

45.1 67.6

48.9

57.0

55.5

54.2

75.1

80.4

87.7

90.0

72.4 56.7 47.0 62.1

72.4 47.4 31.1 71.1

37.8 74.2

45.3 80.6

69.4

75.2

46.2

48.9

13.5 66.5

16.4 68.8

62.5

51.8

TABLE 7 Matrix of HouseBuying Moves 2002-08

Inverclyde

East Kilbride

TOTAL

Renfrewshire

Clydesdale

Greater Glasgow South

Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Le smahagow/ DouglasValley

Moodiesburn

Bellshill/ Motherwell/ Wishaw

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

Hamilton

Bothwell/Uddingston

Strathaven

2 64 5 27 11 0 106 10 2 162 699 7 268 11 40

3 143 32 304 23 16 165 39 10 40 12 860 369 150 542

9 224 35 193 32 13 415 72 9 282 145 183 7,879 208 840

4 180 53 273 123 77 193 51 13 44 9 45 230 8,571 670

14 191 47 233 57 25 323 69 8 75 21 286 881 568 10,047

2 21 7 48 8 3 35 3 1 25 12 5 176 15 77

4 177 26 79 10 5 125 28 9 33 7 18 196 57 443

5,174 32,904 10,433 13,595 7,205 2,937 46,285 24,600 7,679 10,000 1,233 1,831 12,562 11,557 14,477

East End/ Easterhouse

Strathkelvin & Springburn

Greater Glasgow NW

Destination Area Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton/ 1 Milton&Bowling 2 Greater Glasgow NW 3 Strathkelvin & Springburn 4 East End/ Easterhouse 5 Cumbernauld/ Kilsyth/Villages 6 Moodiesburn 7 Greater Glasgow South 8 Renfrewshire 9 Inverclyde 10 East Kilbride 11 Strathaven 12 Bothwell/Uddingston 13 Hamilton 14 Airdrie/ Coatbridge 15 Bellshill/ Motherwell/ Wishaw Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill/Lesmahagow/ 16 DouglasValley 17 Clydesdale TOTAL

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton/ Milton&Bowling

Origin Area 1 2

Cumbernauld/ Kilsyth/Villages

Iteration 3 - 17 Areas

4,222 362 25 35 6 3 89 106 15 5 2 0 16 7 15

579 24,709 1,386 1,502 301 259 4,631 1,378 186 200 23 71 327 304 292

27 1,237 6,962 704 564 681 680 222 18 46 7 12 94 173 138

32 648 485 7,550 171 306 1,576 203 7 76 14 148 283 615 458

3 3 4,914

11 16 30 10 7 86 22 1 35 26 16 167 24 62 83 27 82 20 8 132 31 9 48 36 43 234 72 457 36,242 11,608 12,684 7,146 2,395 47,789 23,181 7,484 9,996 1,476 2,767 10,940 10,632 13,364

529 114 1,081

100 1,145 3,248 4,647 4,565 208,264

16 2 143 95 11 9 252 123 3,251 962 146 214 289 287 615 114 16 49 218 295 1,691 244 56 143 5,377 207 199 64 7 45 249 1,080 160 48 5 7 217 109 34,588 1,848 159 1,026 57 35 3,087 18,861 288 91 5 4 179 458 6,737 18 33 5 1,652 77 7 7,238 3 5 126 21 1 126 13 9 121 19 1 33 81 38 937 112 13 662 208 136 344 102 8 80 98 45 478 103 19 172

TABLE 8 Percentage Self-containment - Iteration 3 - 17 Areas

LA 1 WD WD WD 2 WD ED ED GC GC GC GC 3 GC ED ED ED ED 4 GC GC 5 NL NL 6 NL 7 GC GC GC GC ER SL SL ER ER 8 ER ER ER RF RF RF RF RF IC 9 IC IC IC IC IC 10 SL 11 NL 12 NL 13 NL NL NL NL SL 14 SL SL 15 SL SL SL 16 SL SL 17 SL SL SL SL SL

Origin-based Self-containment

Destination-based Self-containment

81.6

85.9

75.1

68.2

66.7

60.0

55.5

59.5

74.6

75.2

36.8 74.7

45.1 72.4

76.7

81.4

87.7

90.0

72.4 56.7 47.0 62.7

72.4 47.4 31.1 72.0

74.2

80.6

69.4

75.2

46.2

48.9

69.9

71.2

TABLE 9 Matrix of HouseBuying Moves 2002-08

4,222 362 25 35 9 89 106 15 7 16 7 15 6 4,914

Cumbernauld

Greater Glasgow South

Renfrewshire

Inverclyde

East Kilbride

Hamilton

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

Motherwell

Clydesdale

TOTAL

Glasgow East

Greater Glasgow NW

Destination Area 1 Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton 2 Greater Glasgow NW 3 Strathkelvin & Springburn 4 Glasgow East 5 Cumbernauld 6 Greater Glasgow South 7 Renfrewshire 8 Inverclyde 9 East Kilbride 10 Hamilton 11 Airdrie/ Coatbridge 12 Motherwell 13 Clydesdale TOTAL

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

Origin Area 1 2

Strathkelvin & Springburn

Iteration 4 - Final 13 Building Blocks

579 27 32 18 143 95 11 11 12 4 14 6 5,174 24,709 1,237 648 375 3,251 962 146 278 367 180 191 198 32,904 1,386 6,962 485 576 615 114 16 54 67 53 47 33 10,433 1,502 704 7,550 513 1,691 244 56 170 497 273 233 127 13,595 560 1,245 477 6,913 359 112 12 63 84 200 82 26 10,142 4,631 680 1,576 326 34,588 1,848 159 1,132 580 193 323 160 46,285 1,378 222 203 92 3,087 18,861 288 101 111 51 69 31 24,600 186 18 7 9 179 458 6,737 20 19 13 8 10 7,679 223 53 90 46 1,778 98 8 8,225 479 53 96 77 11,233 398 106 431 141 1,058 131 14 970 9,291 275 1,167 395 14,393 304 173 615 344 344 102 8 91 358 8,571 568 72 11,557 292 138 458 143 478 103 19 212 1,382 670 10,047 520 14,477 94 43 112 45 218 53 10 145 460 96 519 3,991 5,792 36,242 11,608 12,684 9,541 47,789 23,181 7,484 11,472 13,707 10,632 13,364 5,646 208,264

TABLE 10 Percentage Self-containment - Iteration 4 - Final 13 Building Blocks

LA 1 WD WD WD 2 WD ED ED GC GC GC GC 3 GC ED ED ED ED 4 GC GC 5 NL NL NL 6 GC GC GC GC ER SL SL ER ER 7 ER ER ER RF RF RF RF RF IC 8 IC IC IC IC IC 9 SL NL 10 NL NL NL NL NL SL 11 SL SL 12 SL SL SL 13 SL SL SL SL SL SL SL

Origin-based Self-containment

Destination-based Self-containment

Housing Market Area Building Blocks

81.6

85.9

Dumbarton & Vale of Leven

75.1

68.2

Greater Glasgow North & West

66.7

60.0

Strathkelvin & Springburn

55.5

59.5

Glasgow East

68.2

72.5

Cumbernauld

74.7

72.4

Greater Glasgow South

76.7

81.4

Renfrewshire

87.7

90.0

Inverclyde

73.2

71.7

East Kilbride

64.6

67.8

Hamilton

74.2

80.6

Airdrie & Coatbridge

69.4

75.2

Motherwell

68.9

70.7

Clydesdale

TABLE 11 Changes in Percentage Self-containment 1988-2008 - Final 13 Building Blocks

1988-97 Data Housing Market Area Building Blocks

1996-2002 Data

2002-08 Data

Origin-based Self-containment

Destination-based Self-containment

Origin-based Self-containment

Destination-based Self-containment

Origin-based Self-containment

Destination-based Self-containment

1 Inverclyde

92.1

90.4

91.8

90.1

87.7

90.0

2 Dumbarton & Vale of Leven

85.2

86.2

83.9

86.4

81.6

85.9

3 Renfrewshire

79.7

86.2

78.6

85.0

76.7

81.4

4 Airdrie & Coatbridge

84.4

77.7

80.4

83.1

74.2

80.6

5 Greater Glasgow South

78.9

77.4

74.6

76.4

74.7

72.4

6 East Kilbride

71.1

79.2

72.7

79.3

73.2

71.7

7 Motherwell

73.6

75.5

74.7

76.1

69.4

75.2

8 Greater Glasgow North & West

80.3

72.7

81.0

69.2

75.1

68.2

9 Cumbernauld

67.7

80.1

65.6

80.6

68.2

72.5

10 Clydesdale

69.5

77.5

72.3

75.1

68.9

70.7

11 Hamilton

70.4

73.5

69.3

71.3

64.6

67.8

12 Strathkelvin & Springburn

68.5

67.1

66.4

64.8

66.7

60.0

13 Glasgow East

70.2

68.1

66.6

61.7

55.5

59.5

Strathkelvin & Springburn

Glasgow East

Cumbernauld

Greater Glasgow South

Renfrewshire

Inverclyde

East Kilbride

Hamilton

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

Motherwell

Clydesdale

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

85.9

1.6

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.0

0.1

Greater Glasgow NW

7.4

68.2

10.7

5.1

3.9

6.8

4.1

2.0

2.4

2.7

1.7

1.4

3.5

Strathkelvin & Springburn

0.5

3.8

60.0

3.8

6.0

1.3

0.5

0.2

0.5

0.4

0.6

Glasgow East

0.7

4.1

6.1

59.5

5.4

3.5

1.1

0.7

1.5

3.6

2.6

1.7

2.2

Cumbernauld

0.2

1.5

10.7

3.8

72.5

0.8

0.5

0.2

0.5

0.6

1.9

0.6

0.5

Greater Glasgow South

1.8

12.8

5.9

12.4

3.4

72.4

8.0

2.1

9.9

4.2

1.8

2.4

2.8

Renfrewshire

2.2

3.8

1.9

1.6

1.0

6.5

81.4

3.8

0.9

0.8

0.5

Inverclyde

0.3

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.4

2.0

90.0

0.2

0.1

0.2

East Kilbride

0.1

0.6

0.5

0.7

0.5

3.7

0.4

0.1

71.7

3.5

0.5

0.7

1.4

Hamilton

0.3

1.1

0.9

3.4

1.5

2.2

0.6

0.2

8.5

67.8

2.6

8.7

7.0

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

0.1

0.8

1.5

4.8

3.6

0.7

0.4

0.1

0.8

2.6

80.6

4.3

1.3

Motherwell

0.3

0.8

1.2

3.6

1.5

1.0

0.4

0.3

1.8

10.1

6.3

75.2

9.2

Greater Glasgow NW

Destination Area

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

TABLE 12 1996-2002 SASINES (ALL SALES) Percentage self-containment and linkages - Destination-based

Clydesdale

0.1

0.3

0.4

0.9

0.5

0.2

0.1

1.3

3.4

0.9

3.9

70.7

Total

100.0

Destination Area

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

Greater Glasgow NW

Strathkelvin & Springburn

Glasgow East

Cumbernauld

Greater Glasgow South

Renfrewshire

Inverclyde

East Kilbride

Hamilton

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

Motherwell

Clydesdale

Total

TABLE 13 1996-2002 SASINES (ALL SALES) Percentage self-containment and linkages - Origin-based

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

81.6

11.2

0.5

0.6

0.3

2.8

1.8

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.1

100.0

Greater Glasgow NW

1.1

75.1

3.8

2.0

1.1

9.9

2.9

0.4

0.8

1.1

0.5

0.6

100.0

Strathkelvin & Springburn

0.2

13.3

66.7

4.6

5.5

5.9

1.1

0.2

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.3

100.0

Glasgow East

0.3

11.0

5.2

55.5

3.8

12.4

1.8

0.4

1.3

3.7

2.0

1.7

0.9

100.0

Cumbernauld

0.1

5.5

12.3

4.7

68.2

3.5

1.1

0.1

0.6

0.8

2.0

0.8

0.3

100.0

Greater Glasgow South

0.2

10.0

1.5

3.4

0.7

74.7

4.0

0.3

2.4

1.3

0.4

0.7

0.3

100.0

Renfrewshire

0.4

5.6

0.9

0.8

0.4

12.5

76.7

1.2

0.4

0.5

0.2

0.3

0.1

100.0

Inverclyde

0.2

2.4

0.2

0.1

2.3

6.0

87.7

0.3

0.2

0.1

100.0

East Kilbride

0.1

2.0

0.5

0.8

0.4

15.8

0.9

0.1

73.2

4.3

0.5

0.9

0.7

100.0

Hamilton

0.1

2.8

0.7

3.0

1.0

7.4

0.9

0.1

6.7

64.6

1.9

8.1

2.7

100.0

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

0.1

2.6

1.5

5.3

3.0

0.9

0.1

0.8

3.1

74.2

4.9

0.6

100.0

Motherwell

0.1

2.0

1.0

3.2

1.0

3.3

0.7

0.1

1.5

9.5

4.6

69.4

3.6

100.0

Clydesdale

0.1

1.6

0.7

1.9

0.8

3.8

0.9

0.2

2.5

7.9

1.7

9.0

68.9

100.0

7.5

6.6

Clydesdale

9.5

Motherwell

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

Hamilton

Inverclyde

Renfrewshire

Glasgow East

East Kilbride

Greater Glasgow South

Cumbernauld

Strathkelvin & Springburn

Destination Area 1 Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton 2 Greater Glasgow NW 3 Strathkelvin & Springburn 5 Glasgow East 4 Cumbernauld 6 Greater Glasgow South 7 East Kilbride 8 Renfrewshire 9 Inverclyde 10 Hamilton 11 Airdrie/ Coatbridge 12 Motherwell 13 Clydesdale

Greater Glasgow NW

Identification of pairings where both measures of self-containment increase - expressed as sum of increases

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

TABLE 14

17.3 9.9 3.8 1.2 1.9 4.4

0.6

12.1 4.2

3.5 9.1

TABLE 15 Testing of linkages for Cumbernauld, East Kilbride, Renfrewshire and Airdrie & Coatbridge

Matrix (a) : House-Buying Moves 2002-08

Matrix (b) : Origin-Based Analysis of Self-Containment and Linkages (%)

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

Eastern Conurbation

5,174

511

92,215

1,790

1,634

3,168

377

699

81.6

15.1

0.3

0.2

1.8

0.2

0.1

0.6 100.00

Central Conurbation

0.5

89.3

1.7

1.6

3.1

0.4

0.7

2,641

6,913

112

200

2.7 100.00

Cumbernauld

0.1

26.0

68.2

0.6

1.1

0.1

2.0

1.9 100.00

8,225

652

11,233

East Kilbride

0.1

101 18,861

288

211

24,600

Renfrewshire

0.4

19.1

0.4

73.2

0.9

0.1

0.5

5.8 100.00

19.9

0.4

76.7

1.2

0.2

0.9 100.00

East Kilbride

2,144

Renfrewshire

106

4,890

Inverclyde

390

458

6,737

7,679

Inverclyde

0.2

5.1

0.1

0.3

6.0

87.7

0.2

0.5 100.00

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

1,436

344

102

8,571

998

11,557

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

0.1

12.4

3.0

0.8

0.9

0.1

74.2

8.6 100.00

Eastern Conurbation

0.1

11.0

0.9

3.8

0.8

0.1

3.0

80.1 100.00

Inverclyde

Destination Area Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

Total

Inverclyde

Total

Renfrewshire

Eastern Conurbation

East Kilbride

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

10,142

Cumbernauld

Inverclyde

781

192

Central Conurbation

Renfrewshire

4,222

2,823 103,217

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

East Kilbride

Cumbernauld

Central Conurbation

Destination Area Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

Origin Area

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

Origin Area

Eastern Conurbation

37 3,826 4,914 108,323

329 1,327 287 9,541 11,472 23,181

43 1,041 27,772 34,662 7,484 10,632 32,717 208,264

Matrix (c) : Destination-Based Analysis of Self-Containment and Linkages (%)

Matrix (d) : Testing for Significant Linkages

0.1

0.0

0.1

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

13.7

5.0

6.6

8.6

Central Conurbation

Cumbernauld

0.2

2.4

72.5

0.5

0.2

1.9

0.6

Cumbernauld

East Kilbride

0.1

2.0

0.5

71.7

0.4

0.1

0.5

2.0

East Kilbride

Renfrewshire

2.2

4.5

1.0

0.9

81.4

3.8

0.5

0.6

Renfrewshire

Inverclyde

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

2.0

90.0

0.1

Inverclyde

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

0.1

1.3

3.6

0.8

0.4

0.1

80.6

3.1

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

Eastern Conurbation

0.8

3.5

3.4

11.6

1.2

0.6

9.8

84.9

Eastern Conurbation

100.00

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

4.7

3.6

9.3

Eastern Conurbation

0.4

14.2

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

0.1

18.8

Renfrewshire

0.2

85.1

East Kilbride

0.7

10.4

Cumbernauld

85.9

Central Conurbation

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

Eastern Conurbation

Airdrie/ Coatbridge

Inverclyde

Renfrewshire

East Kilbride

Cumbernauld

Central Conurbation

Destination Area Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

Vale of Leven/ Dumbarton

Origin Area

1.7

7.2

1.2

3.7

6.6

TABLE 16 Housing Market Area Framework

Conurbation Housing Market Areas 1st Tier HMA

2nd Tier HMA

3rd Tier Sub-Market Area

Conurbation

Central Conurbation

Greater Glasgow North & West Strathkelvin & Springburn Glasgow East End Cumbernauld Greater Glasgow South Renfrewshire East Kilbride

Eastern Conurbation

Airdrie & Coatbridge Motherwell Clydesdale Hamilton

Discrete (self-contained) Housing Market Areas Dumbarton & Vale of Leven Inverclyde

Diagram 1A

Diagram 1B

Diagram 2

Diagram 3

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Housing Market Partnership Housing Need and Demand Assessment Technical Appendix 02 Current Housing Supply / Stock Profile November 2010

HNDA W

Contents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Introduction Stock and Household Numbers by Local Authority Tenure by Local Authority Type and Size by Local Authority Stock Age and Condition by Local Authority Council Tax Band by Local Authority Completions by Tenure and Affordability Communal Resident Establishments Summary

List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2a Figure 2b Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14

Stock and Household Numbers Stock by tenure Stock by tenure Stock by type House Type Trend: Predominant House Type by Datazone Number of Habitable Rooms Number of Rooms Mapped Age of Stock Stock Condition from Scottish House Condition Survey Council Tax Band Council Tax – Predominant Band by Datazone Percentage completions by tenure: 1999-2000; Average; 2008-2009 Affordable Housing Completions 2000-2001 to 2008-2009 Communal Residential Establishments Summary

Introduction

1.1

The need to consider the profile of the housing stock is detailed in the Housing Need and Demand Assessment Guidance published by the Scottish Government. The stock is the number and type of housing available within an area at a specific date and how that housing is being used. It is important to assess the overall adequacy of stock and identify key issues that need to be addressed.

1.2

The output of this assessment is an estimate of current dwellings by local authority area in terms of stock numbers, vacancies, tenure, dwelling type, size, age of stock, condition of stock and council tax band. Consideration is also given to of completions by tenure and affordable housing completions. This is taken forward in more detail in Technical Appendix 6 Review of Supply and Demand for Housing, using projections of need, demand and supply.

1.3

Overall, there are some conclusions which can be drawn at this stage: • There is a significant social rented sector in many local authority areas. • There is potentially an over-dominance of higher density housing in certain areas, including high-rise, although there are demolition and regeneration programmes in hand. • Patterns of density are predictably highest in urban centres, lower in suburban and rural areas. • East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire exhibit the characteristics of largely affluent areas, with evidence of affordability issues. • Elsewhere in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley, affordability is largely a localised issue. • There is a discrepancy between stock condition and occupant satisfaction (social rented sector) but this may be overemphasised because of energy efficiency failings and recent improvements in housing stock not reflected in the data.

Stock and Household Numbers by Local Authority

2.1

Stock and households are detailed below in Figure 1, derived from GROS data. Figure 1 Stock and Household Numbers Local Authorities

Total Stock

E Dunbartonshire 44,034 E Renfrewshire 36,747 Glasgow City 295,590 Inverclyde 39,334 North Lanarkshire 146,463 Renfrewshire 82,287 South Lanarkshire 141,618 W Dunbartonshire 44,114 GCV TOTAL 830,527 Source: GROS/TA06 (2008)

Households

Vacancy Rate

43,227 35,988 284,553 37,156 143,715 79,037 138,354 42,669 804,709

1.4% 1.8% 3.6% 5% 1.7% 3.6% 2% 2.9% 2.8%

Tenure by Local Authority

3.1

Tenure is broken down into private, owner-occupied, social and other, as in Figure 2 below. Social stock includes council and RSL homes. Figure 2a Stock by tenure (2008)

Source: SHS 2008 Figure 2b Stock by tenure (2008)

Source: SHS 2008 3.2

In all areas, the dominant tenure is owner-occupation. There are higher levels of social housing in Glasgow City and West Dunbartonshire and also North Lanarkshire (approximately 30% and above). These are all above the Scottish average. Other areas are closer to the Scottish average (23%) except for East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire, which have notably low levels (approximately 10%) of social housing. Private rented housing is notably high in Glasgow, higher than the Scottish average, but all other areas of Glasgow and the Clyde Valley have lower levels of private rented accommodation.

Type and Size by Local Authority

4.1

The Scottish Household Survey identifies three main groups of home type summarised below as: house; flat (new/ tenement), which includes four-in-ablock; and flat (high rise) which includes flats in blocks which are five or more levels in height. Figure 3 Stock by type (2008)

Source: SHS (2008) 4.2

In most areas, houses are the dominant dwelling type. Most areas are close to (North and South Lanarkshire) or below the Scotland average of 67%, but Glasgow is dominated by flats (32% houses, 58% flats and 10% high rise) and both East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire have around 80% houses, well above the Scotland average. This is mapped by datazone in Figure 4 which provides a spatial indication of dwelling type. Flats are largely in urban areas with houses largely in suburban, urban fringe or rural areas.

Figure 4 House Type Trend: Predominant House Type by Datazone

Source: SNS (2008) 4.3

The number of rooms must also be considered, and is detailed in Figure 5 and mapped in Figure 6. There is a preponderance of smaller-roomed dwellings in the City Centre, but also in West Dunbartonshire and, to a lesser extent, a significant proportion in Inverclyde and Renfrewshire. Figure 5 Number of Habitable Rooms

Source: SNS (2008)

Figure 6 Number of Rooms Mapped

Source: SNS (2008) 5

Stock Age and Condition by Local Authority

5.1

The age of the housing stock is summarised below in Figure 7. Most stock in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley dates from between 1945 and 1982, with some areas containing a greater proportion of pre-1919 stock, notably North Lanarkshire. East Renfrewshire, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire have the highest proportions of post-1982 stock Figure 7 Age of Stock 100% 90% 80% 70%

Post 1982

60%

1965 to 1982

50%

1945 to 1964

40%

1919 to 1944

30%

Pre 1919

20% 10% 0%

Source: Scottish Government (1998 to 2010)

5.2

Stock condition is detailed by local authority, captured in the Scottish House Condition Survey over three year blocks for 2004-2007 and 2005-2008, shown below in Figure 8. Figure 8 Stock Condition from Scottish House Condition Survey

Local Authority E Dunbartonshire E Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire W Dunbartonshire

% of private dwellings failing SHQS 20042007 78 76 75 74 70 68 78 70

% of private dwellings failing SHQS 20052008 69 74 69 71 63 70 74 70

% of social dwellings failing SHQS 20042007 74 72 75 77 76 88 80 73

% of social dwellings failing SHQS 20052008 59 66 65 70 75 80 72 69

Social: % adults rating condition as good : 20042007 87.5 88.8 79.9 83.8 81.4 79 86.9 76.4

Social: % adults rating condition as good : 20052008 85.5 88 79.3 83.2 84.1 78.6 83.7 76.7

Source: SHCS (2004-07 and 2005-08) 5.3

There are no notable trends, other than a disconnection between dwellings failing the Scottish Housing Quality Standard and the generally positive rating of householders. This may be due to housing failing this standard on the grounds of energy efficiency and the relative lack of householder concern, and recent assessments indicate a lowered failure rate which reflects recent investment.

Council Tax Band by Local Authority

6.1 Council tax banding is summarised below in Figure 9 and mapped in the following Figure 10. Figure 9 Council Tax Band

Source: SNS (2009)

6.2

East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire have the smallest proportion of lowest-band properties, and Inverclyde, West Dunbartonshire, and Glasgow have the highest proportion of lowest-band properties. East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire also have the highest proportions of highest-banded properties. However, even in both these locations, the pattern is not uniform, which is why consideration of spatial mapping is useful, in terms of the predominant council tax band.

Figure 10 Council Tax – Predominant Band by Datazone

Source: SNS (2009) 6.3

Once again, East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire have the highest share of the higher bands and lowest share of the lower bands, in particular concentrations.

Completions by Tenure and Affordability

7.1

Completions terms of tenure and affordability are shown in Figures 11 and 12. In most areas, the percentage of RSL (Registered Social Landlord) completions have increased (figure 11) as the percentage of private completions have decreased, with the exception of East Renfrewshire Council and West Dunbartonshire Council. Local authority completions barely feature, with the marginal exceptions of Glasgow and North Lanarkshire. In terms of affordable housing completions in numbers (figure 12), most have been in Glasgow, but the numbers have fallen by approximately fifty percent over the period with most other areas fluctuating and declining, with although North and South Lanarkshire have exhibited increases in the most recent year.

Figure 11 Percentage of completions by tenure: 1999- 2000 vs Average vs 2008-2009 100

RSL 40

LA Private

Source: SNS (derived from NB2 returns)

Figure 12 Affordable Housing Completions 2000-2001 to 2008-2009 2500 East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City

2000

Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire

1500

South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

1000

500

Source: SNS (derived from NB2 returns)

Communal Resident Establishments

8.1

Communal residential establishments are summarised below in Figure 13. A total of just over 23,000 persons are resident within communal establishments. Most are resident within Glasgow City, notably high in terms of the number of residents but this is mainly because of the student population of the city.

Figure 13 Communal Residential Establishments Local Authority

Number of Est.

Number of Residents

NHS

Psychiatric

Local Authority

Other

Children’s Home 0.4%

Housing Association

Other Residential Care Home

Other Children’s Home

40.2% 45.7% 22.7% 28.5% 37.3% 38.0% 47.5% 37.6%

7.7% 18.5% 7.6% 28.3% 8.9% 11.8% 14.0% 8.5%

3.1%

Other Care or Medical

Other Est. *

Other

ED 46 1113 2.7% 0.3% 0.1% ER 36 656 10.7% 6.4% 3.4% GC 447 11558 3.9% 1.4% 0.7% 8.9% 0.6% IN 79 1108 16.6% 4.2% 0.7% 3.8%8 2.5% NL 143 2800 8.3% 3.9% 1.7% 11.6% RE 158 2011 14.0% 9.1% 2.1% 7.9% 0.8% SL 145 3122 9.0% 14.0% 1.6% 8.8% WD 64 715 13.4% 2.1% 29.2% * including Defence establishments, prisons, educational establishments, hotels and hostels

Source: General Register Office Scotland, 2003 (2001 Census)

Other Nursing Home

0.0%

4.2%

8.4% 0.6% 0.9% 3.5% 0.1% 2.3% 3.5%

40.8% 7.0% 53.5% 14.4% 24.9% 12.1% 2.8% 5.6%

Summary

Figure 14 Summary Scotland GCV Total Stock Households Vacancies Tenure - Owner Occupied Tenure - Social Tenure - Private Tenure - Other Type - House Type - Flat (New/Tenement) Type - Flat (High Rise) Type - Other Rooms - 1 to 3 Rooms - 4 to 6 Rooms - 7 plus Stock Age pre 1919 Stock Age 1919-1944 Stock Age 1945-1964 Stock Age 1965-1982 Stock Age post 1982 Public Dwellings failing SHQS 05 to 08 Private Dwellings failing SHQS 05 to 08 Adults rating condition as Good Council Tax dwellings band A-C Council Tax dwellings band D-E Council Tax dwellings band F-H Completions 2008-2009 Private Completions 2008-2009 LA Completions 2008-2009 RSL Number of Communal Establishments Number of Communal Residents

830,527 804,709 2.8% 66% 23% 10% 2% 67% 29% 3% 1%

0% 0% 0% 0% 45% 49% 4% 3% 24% 37% 34% 2%

1,088 23,083

44,034 43,227 1.4% 85% 11% 2% 2% 81% 17% 2% 1% 27% 64% 8% 2% 31% 39% 26% 3% 59% 69% 85% 0% 1% 1% 79% 0% 21% 46 1,113

36,747 35,988 1.8% 86% 10% 3% 0% 80% 19% 1% 0% 29% 62% 9% 0% 27% 45% 21% 6% 66% 74% 88% 0% 1% 1% 90% 0% 10% 36 656

295,590 284,553 3.6% 49% 32% 15% 3% 32% 58% 10% 0% 57% 38% 3% 2% 27% 35% 36% 1% 65% 69% 79% 0% 1% 1% 65% 0% 35% 447 11,558

39,334 37,156 5.0% 68% 25% 6% 1% 54% 40% 5% 1% 44% 52% 4% 3% 23% 25% 48% 1% 70% 71% 83% 0% 1% 1% 67% 0% 33% 49 1,108

146,463 143,715 1.7% 64% 30% 4% 2% 71% 26% 3% 0% 39% 57% 4% 9% 19% 32% 36% 4% 75% 63% 84% 0% 1% 1% 80% 0% 20% 143 2,800

82,287 79,037 3.6% 70% 24% 5% 0% 61% 35% 3% 1% 45% 51% 3% 4% 31% 39% 25% 2% 80% 70% 79% 0% 1% 1% 86% 0% 14% 158 2,011

141,618 138,354 2.0% 74% 17% 8% 2% 73% 25% 2% 1% 36% 57% 6% 0% 24% 41% 30% 4% 72% 74% 84% 0% 1% 1% 84% 0% 16% 145 3,122

44,114 42,669 2.9% 61% 33% 4% 2% 57% 38% 4% 1% 52% 44% 2% 1% 15% 51% 33% 0% 69% 70% 77% 0% 1% 1% 79% 0% 21% 64 715

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Housing Market Partnership Housing Need and Demand Assessment Technical Appendix 03 Gross Current / Backlog Need November 2010

HNDA W

Contents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Introduction Process – How we went about the assessment of Backlog Need Procedure Note Data Sources Results Validation Conclusions

List of Tables TA03-1 TA03-2

Summary of Backlog Need Assessment Model Summary of SHCS 2004-2007 results for the GCV area

List of Annexes Annex 1 Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4

Note on the use of SHS and SHCS data for triangulation purposes Comparison of HNDA Backlog Need Assessment data from Local Authorities (2009) with Bramley et al model data (2005) Gross Current/ Backlog Need Current / Backlog Need Assessment Explanatory Notes by LA

Introduction

1.1

This Technical Appendix summarises the process adopted by the eight local authorities (LAs) within the GCV area in assessing Gross Current/Backlog Need, details the data sources and assumptions used, and outlines the steps taken to validate outputs. The overall approach was modelled on Chapter 6 ‘Estimate of net annual housing need’ in the 2008 HNDA Guidance.

Process – How we went about the assessment of Backlog Need

2.1

When the approach to Backlog Need assessment was first being considered in spring 2009, the initial intention was to commission appropriate consultants to undertake this element of work. In subsequent discussions it was agreed instead to conduct the analysis in-house, using each authority’s own staff resources. This change arose for three reasons:

it was considered that LAs were best placed to know the most appropriate data sources available

it was recognised that there would be considerable value in developing in-house analytical capacity and improved understanding of the housing system, in line with the Scottish Government’s HNDA Guidance

the significant costs involved in commissioning consultants.

2.2

The Housing Sub Group, with representatives of the housing service in each authority, took responsibility for overseeing and guiding the Backlog Need assessment process, as far as possible ensuring consistency of approach and outputs. The Sub Group reports to the Housing Market Partnership Core Group.

Procedure Note

3.1

It was recognised that different LAs hold data in different ways on their Housing Registers (e.g. using different categories and definitions of need), related to local policy requirements. Some areas operate Common Housing Registers. There are also differences in availability of reliable and up-to-date additional data sources.

3.2

We were aware of the difficulties experienced by Communities Scotland in 2007 when it undertook a National Proforma exercise across all LAs in Scotland to identify housing need, comparing data returned by them with national default estimates; it concluded1 that the information gathered was not sufficiently consistent “to allow us to construct consistent, council based, estimates of absolute or relative affordable housing need.”

3.3

With these caveats in mind, a Procedure Note was drafted to standardise as far as possible the approach adopted by the eight GCV authorities. Drawing on the 2008 HNDA Guidance, it aimed to define a consistent and robust methodological framework for the calculation of backlog need, including where necessary definitions, preferred sources, etc.

Overall Assessment and Conclusions from responses to 2007 Housing Needs Proforma Exercise. Duncan Gray, Communities Analytical Services.

3.4

3.5

The scope of the Backlog Need assessment included:

a desk top analysis and evaluation of existing housing needs assessments, LAs’ Housing Register data, available RSL data, and further secondary data sources (household surveys, house condition surveys, etc.)

re-estimation of the backlog of existing need for all LAs and, wherever possible, SHIP (Strategic Housing Investment Plan) Sub-area geographies within the GCV area

a commentary on assumptions and limitations relating to the estimates.

There are two key questions to answer relating to Backlog Need:

What is the total number of households currently in housing need, who cannot afford to meet their own needs in the market and whose needs cannot be met in situ?

What are the key characteristics of their unmet need (e.g. household type, nature of need)?

3.6

The assessment model is summarised in Table TA03-1 below.

3.7

The Procedure Note specifies assumptions which have been agreed by the Housing Sub Group following discussion and debate, for example:

3.8

on Housing Registers which award points for various categories of need, assume 0 points = no identified need

Waiting List points only = no identified need

homeless households do not have an in-situ solution

for overcrowded households, assume no in situ solution for the social rented sector; with regard to in situ solution in the private sector, assume this will be netted out when considering affordability towards the end

for harassment, assume 0 [nil] – all cases covered by homeless category; if authorities record harassment category separately, and can accurately calculate the number of households experiencing harassment and in backlog need net of other categories, it may be identified, explained and justified.

The assessment derived figures for gross backlog need, excluding those with an in situ solution, but before application of an affordability test. The gross backlog need figures were passed to consultants Tribal Group with Optimal Economics for this final step, to ensure consistency of methodological approach with the Affordability Analysis being applied by them to (newly arising) household projections.

TABLE TA03-1 SUMMARY OF BACKLOG NEED ASSESSMENT MODEL

Key data source: the Council’s Housing Register (or stock transfer RSL’s Register in Glasgow City and Inverclyde) or Common Housing Register.

Total [Net] Backlog Need

Backlog need amongst existing households

–

Cases where in-situ solution is most appropriate

Allowance for additional need on RSL registers *

–

Overlap between LAs

* RSL data may already be included if Common Housing Register in operation

Backlog need of existing households

= homeless households/ in temporary accommodation + concealed households + overcrowded households + households with support needs + households whose home is in poor condition + households experiencing harassment ^ ^ In most cases this is taken to equal 0 as such households are classed as homeless

At each stage, considerable care was taken to avoid double-counting, particularly where a household may appear on more than one need category list in a Housing Register, or may be registered with more than one provider.

The base date for assessment of Backlog Need was taken as 31 March 2009, unless otherwise stated. If a different base date is used, this was explained and fully justified.

Data Sources

4.1

The Procedure Note specifies the main secondary sources to be used by each authority. The main common source for homelessness figures is the HL1 return. For other categories of need, the initial source is taken to be the Council’s Housing Register or, where available, a Common Housing Register. In the case of Glasgow City and Inverclyde Councils, the stock transfer RSL’s Register – Glasgow Housing Association and River Clyde Homes respectively – has been used as the starting point. The base date for analysis, wherever possible, was taken as 31 March 2009.

4.2

One authority, East Renfrewshire Council, had recently completed a comprehensive assessment of need and demand for housing in its area, and this study provided base data for its input on backlog need.

4.3

It was therefore accepted that various data sources would be required, and each LA was encouraged to use its best judgement in identifying the most robust, accurate and up-todate available for its area. Each LA identified sources used for each category of need, and provided a commentary explaining their choice of sources, any limitations of the data, and working assumptions.

4.4

A particular effort was made to identify overlaps between LA and RSL lists, and between LAs, so that these could be discounted.

4.5

The HNDA Guidance stipulates that housing market partnerships should consider a range of data sources for each component of the backlog need assessment, and this approach has been followed by GCV in its Procedure Note. Thus, for triangulation purposes efforts have been made to access appropriate data at LA level from the Scottish Household Survey (SHS) and the Scottish House Condition Survey (SHCS), as well as homelessness and Below Tolerable Standard (BTS) statistics; this involved the use of both published tables and ad hoc data requests from Scottish Government statisticians. These tables are provided in the Procedure Note where appropriate.

4.6 However, the use of these sources is significantly constrained for a variety of reasons: LA data constraints

for the most part, the structure of databases and the collection of data directly reflect the various policy requirements of each LA or RSL; similarly, data is generally displayed in the most convenient way to facilitate their day-to-day customer-facing housing management functions, which may be less suitable for accessing data for strategic purposes such as the calculation of backlog need

there is variation in the definitions used by LAs and RSLs for specific categories of need; in addition, some LAs have much more up-to-date data than others (for instance in relation to local housing surveys or stock condition surveys)

some LAs recognise separate categories of need which are absent from other authorities, for instance: o three LAs have a separate category for ‘insecure tenancy’ while the other five would be likely to include such cases as homeless; o five LAs have a separate ‘harassment’ category, the remainder treating such cases as homeless; o five LAs operate a range of other need categories, with numbers involved ranging from 3 to 8,894; some of these categories may be specific to the policies of an individual authority with no corresponding recognition by other authorities that such household circumstances comprise need

Triangulation data constraints

SHS and SHCS are national level sample surveys, with relatively small sample sizes at LA level; caution must be exercised in using the data at sub-LA level

The survey data collection dates varied from local LA data – a relatively insignificant issue compared to other constraints

These surveys do not ask questions which directly address the requirements of the backlog need assessment; in many instances, the published survey data therefore serves only as a very broad comparator

The GCV HMP worked with Scottish Government statisticians on ad hoc data requests to try to filter the raw data in such a way that more useful proxy results could be derived. Although an interesting learning process for both practitioners and statisticians, this triangulation analysis proved to be time consuming, easier said than done, and ultimately of limited benefit. The problem of small sample sizes was compounded by the additional analysis to the point where, even at the GCV level, the filtered sample was too small to be reliable.

4.7

A more extensive Note on the use of SHS and SHCS data for triangulation purposes is given in Annex 1.

4.8

The backlog need results for each of the eight GCV authorities, expressed as a proportion of all households in the area, were compared. This revealed a range from around 6% to around 13%.

4.9

As a final approach to triangulation, and assuming some similarity in the general scale of backlog need over a few years in an authority, the data collected by LAs were compared to the 2005 backlog need estimates derived by Bramley, Karley and Watkins2 in their updated Local Housing Need and Affordability Model for Scotland.

4.10 For a number of reasons it is important to treat this comparison with some caution: data used by Bramley et al is around 4 years older than our LA data and there are likely to have been changes in affordability conditions in that period Bramley et al used fewer components of backlog need than the HNDA the Bramley et al model applied discounts in a different manner and the figures quoted are gross (i.e. prior to application of any discounts for in-situ solution or ability to meet own needs in the market); the HNDA figures include an adjustment for insitu solution only. 4.11 With these caveats in mind, the comparison was undertaken to assess broad agreement on the scale of backlog (see Annex 2). For most LA areas, quite close similarity was found between the new LA data and the 2005 model data, but for others there was some notable variation, most likely accounted for in terms of the constraints noted above in relation to LA data, and the 2005 Model methodology. Bramley et al similarly noted wide variation between their Model results and Local Needs Studies for selected LAs (Table 6.1, page 61 of their report). This also mirrors the difficulties experienced in the National Proforma exercise in 2007, noted above. 5

Results

5.1

A standard reporting pro forma was agreed and used for recording Backlog Need figures. Annex 3 provides resulting gross current/backlog need figures at GCV and LA sub area level.

5.2

The LAs provided gross Backlog Need figures, after discounting for needs which may be met in-situ. To identify those households which cannot meet their own needs in the market, thus deriving a net figure for Backlog Need, a test of affordability has to be applied. The consultants undertaking the Affordability Analysis on projected newly forming households, Tribal Group with Optimal Economics, were commissioned also to apply the same analytical methodology to backlog need figures, thus ensuring consistency.

Bramley, Glen, Karley, Noah Kofi and Watkins, David (2006) Local Housing Need and Affordability Model for Scotland, Update (2005 based). A Report for the Scottish Executive and Communities Scotland. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland [Research Report 72] Annexe E, Table E.1, page 117.

Validation

6.1

Before ’signing off’ the Backlog Need Analysis for the GCV area, the Housing Sub Group examined the eight pro forma submissions to satisfy itself that the Procedure Note had been followed and to check any apparently anomalous results. As a result of this iterative review process, LAs revised their figures two or three times.

6.2

Each LA specified the data sources used.

6.3

Each LA also provided a detailed commentary explaining their choice of data sources; limitations of data sources, including any additional data considered for triangulation purposes; assumptions; and judgements made (ref Annex 4).

Conclusions

7.1

The Housing Sub Group is satisfied that its Procedure Note is broadly consistent with the HNDA Guidance and provides a suitable framework and methodology for the assessment at LA level.

7.2

Inevitably, some limitations remain in the consistency of data sources between LAs for certain categories of need. However, the view was taken that each authority should use the available sources which, in its judgement, provided the most reliable picture of current need for that category. LAs explained and justified their data selection decisions.

7.3

Although it may have been easier to commission consultants to undertake the whole backlog need exercise, all eight LAs now have a better understanding of the patterns of need in their area because the assessment was conducted in-house.

TA03 Annex 1 Note on the use of SHS and SHCS data for triangulation purposes 1.1

As stipulated in the HNDA Guidance (March 2008), HMPs should consider a wide range of data sources when undertaking the assessment of backlog need. A partnership must consider whether a source is reliable and robust enough for the assessment. Although the housing register of the largest social housing provider in each area is the principal data source for the backlog need assessment, the Housing Sub Group considered using the Scottish Household Survey (SHS) and the Scottish House Condition Survey (SHCS) to provide further evidence for a number of components of the backlog need assessment. The SHS and SHCS are data sources suggested in the HNDA Guidance, and have been used by the consultants who undertook a housing need and affordability study for a constituent local authority.

1.2

An important factor when assessing the backlog need of an area is to discount the overlap between categories. There are some categories where there is a high incidence of overlap e.g. between concealed households and overcrowded households, therefore it is very important to discount the overlap to ensure there is no over-estimation of housing need. With the SHS and the SHCS, the only approach to discount the overlap between categories was to access the raw survey data and pull out the analysis by using a sophisticated software package such as Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). This approach required knowledge of the surveys, SPSS and also a good understanding of the concept of backlog need. As the Housing Sub Group had limited working knowledge of the SHCS and SHS, and limited experience of SPSS, the SHS and SHCS teams at the Scottish Government were approached and asked for assistance with extracting the required data. The survey teams’ knowledge of the housing concepts was limited therefore some time was spent ensuring each party understood the concepts, the information available and the limitations with the data.

1.3

The SHS and SHCS teams were asked to provide results from their respective surveys on the number of overcrowded households, concealed households and households with support needs for each local authority, with the overlap between the categories discounted. The GCV HMP was advised early on in the process that the SHS 2007/08 could not provide the required data as the relevant questions which were to be used as proxy indicators for the categories had changed; the 2005/06 survey would therefore provide the most robust data source for our requirements.

1.4

The SHCS team provided analysis from the 2004 -2007 surveys. The bedroom standard was used to ascertain whether a household is overcrowded and questions on household composition were used as a proxy to determine concealed households. In terms of assessing households with medical support needs, it was viewed that the best approach was to consider households which have a long term illness or disability and require an adaptation, and then apply a 50% reduction for needs that could be met insitu3.

1.5

Prior to the request, the Housing Sub Group was aware that the sample size used for the SHCS was smaller than the SHS sample (hence why the analysis is taken across a number of years). When the SHCS team provided the results from the SHCS, the number of responses and the sample size for the GCV area were fairly low and it was

Tribal completed a housing needs and affordability study for East Renfrewshire where they used the SHS to assess the number of households that require a new home due to support needs. The approach used is similar to the one outlined in the main text above and they applied a 50% reduction based on a previous study they completed for Lothian local authorities. They study concluded that 50% of perceived need for an adaptation could be met in–situ; the remainder required to be rehoused. This approach was adopted for the GCV Procedure Note.

deemed that the results could not be broken down by local authority area to provide a reliable estimate. A summary of the SHCS analysis is in Table TA03-2 below. TABLE TA03-2: Summary of SHCS 2004-2007 results for the GCV area Survey responses Survey responses weighted Overcrowded 81 24,750 Concealed 33 11,550 Overcrowded and 3 1,327 Concealed Support Needs 58 16,370 Concealed and Support 1 160 Needs Overcrowded and Support 0 Needs Sample Size 2,782 788,319

1.6

A comparison between the weighted responses from the SHCS and the results from the housing register assessment showed that there were large differences between the overcrowded, concealed and support needs categories. Given the small sample size and the low number of responses, the Housing Sub Group decided that the analysis from the SHCS was not robust enough to be used for the assessment of backlog need.

1.7

Although the SHCS analysis could not be used for this assessment, it was important for the Housing Sub Group to investigate this data source to deem whether it was robust and reliable.

1.8

Unfortunately, due to pressure of Scottish Government business at the same time, the SHS team were unable to produce any specific analysis in time for the HNDA assessment of backlog need, and only published SHS data tables were thus available and used in the Procedure Note.

TA03 Annex 2 Comparison of HNDA Backlog Need Assessment data from Local Authorities (2009) with Bramley et al model data (2005) Local Authority

East Dunbartonshire

Households Scenario A1 (2009)

Backlog Need 2009

Households Backlog 2005 Need – (GROS) Bramley Model 2005 % of A1 % of GROS 3,655 43,227 43,405 4,074 9

East Renfrewshire

35,988

Glasgow City

284,533

8 2,918

36,728

28,428

294,819

10 Inverclyde

37,156

North Lanarkshire

143,715

Renfrewshire

79,037

4,117

39,376

9,041

142,679

6,325

80,632

42,699

GCV Area

804,709

6,042 7

13,417

136,862

4,517

43,827

72,837

818,328

7,114 5

10,833 8

West Dunbartonshire

2,484 6

138,354

29,603 10

South Lanarkshire

2,428

2,524 6 64,683 8%

Sources: • Proposed Household Formation Assumptions based on 1991-2008 data (Scenario A1). Prepared by Jan Freeke, Glasgow City Council, for GCV Housing Market Partnership (2009). • Backlog Need 2009. Returns from each of the GCV authorities (2009). • Households 2005. GROS data, number of dwellings. • Bramley, Glen, Karley, Noah Kofi and Watkins, David (2006) Local Housing Need and Affordability Model for Scotland, Update (2005 based). A Report for the Scottish Executive and Communities Scotland. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland [Research Report 72] Annexe E, Table E.1, page 117. Notes: • Percentages are rounded to nearest integer. • Comparisons should be treated with caution as the HNDA approach and the Bramley et al model use slightly different methodologies and lists of need categories; the HNDA figures have been discounted for in-situ solution, whereas the Bramley et al model provides gross backlog need figures without discounts.

TA03 Annex 3 Gross Current/ Backlog Need TA04-3: Total Current Need Local Authority

Homeless and in temporary accomm 455 92 3,900 243 682 210 1,351 252 7,185

Insecure Tenure

Concealed Households

Overcrowding

Support Needs

Poor Quality

Harassment

Other Categories

Total Current Need

East Dunbartonshire 1,490 833 712 577 7 4,074 East Renfrewshire 267 990 1,259 310 2,918 Glasgow City Council 7,275 617 1,189 6,494 59 8,894 28,428 Inverclyde Council 838 1,653 455 925 3 4,117 North Lanarkshire Council 1,735 4,514 253 564 540 22 731 9,041 Renfrewshire Council 820 2,401 1,476 414 644 360 6,325 South Lanarkshire Council 2,827 6,727 342 1,449 493 3 225 13,417 West Dunbartonshire Council 369 2,450 1,425 9 12 4,517 Glasgow & Clyde Valley 5,382 23,881 8,614 7,467 9,992 103 10,213 72,837 2 SDPA Notes 1: The total has already been adjusted by the authorities to remove existing social renters, and households that can adopt in-situ solutions, so this is not a true “gross” current need figure. 2: * Total not identical to HSMA total due to rounding Source: GCVSDPA Housing Affordability Study, Tribal October 2010

TA03

Annex 4 Current / Backlog Need Assessment Explanatory Notes by LA

Current / Backlog Need Assessment

Explanatory Notes

_________________________________________________________________________________________ East Dunbartonshire Council These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the above local authority to: • • • •

document the data sources used and their limitations (both data used as base information and for triangulation purposes) make explicit the assumptions made and judgements exercised, and explain and justify them explain and justify any departure from the agreed methodology as detailed in the Procedure Note on Backlog Need (Final Version 6, December 2009), and describe validation procedures adopted within the authority.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 General Comments Main data source was Saffron Housing Management System. Electronic download was as at 26 October 2009. Assessed stats from 31st March 2009 and decided that as no review of the waiting list had been carried out in the previous 6 months the number of applicants either joining or leaving the list was static and therefore the 26 October was reliable for the purposes of assessing backlog need. Common Housing Register is not currently live in East Dunbartonshire but for the last year the 2 partner RSL’s namely Hillhead Housing Association and Antonine Housing Association have been using the common application form. Applicants for all 3 partners are on the council’s waiting list (Saffron system). We were therefore able to extract information and identify the level of overlap between the council and RSL waiting lists. • • • •

Other sources include Homelessness databases. HL1 statistics were not used because this was deemed unreliable by the Homeless Team as many were missing. John Martin Partnership private sector Local House Condition Survey (2005) Geography – data has been collected at Local Authority and Local Authority Sub areas ie Kirkintilloch, Bishopbriggs, Twechar, Bearsden, Milngavie, Torrance, Lennoxtown and Milton of Campsie.

Electronic download of 26 October 2009 provided the following information: • •

Applicants on queues: A1- homeless, A3-urgent medical, A7-demolition, A8-special case, B-waiting list general needs, C1-wheelchair access, C2-sheltered high priority and D-outwith area Date of application, Queue number, Areas of choice, overcrowded, sharing facilities, lack of amenities, poor quality/condition, separate household and medical.

Working assumptions: • • •

All applicants with zero points were removed All transfer applicants were removed Data collected included applicant origin ie where they live currently

Backlog need categories identified from the electronic download: • • • • • •

Concealed (living with non household members) Overcrowded (households experiencing overcrowding) Support needs (those with points for sheltered housing, health and access points, wheelchair user Poor condition (property significantly below BTS) Harassment (within and outwith home) Other – East Dunbartonshire did not have any applicants falling within this category

2 Methodology: explanation for any departure(s) from agreed Procedure Note We initially removed all applicants with zero points and all applicants who are currently social renters within East Dunbartonshire (ie transfers). The remaining applicants formed the basis for East Dunbartonshire’s backlog need which was analysed by identifying applicant category. Double counting was avoided as each need category was netted off in the order identified above (for example if an applicant was awarded points under one need category then they were netted out the other needs categories. •

The homelessness figure includes all live cases ie 372 on priority homeless queue, 48 cases under investigation and 35 cases obtaining advice and assistance. Information provided from Council's waiting list and homeless databases. HL1 data was not used as not reliable. This figure also includes 50 tenants whose properties are due to be demolished in the Twechar Regeneration programme.

•

This figure includes 43 applicants who are on transfer queue but sharing amenities. This figure does not include sons/daughters.

•

This figure is the total on the waiting list who have points for overcrowding.

•

This category includes urgent special needs, urgent medical, wheelchair access and sheltered high priority. This figure includes numbers from specialist RSL's waiting lists.

•

No steps have been taken to remedy possible overlap of applicants with other local authorities

•

Poor quality – this figure was taken from the private sector local house condition survey as only 12 people on the council’s waiting list currently have points for poor condition property

3 Validation procedures within the authority East Dunbartonshire Council’s last Housing Needs Assessment was carried out in 2001 and updated in 2006 by Fordham. No other validation process was undertaken.

4 Data Sources Need Category

Source(s) and any limitations

Homeless households and those in Temporary accommodation

Source: Source: Saffron Housing Management electronic downlowad of Council’s waiting list as at 26.10.09. This figure includes all live cases ie 372 on priority homeless queue, 48 cases under investigation and 35 cases obtaining advice and assistance. This figure also includes 50 tenants whose properties are due to be demolished in the Twechar Regeneration programme.

Additional Source(s) used for Triangulation and any caveats

Assumptions made; judgements required HL1 stats were looked at and deemed to be unreliable as many records were missing. Difference between Saffron download and homeless team database.

Source: Saffron Housing Management electronic download of Council’s waiting list as at 26.10.09. Concealed households

Source: Saffron Housing Management electronic download of Council’s waiting list as at 26.10.09.

This figure includes 43 applicants who are on transfer queue but sharing amenities. This figure does not include sons/daughters.

Overcrowding

Source: Saffron Housing Management electronic download of Council’s waiting list as at 26.10.09.

This figure is the total on the waiting list who have points for overcrowding.

Support Needs

Source: Council’s waiting list as at 26.10.09. This category includes urgent special needs, urgent medical, wheelchair access and sheltered high priority. This figure includes numbers from specialist RSL's waiting list. Transfers have been excluded

This category includes urgent special needs, urgent medical, wheelchair access and sheltered high priority. This figure includes numbers from specialist RSL's waiting list

Poor Quality

Source: Council’s Private Sector Stock Condition Survey 2005. This figure includes 12 BTS from Council's Waiting list. Also includes 565 which have been extracted from the council's local house condition survey (2005) and deemed BTS. These people are not currently on the council's waiting list.

Harassment Other Categories: define:

John Martin Partnership Local House Condition Survey 2005

This figure includes 12 BTS from Council's Waiting list and 565 which have been extracted from the council's local house condition survey (2005) and deemed BTS. These people are not currently on the council's waiting list.

Additional Comments

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley

HOUSING NEED & DEMAND ASSESSMENT

Current / Backlog Need Assessment

Explanatory Notes

_________________________________________________________________________________________ East Renfrewshire Council These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the above local authority to: • • • •

General Comments Please refer to East Renfrewshire Housing Need and Market Assessment technical appendix D

Methodology: explanation for any departure(s) from agreed Procedure Note Please refer to East Renfrewshire Housing Need and Market Assessment technical appendix D

3 Validation procedures within the authority Please refer to East Renfrewshire Housing Need and Market Assessment technical appendix D

Data Sources

Needs Element Homelessness

Definition Currently homeless households (live cases), including all those accepted as homeless through statute by local authority and entitled to permanent accommodation

Sources Considered HL1 returns

Source Used HL1 returns

Rationale Only source available on outstanding homeless cases at the baseline point in time.

Comments/Notes Local authority collected data, no concerns over robustness

Needs Element Concealed Households

Definition Unrelated households sharing a kitchen, bathroom or WC with another household but not sharing meals

Sources Considered SHS, SHCS, ERPSSCS

Source Used SHS

Overcrowding

Households overcrowded according to the bedroom standard (using the Below Tolerable Standard Definition)

SHS, SHCS, ERPSSCS

ERPSSCS

Support Needs

Households containing people with mobility impairment or other specific support needs, living in an unsuitable dwelling

SHS, SHCS, ERPSSCS

SHS

Rationale ERPSSCS does not provide the variables required to estimate concealed households. SHS provides a significantly larger sample size in ERC than the SHCS and provides flexibility within variables to define the need element and consider double counting across other elements. ERPSSCS provides a larger sample size at the local area than other surveys and is considered a more robust source

ERPSSCS does not provide the variables required to estimate Support households. SHS provides a significantly larger sample size in ERC than the SHCS and provides flexibility within variables to define the need element and consider double counting across other elements.

Comments/Notes Potential issues of non-response bias within the SHS estimates have been noted. Given the response rates achieved in the area (63% in 2005/06) it is not considered that this is likely to result in a significant bias. At a national level it is noted that SHS (1.6% +/- 0.14%) and SHCS (2.3% +/- 0.5%) provide broadly similar results for this element. From review of the methodology and sampling frame used in the ERPSSCS, Tribal are satisfied as to the robustness of the survey as a data source. The survey's large local sample size and currency make it a more attractive source of data than the available national surveys. Potential issues of non-response bias within the SHS estimates have been noted. Given the response rates achieved in the area (63% in 2005/06) it is not considered that this is likely to result in a significant bias. The local estimate is similar to the national estimate. The Scottish figure is 5.4% +/- 0.25% and the local figure is 3.8 +/- 1.83; thus, there is no statistical difference. At national level, comparing this SHS variable with data from the 2002 SHCS the estimates are similar (5.5% =/- 0.27); the 2004-2007 SHCS which is publicly available does not contain these variables to derive an up to date estimate.

Needs Element Poor Quality Housing

Definition Households in dwellings which lack a bathroom, kitchen or inside WC or are subject to major disrepair. (Properties that are below the tolerable standard)

Harassment

No estimate of harassment is included in the estimate of current need.

Sources Considered SHS, SHCS, ERPSSCS

Source Used ERPSSCS

Rationale ERPSSCS provides a larger sample size at the local area than other surveys and is considered a more robust source

Where a household required a move because of harassment we would expect their need to be reflected in the homelessness statistics. However, typically, we would expect the authority to move the harasser, not the household being harassed. The authority is best placed to deal with such situations within the social rented sector, where any such moves would take the form of “churn”, not net need for additional homes

Comments/Notes From review of the methodology and sampling frame used in the ERPSSCS, Tribal are satisfied as to the robustness of the survey as a data source. The survey's large local sample size and currency make it a more attractive source of data than the available national surveys.

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley

HOUSING NEED & DEMAND ASSESSMENT

Current / Backlog Need Assessment

Explanatory Notes

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Glasgow City Council These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the above local authority to: • • • •

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 General Comments Glasgow City Council and Inverclyde Council faced particular challenges in completing this exercise as these authorities no longer own social rented stock. Glasgow’s situation is unique in other respects not least in the scale of the sector and its diversity. Although Glasgow Housing Association is the largest Registered Social Landlord (RSLs) in the city with over 60,000 units there are 67 other RSLs, mainly small and community based, which own about 45,000 properties in the sector. Currently there is no Common Housing Register covering the whole city from which we could collate relevant data. So there has been a challenging logistical exercise in collecting information from social landlords.

2 Methodology: explanation for any departure(s) from agreed Procedure Note As states above we were entirely dependent for this exercise on the support and co-operation of Glasgow Housing Association (GHA), other RSLs operating in the city and the Glasgow Homelessness Partnership (GHP) in the provision of data. As GHA stock constitutes 60% of the sector GHA data would form the core of the information needed together with HL1 data, as is consistent with the Procedure Note. But the ‘Other RSLs’ data was also essential to provide a more complete assessment/estimation of backlog need in the city. Our approach was to seek the support of our partners involved in the social rented sector in Glasgow (as indicated above). Following discussion, the exercise and method of collating information was agreed. A covering letter was signed by SFHA/GWOSF partners for our request to ‘Other RSLs’ and note on the information that we needed was approved. We requested that RSLs provide as much information as possible in whatever electronic format preferable. GHA and GHP furnished their datasets separately. There were three stages in our approach to estimation of backlog need using data/information received: Data Cleansing and Filtering Eliminating Overlap Estimation The key assumptions drawn up as part of our estimation of backlog need are also described at each stage. Data Cleansing and Filtering: A number of applications on the GHA housing list were excluded in our estimation of backlog need as per the Procedure Note, including: •

Those on the Homeless List, assumed already included in the HL1-based calculation

•

Transfer applicants, as these are already social tenants, where data made this possible.

12,000 GHA records were omitted because they were not general list applicants. In the case of the ‘other RSLs’ we were unable to distinguish transfer from general list applicants. We made the assumption that the ratio of backlog need to total applicants of all categories was the same as for the GHA. We added a further element for non-reporting RSLs in proportion to their stock.

3 Validation procedures within the authority At each stage of the process the outputs where scrutinised by three members of the Strategy Group. Validation of the figures for homelessness was provided by the Glasgow Homelessness Partnership. The overall Backlog Need figures were compared with Bramley’s for validation purposes. Validation of figures below city level against external surveys was not possible although further work will be carried out on validating these figures. Further scrutiny was carried out by the same members for each category of need figures and validated with external sources where possible. With respect to BTS figures (Quality) these are not comparable with Scottish House Condition Survey (SHCS) as the Older Private Housing Survey (2006) from which the figures are derived used a different sampling methodology.

4 Data Sources Need Category

Source(s) and any limitations

Additional Source(s) used for Triangulation and any caveats

Assumptions made; judgements required

HL1

Figures validated by Glasgow Homelessness Partnership

In a report made by DRS in July 2009 it was calculated that there was an accommodation requirement of 625 per year for 5 years, or a total of 3,250 lets, to clear the backlog housing need. Account must now also be taken of approximately 635 Asylum Legacy cases (this figure has become available only recently); giving a rounded total of 3,900. All homeless applicants have been removed from RSL waiting lists as far as is practicable to avoid double counting.

Compared with homelessness data

To appropriate this definition as closely as possible, for the “concealed households” figure the applicants currently residing with “friends or family” were examined. The two categories are not separated in the GHA list, but they are in the HL1 list, and this indicates that about one half of the “friends and family“ group are residing with non-related persons. Our assumptions are based on this

Homeless households and those in Temporary accommodation

Insecure Tenure Concealed households

n/a GHA/Other RSL General List Data

available

Additional Comments

As the Procedure Note indicates, it is anticipated that the other half will be considered as ‘emerging households’ in the next stages of the HNDA.

Overcrowding

GHA/Other RSL General List Data

Support Needs

GHA/Other RSL General List Data

Poor Quality

GCC Older Private Housing Survey 2006

Harassment

GHA Data

ratio giving a concealed family figure of 7,275. The other need categories are overcrowding, support needs, poor housing quality and harassment, all of which can be inferred from the GHA data, although these may not be complete. Only the main reason for application is given; and if the applicant suffers overcrowding plus one of the other relevant factors, only one of these may be counted. The figure for support needs is possibly an overestimation because we could not differentiate ‘households moving to give support’ in the data. We, therefore, could not strictly adhere to the Procedure Note in this regard. The figure is still much lower than the relevant triangulation figure provided in the Note See ‘overcrowding’ above

As agreed at the HNDA Housing Sub Group meeting with the Centre for Housing Market Analysis, we have included a figure for assessed BTS (in private sector) in our backlog needs figures. This figure (6443) is derived from our Older Private Housing Survey (2006) using the pre-2006 BTS definition. This need was found on the GHA list to be additional to the figure on the homelessness data and has therefore, been included.

The figure for support needs is possibly an overestimation because we could not differentiate ‘households moving to give support’ in the data. We, therefore, could not strictly adhere to the Procedure Note in this regard. The figure is still much lower than the relevant triangulation figure provided in the Note

Other define:

Categories:

Other RSL General List Data

Overall the information received from RSLs was insufficient to be disaggregated between the categories agreed. We decided that the Other RSLs information should be recorded separately rather than disaggregations across these headings using the GHA backlog need proportions. In addition, we have estimated a backlog need figure for the balance of RSLs, which were unable to provide information, based on Other RSLs returns. This ensures that the estimation covers the whole sector.

5 Supplementary Comments Eliminating Overlap: RSLs use different formats for setting down addresses and different conventions to describe house positions. The data displayed a large number of other variations. This presented a number of challenges in reducing the addresses to a common format. For instance, some address information was incomplete as regards house positions or postcode units. However, a list was drawn up, with the intention of identifying unique addresses from the different applicant lists, to eliminate multiple counting. We assumed that each unique address represents one, and only one, application and therefore, will be a conservative estimate. As regards applicants’ addresses within Glasgow, the street and street numbers were compared with the CT register. If there was no flat position given for a street number with more than one dwelling, it was ignored. Addresses with more than one flat were counted as duplicates only if the flat position was given, or where it was known that there is only one dwelling at that address. Out of Glasgow applicants: In the case of applicants from outside the city, it was assumed that the same street and number represented the same applicant, even where no flat position was provided. This figure may also be an underestimation. Once this was done, about 26,500 individual applicants were identified, in addition to those shown in the GHA list. The amount of overlap could be calculated, and turned out as follows: Of GHA applicants, 22% have also applied to one or more other RSLs Of other RSL applicants, 82% have applied to the GHA, or to other RSLs. The overall average overlap is 48%. This means that many people apply only to the GHA, while those who apply to any other RSL usually choose more than one. In Castlemilk, for example, most applicants appear on both the Cassiltoun and North View lists. Analysis of the data appears to indicate that people tend to apply to all the RSLs with stock in the area they are interested in.

Transfer Applicants: Scottish Government Guidance on Housing Needs and Demand Assessments states that transfer applicants should be omitted from the current backlog needs exercise. A reason for this is that a tenant who transfers will leave a property that can be let to a household in need. We have followed the Guidance in this respect.

However, we would draw attention to the fact that the GHA is carrying out a very significant clearance and demolition programme (now in excess of 20,000 properties) which will be completed by 2017. Clearly the Re-provisioning Programme of 6,000 new houses aids this programme. But it will not meet all GHA’s tenants rehousing needs and as such will impact on meeting housing need in the city overall. For instance many tenants (perhaps the majority) will be rehoused in existing GHA stock. There may therefore be a ‘lag effect’ in terms of properties becoming available to meet backlog need (as defined). In short, the available supply of houses will be reduced throughout the period of this programme because of clearances. Further consideration of this issue is needed.

Backlog Need by CHCP/CPP and Housing Sub Market Geographies The estimate at citywide level contains no information that would produce figures for backlog need by CCP area. To assess this we have looked at the pattern of demand across the city as shown by the General List of GHA applicants. GHA general list has been used to calculate the number of choices made by people wishing to remain within the same CPP area, those residing in each area wishing to live somewhere else, and those living outside wishing to move in. Our calculations show that inward demand is higher in the West CHCP, about average in East and South West, and below the City average in North and South East. The total net flow represents applicants currently residing outside Glasgow. The total backlog need was divided among the 10 CCP areas, i.e. 2,843 for each area, and this figure has been applied to the medium demand areas. An extra 20% was added to West, and 10% deducted from North and South East, to reflect the lower demand. It should be noted that demand patterns are a little different for the non-GHA housing associations: Pollokshaws and South Side is rather more popular, and Govan & Craigton less popular, with applicants for CBHA housing rather than for the GHA general list applicants. However, much more information is available about the GHA rehousing list, and applicants for other RSLs very often also apply to the GHA (see above). For these reasons the GHA figures have been used for this calculation. In addition, the West areas are in the highest demand across the whole social sector, and a deduction of only 10% has been made for the lower demand areas. We therefore think that this represents a reasonably fair allocation of the backlog need figure. It is not possible to validate this analysis with data from other surveys as they are less reliable below local authority level.

Distribution of Backlog Need by CPPs As part of the HNDA exercise and as an input into Tribal’s Affordability work, we have been asked to provide a distribution of need by category across Local Housing Forums Given the lack of sufficient data to analyse need by category at this geography we have assumed a proportionate distribution across categories for each Local Housing Forum. This approach was chosen because we had to provide a response by return to the Structure Plan team. Clearly there are weaknesses in this approach. For instance, the distribution of other RSLs across the city is uneven. Also, the quality figure is based on BTS data from the Older Private Housing Survey which identified clusters of this stock in certain parts of the city rather than exhibiting an even distribution across the city. On the other hand it may well be that in reality housing applicants may show much more mobility than implicitly assumed – as indicated in GHA’s Homechoice pilot. We are working on both sets of sub-city figures in order to validate and, if necessary, refine the figures used.

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley

HOUSING NEED & DEMAND ASSESSMENT

Current / Backlog Need Assessment

Explanatory Notes

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Inverclyde Council These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the above local authority to: • document the data sources used and their limitations (both data used as base information and for triangulation purposes) • make explicit the assumptions made and judgements exercised, and explain and justify them • explain and justify any departure from the agreed methodology as detailed in the Procedure Note on Backlog Need (Final Version 6, December 2009), and • describe validation procedures adopted within the authority. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 General Comments Inverclyde Council has followed the approach set out in the Backlog Need Procedure Note. The principal data source for the backlog need assessment was the waiting list of the main social housing provider in the area, River Clyde Homes. Additional need from other RSL waiting lists was assessed together with additional information on homelessness and house condition. Within the available time and with the available data sources, the Council is confident that the assessment of gross backlog need has been completed in accordance with the Backlog Need Procedure Note and that there has been no major departures from the agreed methodology. There was a major delay in receiving the waiting list data from RCH and therefore as consequence, some of the queries with the data were not resolved and some working assumptions were made. However, these queries were minor and will not substantially impact on the overall backlog need figures. The Council is confident that within the time constraints the available data sources have been maximised. Social renters were netted out of the assessment as stated in the Backlog Need Procedure Note however, it should be noted that in Inverclyde there are a large number of properties that have been earmarked for demolition therefore not all of the properties that are vacated will become available for let again. Therefore netting out all of the social renters may underestimate the level of housing need. Estimates for medical need, overcrowding and concealed households were assessed from RCH’s waiting list with additional need from three other RSLs’ waiting lists in Inverclyde. Homelessness and house condition were assessed from different data sources therefore estimating the overlap with the other categories was not possible. Therefore there is potential for overlap between the homelessness and house condition categories with the categories that were assessed from the waiting lists. Inverclyde’s Reprovisioning Programme is ongoing and the underpinning figures for the programme were fed into the gross backlog need assessment. Most of the households that are required to be re-housed will have a new house re-provided to them by RCH, Cloch HA or Oak Tree HA. This has created a ‘neutral effect’ on the gross backlog need figures i.e. they do not require a new house as there is one planned for the household. However, there are around 400 households that require to be re-housed with no reprovision. There is potential that the new build element of the Reprovisioning Programme will be affected by changes in AHIP funding and may extend beyond the next five years.

2 Methodology: explanation for any departure(s) from agreed Procedure Note RCH’s waiting list at 11th December 2009 was the primary data source for the assessment. As indicated above, there was a considerable time delay with RCH providing the st waiting list. RCH indicated that the quality and content of the data was far better at December 2009, than the frozen data extraction at the 31 March 2009. The Council agreed it th was better to have the best quality data for the gross backlog need assessment. There were 4,321 active applicants on the RCH waiting list at 11 December 2009. When the zero points applicants and the social renters (transfers) were netted out there were 2,064 applicants on the RCH waiting list which demonstrated a housing need in accordance with RCH’s allocations policy. Not all of the applicants’ current tenure was recorded on RCH’s housing management system therefore, the proportion of social renters from the available data was aggregated up to the number of applicants with points on the waiting list. If an applicant had points in more than one category, then the applicant would only be assessed in one category i.e. there was no double counting of applicants on the RCH’s waiting list. Additional need from RSL registers There are three other general housing providers in Inverclyde: Oak Tree HA, Cloch HA and Larkfield HA (who manage Link Group's housing stock in Port Glasgow). There are four other specialist housing providers in Inverclyde: Bield HA, Key HA, Margaret Blackwood HA and Key HA who provide sheltered and very sheltered housing. Craigforth completed a Common Housing Register Feasibility Study in 2002 which assessed the overlap of the Council's housing stock with the other mainstream social housing providers in Inverclyde. The study found there was an overlap of 46% between the three smaller RSLs’ waiting lists and the Council's waiting list. Since 2002, Cloch, Larkfield and Oak Tree have implemented a single application form which allows applicants to complete one form and to be put on more than one waiting list. The number of applicants on the waiting lists in 2009 is higher than the numbers from 2002 but the RCH waiting list has far fewer numbers on it. The level of overlap is likely to be higher and the Council estimate that the current level of overlap is in the order of 70%. Some of the RSLs were able to provide a breakdown of their waiting lists which gave detail on the number of social renters and zero point applicants. Where the breakdown was not available, assumptions were made based on the available data from the other waiting lists to produce a net figure. Additional need from other RSL registers was assessed to be 1036 applicants, this includes zero point applicants and transfer applicants netted out and a 705 reduction for overlap. Data from each RSLs waiting list were not available for the assessment therefore the proportion of waiting list applicants in need was calculated from the RCH waiting list and then applied to the RSL’s additional need figure (984). This approach assumes that the characteristics of the waiting lists are the same; the former CHR co-ordinator for Inverclyde agreed this was a valid approach. Waiting lists for the specialist housing providers in Inverclyde were not available for this assessment. RCH is the largest provider of social sheltered housing in the area. Homelessness The method for assessing the number of homelessness applicants is line with the approach set out in the Backlog Need Procedure Note. The data was taken from the HL1 return for Quarter 1 2009. Inverclyde Council’s Homelessness Service confirmed that the figures in the HL1 return were accurate. There is potential to include double counting from concealed households and households in poor condition however with the available information this could not be discounted. There were a number of Homelessness applicants on RCH’s waiting list which were not included in the analysis because the HL1 return will cover all of the households assessed to be homeless in Inverclyde. There were 242 households assessed as Homeless. This figure includes no reduction for overlap between the other categories. No in-situ solution was assumed. Concealed Households RCH’s waiting list was the primary source for this category. Overlap with overcrowding, medical need, redevelopment and tied tenancies were removed. The HNDA Guidance and the Backlog Need Procedure Note state that only unrelated households should be considered in the concealed households category however, the waiting list extract from RCH was limited in this respect and if a household is related or unrelated could not be identified. There is potential overlap with the newly emerging households however it was agreed at the Housing Sub Group that it was difficult to separate out the unrelated households and we should include all concealed households. There were a number of ways of calculating the number of concealed households from RCH’s waiting list. RCH’s allocations policy awards points to applicants who have ‘shared amenities’. RCH also record the number of ‘movers’ and ‘non-movers’ from a household which the applicant is currently living in i.e. the household/applicant that is applying is moving out from another household. However this category has not been completed (there are a number of gaps) and the figures did not match up with what is stated in the

shared amenities column. The movers and non-movers category was not included in the analysis. The number of concealed households on the RCH’s waiting list was 558, this represents 27% of the RCH’s waiting list with social renters and applicants with zero points netted out. Additional need from other RSLs was assessed to be 280 households (27% of 1036 applicants). Overcrowding RCH award overcrowding points in accordance with the Bedroom Standard. Overlap with other points categories was netted out. Households that were considered to be overcrowded and concealed were included in this section and were not included in the concealed households section. The number of overcrowded households on RCH’s waiting list was 1,104 and this represents 53% of RCH’s waiting list with the social renters and applicants with zero points netted out. There were an additional 549 concealed households from other RSL registers (53% of 1036 applicants). Support Needs RCH award medical points if the provision of alternative accommodation would help to improve the applicant’s quality of life and well being. Inverclyde Council and RCH jointly agree the awarding of points for medical need. There are three levels of medical need according to the urgency of the need for housing. Households with a high and medium medical need were included in this assessment. RCH has a number of sheltered housing properties and properties that are suitable for the frail, immobile and impaired (FMI). Although there is no specific policy in place for allocating these properties, RCH has confirmed that these properties are usually allocated to applicants with a medical need. Further examination of the waiting list confirms that all of the applicants that expressed a need for a sheltered property and for a FMI property had a low medical need. From RCH's waiting list, 300 households were assessed to have a high or medium medical need or a need for sheltered and FMI housing (minus the social renters and the double counting with other categories). This equates to 15% of the waiting list. Additional need from other RSLs was assessed to be 155 households (15% of 1036 applicants). House Condition The approach outlined in the Procedure Note was followed to assess the number of households in need due to house condition; the Council has included households in regeneration areas and private sector households that are below BTS. RCH and Cloch HA estimated (at October 2009) that there were 1,713 households in properties that are of very poor quality or are in decant housing that required to be rehoused as part of the Reprovisioning Programme. Over the next five years and beyond, RCH, Cloch HA, Oak Tree HA plan to develop 1,313 units as part of the Programme. The Backlog Need Procedure states that the gross backlog need assessment should include ‘households in regeneration areas and requiring rehousing, where a decision has been made to demolish but no rehousing programme has been agreed’ – there are 400 households with no reprovisioning. It is likely that these households will be re-housed through submitting a housing application to RCH and the other RSLs in the area, or they will leave the sector and make their own housing arrangements. There are concerns that the anticipated reduction in AHIP funding will impact on the rate of new build therefore this will subsequently impact on the length of time these households will be in unsuitable housing. It may be the case that a large number of households will be waiting a considerable period of time to be rehoused. RCH has stated that the figures were established from a stock condition survey prior to stock transfer. The planned new build figures were from the Inverclyde SHIP 2009 together the numbers of units that were ‘on site’ at the time of the assessment. In addition to the Reprovisioning Programme, there were a number of properties in the private sector that were assessed as BTS. Inverclyde Council’s Private Sector House Condition Survey 2005 was deemed to be the most robust data source for assessing the number of BTS households. The sample of the survey is larger than the sample for the SHCS 2006/07/08 and the SHS 2005/06. The local condition survey takes into account the clusters of BTS housing in Inverclyde. Inverclyde has a level of BTS housing that is twice the national average at 2.2% of all private sector households. This equates to 525 households across the authority. The survey is slightly out date (2005) the Council believes that this is counteracted by the large size of the sample in comparison with national data sources. As house condition was not assessed from RCH’s waiting list, eliminating between overlap with the overcrowded households, concealed households and support needs households was very difficult. Households that are in regeneration areas and in BTS housing could be on the RCH’s waiting list in other categories. Households with

redevelopment points were deducted from the other categories and are not included in the assessment. As stated in the Procedure Note, most properties assessed as BTS will possibly have an in-situ solution rather then a need for new provision. The affordability assessment should net out the households that can provide an-in situ solution. Other categories RCH allocate points to households in tied tenancies and bedsits. This equates to three households. RCH has indicated that there are no other needs categories with in their allocations policy. 3 Validation procedures within the authority The previous housing needs assessment was undertaken in 2005. It was a survey based approach assessment to help inform the stock transfer. The Council has concerns about the application of the methodology that the consultants used for assessment. The gross backlog figure from the 2005 assessment was 8,366 households. Some of the reduction in gross backlog need could be accounted for by the implementation of the Reprovisioning Programme i.e. a large number of households in need will have a property reprovided. BTS housing across the authority – 505 households (Backlog Need Procedure Note version 6) Concealed households – 377 households (Backlog Need Procedure Note version 6). The higher number in the gross backlog need assessment is likely to be a result of the inclusion of related households Overcrowding – 1,509 households (Backlog Need Procedure Note version 6) Support needs – Numerous approaches outlined in Backlog Need Procedure Note. In comparison, figures from the RSL waiting lists are on the low side. 4 Data Sources Need Category

Source(s) and any limitations

Additional Source(s) used for Triangulation and any caveats

Assumptions made; judgements required

No in-situ solution. HL1 will return cover all of Inverclyde and not just largest RSL.

RCH waiting list 11 December 2009 plus data from Cloch HA, Oak Tree HA and Larkfield st waiting lists (31 March 2009).

Social renters netted out. Assumed level of CH is the same on other RSL waiting lists. No mechanism to separate out related/non related households.

HL1 housing return 31 March 2009 Homeless households and those in Temporary accommodation

Additional Comments

Insecure Tenure Concealed households

Efforts were made to obtain data from SHCS and SHS teams – SHCS sample was too small and the SHS team did not respond in time.

Overcrowding

RCH waiting list December 2009 plus data from Cloch HA, Oak Tree HA and Larkfield waiting st lists (31 March 2009)

Support Needs

RCH waiting list 11 December 2009 plus data from Cloch HA, Oak Tree HA and Larkfield st waiting lists (31 March 2009).

Poor Quality

Inverclyde Council Stock Condition Survey 2005 together with Reprovisioning Programme figures from RCH, Cloch HA and Oak Tree HA

Harassment

This is recorded under homelessness

Other define:

RCH waiting list December 2009

Categories:

LA bedsit and tied tenacies

Social renters netted out. Assumed level of overcrowding is the same on other RSL waiting lists.

Efforts were made to obtain data from SHCS and SHS teams – SHCS sample was too small and the SHS team did not respond in time.

Social renters netted out. Assumed level of support need is the same on other RSL waiting lists.

Efforts were made to obtain data from SHCS and SHS teams – SHCS sample was too small and SHS team did not respond in time.

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley

HOUSING NEED & DEMAND ASSESSMENT

Current / Backlog Need Assessment

Explanatory Notes

_________________________________________________________________________________________ North Lanarkshire Council These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the above local authority to: • • • •

General Comments

•

Main data source has been Common Housing Register with the base date for data used being 17/8/09 (the date at which an electronic download of all applicants on the CHR was taken circa 16,000 applicants). The CHR covers applicants who have direct access to just over 90% of the social rented stock in North Lanarkshire. Other data sources include HL1 Homeless Assessing Applications 09-10 1st Quarter June 2009 and North Lanarkshire Council, Local House Condition Survey (All Tenures) 2007-08. Geography – data has been collected at Local Authority and Sub Housing Market Area level. North Lanarkshire’s three SHMAs (Cumbernauld, Airdrie & Coatbridge and Motherwell are consistent with SDPA SHMAs and SHIP SHMAs. Working Assumptions o All applicants with zero points removed (except those awaiting assessment and those who have sheltered points), removed all transfers, removed all social renting applicants from within GCVSDPA o Applicants with any points relating to a housing need under the Council’s allocation policy were included at the first stage (prior to removal of in-situs etc) o No estimate of overlap of applicants with other local authorities has been made (it is important to note that only 679 applicants in the total backlog need are from outwith the NLC area) o Data collected included applicant origin (current address) and tenure of current residence (PRS, owner-occupier etc) Backlog need categories identified from CHR o Insecure tenure (losing accommodation within 2 months, Insecure housing, Roofless/temporary accommodation) o Concealed (living with non household members) o Overcrowded (households experiencing overcrowding) o Support Needs (Health reason to move, persons subject to protocol, sheltered housing points) o Poor Condition (Property being demolished, property significantly below BTS) o Harassment (within and outwith the home) o Other (Give and receive Support, Families living apart, househoulds living in under occupied property, moving to access employment, moving to access facilities, seeking a transfer)

• • •

•

Methodology: explanation for any departure(s) from agreed Procedure Note

•

We initially removed all homeless applications (as the HL1 return was being used for the snapshot of backlog need), all applicants with zero points and all applicants who are currently social renters within GCVSDPA The remaining applicants formed the basis for North Lanarkshire’s backlog need which was analysed by identifying applicant origin and need category Double counting was avoided as each need category was netted off in the order identified above (for example if an applicant was awarded points under one need category they were immediately removed from the CHR list so as not to be double counted if they had a multiple need) Homeless Applicants were identified from HL1 Homeless Assessing Applications 09-10 1st Quarter June 09 (466). After some considering we decided to include the difference between HL1 figure and those identified as Homeless from the CHR download. This was felt to be a more accurate measure of the actual homeless backlog at the point of the assessment). Total CHR homeless applicants 682. Therefore Homeless figure used is 466 +216 = 682. Only 2 applicants were identified as being in need under the poor quality category from the CHR. We therefore decided to use this figure plus data from the council’s own all tenure local house condition survey which reported in March 2009. A decision was made to include only those properties identified as BTS in the owner-occupied and private rented sectors (538). This gives a total of 540 under poor quality category Description of backlog need based on North Lanarkshire Council’s CHR waiting list categories: o Homeless (HL1 466 plus 216 from CHR = 682). It has been assumed that homeless households have no in-situ solution. o Insecure Tenure (Households with tenure under notice, real threat of notice or lease coming to an end or in rent or mortgage arrears (1735). Data from CHR. Assumed no in-situ solution. o Concealed Households (North Lanarkshire’s figure includes households which have related adults e.g. staying with parents & family members - 4514). Data from CHR. Assumed no in-situ solution. o Overcrowding (253) Data from CHR. Assumed no in-situ solution. o Support Needs (564) Data from CHR. Assumed noin-situ solution. Does not include households that require to move to give care or support. Includes those who have Health reason to move, persons subject to protocol (includes care leavers, those moving from institutions), those with sheltered housing points. o Poor Quality (540) Data from CHR (2 applicants whose property is being demolished or whose property is significantly below BTS and Local House Condition Survey (538). o Harassment (22) Data from CHR. While it was originally agreed by the HMP that this category would be excluded the CHR identified applicants who need to move under this criteria who were not included in previous categories (i.e. homelessness). o Other (731) Data from CHR. After netting off above categories which were identified in Scottish Government Guidance there were 731 applicants who had points and had identified need – these include: Give and receive support, families living apart, households living in under occupied property, moving to access employment and moving to access facilities. No steps have been taken to remedy possible overlap of applicants with other local authorities.

• • •

•

3 Validation procedures within the authority • •

•

Overall backlog need figure (9041) is similar to figure identified in Local Housing Needs Assessment 2007/08 carried out by David Adamson and Partners on behalf of the council (9096). Secondary data sources: o Concealed Households (996 - 2001 Census) o Overcrowded (7187 – SHS 2005-06 – Households below the bedroom standard) o Support Needs ( SHS and SHCS – Version 6 Backlog Need Procedure Note) o Poor Quality (1365 SHCS) Secondary data source information above provides different outputs than our CHR download. The council are happy that the information contained in the CHR provides the most realistic and up to date position for North Lanarkshire. It is an up-to-date measure of real need across the area (although limited by the fact that it requires people in housing need to self refer through the CHR) and is the best information to inform a local housing needs assessment and the LHS.

4 Data Sources

Need Category

Homeless households and those in Temporary accommodation Insecure Tenure Concealed households

Overcrowding Support Needs Poor Quality

Harassment

Other Categories: define: • • • • •

Give and receive support families living apart households living in under occupied property moving to access employment moving to access facilities

Source(s) and any limitations

Additional Source(s) used for Triangulation and any caveats

HL1 Homeless Assessing Applications 2009-10 1st Quarter June 2009

Difference between CHR download figure (682) and HL1 figure (466) = 216 added to HL1 figure

Common 17/8/09 Common 17/8/09

Housing

download

Housing

download

Common Housing Register download 17/8/09 Common Housing Register download 17/8/09 Common Housing Register download 17/8/09 & North Lanarkshire Stock Condition Survey 2007/08 by David Adamson & Partners Common Housing Register download 17/8/09 Common 17/8/09

Housing

download

Includes applicants living parents or family members

with

Local stock condition information only included owner occupiers and private rented.

A number of applicants not identified in Scottish Government Guidance remained with points therefore these need to be included and have been identified above.

Assumptions made; judgements required

Judgement that related households with points should be included. If they were not to be included in this category then the Council would move them into the overcrowding category.

Additional Comments

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley

HOUSING NEED & DEMAND ASSESSMENT

Current / Backlog Need Assessment

Explanatory Notes

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Renfrewshire Council These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the above local authority to: • • • •

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 General Comments • • •

Main data source: Council (from download 3.9.09 and RSL waiting list data year end 08/09.) Other data sources: BTS figures from RC stock condition survey 2002 and HL1 Geography: Data has been collected at LA and Sub Housing Market Areas; Paisley and Linwood, Johnstone and Elderslie, West Renfrewshire, North Renfrewshire, Renfrew

•

Working assumptions:

Transfers tenants (either RC or RSL) and tenants of other local authorities were netted off at the beginning.

Applicants with a need were not double counted within Council figures i.e. if they were counted in one category there were not counted again in any other category (there may have been a small element of double counting in RSL returns due to IT systems being unable to separate out categories).

Account taken of overlap of applicants on Council and RSL lists - appropriate overlap percentage was applied to RSL figures (We compared the waiting list information of name, address and DOB of 4 of the locally based RSLs with the Council’s waiting list to identify the extent of duplication of applicants on the RSLs and Council list.)

2 Methodology: explanation for any departure(s) from agreed Procedure Note The procedure note was followed as closely as possible. However, in common with other local authorities, we did include two additional categories “Insecure Tenure” and “other” that are not referred to in the Procedure Note. Also in the Concealed Households category we included related adults, where the Procedure note advises to exclude this group. The reasons for doing so are explained in the relevant boxes below.

3 Validation procedures within the authority

Final results were compared with Renfrewshire Council’s housing needs study completed by DTZ Pieda in 2003. While methodologies differed the overall results are in line with what we would expect based on the 2003 study. In addition we compared information with an exercise the Council carried out to establish if there was a need to apply for “pressured area” status. Again the results of the backlog need exercise tie in with what the findings from the “pressured area” status exercise. 4 Data Sources Need Category

Source(s) and any limitations

Homeless households and those in Temporary accommodation

Council waiting list 31.3.09 Plus one twelfth of the total number of: accommodation too expensive, under notice to quit and non-priority from HL1 return 2008/09. This is one twelfth of the total yearly amount reported for each of these categories in HL1. We decided to use this method as if we did not take a percentage of these categories we would be using the full year figures, however if we took a snapshot there may be none showing on that particular day.

Insecure Tenure

Council waiting list download 3.9.09. Applicants who are in a private let or who are tied tenants. Excludes those applicants already counted in the concealed, overcrowded or support categories. Limitations: This data relates only to applicants on the Council waiting list.

Additional Source(s) used for Triangulation and any caveats

Assumptions made; judgements required

Additional Comments

Did not add in all applicants in temporary accommodation as there would have been substantial double counting with those on the waiting list

While not referred to in the Procedure note, this a category of need recognised by the Council (and other Councils in the GCVHMP) and this groups’ needs could have potentially been missed out completely. This issue was discussed at the Housing sub-group and we added it in relatively late in the process. Therefore we did not request this information from housing associations.

Concealed households

Council waiting list 3.9.09 and RSL returns with overlap deducted. Applicants sharing amenities with another person/household. Includes people living with parents.

The Population and Household projections 2008-based (prepared by Jan Freeke) estimates level of concealed households in Renfrewshire to be 791.

Limitations: Does not include any estimate of those who are concealed households who have not applied for social housing.

Overcrowding

Council waiting list 3.9.09 plus RSL returns with overlap deducted. Applicants awarded an overcrowding priority To avoid double counting applicants who had already been counted under

Related adults included as per minute of Housing sub th group 19 Nov 2009. Added in as there was concern that related adults living in the same house but requiring own home may not be picked up in projections of newly forming households and therefore missed out from need/demand calculations

Scottish House Condition Survey (updated to June 2008) – 3,000 mid point Population and Household projections by Jan Freeke estimate 1583 households in the Renfrewshire area.

concealed households were not included in this count. Limitations: Does not include any estimate of overcrowded households who have not applied for social housing

Support Needs

Source: council waiting list 3.9.09Applicants with a “mobility priority”, applicants who have a sheltered housing priority only and who have not been included in any other category and applicants who wish to move to “give or receive support”. RSL returns for “Support Need” category with overlap deducted

As the information is drawn from waiting list data and does not include any estimate of people who have support needs but have not applied for social housing, the figure returned is likely to be at the lower level of estimated need.

Limitations: The procedure note outlines the types of household to be included which focuses on mobility/disability issues that make the current dwelling unsuitable. This quite closely matches Renfrewshire Council’s “mobility priority”, however there is variation in the definition of RSLs “support need” category which may include broader definitions of support. The figure does not include an estimate of people who have support needs who have not applied to the Council or RSLs for rehousing.

Poor Quality

Source: Renfrewshire Council stock condition survey 2002 private sector BTS housing figure minus housing improved as reported through annual LHS updates. Also a small number of Council waiting list applicants who as at 31.3.09 had a regeneration priority with no identified rehousing.

Harassment

No figure returned as per guidance in Procedure Note. While Renfrewshire Council does recognize this as a need, the number in this category, who would not fall into any other category, would be negligible.

Other Categories: define:

Renfrewshire Council waiting list categories “nowhere to stay” and “looking for work in area”. These are other categories of need the Council recognises but that are not included in any defined in the procedure note.

RSLs did supply information regarding numbers of applicants in poor condition/quality housing. However given the varying definitions in policies about this category we decided to use the BTS figure.

As with Insecure Tenure, this was a late addition following discussion at the Housing sub-group. Information relates only to applicants on the Council housing list.

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley

HOUSING NEED & DEMAND ASSESSMENT

Current / Backlog Need Assessment

Explanatory Notes

_________________________________________________________________________________________ South Lanarkshire Council These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the above local authority to: • • • •

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 General Comments The main data source used was South Lanarkshire Council’s housing register with further information obtained from the larger Housing Associations about applicants on their own housing registers. The base date for the data used was 31 March 2009 as set out in the agreed procedure note. In terms of geography, we analysed information to the local authority level and also to the well established four Housing Market Areas in South Lanarkshire. These are: Rutherglen and Cambuslang HMA; East Kilbride HMA; Hamilton HMA and Clydesdale HMA. These HMA are consistent with the Strategic Development sub areas, the Local Housing Strategy, the Local Plan and the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP). 2 Methodology: explanation for any departure(s) from agreed Procedure Note The SLC housing register had 18,563 applications at 31 March 2009 before any filtering was carried out (Table 1). Table 1: Applicants on SLC housing register at 31 March 2009 Waiting list Transfer list Homelessness list Total Register Clydesdale 2,378 583 185 3,146 East Kilbride 3,561 461 218 4,240 Hamilton 5,571 1,145 396 7,112 Rutherglen/Cambuslang 2,958 947 160 4,065 South Lanarkshire 14,468 3,136 959 18,563 Using applicants reasons for applying and the points awarded to them, we re-categorised applications to coincide with those in the procedure note which reflect those in the HNDA guidance. The outcome is this is shown in Table 2:

Table 2: Needs Categorisation Procedure note/HNDA categories

Homeless Households

Notice to Quit

Concealed Households

Overcrowding

Support Needs

Poor Quality

Harassment Other

South Lanarkshire Reason for Applying/ Points awarded Homelessness – maximum points Child Leaving Care Leaving Prison Tied Tenant - NTQ HM Forces - NTQ In Temporary Accommodation Insecurity of Tenure NTQ from Landlord Losing Current Accommodation Accommodation Too Expensive Homelessness Reason (maximum points not awarded) No Permanent Accommodation Concealed Household Sharing Amenities Insecure Accommodation (no immediate threat of NTQ) Financial Difficulty Future Safeguard Insecurity Want to Live Independently Overcrowded Relationship Breakdown Points awarded for overcrowding Medical A (Urgent medical need) Medical B (Serious medical need) Special Need Unsuitable Dwelling Wants Sheltered Housing Urgent Social Need Leaving Hospital Lacking Amenities Redevelopment Private renters who are unable to find an insitu resolution through the Scheme of Assistance. All private owners excluded. Harassment Give/Receive Care points only

The next stage of the process involved reviewing the housing register and making decisions about those applications which would be not be included as in need. These were: • All Transfer applications. • Applicants who had been awarded no points irrespective of reason for applying. • Those with ‘waiting points’ only irrespective of reason for applying. • Applicants with only Medical C points awarded (as these applicants may be helped with insitu measures). • Applicants who had been suspended because they had been referred to another local authority. This process resulted in a reduction of 8,185 applications from the council’s housing register. This means that 10,378 applications comprised the core picture of backlog need arising from the Council’s housing register. This represents a reduction of 55.9% from the original number on the housing register to those determined to be in backlog housing need. The outcome of this process is shown in Table 3 below: Table 3: Applicants in Need East Rutherglen/ South Step Clydesdale Kilbride Hamilton Cambuslang Lanarkshire Concealed Household 692 1333 2292 1077 5394 Harassment 1 0 1 1 3 Homeless 193 238 480 173 1084 Notice to Quit 319 498 974 475 2266 Other 42 43 50 45 180 Overcrowded 48 63 80 84 275 Poor Quality 4 1 3 7 15 Support Needs 104 424 356 277 1161 Total 1403 2600 4236 2139 10378 The next stage of the assessment was to consider additional need on Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) housing registers. At 31 March 2009, there were 21 RSLs operating in South Lanarkshire with a total RSL housing stock of 5,834 units. We obtained information from the six largest RSLs in South Lanarkshire which between own 74% of the RSL stock in the authority area. The total housing registers for these RSLs amounted to 4,055, assuming same stock, the list proportions gave a total housing register for all South Lanarkshire RSLs of 5,480. It has been assumed from previous affordable housing needs assessments and work related to the development of the South Lanarkshire Common Housing Register that an overlap of 50% with those on the Council’s Housing Register was not unreasonable. When this was applied, it reduced the number of applications to 2,740. Further analysis of the information on RSL housing registers showed that 175 were Transfer applications. When this figure was also deducted it was determined that 2,565 applications from South Lanarkshire RSLs were also from households in need. This figure was added to the Council’s core estimate of need, to provide an overall estimate of need from Social Landlord Housing Registers in South Lanarkshire of 12,943. This additional need was distributed between the four Housing Market Areas in the same proportions as in the 2004 and 2007

Affordable Housing Needs Assessments carried out Newhaven. These were based on previous analysis of waiting list profiles across these areas. The overall findings are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Assessment of Gross Backlog Need Clydesdale East Kilbride Step Concealed Household Harassment Homeless Notice to Quit Other Overcrowded Poor Quality Support Needs Grand Total

Hamilton

Ruth/Camb

South Lanarkshire

SLC

RSL

Total

SLC

RSL

Total

SLC

RSL

Total

SLC

RSL

Total

SLC

RSL

Total

692 1 193 319 42 48 4 104 1403

320 0 64 135 11 16 1 69 616

1012 1 257 454 53 64 5 173 2019

1333 0 238 498 43 63 1 424 2600

147 0 29 62 5 7 0 32 282

1480 0 267 560 48 70 1 456 2882

2292 1 480 974 50 80 3 356 4236

653 0 131 274 22 33 2 141 1257

2945 1 611 1248 72 113 5 497 5493

1077 1 173 475 45 84 7 277 2139

213 0 43 90 7 11 1 46 410

1290 1 216 565 52 95 8 323 2549

5394 3 1084 2266 180 275 15 1161 10378

1333 1 268 560 44 68 4 287 2565

6727 4 1352 2826 224 343 19 1448 12943

The final stage of the process was to include 474 households whose homes were projected to be demolished. This gives an overall final assessment of backlog need of 13,417 households.

3 Validation procedures within the authority The backlog needs assessment was carried out following the guidance within the procedure note as much as possible. The assumptions and judgements used reflect those already used in the Affordable Housing Needs Assessments carried out by Tony O’Sullivan, Newhaven Research in 2004 and 2007.

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley

HOUSING NEED & DEMAND ASSESSMENT

Current / Backlog Need Assessment

Explanatory Notes

_________________________________________________________________________________________ West Dunbartonshire Council These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the above local authority to: • • • •

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 General Comments The figures presented in this exercise represent an updating of those contained in the backlog need component of the West Dunbartonshire Council’s Housing Needs and Supply Study published in 2008, with variations to meet the criteria contained in the new G&CV methodology. In The key elements making up the backlog need are broadly similar. The outcomes of the two exercises were not dissimilar, with the GCV one arriving at a more conservative total. In both instances overcrowding and “unsuitable for special needs” were the main reasons for households being in ”backlog” housing need. The Council intends to update its own HNSS in the lead up to the preparation of the new Local Housing Strategy scheduled for completion in September 2011. 2 Methodology: explanation for any departure(s) from agreed Procedure Note West Dunbartonshire Council figures are based on their Housing Needs and Supply (HNSS) Study carried out in July 2008 by Arneil Johnston, Public Sector 4 Housing & Facilities Management Consultancy . Where possible, figures were updated. The methodology employed in the HNSS to ascertain backlog need is very similar to that agreed by the G&CV. The study was household survey as opposed to waiting list based. The backlog need was broken down by the settlement areas of Clydebank, Dumbarton, and Vale of Leven. 3 Validation procedures within the authority All household survey results were based on a sample size of 1,119 residents in the West Dunbartonshire Council area and have been validated against core statistical sources such as GRO population projections (2004 based) and 1991 and 2001 Census results. In addition, the HNSS project board comprising WDC and Scottish Government Housing Investment Division officers was used as a “sounding board” in progressing the work. In the course of writing the HNSS all results

WDC Housing Needs and Supply Study Final Report July 2008

Household survey outcomes were validated against GRO household projections (2004 based) to ensure that they were representative of projected household composition and age profiles. In addition, validation of the tenure profile of respondents was carried out utilising a tenure tagged Council Tax dataset. These validation checks indicated that the survey profile was representative of the wider population in terms of age, age of head of household and/or household composition, with only very small variances in the survey population and the projected population/tenure data. 4 Data Sources Need Category

Homeless households and those in Temporary accommodation

Source(s) and any limitations

252 HL1 Statistics: Snapshot at end Q1 2008

Additional Source(s) used for Triangulation and any caveats

Overcrowding

Assumed to be contained in HL1 and concealed households figures. 369 HNSS Survey Q18 It should be noted that although the Final Report is dated July 2008, the survey and other figures informing the report date from 2007.

WDC WaitingList Points November 2009: sharing amenities- 1757. HL1 Reasons for Homelessness: friends/families no longer willing/able to accommodate-208

2450 HNSS Survey Q21(3469)

Having noted the low HL1 figure, agreed to go with the more conservative source. Although the HNSS was 2 years old at the time of preparing this backlog analysis, it was considered to be still valid. Both figures seem reasonable and valid; decision made to use the midpoint figure of 2450.

WL Households with 1 or more bedrooms fewer than needed excluding single people (1430).

Support Needs

Additional Comments

Compared with HL1 Average 2004-2008. Also complies with WDC temporary accommodation stock list figure.

Insecure Tenure

Concealed households

Assumptions made; judgements required

1425 HNSS Survey WDC information aids and adaptations budgetary information

OccupationalTherapist Aids/Adaptations waiting lists. The SHCS shows WDC as the authority with the highest proportions of dwellings in need of adaptations, at 11%. It also has the highest percentage of dwellings with at least one

Comprises 2 elements A) Those who require major adaptations which cannot be met through their own or the Council’s budgets = 161(HNSS Survey Q 73 (1543) minus those adaptations considered to be minor (692) minus those households who will undertake the adaptations

The figure of 369 may be on the low side, especially given the WL figure which however may contain some double counting.

This figure may appear high for WDC. However, the” concealed households” category is low. There is likely to a definitional issue here. A pattern has emerged across the GCV whereby where there is a high figure in one category the other is low. This bears out the suggestion that definition is an issue. Latest WDC Waiting List figures show a considerably lower figure of 1460. However, there was evidence that there were high numbers of people rejecting offers on the grounds that the house offered was not suitable due to access issues. It was also considered more consistent

9 WDC BTS latest Scottish Government return (“old pre 6 2006 BTS definition”.

Poor Quality

Harassment HNSS Survey Q37E(3)

Other define:

Categories:

SHCS Local Authority Report 2004-07 Tables 5.15 & 5.4

Annual WDC Statistical Return to Scottish Government March 2007

member having LTI/disability at 52%.5

themselves Q74 (90) minus minus WDC estimate of requests that can be funded from the available budget (600) = 161 B)Those who need a special form of housing= 2479(HNSS Q71) The total of 2640 has been reduced pro rata 54/46 to remove those in social housing where it is assumed that those rehoused would free up their existing accommodation.

SHCS gives figure of 170 but based on low sample size.

Not thought to be major issues of disrepair in WD but data is limited pending completion of PSHCS. The situation is likely to be very different if the new BTS definition is used. Survey figure for those who have moved as a result of harassment which would not go through homeless route.. It is considered that this is in addition to Homelessness figures whereas HL1 “Reasons for Homelessness: Harassment: other/racial” will largely be duplication

HL1 figure is given as 38.

to use the HNSS survey figures. A key finding of the survey was that there were too many houses with stairs. It should be noted that the analysis of backlog need is predicated on the principle that those who have need which can be resolved in-situ will be eliminated from the requirement for alternative housing. This means that the calculation is likely to under-estimate the overall level of need if an appropriate level of investment in aids and adaptations is not provided. New Private Sector House Condition Survey is being carried out but is not due to report until August 2010.

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Housing Market Partnership Housing Need and Demand Assessment Technical Appendix 04 Affordability Study November 2010

HNDA W

Housing Affordability Study Final Report

© Insert text or de-select this option 2010 https://connect.tribalgroup.com/Image%20library/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2FImage %20library%2F8%2E0%20Corporate%20functions%2F8%2E01%20Business%20development https://connect.tribalgroup.com/Image%20library/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2FImage %20library%2F8%2E0%20Corporate%20functions%2F8%2E01%20Business%20development

October 2010

GCVSPDA Version 08 0

Document control sheet Client

GCVSPDA

Document Title

Housing Affordability Draft Report

Version

Status

Report

Reference

Housing/23114

Author

Peter Wood/Valerie Strachan

Date

8 October 2010

Further copies from

email: valerie.strachan@tribalgroup.com quoting reference and author

Quality assurance by:

Valerie Strachan

Document history Version

Date

Author

Comments

29/1/10

PWW/VS

Interim report

26 February 2010

PWW/VS

Draft report, showing findings for C2 projection

12 March 2010

PWW/VS

Revised to correct errors noted by steering group, and tidy up table labelling

03.2

8 April

PWW/VS

29 April

PWW/VS

22 July 2010

PWW/VS

8 October 2010

PWW/VS

Death and migration per annum are exactly as in Core Group forecasts Inter-tenure move assumptions adjusted in line with the “validation” results (i.e. Adjustment that provided a good fit). PRS migration, PRS affordability and SRS/PRS flows tightened up; stage one estimates included; some revisions to report text made, in line with comments received. Draft final report: PRS ranges presented (these vary by LA, with ranges adopted by each LA), A1 figs included, sub-area estimates for stage 1 included, Market commentary included Revised Final report, taking account of consolidated comments provided by steering group

Contact details Main point of contact

Telephone number

Email address

Postal address

Valerie Strachan

07974 362 768

valerie.strachan@tribalgroup.com

Tribune Court, 2 Roman Road, Glasgow, G61 2SW

Version 08 1

Contents 1 1.1 1.2 1.3

Purpose of the report .................................................................................................... 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1 Project oversight.................................................................................................. 1 Structure of the report ......................................................................................... 1

2 2.1 2.2 2.3

Housing choice and affordability ................................................................................... 3 The concept of affordability ................................................................................. 3 Changing circumstances ..................................................................................... 3 Implications for the analysis ................................................................................ 5

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

Study approach ............................................................................................................. 6 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 6 National Level Analysis ....................................................................................... 6 Local Authority Level Analysis ............................................................................ 6 Housing Market Area Analysis ............................................................................ 7 Output.................................................................................................................. 7 Household projection scenarios .......................................................................... 7 Treatment of migrants ......................................................................................... 8

4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

National Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 9 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 9 Owner occupation and age ................................................................................. 9 Income and tenure .............................................................................................. 9 Other Economic Characteristics of Owners ...................................................... 11 Income and Economic Circumstances.............................................................. 12 Other Factors .................................................................................................... 13 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 13

5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Local level analysis ..................................................................................................... 15 Introduction........................................................................................................ 15 Correlations ....................................................................................................... 15 Regressions ...................................................................................................... 17 Private renting ................................................................................................... 17

6 6.1 6.2 6.3

Modelling of Affordability and Tenure: Developing Estimates .................................... 21 Introduction........................................................................................................ 21 Model Structure - First Stage ............................................................................ 21 Results............................................................................................................... 23

7 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

Modelling Tenure flows ............................................................................................... 28 Results............................................................................................................... 29 C2: Low affordability tables ............................................................................... 31 C2: High affordability tables .............................................................................. 32 A1: Low affordability tables ............................................................................... 32 A1: High affordability tables .............................................................................. 32

8 8.1 8.2

Market analysis ........................................................................................................... 32 Introduction........................................................................................................ 32 The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing System.............................................. 32

Version 08 2

8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13

Market Drivers – analysis .................................................................................. 32 Results and Analysis ......................................................................................... 32 Glasgow............................................................................................................. 32 East Dunbartonshire.......................................................................................... 32 East Renfrewshire ............................................................................................. 32 Inverclyde .......................................................................................................... 32 North Lanarkshire.............................................................................................. 32 Renfrewshire ..................................................................................................... 32 South Lanarkshire ............................................................................................. 32 West Dunbartonshire......................................................................................... 32 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 32

Abbreviations used in the report .............................................................................................. 32 Appendix B: Income distribution of new housing association tenants ..................................... 32 Appendix C: GCVSPDA Projections Model - Key Assumptions and Parameters .................. 32 Appendix D: Lift values used in the analysis............................................................................ 32 Appendix E: New Households able to afford to buy ................................................................ 32 Appendix F: Migrant households able to afford to buy ............................................................ 32

Supplementary Report: Current housing need (Backlog) ....................................................... 32 Assessing backlog need .......................................................................................................... 32 Approach to affordability testing............................................................................................... 32 Current (backlog) need estimate.............................................................................................. 32 Appendix SR: A Backlog need base dataSummary of LA sub-area current need data .......... 32 Summary of LA sub-area current need data............................................................................ 32

Version 08 3

Executive Summary Introduction Purpose of the report 1.

This report sets out the findings from the affordability research study undertaken by Tribal/Optimal Economics. The overall aim of the research is to provide an affordability analysis relating to housing in the GCVSDPA area. The research addresses two key questions: ■

How many new and migrant households could/could not afford to meet their housing needs in the open market now and in the future – that is, over the period 2008/09 to 2024/25

■

Of those households unable to meet their housing need in the open market, how many could afford to meet their need using intermediate housing market products

In addition, the study considered the components of projected tenure change, setting out the tenure profile for existing households and household dissolutions by tenure.

These study findings will form a core component of the Glasgow Clyde Valley Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA).

Finally, the research team applied an affordability assessment to those households assessed as forming Backlog Need in a separate exercise undertaken by the eight local authorities. These findings are in presented in the supplementary report bound with the main report, and these findings will also feed through into the HNDA. Study approach

Housing needs studies tend to assume that there is a fixed link between income and the price of market housing – indeed, it is typically assumed that households can afford to spend a quarter of their income on housing. This study suggests that that assumption may be somewhat over-simplified. First, because at any point in time a household may chose to pay more or less than this fixed ratio depending on external circumstances (such as the price of mortgage interest, the prevailing level of house prices) and personal preferences/circumstances (in particular, the fixed ratio takes no account of the varying levels of residual income – 25% of £15k implies a very different affordability outcome to 25% of £115K). And second, because personal circumstances change – while two households may be identically unable to afford market housing now, one may reasonably expect to be able to do so in two years time, while the other might not. Financial decisions are based not just on current circumstances, but on expectations of future earnings/income.

The study does accept that there is a relationship between income and the ability to afford housing of different types. However, we do not consider it appropriate to begin by adopting a fixed ratio of prices to incomes and to say that this measure will accurately predict the housing choices people will make. Instead we start by observing the choices made by actual households and seek to identify the circumstances and conditions influence different choices. Study method

The research method focuses on understanding the determinants of “affordability”, which we have defined as the ability to access “market” housing. We have sought to establish these determinants at the national (Scottish level) before exploring why tenure patterns vary between areas (see figure 1 below). It is our contention that the economic, social and other factors which are important to people’s ability to access housing are broadly consistent across Scotland – i.e. we do not expect that households in Fife take a very different attitude to housing choices from households in Renfrewshire – but the scale of these factors themselves will vary (e.g. incomes will be higher in some areas than others).

Version 08 i

Figure 1: Study Approach

The analysis was undertaken over a series of steps: ■

National analysis: to identify the factors influencing affordability and the factors that influence tenure variation between areas. This considered the relationship between tenure and an array of household characteristics including income, employment, household composition and household size.

■

Local analysis: to establish how far variations in the prevalence of these characteristics in the local population can explain variations in tenure patterns. This analysis was then formalised to produce a model that enabled us to project affordability at the local level within GCV (we used local authorities as the base unit, and developed further approaches to produce estimates at local authority sub-area level). The modelling was undertaken in two stages.

■

The first stage model developed estimates of new households who would become owners, private renters, social renters (with some flexibility to produce estimates of the potential for intermediate housing); and estimates of in-migrants who would be owners, private renters or social renters

■

The second stage of the model was extended to include flows between tenures, as well as estimates of loss from the housing systems resulting from out-migration migration and deaths.

Findings National results 9.

Affordability appears to be affected by four key factors: ■

Stage in life cycle (age): The study considered three broad age categories; 16-24 year olds: 25-29 year olds and 30-35 years olds. The analysis revealed a clear relationship between age and owner occupation: older households are far more likely to be owners than are those in the youngest age groups. Indeed, owner occupation is a minority tenure for households aged under 25; thereafter the proportion of households buying their own home increases significantly, to around half of those around of those aged 25-29 and 60% (almost in line with the national average) of those aged 30-35.

■

Employment status: there is a very strong relationship between employment status and tenure. Very rarely do young households without an earner become home owners, whereas the majority of households in employment own their home; and this is especially

Version 08 ii

true of “older” households (70% of 30-35 year olds own their home). Conversely, social 1 renting and private renting are viable options for households without employment . ■

Household composition: the number of adults in the household makes a critical difference to the tenure outcome, partly because this influences the capacity to increase income (a single person household realistically cannot have dual full-time earnings), but there was also a distinct relationship between two person households and owner occupation.

■

Income: As might be expected, income levels are lowest for the youngest age group. Critically, differentials between households in different tenures are relatively narrow for this age group: young owner occupiers have the highest incomes, but only a few thousand pounds more than social renters (around 50% more), and only marginally more than private renters. Incomes rise with age, but at different rates: with older renters typically having incomes only slightly higher than younger renters, whereas incomes of older owner occupiers tend to be much higher than those of their younger counterparts. The data examined are cross-sectional. However, we might expect the people who move into owner occupation will have incomes that rise with age, whereas those who live in the social rented sector may be on incomes (either through employment or benefits) that rise slowly. The PRS is more complicated, and is likely to contain a mix of households whose incomes rise slowly (as in the SRS) and rise quickly (and move out into home ownership).

10.

Income and the economic circumstances of a household are, of course, related. We would expect household income to increase as the number of earners increases. The basic income profiles follow the pattern described above: owners have the highest incomes, social renters the lowest incomes; incomes rise with age; and age differentials are greatest for owners.

11.

The analysis of SHS data suggest that the absolute minimum income for accessing owner occupation (at 2006) was around £17,000. This is a rough estimate; it does not include any allowance for additional support households may have had to enable them to access or sustain home ownership. Nevertheless, even this income level is beyond the vast majority of social renters - only around 20% of young social rented households had this level of income, and the analysis would suggest that their future income trajectory is for very slow grow, suggestive that a shift into owner occupation would not be appropriate or likely. Local level analysis

12.

The local authority level analysis suggested that ■

There is not a significant relationship between the conventional affordability measure (house price to income ratio) and the level of owner occupation. That is, the level of owner occupation among young households (35 and under) does not appear to be related to the affordability of housing in the local authority area in which they live.

■

There is a relationship between the affordability of owner occupation and both forms of renting, but this is not straightforward:

There is a negative relationship between the affordability of owner occupation and social renting among the youngest age group. That is – in areas where owner occupation is relatively expensive (allowing for incomes), we find few young social renters, and vice versa.

Later in our analysis (ch5) we will be forced to conclude that the PRS is only affordable by households on relatively high incomes. This is because a) as a result of a data limitations we are forced to resort to a price:income ratio approach for the private rented sector when analysing local data datasets, and b), the guidance precludes taking housing benefit into account when assessing PRS affordability. We know from work elsewhere (Tyne and Wear) that when HB is taken into account, the sector’s affordability increases substantially. Version 08 iii

There is a fairly strong positive correlation between owner occupied affordability and private renting – that is, as properties become relatively more expensive (again allowing for incomes), levels of private renting increase.

13.

This suggests that the most reliable broad guide to the split of tenure, at least between ownership and social renting is likely to be expected levels of employment among future households in the GCV area. However, the analysis also demonstrated a very strong relationship between age and the ability to access owner occupied housing. Only around 25% of households headed by a person under the age of 25 are owners – and it is likely that most of these are in the older end of the age band. It follows that a population in which there is a high proportion of new and relatively young households is likely to have lower levels of home ownership than a similar sized population made up of older households.

14.

The model, therefore, takes income (as an indicator for the household’s economic circumstances) and the age distribution of households as the key drivers of tenure choice among new households. Thus in Glasgow where the demographic projections indicate that many new households will be headed by relatively young persons and where average incomes are low, we expect that a low proportion of new households (around 40%) will become owners; while in East Dunbartonshire, where new households are headed by relatively older persons and where incomes are higher, about 69% of new households will become owners.

15.

A very different set of relationships emerges for renters than for owners: income does not appear to be related to tenure, but broader economic and household factors are; and these factors apply for all age groups without noticeable strengthening of the relationship across the age groups.

16.

Unfortunately, because the PRS is much smaller than the owner occupied sector, data considerations meant a somewhat different approach to analysing affordability had to be adopted. Instead of using regression analysis to develop local adjustment factors, a more straightforward set of price to income ratio reluctantly had to be adopted. This suggested that typically households would require an income of between £17.3k (West Dunbartonshire) and £19.7k (East Dunbartonshire) (assuming they spent 25% of their income on rent and did not have access to housing benefit). There is some uncertainty over the proportion of income which households will willingly commit to housing costs and for that reason the modelling has considered the implications of alternative assumptions concerning the amount of income committed to rent – levels of 25%, 33% and 40% of gross income have been considered. 2

Stage 2: Modelling tenure flows 17.

18.

A key consideration for the modelling of tenure flows was sensitivity to the affordability of private rented housing. Following several iterations of the model, the validation exercise and a detailed review by the steering group, it was agreed that two alternative scenarios would modelled, based on different assumptions concerning the affordability of private rented housing. ■

The low affordability scenario assumes that households are able to spend 25% of their income on PRS (or 33% if they live in Glasgow or East Dunbartonshire);

■

The high affordability scenario assumes that households can afford 33% of their income on the PRS (or 40% if the live in Glasgow or East Dunbartonshire).

The high affordability scenario suggests a continued growth in owner occupation and modest changes in both social and private renting. The owner occupied sector increases to 67% of households from 64% and increases in size by 101,000 households. Social renting would decline from 30% of households to 26%, while the overall number of social rented households would decline by only a few thousand. Private renting would remain stable in terms of market share, although the number of private rented households rises by about 15,000.

Two sets of household projections were used as the basis for the modelling. The differences between these relate to overall population numbers rather than to any differences in tenure patterns. For simplicity, any figures referred to below (and in the conclusions sections of the report) relate to the C2 projection. Tables containing the full C2 and A1 projections are provided in chapter 7 Version 08 iv

19.

The low affordability scenario implies a significantly slower growth in home ownership but the more profound difference is that the social rented sector grows by 10% (that is by about 24,000 households).

20.

It is worth stating that the shifts from the social rented sector to the owner occupied sector projected under either scenario are modest relative to the changes that have occurred historically. However, a much more “stable” tenure profile may be considered credible, given recent tenure patterns. These suggest that owner occupation may have plateaued - with owner occupation now the tenure outcome for the majority of households that can afford the option.

21.

Overall, we might expect to see the social rented sector decline slightly: both in terms of market share and in absolute terms (by around 1% - 2%), Income levels of social renters are typically low, and unable to support private sector alternatives, and in particular, unable to support home ownership options.

22.

There does, however, remain some fluidity around the private rented sector. Delayed moves into owner occupation could have a marked impact on the sector (with the exception of Edinburgh and some rural authorities, the PRS has constituted a very small component of an area’s housing system – a small shift in flow from the owner occupied sector will have a substantial impact on the PRS). The analysis suggested around 10% of private renter households will move to owner occupation in a year. If this were to fall to around 5% a year then growth in home ownership would continue but at a much slower rate (72,000 households), social renting would rise by several thousand units and the private rented sector would grow by over 30,000 households. The tenure split difference from the high affordability scenario would be mainly within the private sector – owner occupation would be about 63% of households, social renting 27% and private renting 10%.

Version 08 v

Purpose of the report

1.1

Introduction

1.1.1

This report sets out the findings from the research study being undertaken by the Tribal/Optimal Economics team which form a core component of the Glasgow Clyde Valley Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA).

1.1.2

The overall aim of the research is to provide an affordability analysis relating to housing in the GCVSDPA area. The brief poses two key questions:

1.1.3

■

How many new and migrant households could/could not afford to meet their housing needs in the open market now and in the future

■

Of those households unable to meet their housing need in the open market how many could afford to meet their need using intermediate housing market products.

The study considered two other critical issues: ■

The components of projected tenure change, setting out tenure change for existing households and household dissolutions by tenure.

■

An affordability assessment of those households in Backlog Need .

1.1.4

The core study geographies for the HNDA and the SHIP are the local authorities, local authority subareas and the housing market sub-areas. All outputs are produced at local authority level, and key outputs are produced to local authority sub-area level. Further work is on-going to produce HMA outputs.

1.2

Project oversight

1.2.1

The study was commissioned by the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority (GCVSDPA) Housing Market Partnership Core Group. The Core group worked closely with the Tribal/OE project team throughout the study period.

1.3

Structure of the report

1.3.1

The report is set out as follows: ■

Section 2 discusses the concept of affordability and its relevance to the aims of the study

■

In section 3 we set out our approach to the study

■

Sections 4 and 5 we set out the analytical framework for the study. First in chapter 4 we provide an overview of the findings of a detailed analysis of the influences on and characteristics of household tenure choice/outcomes. Then in section 5 we analyse evidence on inter-area variation in tenure and affordability

■

In sections 6 and 7 we apply the results of this analysis in a model which projects the capacity of households to access housing and thus the tenure split in each local authority area. These chapters provide detailed tabular data: in section 6, we set out the stage one findings noting the level of households unable to afford to buy market housing at local authority and sub-area level; while in section 7 we provide detailed estimates of tenure flows under a number of different assumptions at the local authority level.

The calculation of Backlog Need itself was undertaken by the local authorities. The affordability assessment was undertaken as part of this study to ensure consistency across the two elements of the HNDA. Version 08 1

■

Section 8 provides an analysis of the study outputs.

■

Finally, there are a number of appendices, which supplement the information contained within the main report. These contain:

■

A: Summary of backlog of need data at the LA sub-area level

B: Income distribution of new housing association tenants

C: Key parameters used in the modelling

D: LIFT values used in the analysis

E: Local authority annual projections showing New Households able to buy

F: Local authority annual projections showing Migrant households able to buy

Finally, the supplementary report contains the affordability analysis of the Backlog Need. This sets out the approach we have taken to applying an affordability test to the current need figures that have been produced by each of the local authorities, together with the estimates produced, and an appendix containing a summary of the base data provided by the authorities.

Version 08 2

Housing choice and affordability

2.1

The concept of affordability

2.1.1

Affordability of housing is often treated as a hard and fast concept and one which rigidly determines the actual or desired behaviour of households. Thus housing to buy is deemed “unaffordable” if its price exceeds a certain multiple of a household’s annual income and it is assumed that households will be unable to buy if their income does not reach the “required” proportion of the typical house price.

2.1.2

This approach is over-simplified. Households make choices as to buying and renting and their choices will be affected by a range of factors. There is ample evidence that people are willing, under certain conditions, to buy properties at a high multiple of their earnings – provided that money can be borrowed. Moreover, over time people have been willing or able to devote a higher proportion of household income to housing as incomes have risen.

2.1.3

Because over the long term the average ratio of house prices to incomes has been about 3.5 does not establish that this is the limit of affordability – it is merely the broad average of what most people have had to pay to access “acceptable” housing. At certain times – especially when credit has been cheap and freely available – households have been willing to pay more and, faced with a relatively inelastic supply, rising demand has driven up prices. This also emphasises that the relationship between house prices and incomes is complex but it is, ultimately, the ability and willingness to apply income to housing costs that supports prices. By definition, housing can never be “unaffordable” for most people – if it were prices would fall.

2.1.4

We fully accept that there is a relationship between income and the ability to afford housing of different types. However, we consider that to begin by adopting a fixed ratio of prices to incomes and to say that this measure will accurately predict the housing choices people will make is not appropriate. We consider that the starting point should be to examine the choices made by actual households and to identify the circumstances and conditions of households which make different choices. In the light of this, our approach focuses on examining the evidence concerning the tenure outcomes for households formed in the recent past in Scotland.

2.2

Changing circumstances

2.2.1

A second important factor is that household circumstances change over time – and do so especially rapidly in the years after households are formed. We present below some striking data on variation in housing choices. Despite this, many housing needs analyses are constructed as if households only ever made one choice. Thus it might be argued that if a survey shows that (say) 50% of new households cannot afford to buy or rent privately then 50% of new housing needs to be “social”: however, within a few years the circumstances of many of those households unable to buy at the point of the survey will have altered substantially so that they are now potential buyers.

2.2.2

An alternative approach would be to base housing demand projections on what might be termed the main lifetime tenure. On that basis we might conclude that 70% of households in Scotland will become owners and plan for housing supply accordingly. However, that would imply an undersupply of rented housing as many of the owners would spend part of their time in rented housing. In fact, the balance between private sale and private renting may be resolved by the market.

2.2.3

This reality of changing circumstances has implications for the measurement of “affordability” since the result obtained will be affected by how and when it is measured.

Version 08 3

Figure 2.1 New households and housing choices

New Households

Owners

Social Renters

Private Renters

2.2.4

As Figure 2.1 illustrates, new households will move into one of the three main tenures on formation but within a few years there will be inter-tenure movement. The typical pattern is for there to be a fairly large movement to owner occupation from private renting, rather fewer moves from social renting and an “inter-change” between the rented sectors.

2.2.5

Data from the Scottish House Condition Survey reveal how these patterns are revealed in tenure. Table 2.1 shows tenure of households according to the age of the reference person. Table 2.1 Tenure by Age of Reference Person (% of households) 16 - 17

18 - 25

26 - 30

Owner Occupation

27%

51%

Private Rent

36%

28%

15%

Social Rent

55%

45%

35%

Source: SHCS

2.2.6

The shift towards ownership is not simply a matter of households which form at an older stage being more able to afford. Examination of the SHCS data shows that the higher level of owner occupation in the 26 – 30 year old group cannot be fully accounted for by a greater likelihood that households forming later will move straight into owner occupation. Moreover, the data indicate that 64% of households headed by 26 – 30 year olds had been households in a previous residence and that only 19% had been owners. There is clearly a major process of tenure shift in the mid to late 20s for many households. Moreover, the process is not over. We know that at the overall population level 63% of the housing stock is owner occupied and the SHCS indicates that 78% of the 26 – 30 group want to be owners: while not all will achieve this, many will.

Version 08 4

2.3

Implications for the analysis

2.3.1

It is clear that there is a challenge in analysing the “affordability” of housing for new households in that affordability will change rapidly. To address this we might combine analysis of the affordability/tenure choice issue at the time of first household formation with a clear understanding of the rapid tenure shift process at work in the early years of the lives of new households or “fix” the assessment of affordability not at the time at which the new household is formed but at some point at which it is deemed to have “settled” – possibly age 30 – 35.

2.3.2

The available data do not enable us to identify with confidence households who are newly (i.e. very recently) formed. Rather we are able to identify households with a reference person of various ages. Thus we can reasonably assume that households where the head of household is in the age range 16-24 have formed relatively recently while the age groups 25-29 and 30 – 35 will include both newly formed households and “maturing” households.

2.3.3

In the analysis we examine the data and evidence on the determinants of tenure by the age groups listed above and propose a method of projection of affordability which recognises the role of age as a determinant of tenure/ability to afford.

Version 08 5

Study approach

3.1

Introduction

3.1.1

Our approach focuses on understanding the determinants of “affordability” which we define as the ability to access “market” housing. We have sought to establish these determinants at the national (i.e. Scottish level) before going on to attempt to understand the reasons why tenure patterns vary between areas. The rationale for our approach is that the economic, social and other factors which are important to people’s ability to access housing should be broadly consistent across Scotland – i.e. we do not expect that households in Fife take a very different attitude to housing choices from households in Renfrew – but the factors themselves will vary (e.g. incomes are higher in some areas than others).

3.1.2

Our overall approach is illustrated in Figure 3.1 below.

3.2

National Level Analysis

3.2.1

We began by examining the determinants of affordability at the national level. This process gave us insights into reasons for the observed variation in tenure between areas and we then examined that further by analysing the relationship between variation in tenure levels and variation in the hypothetical determinant factors between areas. This analysis has been done using, mainly, data from the Scottish household survey.

3.2.2

The work at the Scottish level, key findings from which are reported in Section 4, has identified a number of characteristics which show a strong correlation with owner occupation (and, conversely, social renting). These characteristics include age of reference person, income, household composition and employment status.

3.3

Local Authority Level Analysis

3.3.1

Having established this, the analysis has gone on to establish how far variations in the prevalence of these characteristics in the local population can explain variations in tenure patterns. The aim of this was to develop a procedure for predicting or projecting affordability at the local level. The results of this analysis are reported in Section 5.

3.3.2

In discussions of affordability hitherto, much attention has been given to the relationship between household income and house prices as a determinant of affordability. The national level data provides some insight into this but the key issue is the extent to which variations in this relationship, however calculated, between areas or over time can explain differences in the ability of households to obtain access to housing. The evidence on the effects of variations between areas is considered in Section 4.

Version 08 6

Figure 3.1 Study Approach

3.4

Housing Market Area Analysis

3.4.1

The local authority level analysis has relied mainly on data from the Scottish Household Survey. However, the SHS cannot provide reliable data below this level. Consequently, the study has examined the extent to which other data can be used as “proxies” for SHS data variables. Thus In particular, the SHS data on incomes for specific household types does not exist at a small area level. We have therefore tested how well the CACI data on income and data on earnings from the ASHE can be used to represent with reasonable reliability the extent and degree of variation in incomes in the target groups. We examined the relationship between variations in the income data from the SHS and variations in income levels as indicated by the CACI and ASHE data.

3.4.2

Similarly, we do not have data on the economic activity of new households at the local level but we have examined the use of data for the labour market as a whole and from some sub-groups to measure variations in labour market conditions which would feed into variations in employment levels for new households.

3.5

Output

3.5.1

The output of the work outlined above is: ■

A set of baseline values at the Scotland level for the split between tenures of new households in a series of age cohorts

■

A figure for the threshold level of income for house purchase among new households and of the corresponding threshold level of house price to income ratio based on the lowest quartile house price

■

Identification of socio-economic characteristics associated with tenure choices.

3.5.2

The analysis at the local level has identified “scaling” factors by which the national level values can be adjusted to a local level to produce projected local levels of affordability.

3.6

Household projection scenarios

3.6.1

The affordability ratios have been applied to the appropriate household population, to estimate the number of households unable to afford market/sub-market housing in each local authority and housing market area.

Version 08 7

3.6.2

Two broad population projections have been developed (called A and C ). We have been furnished with two household projection scenarios, based on these population projections. A1 and C2: where A1 is the Lower Migration Variant, similar to the GROS’ principal projection; and scenario C2 is the more optimistic view, similar to GROS high migration variant projection, and still considered by the GCVSDPA the more realistic 5 prospect .

3.7

Treatment of migrants

3.7.1

There is, from general observation, reason to believe that migration patterns will vary strongly from area to area. Thus we know for example, from various data sources, that there is a movement of younger households, many of them in need, to the cities from other areas. At the same time much local level migration is “housing-led” so that movers into areas dominated by owner occupied housing tend to be owner occupiers and there is certainly a correlation between local house prices and the incomes of people moving in. Migration is a matter largely of choice so that movers will tend to match the characteristics of the areas to which they move.

3.7.2

The analysis of migrants presents challenges in that we need to be able to define migrants, estimate the gross flow of number migrants and establish the age profile of those migrants. We have reviewed a range of potential data sources.

3.7.3

The Census of population provides information on migrants (e.g. people who have moved across local authority boundaries) by tenure. Mapping of Census data by postcode sector has produced estimates of migration for the housing market areas. These estimates are broadly helpful, but are limited in a number of respects: the estimates are now dated and are not available by household type or age group. The first of these limitations is possibly the least important; it may be argued that patterns of migration will remain broadly stable over time. The second is more problematic however, as it would be helpful to distinguish how much of the migration is accounted for by younger households.

3.7.4

However, aside from the Census, alternative data sources by which we might adjust any nationally-produced derived ratios to local level are hard to establish. The SHS does not provide specific information on migrant households. The SHCS does identify migrants and may provide a basis for some analysis. However, the sample size is small.

3.7.5

Jan Freeke at Glasgow City Council has developed local population and household projection. This work sets out population projections by age group, and household projections by an age split (for age groups under 35, and for those aged 35 and over). The analysis has adopted a gross flows approach, and the outputs are available for each local authority/housing market, for each of the projection scenarios. The estimates were kindly made available to the study, and have been used within the model.

See HNDA Technical appendix TA5 Projections of Populations and Households – Description of Assumptions and Results

There are also household projection scenarios A2 and C1. However, for reasons of time, cost, brevity, and efficiency, it was agreed that the study should focus on the preferred projection scenarios: A1 and C2. Version 08 8

National Data Analysis

4.1

Introduction

4.1.1

The first stage of the analysis was to develop an understanding of the variables associated with tenure choices at the national level. The work focussed on an analysis of data from the Scottish Household Survey. We examined the relationship between tenure and an array of household characteristics including income, employment, household composition and household size. The results which appeared significant are reported below.

4.2

Owner occupation and age

4.2.1

The study focussed on three age groups within which will be found the great majority of new households to be formed in Scotland: 16-24, 25-29 and 30-35 year olds. While new households are formed at a range of ages, new household formation in older age groups tends to be associated with events such as relationship breakdown. We may say that almost all “first time” new households are found in these younger age groups.

4.2.2

An analysis of tenure by age group clearly shows that older households are far more likely to be owners than are those in the youngest age groups. Owner occupation is a minority tenure for households aged under 25; thereafter the proportion of households buying their own home increases significantly, to around half of those around of those aged 25-29 and 60% (almost in line with the national average) of those aged 30-35. Indeed it rises further with age.

Figure 4.1: % Households in owner occupation by ageband, Scotland, GCV

4.2.3

This pattern reflects two forces. The more important is that the years between 20 and 30 are a period in which households undergo rapid change. Incomes, for those in work, tend to rise rapidly during these years and households should begin to accumulate savings. Many households who would be unable to buy when their members were in their early 20s will be buyers by the time they have reached their late twenties/early thirties. One could argue that if there is a time when tenure “fixes” it is by around age 30. It is also likely that a high proportion of the households formed when people are 16-24 will have members who have not gone on to further or higher education and who will have lower than average incomes.

4.3

Income and tenure

4.3.1

In line with expectations, the analysis has shown that the income profile of households in different tenures differs. Owners typically have higher incomes than renters, and private renters have higher incomes than social renters. However, there are a number of important, and to some extent, related features of these income profiles.

Version 08 9

4.3.2

Income levels are, for the reasons outlined above, lowest for the youngest age group. Moreover, differentials between households in different tenures are relatively narrow for this age group: owner occupiers do have the highest incomes, but mean income is about 50% above that of social renters and close to that of private renters. Incomes rise with age, but at different rates: older renters have incomes only slightly higher than the youngest renters, whereas older owner occupiers, and in particular owner occupiers aged 30-35, have incomes that are significantly higher than the youngest owner occupiers.

Figure 4.2 Mean income by tenure

4.3.3

The income differential between private and social renters is fairly small – generally less than £5k, and remains fairly constant across the three age groups we considered. Whereas, because the income of older owners is so much higher than that of younger owners, the income differential between owners and renters is much greater for older age groups. Indeed, owners and private renters have broadly similar incomes in the youngest age group, but by the oldest age group, owners are earning almost double that of private renters.

4.3.4

The data are, of course, cross sectional - concerned with a set of cases at a single point in time (we are not tracking a cohort of households over time). However, these patterns do reflect processes that work over time. Our understanding of the types of households that typically move into these different tenures would suggest that households in the owner occupied sector will have incomes which rise with age; people in employment, especially those in skilled jobs, have these “age income profiles”. Households in the social rented sector tend to be, if employed, in unskilled jobs and many are dependent on benefits: such incomes rise very slowly with age.

4.3.5

The private rented sector is more complex: some households move in on low incomes and limited prospects for income growth, while others have low incomes and good prospects for income growth. The latter generally expect their stay in the sector to be temporary. By the time they have reached their 30s, higher income households have, mainly, moved out of this sector.

Version 08 10

4.4

Other Economic Characteristics of Owners

4.4.1

However, the analysis of the SHS data also revealed that income is not the only variable influencing propensity to become owners, a series of other economic factors also appear to be important.

4.4.2

There is an extremely strong relationship between employment and tenure. Figure 4.3 profiles households that contain no earners or students. Very rarely do young 6 households without an earner become home owners ; the chart shows that only a few percent of households in each age group are owners. Clearly, social renting and private renting are viable options for households without employment.

4.4.3

The relationship appears even stronger when we consider it in reverse. The majority of households in employment own their home; and this is especially true of “older” households. However, as figure 4.4 shows, somewhere around 40% of the youngest age group are already home owners; and this rises to just over 70% for the 30-35 year old group.

Figure 4.4: Probability of being an owner if employed

It is not uncommon for older households without earners to be owners, when they have paid off their mortgages; but we are concerned here with young households, at the start of their “housing careers’”. Version 08 11

4.5

Income and Economic Circumstances

4.5.1

Income and the economic circumstances of a household are, of course, related. We 7 would expect household income to increase as the number of earners increases . The basic income profiles follow the pattern described above: owners have the highest incomes, social renters the lowest incomes; incomes rise with age; and age differentials are greatest for owners. However, the household breakdowns do provide some important information. A number of points are worth highlighting: ■

Single earner incomes are very low for the youngest age group – at just over £15K for home ownership. In our view, these incomes are low to be supporting home ownership, and account for a small proportion of households. Notably, the incomes of single earner owners are much higher in the older age groups: around £20k for 25-29 year olds and nearly £30k for 30-35 year olds. (see figure 4.5)

■

Incomes for young single earner renters are also very low – around £10k-£13k, and rise only minimally with age. This does not suggest the potential for these households to enter home ownership (see figure 4.5)

■

Incomes for dual earners are substantially higher – this applies particularly to the youngest age group and to the renters. Incomes for the 16-24 year olds are around £25k (rising to just over £35k for the 30-35 year olds). Notably, incomes for renters are also around £25k (for all age groups, even the 16-24 year olds), which would suggest that home ownership could be achieved by these households. Of course, the number of dual earner households in the rented sectors is a limiting factor: well under 10% of social rented households for all age groups, and around 15% of older PRS households (see figure 4.6)

We do also find that incomes are higher in two adult households where there is only one earner, than in single adult households; so household composition is an important feature in incomes generally. Version 08 12

4.5.2

The analysis of SHS data would suggest that the absolute minimum, or threshold, income for accessing owner occupation (at 2006) is c. £17,000. We would stress that this is a fairly crude estimate; we have not considered additional support these households may have drawn on in order to enter or sustain home ownership.

4.5.3

Nonetheless, even this income level is beyond the vast majority of social renters: only around 20% of social rented households exceed this income, but notably most of those households with dual earners do.

4.5.4

£17,000 is around the mean income for private renters, and therefore represents an achievable threshold for private renters. We might therefore expect considerable movement from the sector into home ownership both as incomes increase and particularly as employment and lifestyle stabilises.

4.6

Other Factors

4.6.1

We also found some evidence that household composition was an influence on ability to afford housing. Thus households which included two adults were very likely to become owners. For example, in the 30-35 age group about 60% of households are owners while among two adult households that proportion rises to 70%. The presence of two adults in the household is correlated with the presence of at least one employed person. Conversely, many single adult households are headed by single parents.

4.7

Conclusions

4.7.1

The analysis set out above clearly demonstrates that “revealed affordability” is affected by:

4.7.2

■

Stage in life cycle (age)

■

Employment status

■

Household composition

■

Income

The inter-action between these factors is not straightforward and their influence is not separate. Thus two adult households can have two earners (which single adult households cannot) so that, on average, the incomes of two person households will be higher than those of single adult households. Households with employed persons will have higher incomes than those with no earner.

Version 08 13

4.7.3

The next stage of the analysis involved examining variation in affordability (i.e. as revealed by tenure status) and variation in the above factors between areas in order to test these relationships and to explore the relative influence of these, and other, factors.

Version 08 14

Local level analysis

5.1

Introduction

5.1.1

The national analysis indicated that household reference person age, employment status, household structure and income were influences on affordability. Other factors 8 that were considered potentially relevant included the level of deprivation and the level of social housing in the area, and so were both included as test variables for the analysis.

5.1.2

We prepared a data set containing for every local authority in Scotland the following information (mainly drawn from the SHS):

5.1.3

■

% of households in each tenure by age group (16-24, 24-29, 30-35)

■

% of households by age group by local authority who were in each of the following household types – single person, single parent, two adults, two adults with children

■

% of all households (Census 2001) in the above household types

■

% of households by age group by local authority who had no earner, one earner or two (or more) earners

■

Lower quartile and median incomes by age group

■

CACI income data for the 10 , 50 and 75 deciles

■

Lower quartile, median and upper quartile house prices 2008

■

Claimant unemployment rates 2007

■

% of data zones in the 15% most deprived Scottish zones by dimension of deprivation and overall

The above data were used to calculate two additional variables: ■

The ratio of lower quartile house price to median income (termed AFF1)

■

The % of households with no earner.

5.2

Correlations

5.2.1

The first stage of this process was to establish whether there was a relationship between each of the “dependent” variables (the proportion of households in each age group living in each tenure) and each of the independent variables (owners %aged 16-25, social renters %aged 30-35, etc).

5.2.2

We do not set out all of these results here since many showed only no relationship, or only a very weak relationship. The variables for which the results were of analytical 9 interest were (where the correlation was 0.3 or above ): ■

AFF1 (our affordability indicator – defined as lower quartile house prices over median incomes)

■

% of households with no earner

■

Median income of household (all households with reference person under 35)

Modified to exclude the employment domain, so as to limit duplication with other variables being used in the analysis. 9

Correlation scores range between -1 and 1. Two random variables are negatively correlated if high values of one are likely to be associated with low values of the other. They are positively correlated if high values of one are likely to be associated with high values of the other. A zero score would suggest the variables are independent of each other. Version 08 15

5.2.3

■

% of data zones in most deprived 15% of Scottish zones

■

% of data zones in most deprived 15% of Scottish zones (Income)

■

% of Households who are couples (% HH couple)

■

% of households who are lone parents (% HH lone parent)

The results are shown below. Only cases where the correlation exceeded 0.3 are reported.

Table 5.1: Correlation analysis results (where correlation was greater than ± 0.3) Affordability

Owners - % of households 1624

HH with no earner

Median income of HH under 35

0.4

Owners - % of households 30 35

0.6

Social Renters% of households 25- 29

-0.6

0.4

%HH couple

%HH lone parent

-0.6

None

Social Renters% of households 30- 35

-0.5

Private Renters – % of households 1624

0.6

0.5

Private Renters – % of households 25 29

0.6

0.5

Private Renters – % of households 3035

0.6

0.5

5.2.4

Income SIMD

None

Owners - % of households 25 29

Social Renters% of households 16- 24

Overall SIMD

-0.4

0.4

-0.4

The results indicate that the conventional affordability measure (house price to income ratio) is not correlated with the level of owner occupation: the analysis revealed no significant relationship between the affordability variable and owner occupation. The affordability of owner occupation is clearly correlated with both forms of renting but in unexpected ways: ■

There is a negative correlation between the affordability of owner occupation and social renting among the youngest age group. That is – in areas where owner

Version 08 16

occupation is relatively expensive (allowing for incomes), we find few young social renters. ■

Conversely, there is a fairly strong positive correlation between owner occupied affordability and private renting – that is, as properties become relatively more expensive (again allowing for incomes), levels of PRS increase.

5.2.5

We consider that a complex process is at work: in high price areas there are many renters in the private sector who become owners eventually (hence the lack of a relationship between affordability and levels of ownership). In these same areas the low level of social renting reflects, in part, the fact that social housing is supply constrained.

5.2.6

The analysis does suggest that high house price to income ratios have some influence on affordability in that households have to rent rather than buy (for some time) but it does not follow that “affordable” areas draw in owners. The reality is that house prices are high in areas where people want to buy and they are lower in less popular areas.

5.2.7

The clearest relationship is with income. Areas with high median incomes have high proportions of owners and low proportions of social renters and this applies from about age 25 up.

5.3

Regressions

5.3.1

The purpose of the correlation analysis was to identify factors which might be successful in a regression analysis. Various combinations were tried but without significant results. A simple regression of owner occupation among the over 30s against income had the 2 best fit with an R of 0.4 (indicating that 40% of variation was explained). Adding other variables produced a marginal improvement in the fit but the additional variables were not individually significant.

5.3.2

These results indicate that the most appropriate approach is to use the Scottish level data on ability to afford by age group and household type, to apply this to local projections/scenarios for new households, while adjusting the ratios to the local level by an indicator of relative income/prosperity rather than a house price to income ratio or indeed by other measures.

5.3.3

The final stage of the affordability analysis is then to establish the precise value of the adjustment factor to be applied to the affordability threshold at the local level while finally 10 revising the Scottish level data .

5.4

Private renting

5.4.1

The correlation analysis also considered the economic and household characteristics associated with living in the private rented sector. This work is summarised on table 5.2 below. Table 5.2: Private rented sector by age band, correlation matrix Age group

5.4.2

Affordability

Household with no earner

Median Income

SIMD

16-24

0.65

0.53

-0.17

-0.06

25-29

0.56

0.53

-0.17

0.01

30-35

0.61

0.51

-0.03

0.15

Given the complexity of the PRS, a very different set of relationships emerges for renters than for owners: quite clearly income does not appear to be related to tenure, but

The results from this work are set out in section 6 below.

Version 08 17

broader economic and household factors are; and these factors apply for all age groups without noticeable strengthening of the relationship across the age groups. 5.4.3

The two factors that yielded the strongest results are shown here. First, is the 11 relationship between renting and affordability (that is relative house prices ). The propensity to rent privately increased where owner occupation was relatively unaffordable; even although we might expect rents to be higher in areas of high house prices. Second, the propensity to rent increased in households where there was no earner.

5.4.4

However, when we reviewed the data on PRS renting at the GCV and local authority level, it was clear that the number of observations available was insufficient to develop a robust analysis of relationships and affordability. Reluctantly, we concluded that the most appropriate approach, given the available data, would be a more “traditional approach” – assessing the income required to afford private renting (without recourse to benefits) across the Glasgow Clyde Valley area. In the absence of a comprehensive and systematic rent set of market rents, we have used the local housing allowance (LHA) as 12 a proxy for the market rent . Given we are concerned with young households, we have used the LHA value for one bedroom properties as the entry level value. Table 5.3 below sets out the LHAs used for each local authority area, and shows the income required to sustain private renting in each area. We have used three different income ratio assumptions, to test the impact that varying this has on the income required: 25% and 33% (as these are the standards typically used in the needs assessments) and 40% (as this has been suggested to us the value that is routinely used by agents when they are assessing whether prospective tenants can afford to take on a property). It is our view that ratios are an incomplete measure of affordability, and work best when they are paired with a measure of disposable income: a household on £10k may struggle to allocate more than 25% of their income to housing costs, whereas a household on £70k would not.

5.4.5

Using the standard 25% income ratio would suggest that households would require incomes of between £17.3k (West Dunbartonshire) and £19.7k (East Dunbartonshire) to afford private renting in the GCV area. This falls substantially if we assume the much higher 40% income ratio (£10.8k and £12.3k respectively).

Defined here as lower quartile house prices over median incomes

The Rent Officer Service uses market intelligence on current market rents, based on landlord surveys, web searches and adverts to set the LHA. However, the geography for the LHA is the broad market rental area (BMRA) which tends to be larger than the local authority area. Version 08 18

Table 5.3: Income required to afford PRS in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley area Rental assumption: 1 bedroom selfcontained property, weekly rent 1,2

25% income to rent ratio

33% income to rent ratio

40% income to rent ratio

East Dunbartonshire

£94.62

£19,681

£14,761

£12,301

East Renfrewshire

£92.31

£19,200

£14,400

£12,000

Glasgow City

£92.31

£19,200

£14,400

£12,000

Inverclyde

£83.08

£17,281

£12,960

£10,800

North Lanarkshire

£86.54

£18,000

£13,500

£11,250

Renfrewshire

£83.08

£17,281

£12,960

£10,800

South Lanarkshire

£85.38

£17,759

£13,319

£11,099

West Dunbartonshire

£83.08

£17,281

£12,960

£10,800

Income required, annual (1 bed) 3

Notes: 1 LHA rates from June 2008, weekly 2 Local authorities often straddle more than broad market rental area BMRAs. Where this was the case, the local authority was allocated to the BMRA with the higher/highest rent level. 3 SHS 2005/06 incomes, uplifted to 2008 prices, annual

5.4.6

Between 35% and 65% of households could afford these rents, assuming they were to allocate 25% of their income to rent. This rises to around 80% to 85% of households, if we assume that households could afford to allocate around 40% of their income to rent. (See table 5.4).

5.4.7

As will be discussed further below, the modelling of the PRS creates the greatest difficulties. One potential area of concern is the affordability assumption adopted, and in particular the rents data used. There are two issues here. First, the rents data used are synthetic, based on the LHA value rather than “real” rental values. However, as noted above, at this point in time, no alternative, consistent source of rent data exists. And second, the LHA rents are produced for broad rental market areas; arguably, these should reflect the PRS market for each local authority area, but in practice, this may not be the case. Any refinement/update to the study would benefit from the establishment of 13 a consistent, systematic private sector rent data database, covering the study area .

The standard methodology for pulling together such a database quickly is to use newspaper advertisements. We would note that advertisements are limited in that they often contain bulk advertisements (with rent ranges for properties that a landlord may have available) or exemplar rents included by landlords to attract prospective tenants to contact them. Even when rents apply to a specific property, negotiations between tenant and landlord may result in the final rent being substantially different to that shown on the advert. We would therefore recommend, where possible, using actual rents charged/paid. Version 08 19

Table 5.4: Proportion of households aged 35 or less able to afford to rent in the PRS, under different affordability assumptions 25% income to rent ratio

33% income to rent ratio

40% income to rent ratio

East Dunbartonshire

60%

70%

80%

East Renfrewshire

65%

85%

Glasgow City

35%

55%

65%

Inverclyde

55%

70%

85%

North Lanarkshire

60%

80%

85%

Renfrewshire

60%

80%

85%

South Lanarkshire

60%

80%

85%

West Dunbartonshire

55%

70%

80%

Notes on the calculation: Local authorities often straddle more than broad market rental area BMRAs. Where this was the case, the local authority was allocated to the BMRA with the higher/highest rent level. The rent levels are based on the LHA rates, at June 2008 Incomes are for households aged 35 and under, from SHS 2005/06, uplifted to 2008 prices

Version 08 20

Modelling of Affordability and Tenure: Developing Estimates

6.1

Introduction

6.1.1

The modelling is presented in two stages. The first stage, presented in this chapter, is concerned with developing estimates of affordability for new and migrant households. The second stage, presented in chapter 7, further develops the estimates to show implied tenure change across the area.

6.2

Model Structure - First Stage

6.2.1

The basic rationale of the model is that the ability to afford housing is largely a function of income levels and that income levels are by far the best predictor of the ability of households to afford market housing. The “affordability” of housing – in terms of the relationship between average price and average income – can impact on the ability of households to access the housing they want when they want, but it is a poor predictor of medium term trends in housing choices and does not explain variations in the level of home ownership between areas. There is some evidence that affordability in the sense of relative house prices does cause people to move between areas in search of lower cost housing but this implies that those areas are, in fact, within the same housing market. The key elements within the model are: ■

New and Migrant Households Figures for new and migrant households were supplied by the GCVSPDA client team. They were supplied by age cohort.

■

New Household Owners The proportion of new households by age group able to afford to buy in each area was calculated following the approach developed from the analysis set out in the previous section of the report. Thus, for each of three age groups (up to 35) the national average level of home ownership was taken as the starting point. The proportion of home owners among new households in each age group was estimated to be the national average for home ownership in the age group adjusted by a factor reflecting the ratio of median local household income to national household income. A key component of the calculation was information on income. The SHS provided information at the LA level for incomes in the under 35 year age group but not at lower geographies. The study team compared the area-by-area data for household incomes (under 35) from the Scottish Household Survey (SHS) with CACI data (all households). It was concluded that the data were sufficiently consistent and so the formula for calculating ability to afford at the local authority level was recalibrated to the CACI data.

■

Private Renters The proportion of households able to rent privately was calculated as described in the previous section (i.e. Table 5.4). Figures derived from this analysis were also applied to the market areas. Because an implication of the results was that anyone able to buy could also rent, the proportion of private renters was estimated as the total number of household able to rent privately LESS those projected to buy. The first estimate of social renters was calculated as total new households less owners and private renters.

■

Low Cost Ownership The proportion of households able to buy under a low cost home ownership scheme was derived from a calculation of the income required 14 to finance a 60% stake in a LIFT property in each local area compared against the data on household incomes. The key income assumption was that people could pay three times household income for a stake. The data showed that anyone who could buy in the open market or who could rent privately could afford also a LIFT property. The potential demand for this tenure was thus estimated as

LIFT is the Low Cost Initiative for First Time Buyers, which provides a range of assistance including new supply shared equity and open market shared equity. Version 08 21

those who could afford minus the estimated number of “open market” buyers. We would emphasise that this is a measure of potential rather than a true forecast. We used these results to produce the estimate for the minimum demand for social renting, which assumed that only persons unable to afford any other tenure would rent in that sector and that able persons able to afford low cost home ownership move into that tenure – an extreme assumption. It should be noted that estimates of the proportion of households able to afford LIFT are not affected by assumptions concerning the percentage of income allocated to housing in our modelling since the estimate of affordability was based on an ratio of household income to housing cost. ■

6.2.2

Proportion of Migrants able to Buy Estimation of this variable posed serious challenges since we lack information on the specific economic characteristics of migrants. We examined two options. The first used 2001 Census data which indicated the tenure split of migrants into each area in that year. The second option considered was to assume that migrants would reflect the tenure structure of the area into which they moved. Somewhat to our surprise, we found that these two procedures produced very similar results. We thus adopted for each area an assumed tenure split for migrants which reflected the 2001 Census data.

Figure 6.1 summarises the First Stage of the model,

Version 08 22

Figure 6.1 Model Structure

6.3

Results

6.3.1

The results from the analysis, for both local authority areas and LA sub-areas, are set out in the tables below. We consider that low cost home ownership households must be regarded as “potential”, based on income, as we know relatively little about households’ 15 attitude to this tenure or, indeed, the likely availability of this tenure .

6.3.2

The first table (6.1) sets out the proportion of households able to afford to buy market housing. It shows the proportion for new households and for in-migrant households, first for the local authority areas as a whole, and then for each of the sub-areas within the

We would also note that the estimates here are for new households, not for the product as a whole. This is worth stressing as priority for intermediate housing products is typically given to existing social housing tenants, people leaving the armed forces and households on the waiting list; many of these priority households will not be new households. Version 08 23

local authority. This is a year one table – that is, it applies to 2008-09. The figures do vary very slightly over the projection period (by a few percentage points). Full projection 16 tables for each local authority area (and the sub-areas) are provided in the appendices. 6.3.3

6.3.4

6.3.5

Points worth noting from the table are that: ■

As might be expected, affordability levels are higher among migrants than new households

■

Affordability levels vary quite markedly across GCV

■

Affordability levels also vary quite within LAs

Table 6.2 provides the more detailed findings on unaffordability (people unable to buy or rent market housing), for local authorities and local authority sub-areas. These figures are for the whole period 2008- 2025 and are broken down to show ■

New households and migrants

■

For new households: to show findings based on the lower and upper PRS affordability assumptions. It is noted that these PRS assumptions vary slightly between the LAs: in most cases the lower affordability assumption is 25% of income, and the higher assumption is 33% of income. However, in the cases East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire and Glasgow the assumptions are 33% and 40% of income respectively.

■

For new households: to show what proportion of households could not afford market housing overall, and to show what proportion of households could not afford market housing if LIFT options were available

■

For migrant households the figures are based on the analysis of Census data, not incomes, so, there are no further breakdowns for PRS affordability or for LIFT.

As with table 6.1 it is clear that ■

Unaffordability levels for migrants are lower, and in some cases much lower, than those for new households

■

There is a fair degree of variation across GCV. The highest rates among inmigrants are found in Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire.

Note, all figures are expressed in constant prices. No uplift has been made for incomes or house prices over time. Excel spreadsheets are also available which provide numerical data for Stage 1. Version 08 24

Table 6.1 Households able to afford buy market housing, by LA and LA subarea, by new households and in-migrants , 2008-2009 (No. and %) New hhlds able to buy

In-migrants able to buy

LA/LA sub-area %

No.

East Dunbartonshire

640

734

Bearsden and Milngavie

260

298

Strathkelvin

380

436

East Renfrewshire2

573

681

Eastwood2

448

532

Levern Valley2

125

149

Glasgow City

3,305

2,724

Baillieston, Shettleston and Gtr Easterhouse

423

348

East Centre and Calton

247

204

Central and West

532

438

Maryhill/Kelvin and Canal

294

242

West

313

258

Govan and Craigton

345

284

Greater Pollok and Newlands/Auldburn

319

263

Langside and Linn

356

293

Pollokshields and Southside Central

299

247

North East

177

146

Inverclyde Council

373

465

Inverclyde East

205

206

Inverclyde West

137

171

Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village

North Lanarkshire

1,710

1,619

Airdrie and Coatbridge

510

483

Cumbernauld

493

467

Motherwell

708

670

Renfrewshire

911

1077

Johnstone/Elderslie

103

121

North Renfrewshire

132

156

Paisley/Linwood

432

511

Renfrew

116

138

West Renfrewshire

127

150

South Lanarkshire

1,758

1,937

Clydesdale

337

371

East Kilbride

512

565

Rutherglen and Cambuslang

327

360

Hamilton

582

641

West Dunbartonshire

448

407

DMA Dumbarton/Vale of Leven

241

219

Clydebank

207

188

Version 08 25

Table 6.2 Household unable to afford Market housing, by LA and LA subarea1, by new households and in-migrants , C2, 2008-2025 (%) New households unable to afford market housing LA/LA sub-area

New households: Lower affordability scenario2

New households: Upper affordability scenario2

Number of in migrants unable to afford to buy or rent (upper/ lower scenarios)

All

Net of LIFT

All

Net of LIFT

East Dunbartonshire

5,077

3,385

872

Bearsden and Milngavie

1,015

677

174

Strathkelvin

4,062

2,708

698

East Renfrewshire

3,568

2,165

530

Eastwood

1,178

714

175

Levern Valley

2,391

1,451

355

Glasgow City

56,620

50,329

44,038

17,693

Baillieston, Shettleston and G Easterhouse

7,361

6,040

5,725

5,285

2,300

East Centre and Calton

6,228

6,040

4,844

5,285

1,946

Central and West

5,662

5,033

4,404

1,769

Maryhill/Kelvin and Canal

6,794

6,040

5,285

2,123

West

6,794

6,040

5,285

2,123

Govan and Craigton

6,228

5,536

4,844

1,946

Greater Pollok and Newlands/Auldburn

4,530

4,026

3,523

1,415

Langside and Linn

3,397

3,020

2,642

1,062

Pollokshields and Southside Central

3,963

3,523

3,083

1,238

North East

5,662

5,033

4,404

1,769

Inverclyde Council

6,429

2,143

4,286

2,143

1,764

Inverclyde East

5,593

1,864

3,729

1,864

1,535

Inverclyde West

771

257

514

257

212

Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village

Version 08 26

Table 6.2 Household unable to afford Market housing, by LA and LA subarea, by new households and in-migrants , 2008-2025 (%) New Households unable to afford market housing LA/LA sub-area1

North Lanarkshire

New households: Lower

New households: Upper

All

Net of LIFT

All

Net of LIFT

25,640

9,615

12,820

9,615

Proportion of InMigrants unable to afford to buy or rent (upper or lower)

6,337

Airdrie and Coatbridge

8,461

3,173

4,231

3,173

2,091

Cumbernauld

4,102

1,538

2,051

1,538

1,014

Motherwell

13,077

4,904

6,538

4,904

3,232

Renfrewshire

12,452

4,670

6,226

4,670

2,648

Johnstone/Elderslie

2,241

841

1,121

841

477

North Renfrewshire

623

233

311

233

132

Paisley/Linwood

7,845

2,942

3,922

2,942

1,668

Renfrew

1,245

467

623

467

265

West Renfrewshire

498

187

249

187

106

South Lanarkshire

23,861

8,948

11,930

8,948

5,164

Clydesdale

5,011

1,879

2,505

1,879

1,084

East Kilbride

4,534

1,700

2,267

1,700

981

Rutherglen and Cambuslang

5,249

1,969

2,625

1,969

1,136

Hamilton

9,067

3,400

4,534

3,400

1,962

West Dunbartonshire

8,056

3,581

5,371

3,581

3,998

DMA Dumbarton/Vale of Leven

3,545

1,575

2,363

1,575

1,759

Clydebank

4,512

2,005

3,008

2,005

2,239

GCV

141,704

84,835

90,221

78,544

39,006

Notes 1: The estimates are calculated for local authorities first, and then allocated to the sub-areas. The process used to produce the sub-area estimates generally work well. However, it is noted that the East Renfrewshire figures for Leven Valley are a bit odd, as these suggest that over 60% are unable to buy but also 60% are able to buy: this is a result of the allocation process. 2: Two scenarios were run, depending on the proportion of income that it was considered a households would allocate to private rent: The lower affordability scenario assumes that households will be able to afford 25% of income on rent (or 33% in Glasgow and East Dunbartonshire). The upper affordability scenario assumes 33% of income is available for private rent (or 40% in Glasgow and East Dunbartonshire).

Version 08 27

7 7.1.1

Modelling Tenure flows The main focus of this research is on the affordability of market housing for newly formed and migrant households moving into the areas. The study asked that that the project considers other components of projected tenure change, i.e. tenure change for existing households and household dissolutions by tenure. The second stage of the model therefore builds on the first stage to provide forecasts of the tenure breakdown of all households by local authority area. That is, it covers the tenures flows for households of all ages, within the GCV area, and does not focus solely on younger households. The second stage of the model is as set out below:

Figure 7.1 Second Stage Model Structure

7.1.2

The modelling of flows between tenures presents a number of challenges given the lack of Scottish evidence on movement patterns. We have therefore drawn on two main sources in estimating these flows. The first is the work previously undertaken by Tribal on projections of social housing demand in Glasgow. That work provided evidence on movement in and out of the social rented sector in Glasgow.

7.1.3

The second, and more detailed, source is the Survey of English Housing. This provides a time series of flows between tenures for a period of six years, at the level of the whole of England. The English work clearly applies to a different housing market – the tenure and price structure are different; however the trends and pressures facing the market are similar, and in the absence of an alternative, provides useful data on flows and rates.

7.1.4

It is clear from the analysis that in all sectors the major part of movement is what may be termed “churn” – people moving within the sector. Movement between tenures follows some consistent patterns. The Social Rented sector has quite limited interaction with the larger owner occupied sector and has a proportionately much higher interaction with the

Version 08 28

smaller Private Rented Sector. The Private Rented Sector is by far the most dynamic tenure with proportionately large flows into home ownership. In a typical year more household leave the Private Rented Sector to become home owners than join it as new households (there are, however, strong flows in the other direction). Private renting and home ownership form a closely related private sector. 7.1.5

There is, however, very high consistency in the pattern of gross flows between sectors. Thus the data for the period 1999 to 2006 show that in a year: ■

8.5% - 10 % of private renters become home owners

■

4% of private renters move to social housing

■

1% of owners move to private renting

■

0.25% of owners move to social renting

■

0.6% of social renters move to owner occupied housing (excluding RTB)

■

1.2% of social renters move to private renting

7.1.6

We have used values derived from the SEH analysis as the default values in our modelling work though we have also used the Glasgow data.

7.1.7

Data from the SEH and work we have previously undertaken suggests that around 1.8% of households cease to exist as a result of death. We have used this as a default value for all tenures but have adjusted the results for each Local Authority area so that the outputs match closely the projections of household terminations due to death in the household projections provided to us by the GCVSPDA. For our migration we have relied on the GCVSPDA projections, translating these into outflow rates by tenure by year.

7.1.8

All of the projections by Local Authority have been calibrated against the GCVSPDA 17 projections to ensure that they generate the same net change over the forecast period.

7.2

Results

7.2.1

The rest of this chapter contains the tabular data for stage two. The tables are all for local authority areas only. Further work will be undertaken following this study locally on behalf of the SDPA to develop estimates at lower geographies, to be consistent with these local authority estimates.

7.2.2

First, table 7.1 provides a summary of the findings for each tenure at the GCV level.

7.2.3

Then there are four sets of tables, showing the opening and closing household projections by tenure:

7.2.4

■

For the C2 household projection, for the lower affordability assumption – that is, assuming that households are able or willing to spend 25% of income on PRS rents (or 33% if they live in Glasgow or East Dunbartonshire)

■

For the C2 household projection, for the upper affordability assumption – that is, assuming that households are able or willing to spend 33% of income on PRS rents (or 40% if they live in Glasgow or East Dunbartonshire)

■

For the A1 household projection, for the lower affordability assumption

■

For the A1 household projection, for the upper affordability assumption

Some analysis of these outputs is provided in the final chapter.

A note of the key parameters and assumptions used in the model is set out in Appendix C.

Version 08 29

Table 7.1: C2 Tenure Projections , Summary Tables - Area-wide totals, year end (closing) estimates Lower Affordability 1 Assumption 2008 – 09 2009 – 10 2010 – 11 2011 – 12 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 Net change 08/09 – 24/25 Percentage change Upper Affordability 2 Assumption 2008 – 09 2009 – 10 2010 – 11 2011 – 12 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 Net change 08/09 – 24/25 Percentage change

Owners

PRS

SRS

513,452 523,557 528,971 534,371 539,856 545,149 550,410 555,634 560,764 565,687 570,447 575,095 579,717 584,652 589,264 593,758 597,997 84,545 16%

53,311 54,534 55,018 55,474 55,858 56,178 56,455 56,749 57,051 57,341 57,698 58,090 58,498 58,980 59,493 60,013 60,488 7,177 13%

238,046 239,427 240,470 241,695 242,897 244,066 245,376 246,760 248,214 249,594 250,923 252,257 253,655 255,365 256,938 258,474 259,911 21,865 9.2%

513,452 524,401 530,688 537,125 543,751 550,239 556,713 563,148 569,474 575,567 581,458 587,191 592,848 598,771 604,338 609,743 614,845 101,393 19.7%

53,311 59,029 60,878 62,324 63,394 64,151 64,738 65,247 65,687 66,016 66,366 66,701 67,062 67,587 68,047 68,494 68,830 15,519 29.1%

238,046 234,088 232,894 232,091 231,466 231,004 230,790 230,748 230,867 231,039 231,245 231,550 231,960 232,639 233,311 234,009 234,721 -3,325 -1.4%

Notes: 1 Assumes households can afford 25% of income for PRS rents, except in East Dunbartonshire and Glasgow, where assumes households can afford 33% of income for PRS rents 2 Assumes households can afford 33% of income for PRS rents, except in East Dunbartonshire and Glasgow, where assumes households can afford 40% of income for PRS rents

Version 08 30

7.3

C2: Low affordability tables

Table 7.2 C2 Low Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections East Dunbartonshire, Households Owners 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 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

Opening 36,685 36,672 36,686 36,677 36,692 36,697 36,710 36,748 36,771 36,772 36,778 36,793 36,815 36,851 36,908 36,959 37,016

Private Rent Closing 36,672 36,686 36,677 36,692 36,697 36,710 36,748 36,771 36,772 36,778 36,793 36,815 36,851 36,908 36,959 37,016 37,026

Opening 1,247 1,196 1,164 1,143 1,121 1,111 1,106 1,101 1,105 1,113 1,117 1,122 1,123 1,126 1,124 1,133 1,137

Version 08 31

Social Rent Closing 1,196 1,164 1,143 1,121 1,111 1,106 1,101 1,105 1,113 1,117 1,122 1,123 1,126 1,124 1,133 1,137 1,143

Opening 5,295 5,477 5,669 5,851 6,034 6,208 6,383 6,558 6,726 6,878 7,027 7,173 7,314 7,457 7,597 7,732 7,863

Closing 5,477 5,669 5,851 6,034 6,208 6,383 6,558 6,726 6,878 7,027 7,173 7,314 7,457 7,597 7,732 7,863 7,970

Table7.3 C2 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections East Renfrewshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 30,769 30,913 1,174 1,066 2009 - 10 30,913 31,048 1,066 987 2010 - 11 31,048 31,188 987 931 2011 - 12 31,188 31,321 931 892 2012 - 13 31,321 31,456 892 864 2013 - 14 31,456 31,624 864 845 2014 - 15 31,624 31,773 845 833 2015 - 16 31,773 31,918 833 826 2016 - 17 31,918 32,061 826 823 2017 - 18 32,061 32,206 823 822 2018 - 19 32,206 32,392 822 824 2019 - 20 32,392 32,561 824 828 2020 - 21 32,561 32,721 828 833 2021- 22 32,721 32,933 833 839 2022 - 23 32,933 33,135 839 846 2023 - 24 33,135 33,349 846 854 2024 - 25 33,349 33,549 854 861

Version 08 32

Social Rent Opening 4,045 4,190 4,326 4,454 4,574 4,691 4,815 4,934 5,045 5,155 5,261 5,373 5,483 5,579 5,683 5,781 5,875

Closing 4,190 4,326 4,454 4,574 4,691 4,815 4,934 5,045 5,155 5,261 5,373 5,483 5,579 5,683 5,781 5,875 5,966

Table 7.4 C2 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections Inverclyde, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 25,003 25,007 2,103 2,109 2009 - 10 25,007 25,001 2,109 2,116 2010 - 11 25,001 25,011 2,116 2,127 2011 - 12 25,011 25,013 2,127 2,135 2012 - 13 25,013 25,030 2,135 2,141 2013 - 14 25,030 25,036 2,141 2,144 2014 - 15 25,036 25,052 2,144 2,146 2015 - 16 25,052 25,068 2,146 2,146 2016 - 17 25,068 25,076 2,146 2,145 2017 - 18 25,076 25,074 2,145 2,146 2018 - 19 25,074 25,073 2,146 2,153 2019 - 20 25,073 25,069 2,153 2,162 2020 - 21 25,069 25,075 2,162 2,169 2021- 22 25,075 25,084 2,169 2,177 2022 - 23 25,084 25,074 2,177 2,185 2023 - 24 25,074 25,065 2,185 2,197 2024 - 25 25,065 25,044 2,197 2,205

Version 08 33

Social Rent Opening 10,050 10,074 10,160 10,253 10,334 10,420 10,491 10,563 10,633 10,688 10,736 10,782 10,825 10,867 10,913 10,940 10,968

Closing 10,074 10,160 10,253 10,334 10,420 10,491 10,563 10,633 10,688 10,736 10,782 10,825 10,867 10,913 10,940 10,968 10,982

Table 7.5 C2 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections North Lanarkshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 93,442 94,176 5,004 5,474 2009 - 10 94,176 94,880 5,474 5,848 2010 - 11 94,880 95,857 5,848 6,156 2011 - 12 95,857 96,881 6,156 6,413 2012 - 13 96,881 97,920 6,413 6,613 2013 - 14 97,920 98,984 6,613 6,788 2014 - 15 98,984 100,059 6,788 6,917 2015 - 16 100,059 101,135 6,917 7,038 2016 - 17 101,135 102,211 7,038 7,152 2017 - 18 102,211 103,243 7,152 7,242 2018 - 19 103,243 104,294 7,242 7,344 2019 - 20 104,294 105,295 7,344 7,434 2020 - 21 105,295 106,324 7,434 7,526 2021- 22 106,324 107,389 7,526 7,636 2022 - 23 107,389 108,384 7,636 7,738 2023 - 24 108,384 109,366 7,738 7,841 2024 - 25 109,366 110,261 7,841 7,921

Version 08 34

Social Rent Opening 45,269 45,435 45,880 46,126 46,409 46,697 47,005 47,314 47,634 47,965 48,267 48,593 48,886 49,235 49,657 50,062 50,491

Closing 45,435 45,880 46,126 46,409 46,697 47,005 47,314 47,634 47,965 48,267 48,593 48,886 49,235 49,657 50,062 50,491 50,875

Table 7.6 C2 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections Renfrewshire, Households Owners Opening Closing Opening 2008 - 09 55,203 55,303 4,104 2009 - 10 55,303 55,422 4,053 2010 - 11 55,422 55,548 4,020 2011 - 12 55,548 55,707 4,002 2012 - 13 55,707 55,865 4,002 2013 - 14 55,865 55,997 4,004 2014 - 15 55,997 56,150 4,004 2015 - 16 56,150 56,328 4,007 2016 - 17 56,328 56,488 4,020 2017 - 18 56,488 56,644 4,032 2018 - 19 56,644 56,795 4,044 2019 - 20 56,795 56,944 4,064 2020 - 21 56,944 57,094 4,086 2021- 22 57,094 57,295 4,108 2022 - 23 57,295 57,466 4,137 2023 - 24 57,466 57,630 4,169 2024 - 25 57,630 57,769 4,203

Version 08 35

Private Rent

Social Rent Closing 4,053 4,020 4,002 4,002 4,004 4,004 4,007 4,020 4,032 4,044 4,064 4,086 4,108 4,137 4,169 4,203 4,231

Opening 19,730 19,937 20,187 20,427 20,684 20,921 21,130 21,341 21,563 21,760 21,944 22,120 22,283 22,437 22,617 22,775 22,918

Closing 19,937 20,187 20,427 20,684 20,921 21,130 21,341 21,563 21,760 21,944 22,120 22,283 22,437 22,617 22,775 22,918 23,036

Table 7.7 C2 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections South Lanarkshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 102,135 102,789 5,465 5,586 2009 - 10 102,789 103,551 5,586 5,686 2010 - 11 103,551 104,338 5,686 5,776 2011 - 12 104,338 105,154 5,776 5,865 2012 - 13 105,154 105,995 5,865 5,945 2013 - 14 105,995 106,825 5,945 6,019 2014 - 15 106,825 107,717 6,019 6,094 2015 - 16 107,717 108,623 6,094 6,161 2016 - 17 108,623 109,557 6,161 6,238 2017 - 18 109,557 110,487 6,238 6,306 2018 - 19 110,487 111,410 6,306 6,390 2019 - 20 111,410 112,323 6,390 6,468 2020 - 21 112,323 113,271 6,468 6,553 2021- 22 113,271 114,312 6,553 6,643 2022 - 23 114,312 115,296 6,643 6,733 2023 - 24 115,296 116,292 6,733 6,821 2024 - 25 116,292 117,263 6,821 6,905

Version 08 36

Social Rent Opening 30,754 31,525 32,319 33,092 33,862 34,616 35,334 36,072 36,797 37,521 38,217 38,899 39,542 40,196 40,887 41,523 42,154

Closing 31,525 32,319 33,092 33,862 34,616 35,334 36,072 36,797 37,521 38,217 38,899 39,542 40,196 40,887 41,523 42,154 42,746

Table 7.8 C2 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections West Dunbartonshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 25,119 25,025 1,203 1,453 2009 - 10 25,025 24,999 1,453 1,639 2010 - 11 24,999 25,018 1,639 1,776 2011 - 12 25,018 25,052 1,776 1,878 2012 - 13 25,052 25,118 1,878 1,955 2013 - 14 25,118 25,201 1,955 2,012 2014 - 15 25,201 25,296 2,012 2,059 2015 - 16 25,296 25,397 2,059 2,091 2016 - 17 25,397 25,500 2,091 2,118 2017 - 18 25,500 25,612 2,118 2,143 2018 - 19 25,612 25,710 2,143 2,162 2019 - 20 25,710 25,816 2,162 2,185 2020 - 21 25,816 25,920 2,185 2,208 2021- 22 25,920 26,035 2,208 2,232 2022 - 23 26,035 26,140 2,232 2,256 2023 - 24 26,140 26,237 2,256 2,273 2024 - 25 26,237 26,323 2,273 2,290

Version 08 37

Social Rent Opening 16,377 16,422 16,519 16,633 16,750 16,881 17,012 17,169 17,320 17,472 17,626 17,766 17,918 18,067 18,225 18,373 18,500

Closing 16,422 16,519 16,633 16,750 16,881 17,012 17,169 17,320 17,472 17,626 17,766 17,918 18,067 18,225 18,373 18,500 18,633

Table 7.9 C2 Low Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections Glasgow, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening 2008 - 09 145,096 148,446 33,011 2009 - 10 148,446 151,970 33,023 2010 - 11 151,970 155,334 33,073 2011 - 12 155,334 158,552 33,107 2012 - 13 158,552 161,776 33,169 2013 - 14 161,776 164,772 33,225 2014 - 15 164,772 167,617 33,261 2015 - 16 167,617 170,394 33,300 2016 - 17 170,394 173,098 33,362 2017 - 18 173,098 175,642 33,431 2018 - 19 175,642 177,980 33,521 2019 - 20 177,980 180,273 33,640 2020 - 21 180,273 182,460 33,804 2021- 22 182,460 184,695 33,976 2022 - 23 184,695 186,811 34,192 2023 - 24 186,811 188,802 34,433 2024 - 25 188,802 190,763 34,687

Version 08 38

Social Rent Closing 33,023 33,073 33,107 33,169 33,225 33,261 33,300 33,362 33,431 33,521 33,640 33,804 33,976 34,192 34,433 34,687 34,932

Opening 106,426 105,257 104,366 103,633 103,049 102,464 101,897 101,424 101,043 100,775 100,516 100,217 100,007 99,817 99,786 99,753 99,705

Closing 105,257 104,366 103,633 103,049 102,464 101,897 101,424 101,043 100,775 100,516 100,217 100,007 99,817 99,786 99,753 99,705 99,703

7.4

C2: High affordability tables

Table 7.10 C2 High Affordability (40%), Tenure Projections East Dunbartonshire, Households Owners 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 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

Opening 36,685 36,672 36,702 36,723 36,774 36,821 36,880 36,964 37,036 37,085 37,138 37,199 37,265 37,344 37,443 37,534 37,629

Private Rent Closing 36,672 36,702 36,723 36,774 36,821 36,880 36,964 37,036 37,085 37,138 37,199 37,265 37,344 37,443 37,534 37,629 37,676

Opening 1,247 1,289 1,329 1,358 1,374 1,390 1,406 1,418 1,434 1,446 1,455 1,462 1,465 1,472 1,473 1,484 1,490

Version 08 39

Social Rent Closing 1,289 1,329 1,358 1,374 1,390 1,406 1,418 1,434 1,446 1,455 1,462 1,465 1,472 1,473 1,484 1,490 1,491

Opening 5,295 5,384 5,488 5,591 5,699 5,805 5,913 6,024 6,132 6,231 6,330 6,427 6,521 6,618 6,713 6,806 6,897

Closing 5,384 5,488 5,591 5,699 5,805 5,913 6,024 6,132 6,231 6,330 6,427 6,521 6,618 6,713 6,806 6,897 6,972

Table7.11 C2 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections East Renfrewshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 30,769 30,913 1,174 1,147 2009 - 10 30,913 31,062 1,147 1,129 2010 - 11 31,062 31,225 1,129 1,116 2011 - 12 31,225 31,387 1,116 1,107 2012 - 13 31,387 31,556 1,107 1,103 2013 - 14 31,556 31,760 1,103 1,107 2014 - 15 31,760 31,947 1,107 1,109 2015 - 16 31,947 32,132 1,109 1,109 2016 - 17 32,132 32,314 1,109 1,116 2017 - 18 32,314 32,498 1,116 1,120 2018 - 19 32,498 32,722 1,120 1,129 2019 - 20 32,722 32,929 1,129 1,137 2020 - 21 32,929 33,126 1,137 1,138 2021- 22 33,126 33,373 1,138 1,144 2022 - 23 33,373 33,608 1,144 1,148 2023 - 24 33,608 33,853 1,148 1,153 2024 - 25 33,853 34,083 1,153 1,156

Version 08 40

Social Rent Opening 4,045 4,108 4,170 4,232 4,292 4,352 4,417 4,484 4,547 4,609 4,671 4,737 4,805 4,869 4,939 5,005 5,071

Closing 4,108 4,170 4,232 4,292 4,352 4,417 4,484 4,547 4,609 4,671 4,737 4,805 4,869 4,939 5,005 5,071 5,138

Table 7.12 C2 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections Inverclyde, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 25,003 25,007 2,103 2,240 2009 - 10 25,007 25,020 2,240 2,349 2010 - 11 25,020 25,064 2,349 2,436 2011 - 12 25,064 25,108 2,436 2,496 2012 - 13 25,108 25,174 2,496 2,543 2013 - 14 25,174 25,231 2,543 2,570 2014 - 15 25,231 25,300 2,570 2,590 2015 - 16 25,300 25,368 2,590 2,603 2016 - 17 25,368 25,429 2,603 2,607 2017 - 18 25,429 25,476 2,607 2,609 2018 - 19 25,476 25,522 2,609 2,617 2019 - 20 25,522 25,563 2,617 2,624 2020 - 21 25,563 25,612 2,624 2,630 2021- 22 25,612 25,661 2,630 2,638 2022 - 23 25,661 25,688 2,638 2,640 2023 - 24 25,688 25,714 2,640 2,648 2024 - 25 25,714 25,726 2,648 2,648

Version 08 41

Social Rent Opening 10,050 9,944 9,909 9,891 9,876 9,874 9,869 9,871 9,875 9,874 9,871 9,869 9,868 9,869 9,875 9,870 9,867

Closing 9,944 9,909 9,891 9,876 9,874 9,869 9,871 9,875 9,874 9,871 9,869 9,868 9,869 9,875 9,870 9,867 9,857

Table 7.13 C2 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections North Lanarkshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 93,442 94,410 5,004 5,731 2009 - 10 94,410 95,377 5,731 6,281 2010 - 11 95,377 96,634 6,281 6,692 2011 - 12 96,634 97,943 6,692 7,012 2012 - 13 97,943 99,268 7,012 7,236 2013 - 14 99,268 100,614 7,236 7,417 2014 - 15 100,614 101,963 7,417 7,535 2015 - 16 101,963 103,305 7,535 7,641 2016 - 17 103,305 104,639 7,641 7,739 2017 - 18 104,639 105,919 7,739 7,792 2018 - 19 105,919 107,207 7,792 7,870 2019 - 20 107,207 108,435 7,870 7,916 2020 - 21 108,435 109,681 7,916 7,985 2021- 22 109,681 110,954 7,985 8,098 2022 - 23 110,954 112,152 8,098 8,175 2023 - 24 112,152 113,330 8,175 8,256 2024 - 25 113,330 114,412 8,256 8,284

Version 08 42

Social Rent Opening 45,269 44,945 44,951 44,814 44,747 44,726 44,746 44,790 44,859 44,950 45,041 45,155 45,263 45,419 45,631 45,856 46,111

Closing 44,945 44,951 44,814 44,747 44,726 44,746 44,790 44,859 44,950 45,041 45,155 45,263 45,419 45,631 45,856 46,111 46,360

Table 7.14 C2 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections Renfrewshire, Households Owners Opening Closing Opening 2008 - 09 55,203 55,303 4,104 2009 - 10 55,303 55,478 4,419 2010 - 11 55,478 55,701 4,667 2011 - 12 55,701 55,983 4,856 2012 - 13 55,983 56,284 5,021 2013 - 14 56,284 56,570 5,140 2014 - 15 56,570 56,882 5,215 2015 - 16 56,882 57,222 5,277 2016 - 17 57,222 57,543 5,344 2017 - 18 57,543 57,859 5,384 2018 - 19 57,859 58,166 5,414 2019 - 20 58,166 58,465 5,444 2020 - 21 58,465 58,760 5,470 2021- 22 58,760 59,098 5,492 2022 - 23 59,098 59,403 5,535 2023 - 24 59,403 59,695 5,569 2024 - 25 59,695 59,955 5,599

Version 08 43

Private Rent

Social Rent Closing 4,419 4,667 4,856 5,021 5,140 5,215 5,277 5,344 5,384 5,414 5,444 5,470 5,492 5,535 5,569 5,599 5,613

Opening 19,730 19,570 19,484 19,420 19,388 19,367 19,345 19,338 19,346 19,351 19,359 19,368 19,378 19,388 19,416 19,438 19,458

Closing 19,570 19,484 19,420 19,388 19,367 19,345 19,338 19,346 19,351 19,359 19,368 19,378 19,388 19,416 19,438 19,458 19,468

Table 7.15 C2 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections South Lanarkshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 102,135 102,789 5,465 6,265 2009 - 10 102,789 103,669 6,265 6,869 2010 - 11 103,669 104,654 6,869 7,319 2011 - 12 104,654 105,721 7,319 7,676 2012 - 13 105,721 106,847 7,676 7,949 2013 - 14 106,847 107,983 7,949 8,154 2014 - 15 107,983 109,191 8,154 8,342 2015 - 16 109,191 110,420 8,342 8,491 2016 - 17 110,420 111,676 8,491 8,636 2017 - 18 111,676 112,927 8,636 8,747 2018 - 19 112,927 114,166 8,747 8,863 2019 - 20 114,166 115,387 8,863 8,951 2020 - 21 115,387 116,633 8,951 9,056 2021- 22 116,633 117,962 9,056 9,185 2022 - 23 117,962 119,229 9,185 9,283 2023 - 24 119,229 120,498 9,283 9,382 2024 - 25 120,498 121,732 9,382 9,461

Version 08 44

Social Rent Opening 30,754 30,845 31,018 31,233 31,484 31,759 32,041 32,351 32,670 33,004 33,335 33,670 33,995 34,332 34,696 35,040 35,388

Closing 30,845 31,018 31,233 31,484 31,759 32,041 32,351 32,670 33,004 33,335 33,670 33,995 34,332 34,696 35,040 35,388 35,722

Table 7.16 C2 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections West Dunbartonshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 25,119 25,025 1,203 1,613 2009 - 10 25,025 25,025 1,613 1,919 2010 - 11 25,025 25,085 1,919 2,146 2011 - 12 25,085 25,172 2,146 2,313 2012 - 13 25,172 25,299 2,313 2,439 2013 - 14 25,299 25,446 2,439 2,531 2014 - 15 25,446 25,607 2,531 2,609 2015 - 16 25,607 25,775 2,609 2,663 2016 - 17 25,775 25,947 2,663 2,705 2017 - 18 25,947 26,126 2,705 2,743 2018 - 19 26,126 26,289 2,743 2,767 2019 - 20 26,289 26,458 2,767 2,796 2020 - 21 26,458 26,624 2,796 2,822 2021- 22 26,624 26,798 2,822 2,852 2022 - 23 26,798 26,961 2,852 2,878 2023 - 24 26,961 27,112 2,878 2,890 2024 - 25 27,112 27,250 2,890 2,901

Version 08 45

Social Rent Opening 16,377 16,263 16,213 16,196 16,195 16,216 16,248 16,308 16,370 16,438 16,512 16,582 16,664 16,749 16,842 16,931 17,008

Closing 16,263 16,213 16,196 16,195 16,216 16,248 16,308 16,370 16,438 16,512 16,582 16,664 16,749 16,842 16,931 17,008 17,095

Table 7.17 C2 High Affordability (40%), Tenure Projections Glasgow, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening 2008 - 09 145,096 148,446 33,011 2009 - 10 148,446 152,069 33,821 2010 - 11 152,069 155,603 34,485 2011 - 12 155,603 159,036 34,954 2012 - 13 159,036 162,502 35,326 2013 - 14 162,502 165,755 35,594 2014 - 15 165,755 168,858 35,750 2015 - 16 168,858 171,889 35,858 2016 - 17 171,889 174,841 35,962 2017 - 18 174,841 177,623 36,054 2018 - 19 177,623 180,186 36,136 2019 - 20 180,186 182,688 36,214 2020 - 21 182,688 185,069 36,342 2021- 22 185,069 187,482 36,468 2022 - 23 187,482 189,765 36,662 2023 - 24 189,765 191,910 36,869 2024 - 25 191,910 194,012 37,076

Version 08 46

Social Rent Closing 33,821 34,485 34,954 35,326 35,594 35,750 35,858 35,962 36,054 36,136 36,214 36,342 36,468 36,662 36,869 37,076 37,277

Opening 106,426 104,460 102,855 101,517 100,408 99,367 98,424 97,624 96,947 96,409 95,920 95,437 95,055 94,717 94,528 94,364 94,209

Closing 104,460 102,855 101,517 100,408 99,367 98,424 97,624 96,947 96,409 95,920 95,437 95,055 94,717 94,528 94,364 94,209 94,109

7.5

A1: Low affordability tables

Table 7.18 A1 Low Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections East Dunbartonshire, Households Owners 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 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

Opening 36,685 36,626 36,595 36,544 36,503 36,451 36,408 36,390 36,349 36,286 36,232 36,184 36,126 36,090 36,061 36,018 35,971

Private Rent Closing 36,626 36,595 36,544 36,503 36,451 36,408 36,390 36,349 36,286 36,232 36,184 36,126 36,090 36,061 36,018 35,971 35,879

Opening 1,247 1,193 1,159 1,136 1,111 1,098 1,091 1,084 1,085 1,090 1,093 1,096 1,093 1,093 1,087 1,091 1,090

Version 08 47

Social Rent Closing 1,193 1,159 1,136 1,111 1,098 1,091 1,084 1,085 1,090 1,093 1,096 1,093 1,093 1,087 1,091 1,090 1,090

Opening 5,295 5,466 5,648 5,819 5,991 6,153 6,315 6,478 6,631 6,770 6,905 7,037 7,162 7,289 7,411 7,528 7,638

Closing 5,466 5,648 5,819 5,991 6,153 6,315 6,478 6,631 6,770 6,905 7,037 7,162 7,289 7,411 7,528 7,638 7,724

Table7.19 A1 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections East Renfrewshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 – 09 30,769 30,876 1,174 1,061 2009 – 10 30,876 30,969 1,061 978 2010 – 11 30,969 31,063 978 919 2011 – 12 31,063 31,145 919 877 2012 – 13 31,145 31,234 877 848 2013 – 14 31,234 31,348 848 827 2014 – 15 31,348 31,449 827 814 2015 – 16 31,449 31,545 814 806 2016 – 17 31,545 31,633 806 802 2017 – 18 31,633 31,725 802 800 2018 – 19 31,725 31,851 800 800 2019 – 20 31,851 31,957 800 801 2020 – 21 31,957 32,052 801 804 2021- 22 32,052 32,188 804 807 2022 – 23 32,188 32,314 807 811 2023 – 24 32,314 32,439 811 815 2024 – 25 32,439 32,549 815 819

Version 08 48

Social Rent Opening 4,045 4,187 4,319 4,442 4,555 4,666 4,784 4,895 4,998 5,101 5,198 5,301 5,401 5,488 5,579 5,665 5,746

Closing 4,187 4,319 4,442 4,555 4,666 4,784 4,895 4,998 5,101 5,198 5,301 5,401 5,488 5,579 5,665 5,746 5,824

Table 7.20 A1 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections Inverclyde, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 – 09 25,003 24,992 2,103 2,102 2009 - 10 24,992 24,972 2,102 2,105 2010 - 11 24,972 24,967 2,105 2,112 2011 - 12 24,967 24,954 2,112 2,118 2012 - 13 24,954 24,950 2,118 2,120 2013 - 14 24,950 24,937 2,120 2,121 2014 - 15 24,937 24,932 2,121 2,119 2015 - 16 24,932 24,928 2,119 2,119 2016 - 17 24,928 24,915 2,119 2,115 2017 - 18 24,915 24,893 2,115 2,115 2018 - 19 24,893 24,866 2,115 2,119 2019 - 20 24,866 24,832 2,119 2,121 2020 - 21 24,832 24,806 2,121 2,123 2021- 22 24,806 24,778 2,123 2,126 2022 - 23 24,778 24,726 2,126 2,126 2023 - 24 24,726 24,670 2,126 2,130 2024 - 25 24,670 24,601 2,130 2,130

Version 08 49

Social Rent Opening 10,050 10,071 10,153 10,241 10,315 10,394 10,458 10,523 10,585 10,633 10,674 10,710 10,743 10,774 10,807 10,821 10,832

Closing 10,071 10,153 10,241 10,315 10,394 10,458 10,523 10,585 10,633 10,674 10,710 10,743 10,774 10,807 10,821 10,832 10,830

Table 7.21 A1 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections North Lanarkshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 93,442 94,306 5,004 4,965 2009 - 10 94,306 95,051 4,965 4,951 2010 - 11 95,051 96,009 4,951 4,961 2011 - 12 96,009 96,967 4,961 4,985 2012 - 13 96,967 97,908 4,985 5,002 2013 - 14 97,908 98,849 5,002 5,032 2014 - 15 98,849 99,774 5,032 5,043 2015 - 16 99,774 100,692 5,043 5,069 2016 - 17 100,692 101,596 5,069 5,103 2017 - 18 101,596 102,449 5,103 5,127 2018 - 19 102,449 103,296 5,127 5,167 2019 - 20 103,296 104,085 5,167 5,200 2020 - 21 104,085 104,874 5,200 5,234 2021- 22 104,874 105,677 5,234 5,290 2022 - 23 105,677 106,391 5,290 5,336 2023 - 24 106,391 107,075 5,336 5,382 2024 - 25 107,075 107,650 5,382 5,404

Version 08 50

Social Rent Opening 45,269 45,635 46,235 46,602 46,981 47,345 47,714 48,069 48,425 48,784 49,107 49,443 49,740 50,081 50,486 50,865 51,259

Closing 45,635 46,235 46,602 46,981 47,345 47,714 48,069 48,425 48,784 49,107 49,443 49,740 50,081 50,486 50,865 51,259 51,601

Table 7.22 A1 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections Renfrewshire, Households Owners Opening Closing Opening 2008 - 09 55,203 55,248 4,104 2009 - 10 55,248 55,316 4,042 2010 - 11 55,316 55,391 4,003 2011 - 12 55,391 55,499 3,980 2012 - 13 55,499 55,577 3,975 2013 - 14 55,577 55,630 3,964 2014 - 15 55,630 55,700 3,953 2015 - 16 55,700 55,791 3,946 2016 - 17 55,791 55,858 3,951 2017 - 18 55,858 55,920 3,952 2018 - 19 55,920 55,967 3,955 2019 - 20 55,967 56,004 3,964 2020 - 21 56,004 56,034 3,975 2021- 22 56,034 56,098 3,984 2022 - 23 56,098 56,128 3,997 2023 - 24 56,128 56,136 4,013 2024 - 25 56,136 56,112 4,028

Version 08 51

Private Rent

Social Rent Closing 4,042 4,003 3,980 3,975 3,964 3,953 3,946 3,951 3,952 3,955 3,964 3,975 3,984 3,997 4,013 4,028 4,036

Opening 19,730 19,912 20,138 20,353 20,584 20,792 20,969 21,148 21,335 21,496 21,645 21,782 21,904 22,014 22,147 22,255 22,345

Closing 19,912 20,138 20,353 20,584 20,792 20,969 21,148 21,335 21,496 21,645 21,782 21,904 22,014 22,147 22,255 22,345 22,406

Table 7.23 A1 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections South Lanarkshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 102,135 102,623 5,465 5,563 2009 - 10 102,623 103,216 5,563 5,644 2010 - 11 103,216 103,821 5,644 5,717 2011 - 12 103,821 104,449 5,717 5,790 2012 - 13 104,449 105,079 5,790 5,850 2013 - 14 105,079 105,686 5,850 5,907 2014 - 15 105,686 106,357 5,907 5,966 2015 - 16 106,357 107,039 5,966 6,020 2016 - 17 107,039 107,736 6,020 6,081 2017 - 18 107,736 108,418 6,081 6,133 2018 - 19 108,418 109,088 6,133 6,200 2019 - 20 109,088 109,723 6,200 6,256 2020 - 21 109,723 110,373 6,256 6,318 2021- 22 110,373 111,084 6,318 6,380 2022 - 23 111,084 111,729 6,380 6,443 2023 - 24 111,729 112,363 6,443 6,500 2024 - 25 112,363 112,949 6,500 6,551

Version 08 52

Social Rent Opening 30,754 31,450 32,165 32,856 33,540 34,202 34,826 35,469 36,095 36,717 37,309 37,885 38,415 38,952 39,517 40,024 40,518

Closing 31,450 32,165 32,856 33,540 34,202 34,826 35,469 36,095 36,717 37,309 37,885 38,415 38,952 39,517 40,024 40,518 40,968

Table 7.24 A1 Low Affordability (25%), Tenure Projections West Dunbartonshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 25,119 25,001 1,203 1,446 2009 - 10 25,001 24,954 1,446 1,629 2010 - 11 24,954 24,944 1,629 1,761 2011 - 12 24,944 24,953 1,761 1,860 2012 - 13 24,953 24,980 1,860 1,928 2013 - 14 24,980 25,017 1,928 1,975 2014 - 15 25,017 25,066 1,975 2,015 2015 - 16 25,066 25,117 2,015 2,040 2016 - 17 25,117 25,173 2,040 2,062 2017 - 18 25,173 25,230 2,062 2,079 2018 - 19 25,230 25,276 2,079 2,093 2019 - 20 25,276 25,316 2,093 2,107 2020 - 21 25,316 25,354 2,107 2,120 2021- 22 25,354 25,399 2,120 2,135 2022 - 23 25,399 25,431 2,135 2,150 2023 - 24 25,431 25,445 2,150 2,156 2024 - 25 25,445 25,438 2,156 2,157

Version 08 53

Social Rent Opening 16,377 16,404 16,483 16,576 16,672 16,777 16,878 17,004 17,123 17,243 17,361 17,466 17,576 17,683 17,797 17,898 17,975

Closing 16,404 16,483 16,576 16,672 16,777 16,878 17,004 17,123 17,243 17,361 17,466 17,576 17,683 17,797 17,898 17,975 18,051

Table 7.25 A1 Low Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections Glasgow, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening 2008 - 09 145,096 148,662 33,011 2009 - 10 148,662 152,475 33,043 2010 - 11 152,475 156,076 33,199 2011 - 12 156,076 159,496 33,259 2012 - 13 159,496 162,812 33,314 2013 - 14 162,812 165,863 33,264 2014 - 15 165,863 168,728 33,205 2015 - 16 168,728 171,511 33,157 2016 - 17 171,511 174,208 33,156 2017 - 18 174,208 176,730 33,179 2018 - 19 176,730 179,019 33,232 2019 - 20 179,019 181,229 33,308 2020 - 21 181,229 183,303 33,417 2021- 22 183,303 185,391 33,525 2022 - 23 185,391 187,330 33,669 2023 - 24 187,330 189,108 33,833 2024 - 25 189,108 190,824 33,997

Version 08 54

Social Rent Closing 33,043 33,199 33,259 33,314 33,264 33,205 33,157 33,156 33,179 33,232 33,308 33,417 33,525 33,669 33,833 33,997 34,147

Opening 106,426 105,495 104,856 104,355 103,983 103,566 103,141 102,787 102,509 102,328 102,139 101,891 101,714 101,539 101,505 101,454 101,369

Closing 105,495 104,856 104,355 103,983 103,566 103,141 102,787 102,509 102,328 102,139 101,891 101,714 101,539 101,505 101,454 101,369 101,310

7.6

A1: High affordability tables

Table 7.26 A1 High Affordability (40%), Tenure Projections East Dunbartonshire, Households Owners 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2010 - 11 2011 - 12 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

Opening 36,685 36,626 36,611 36,588 36,583 36,572 36,573 36,600 36,605 36,589 36,581 36,577 36,562 36,566 36,578 36,572 36,563

Private Rent Closing 36,626 36,611 36,588 36,583 36,572 36,573 36,600 36,605 36,589 36,581 36,577 36,562 36,566 36,578 36,572 36,563 36,506

Opening 1,247 1,283 1,318 1,344 1,355 1,367 1,380 1,389 1,401 1,410 1,416 1,421 1,419 1,422 1,418 1,422 1,422

Version 08 55

Social Rent Closing 1,283 1,318 1,344 1,355 1,367 1,380 1,389 1,401 1,410 1,416 1,421 1,419 1,422 1,418 1,422 1,422 1,416

Opening 5,295 5,376 5,472 5,567 5,666 5,763 5,861 5,962 6,059 6,146 6,234 6,319 6,400 6,483 6,564 6,641 6,714

Closing 5,376 5,472 5,567 5,666 5,763 5,861 5,962 6,059 6,146 6,234 6,319 6,400 6,483 6,564 6,641 6,714 6,771

Table7.27 A1 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections East Renfrewshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 30,769 30,876 1,174 1,142 2009 - 10 30,876 30,982 1,142 1,121 2010 - 11 30,982 31,100 1,121 1,103 2011 - 12 31,100 31,212 1,103 1,089 2012 - 13 31,212 31,335 1,089 1,083 2013 - 14 31,335 31,485 1,083 1,085 2014 - 15 31,485 31,625 1,085 1,085 2015 - 16 31,625 31,760 1,085 1,083 2016 - 17 31,760 31,887 1,083 1,088 2017 - 18 31,887 32,017 1,088 1,090 2018 - 19 32,017 32,182 1,090 1,096 2019 - 20 32,182 32,325 1,096 1,101 2020 - 21 32,325 32,456 1,101 1,100 2021- 22 32,456 32,627 1,100 1,100 2022 - 23 32,627 32,785 1,100 1,101 2023 - 24 32,785 32,940 1,101 1,102 2024 - 25 32,940 33,079 1,102 1,100

Version 08 56

Social Rent Opening 4,045 4,105 4,163 4,221 4,276 4,330 4,389 4,449 4,506 4,561 4,615 4,673 4,733 4,787 4,847 4,903 4,957

Closing 4,105 4,163 4,221 4,276 4,330 4,389 4,449 4,506 4,561 4,615 4,673 4,733 4,787 4,847 4,903 4,957 5,013

Table 7.28 A1 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections Inverclyde, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 25,003 24,992 2,103 2,233 2009 - 10 24,992 24,992 2,233 2,337 2010 - 11 24,992 25,020 2,337 2,420 2011 - 12 25,020 25,050 2,420 2,478 2012 - 13 25,050 25,094 2,478 2,518 2013 - 14 25,094 25,133 2,518 2,543 2014 - 15 25,133 25,179 2,543 2,559 2015 - 16 25,179 25,228 2,559 2,571 2016 - 17 25,228 25,266 2,571 2,571 2017 - 18 25,266 25,294 2,571 2,572 2018 - 19 25,294 25,314 2,572 2,575 2019 - 20 25,314 25,324 2,575 2,576 2020 - 21 25,324 25,340 2,576 2,576 2021- 22 25,340 25,351 2,576 2,578 2022 - 23 25,351 25,336 2,578 2,571 2023 - 24 25,336 25,315 2,571 2,569 2024 - 25 25,315 25,277 2,569 2,560

Version 08 57

Social Rent Opening 10,050 9,941 9,902 9,880 9,860 9,851 9,840 9,835 9,833 9,825 9,816 9,806 9,796 9,788 9,782 9,765 9,748

Closing 9,941 9,902 9,880 9,860 9,851 9,840 9,835 9,833 9,825 9,816 9,806 9,796 9,788 9,782 9,765 9,748 9,723

Table 7.29 A1 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections North Lanarkshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 93,442 94,306 5,004 5,687 2009 - 10 94,306 95,156 5,687 6,201 2010 - 11 95,156 96,289 6,201 6,583 2011 - 12 96,289 97,470 6,583 6,877 2012 - 13 97,470 98,662 6,877 7,080 2013 - 14 98,662 99,871 7,080 7,243 2014 - 15 99,871 101,073 7,243 7,344 2015 - 16 101,073 102,270 7,344 7,436 2016 - 17 102,270 103,454 7,436 7,520 2017 - 18 103,454 104,582 7,520 7,562 2018 - 19 104,582 105,696 7,562 7,623 2019 - 20 105,696 106,745 7,623 7,652 2020 - 21 106,745 107,784 7,652 7,697 2021- 22 107,784 108,831 7,697 7,786 2022 - 23 108,831 109,783 7,786 7,835 2023 - 24 109,783 110,696 7,835 7,887 2024 - 25 110,696 111,493 7,887 7,882

Version 08 58

Social Rent Opening 45,269 44,913 44,881 44,700 44,586 44,514 44,480 44,468 44,480 44,510 44,540 44,587 44,627 44,707 44,836 44,973 45,133

Closing 44,913 44,881 44,700 44,586 44,514 44,480 44,468 44,480 44,510 44,540 44,587 44,627 44,707 44,836 44,973 45,133 45,280

Table 7.30 A1 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections Renfrewshire, Households Owners Opening Closing Opening 2008 - 09 55,203 55,248 4,104 2009 - 10 55,248 55,371 4,398 2010 - 11 55,371 55,540 4,632 2011 - 12 55,540 55,769 4,809 2012 - 13 55,769 55,987 4,963 2013 - 14 55,987 56,190 5,062 2014 - 15 56,190 56,416 5,121 2015 - 16 56,416 56,664 5,169 2016 - 17 56,664 56,888 5,221 2017 - 18 56,888 57,105 5,248 2018 - 19 57,105 57,302 5,264 2019 - 20 57,302 57,484 5,280 2020 - 21 57,484 57,653 5,290 2021- 22 57,653 57,848 5,294 2022 - 23 57,848 58,006 5,317 2023 - 24 58,006 58,135 5,331 2024 - 25 58,135 58,226 5,336

Version 08 59

Private Rent

Social Rent Closing 4,398 4,632 4,809 4,963 5,062 5,121 5,169 5,221 5,248 5,264 5,280 5,290 5,294 5,317 5,331 5,336 5,325

Opening 19,730 19,556 19,454 19,375 19,327 19,284 19,240 19,209 19,192 19,170 19,150 19,130 19,109 19,085 19,076 19,059 19,037

Closing 19,556 19,454 19,375 19,327 19,284 19,240 19,209 19,192 19,170 19,150 19,130 19,109 19,085 19,076 19,059 19,037 19,003

Table 7.31 A1 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections South Lanarkshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 102,135 102,623 5,465 6,210 2009 - 10 102,623 103,329 6,210 6,768 2010 - 11 103,329 104,124 6,768 7,180 2011 - 12 104,124 104,992 7,180 7,503 2012 - 13 104,992 105,894 7,503 7,740 2013 - 14 105,894 106,793 7,740 7,912 2014 - 15 106,793 107,764 7,912 8,073 2015 - 16 107,764 108,750 8,073 8,198 2016 - 17 108,750 109,751 8,198 8,317 2017 - 18 109,751 110,735 8,317 8,403 2018 - 19 110,735 111,701 8,403 8,494 2019 - 20 111,701 112,623 8,494 8,552 2020 - 21 112,623 113,550 8,552 8,624 2021- 22 113,550 114,528 8,624 8,716 2022 - 23 114,528 115,434 8,716 8,777 2023 - 24 115,434 116,319 8,777 8,834 2024 - 25 116,319 117,145 8,834 8,870

Version 08 60

Social Rent Opening 30,754 30,802 30,928 31,090 31,285 31,498 31,714 31,956 32,206 32,466 32,721 32,978 33,220 33,469 33,738 33,984 34,228

Closing 30,802 30,928 31,090 31,285 31,498 31,714 31,956 32,206 32,466 32,721 32,978 33,220 33,469 33,738 33,984 34,228 34,452

Table 7.32 A1 High Affordability (33%), Tenure Projections West Dunbartonshire, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening Closing 2008 - 09 25,119 25,001 1,203 1,601 2009 - 10 25,001 24,979 1,601 1,901 2010 - 11 24,979 25,009 1,901 2,118 2011 - 12 25,009 25,070 2,118 2,279 2012 - 13 25,070 25,156 2,279 2,393 2013 - 14 25,156 25,255 2,393 2,473 2014 - 15 25,255 25,368 2,473 2,541 2015 - 16 25,368 25,484 2,541 2,585 2016 - 17 25,484 25,606 2,585 2,620 2017 - 18 25,606 25,727 2,620 2,648 2018 - 19 25,727 25,835 2,648 2,665 2019 - 20 25,835 25,937 2,665 2,681 2020 - 21 25,937 26,032 2,681 2,696 2021- 22 26,032 26,133 2,696 2,715 2022 - 23 26,133 26,218 2,715 2,729 2023 - 24 26,218 26,284 2,729 2,726 2024 - 25 26,284 26,325 2,726 2,720

Version 08 61

Social Rent Opening 16,377 16,249 16,187 16,153 16,136 16,135 16,142 16,176 16,210 16,251 16,295 16,334 16,382 16,429 16,483 16,532 16,565

Closing 16,249 16,187 16,153 16,136 16,135 16,142 16,176 16,210 16,251 16,295 16,334 16,382 16,429 16,483 16,532 16,565 16,602

Table 7.33 A1 High Affordability (40%), Tenure Projections Glasgow, Households Owners Private Rent Opening Closing Opening 2008 - 09 145,096 148,662 33,011 2009 - 10 148,662 152,581 33,896 2010 - 11 152,581 156,363 34,707 2011 - 12 156,363 160,013 35,234 2012 - 13 160,013 163,591 35,623 2013 - 14 163,591 166,919 35,801 2014 - 15 166,919 170,063 35,872 2015 - 16 170,063 173,122 35,897 2016 - 17 173,122 176,087 35,939 2017 - 18 176,087 178,866 35,984 2018 - 19 178,866 181,399 36,026 2019 - 20 181,399 183,834 36,056 2020 - 21 183,834 186,117 36,123 2021- 22 186,117 188,397 36,179 2022 - 23 188,397 190,516 36,294 2023 - 24 190,516 192,459 36,417 2024 - 25 192,459 194,325 36,526

Version 08 62

Social Rent Closing 33,896 34,707 35,234 35,623 35,801 35,872 35,897 35,939 35,984 36,026 36,056 36,123 36,179 36,294 36,417 36,526 36,625

Opening 106,426 104,643 103,242 102,093 101,157 100,249 99,418 98,711 98,114 97,644 97,209 96,764 96,403 96,072 95,873 95,684 95,489

Closing 104,643 103,242 102,093 101,157 100,249 99,418 98,711 98,114 97,644 97,209 96,764 96,403 96,072 95,873 95,684 95,489 95,331

Market analysis

8.1

Introduction

8.1.1

This section of the report draws on the work on the drivers of housing demand and tenure structure and the insights generated by the modelling work to provide an analysis of the housing market in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley area. The analysis considers the existing structure of the market, the key trends, and the likely future pattern of development. We consider first the overall structure of the market then summarise the modelling approach before considering the results of the analysis and their implications. It should be noted that the focus here is on demand – we make no assumptions concerning the capacity of the system to meet demand but it is possible that, for social housing in particular, demand may not be easy to meet in some areas.

8.2

The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing System

8.2.1

The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Planning area (GCV) comprises eight local authorities and is home (in 2008) to 804,000 households: this represents about 37% of all Scottish households. Because the GCV area, in itself, accounts for a large part of the Scottish population it is broadly reflective of the country as a whole in the structure of its housing market. However, there are some key differences between Scotland and the GCV area and, more importantly, differences within the area.

8.2.2

As Figure 7.1 shows, the GCV area has, proportionately, a slightly smaller owner occupied sector and a rather larger social rented sector than has all Scotland. The Private Rented sector is also relatively small in the GCV area.

Figure 8.1: Tenure Structure (% of households)

Source: SHS 2008 and GCVSDPA data 8.2.3

These differences between the GCV area and Scotland are heavily influenced by the nature of the Glasgow market which accounts for 35% of households in the area, and to a lesser degree by West Dunbartonshire. Figure 8.2 compares the tenure structure in the eight local authorities.

Version 08 63

Figure 8. 2: Tenure Structure (% households)

Source: SHS 2008 and GCVSDPA data 8.2.4

Broadly, the authorities fall into three groups. Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire have large social rented sectors and relatively small owner occupied sectors (though this is still the majority tenure in both areas), East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire are dominated by owner occupation and have very small social rented sectors while the other four authorities have a social/private split closer to the national pattern. South Lanarkshire’s tenure pattern shows some of the same characteristics as East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire while the Private Rented Sector is very small in all areas other than Glasgow.

8.2.5

These tenure patterns show a high and unsurprising correlation with economic conditions and particularly with income. Thus CACI data show that the median household income in the two areas dominated by Owner Occupation – East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire - is around 20% above the Scottish median figure, while Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire have median incomes 10% of more below the Scottish figure, Inverclyde’s figure is 9% below Scotland’s and the other authorities have median incomes between 5% below and 1% over the Scottish figure. Similarly, while, according to Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, 17% of Glasgow’s working age population, 17% of Inverclyde’s working population and 16% of West Dunbartonshire’s working population were employment deprived in 2008, the comparable figures for East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire were just 7%.

8.2.6

As the earlier analysis has shown, variations in tenure patterns and tenure choices are driven primarily by economic considerations.

8.3

Market Drivers – analysis

8.3.1

In considering the outlook for the housing market across the GCV area and in its sub areas, the two key parameters are the overall level of demand/need for housing which is driven by the overall change in the number of households (the outcome of natural change in the population, migration and average household size) and the tenure choices which households make.

Version 08 64

8.3.2

So far as overall population and household change is concerned, the present study has relied upon the forecasts produced for the GCVSPDA Core Group. These are embodied in the demand forecasts produced by the modelling work. As has been discussed in other papers produced alongside the present work, the last decade has seen a fairly fundamental change in population and household trends. In the 1980s, the entire GCV area experienced sustained net out-migration of 15,000 to 20,000 persons per annum. Only East Renfrewshire “bucked this trend” with steady net in-migration and thus population growth reflecting its status as a favoured location for housing development. The 1990s saw an amelioration of the adverse trends but no break in the overall pattern. Since about 2003 there has been a virtual “sea change” with the GCV area gaining from migration and strikingly, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and, especially, South Lanarkshire experiencing strong net in-migration. In the light of this, the Core Group has produced migration forecasts. The Scenario C forecasts envisage that the area will gain population strongly from migration over the period to 2025 with only Inverclyde and East Dunbartonshire losing (modestly) from migration. The Scenario A forecasts envisage slow loss of population through migration but also has modest migration gains in North Lanarkshire and substantial gains in South Lanarkshire.

8.3.3

The consequence of these changes and of the secular trend to smaller households is that the GCV area as a whole is projected to gain 96,000 to 113,000 households over the period 2008 -2025 (depending on the population forecast adopted) with all areas gaining households and the biggest gains being in Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire.

8.3.4

Whether these forecasts will prove accurate is, of course, uncertain. The gains of the period since 2000 have, of course, been driven by migration. It is important to note that the Scottish migration context, which is a powerful factor in the position of the GCV area, has been shifting towards net in-migration since the mid 1960s. In 1966 Scotland had a net loss of around 40,000 people. While Scotland continued to lose population through migration up to 1990, the annual losses diminished. From the mid 1990s the shift towards net gain became pronounced. However, while Scotland has been gaining population over the period since 2000 at a rate of over 20,000 persons per annum, the gains to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley (GCV) area have been modest – under 2,000 per annum at best. Since the GCV area represents about 33% of the Scottish population, the figures imply that the area has gained less than its “share” of Scottish in-migration.

8.3.5

At the Scottish level the key factor in net migration is migration from overseas with inmigration exceeding out-migration by 17,500 in the year to June 2009. International migrants tend to favour the cities – a key factor in the rise of Glasgow’s population. Indeed, Glasgow is the only part of the GCV area which has a net gain from international migration. For other areas with growing population, the main factor is “domestic” migration. South Lanarkshire has a very substantial net gain from other parts of Scotland and the rest of the UK while North Lanarkshire gains equally from movement from other parts of Scotland and the rest of the UK.

8.3.6

These figures suggest that the outlook for Glasgow’s population is heavily dependent on the future trends in international migration. If this remains strong Glasgow will grow, if not then population decline could resume. Growth in South Lanarkshire especially and in North Lanarkshire seems more robust since both areas are gaining population from other parts of Scotland and the UK. If these areas can maintain their competitiveness as locations for businesses and households then they will continue to grow.

8.3.7

The outlook for household numbers will be determined by migration driven by economic factors. Economic factors also have implications for tenure split. The long term shift from social and rented housing to home ownership in Scotland is well known. In 1961 only 25% of Scottish households were owner occupiers – today the figure is 66%: in 1961 41% of households were in social renting compared to 23% today. The fall in private renting is even more spectacular – from 34% in 1961 to around 10% today.

8.3.8

The analysis of tenure conducted for this study has focussed first on the relationship between tenure of newly formed households and a range of social and economic

Version 08 65

characteristics. That analysis demonstrated that home ownership levels were very high among households with one or more employed persons, particularly where the “reference person” was over 30 years old. Conversely, social renting was found to be prevalent among households dependent on benefits. 8.3.9

8.3.10

In the model on which the analysis is based, as described above, the key drivers of tenure choice among new households are the economic circumstances of those households as reflected in average incomes and the age distribution of households. Thus in Glasgow where the demographic projections indicate that many new households will be headed by relatively young persons and where average incomes are low, we expect that a low proportion of new households (around 40%) will become owners; while in East Dunbartonshire, where new households are headed by relatively older persons and where incomes are higher, about 69% of new households will become owners.

8.3.11

The ability to access private rented housing has been modelled by comparing incomes to private sector rents at a local level. There is uncertainty over the proportion of income which households will willingly commit to housing costs and for that reason the modelling has considered the implications of alternative assumptions concerning the amount of income committed to rent – levels of 25%, 33% and 40% of gross income have been considered.

8.3.12

The analysis and modelling of the tenure choices of migrants has been based on observed patterns as revealed by the 2001 census. The shift in migration patterns envisaged in the Core Group forecasts, specifically in Scenario C, do point to the possibility that “future” migrants will have different tenure patterns from those of the past and this must be borne in mind.

8.3.13

The final element in the modelling of tenure patterns concerns inter-tenure flows. As discussed in Section 7, the modelling assumptions on inter-tenure flows were based on research evidence from the survey of English housing modified in the light of work done by the study team comparing predicted tenure patterns from a “first run” of the model against actual outcomes for each local authority over the period 2001 – 2008. The model assumptions were then modified to improve the “fit” between the model results and the actual outcomes. These modifications were then used for future forecasts.

8.3.14

The modelling assumptions reflect analysis of well established trends. However, it is necessary to consider whether the economic outlook will impact on these trends. While it is clear that households in which one or more persons are in employment are very likely to become owner occupiers by the time the householders are in their late 20s/early 30s, this pattern has been made possible by a ready supply of credit for house purchase and favourable lending terms. This supply of credit undoubtedly pushed up house prices – giving rise to concerns over affordability – but this did not diminish the rise in home ownership. Ease of access to credit rather than house prices was the critical factor.

8.3.15

Version 08 66

8.3.16

It is in some ways ironic that while stagnant or even falling house prices are making housing more “affordable” in conventional terms, lack of finance is making housing less accessible.

8.3.17

The possibility that the house purchase rates by age group which have been used in the modelling will prove to be too high for at least some time cannot be discounted. The effect of this would be, given what we know about typical patterns of movement through the housing system, that intending purchasers will spend longer in the private rented sector (which is the main source of new buyers) than previously. There may also be some diminution of new household flows directly into home ownership with, again, a consequent increase in private renting. It is very unclear how long current lending conditions will persist but we consider that a relatively high chance exists that private renting demand will rise – at least over the next few years – above the levels forecast by the model. We do not consider that the central model assumptions should be altered but the pattern of demand should be monitored. We consider this further below.

8.3.18

We consider that a shift toward increased levels of social renting is unlikely. The modelling work already indicates a stabilisation, indeed an increase, in demand after many years of decline. The social patterns of movement into the social rented sector are well established and we do not see it as becoming a tenure of choice for aspirant home owners. Social renting demand would rise further than forecast only if economic recovery failed to materialise and levels of unemployment rose significantly. We do not consider this to be a likely economic outlook.

8.3.19

Finally, so far as general trends are concerned, we may consider the impact of Right to Buy. The Right to Buy was a major factor in the shift towards home ownership in the 1980s and 1990s. We have been provided with RTB forecasts which have been built into the modelling. These forecasts envisage sales from 2008 running at less than 25% of the 2000 level and just 50% of the 2007 level. The impact of RTB sales on the housing system is profound but slow to develop. While there is an immediate “headline” impact on tenure structure, the reality is that the houses continue to be occupied by the same households in most cases for many years. There is no immediate impact on availability of social housing. In the longer term there is a reduction in relets while the former social housing tends to become part of lower cost home ownership market segment or even part of the private rented sector.

8.3.20

A slowing of RTB will, therefore reduce the longer term growth of home ownership – and this is reflected in the modelling work. However, the effects are relatively small. The modelling work indicates that under 25% of the home ownership growth in the GCV area to 2025 will result from RTB – but this is mainly the transfer of houses and households from sector to sector. A reduction (or increase) in RTB would have little impact on the demand for new build private homes in the medium term.

8.4

Results and Analysis

8.4.1

The modelling results were based on the two household projection scenarios “A1” and “C2”. The differences between these scenarios relate to overall population numbers rather than tenure patterns whereas changes within the models concerning key assumptions impact on tenure patterns. In particular, two alternative sets of assumptions concerning the affordability of private rented housing have quite significant effects on tenure forecasts. We have, therefore, set out results for the C2 scenario.

8.4.2

Figures 8.3 and 8.4 show the overall projected change in households by tenure for the GCV area for the two “affordability” scenarios for private renting. The High affordability scenario assumes that households are willing to spend 33% to 40% of their income on rented housing (depending on area) while the low affordability assumption assumes that the level of income committed to renting is 25% to 33%. A general assumption in the modelling is that there is a hierarchy of housing preference such that people who can afford to buy or rent will choose to buy and that people who can afford to rent privately or from a social landlord will choose private renting.

Version 08 67

Figure 8.3 Households by Tenure GCV High Affordability

8.4.3

The High Affordability scenario, which we consider, on balance, the more likely outcome, indicates a continued growth in owner occupation and modest changes in both social and private renting. The outcome is that social renting falls from 30% of households to 26% with the overall number of social rented houses declining by only a few thousand. Private renting remains stable in terms of market share though the number of private rented houses rises by about 15,000. The owner occupied sector increases to 67% of the stock from 64% and increases in size by 101,000 units.

8.4.4

The low affordability scenario, as shown below, implies a significantly slower growth in home ownership than the high affordability case but the most profound difference is that the social rented sector grows by 10% (about 24,000 units). We do not consider this to be credible and would argue that the assumptions in the high affordability scenario relating to social renting are the more plausible.

Version 08 68

Figure 8.4 Households by Tenure GCV Low Affordability

8.4.5

While the shift to owner occupation is continued under both scenarios, the changes are very modest by the standards of the recent past. For example, at the Scottish level social renting fell from 32% of households to 23% in just eight years after 2000.

8.4.6

The relative stabilisation of tenure patterns under the high affordability scenario is, we consider, credible given that owner occupation is now the tenure outcome for the great majority of households who can afford that option. While there are a few higher income households in social renting they are statistically insignificant. More importantly, new entrants to social rented housing comprise mainly households on very low incomes or dependant on benefits. Very few of these households, we consider, will become owners.

8.4.7

One area where there is a quite high possibility of a different outcome is, as discussed earlier, in relation to the size of the private rented sector. The financial crisis has had significant and possibly long term effects on bank lending. Mortgage finance is becoming harder to obtain with larger deposits being required and more stringent assessment of the ability of borrowers to repay loans. It is highly possible that this could lead to a slowing in the rate at which people move into owner occupation – perhaps particularly affecting those seeking to make the move from private renting to ownership. The main model assumes that in most areas 10% of private renter households will move to owner occupation in a year. If this was reduced, for the reasons outlined above, to 5% per annum the outcome would be as shown in Figure 8.5. Growth in home ownership would continue but at a much slower rate (72,000 units), social renting would rise by several thousand units and the private rented sector would grow by over 30,000 units. The tenure split difference from the high affordability scenario would be mainly within the private sector – owner occupation would be about 63% of households, social renting 27% and private renting 10%. We consider this scenario to be relatively likely.

Version 08 69

Figure 8.5 GCV Projected Households: Reduced Access to Home Ownership

If the market develops as envisaged by the modelling, there are likely to be differential impacts between areas. We consider the outlook for each local authority below and will refer to Figures 8.6 and 8.7.

Figure 8.6 Growth in Owner Occupation to 2025 C2 High

Version 08 70

Figure 8.7 Social Renting C2 High

8.5

Glasgow

8.5.1

As noted earlier, demographic change in Glasgow will, it is expected, be largely driven by in-migration (much of it international). It is expected that the city will continue to lose population to other parts of Scotland. The modelling work suggests as strong growth in owner occupation – about 24% between 2008 and 2025 as shown in Figure 8.6. However, almost half of the gross growth in owner occupation will come from migrants. The projected housed purchases by in migrants slightly outweigh the sales by out migrants.

8.5.2

It follows that if in-migration levels do not develop as expected, or if in-migrants prove less able to buy than the model projects, then the level of demand for home ownership could be over-estimated. It is important to recognise that demand in Glasgow is highly sensitive to these migration assumptions.

8.5.3

Demand from new Glasgow households for home purchase is also projected to be high with natural increase in the sector adding 10,000 to demand over the period. Again, this outcome may be affected by difficulties in accessing house purchase finance if these problems persist.

8.5.4

Both the present study and earlier work suggest that the social rented sector will probably continue to decline. Only a major change in attitudes to the sector would alter this markedly but it is possible that in-migrants unable to buy may continue to boost demand for social housing.

8.5.5

So far as the overall forecasts are concerned, we consider that the main risk factors relate to migration and accessibility of housing finance. If migration is lower than forecast then the net growth of home ownership may be significantly less than forecast. Demand for home ownership might also be affected by financing problems and by the ability of migrant to buy. This suggests that for Glasgow a “lower growth” scenario could emerge in which home ownership growth was more limited and growth in the private rented sector could be higher than envisaged.

Version 08 71

8.5.6

The potential for low cost home ownership in Glasgow is significant only among private renters. Very few social tenants could afford LCHO. Low cost home ownership may be attractive to people stuck in private renting but it can make limited impact on unmet need in Glasgow.

8.6

East Dunbartonshire

8.6.1

East Dunbartonshire is dominated by owner occupation with a small social rented sector. It does, however, appear to have limited prospects for more growth in the owner occupied sector - not because of lack of latent demand but because in-migration will be limited by supply. In-migrant demand is the largest element of demand for housing to buy in the area. What can be said is that the underlying demand for home ownership in the area is both strong and stable with high levels of home purchase from new households as well as migrants.

8.6.2

It must be recognised that East Dunbartonshire is an integral element of the housing system of a much wider area and not a market in its own right. As we have noted, the social rented sector is very small, only 12% of the stock, so that with 30% of new households unable to afford market housing the pressure on the social stock is very great. Many households solve this problem by moving out to find cheaper rented housing or housing to buy in adjacent areas.

8.6.3

The modelling work does indicate a very strong potential for Low Cost Home Ownership in the area with 33% to 50% of households in need of social housing able to afford LCHO.

8.7

East Renfrewshire

8.7.1

East Renfrewshire is similar in many ways to East Dunbartonshire. Demand for home ownership is driven by both in-migration (from other parts of Scotland) and local demand. Migration forecasts show that external demand will continue to be a major factor and the owner occupied stock is expected to rise. As a key “area of choice” demand will remain strong.

8.7.2

The social rented stock is proportionately even smaller than in East Dunbartonshire and the pressure on that stock is intense. The modelling work indicates that the stock would need to grown by 275 by 2025 to meet demand. As with East Dunbartonshire, many households solve this problem by moving out to find cheaper rented housing or moving to buy in adjacent areas.

8.7.3

The potential for Low Cost Home Ownership is substantial. It is estimated that between 25% and 63% of social housing need could be met in this way.

8.8

Inverclyde

8.8.1

Inverclyde is projected to experience continued population loss and only modest household growth over the period to 2025. It continues to lose population to other parts of Scotland. Although there have been some employment gains – notably from the Royal Bank of Scotland – the economy remains relatively weak with very high levels of worklessness.

8.8.2

Demand for housing to buy is influenced by links to external markets – both inflows and outflows of buyers are quite high. Only around 42% of new households can afford to buy (compared to over 70% in East Renfrewshire). The outlook for the owner occupied market is, therefore, one of very slow growth. This would be altered in the medium term only by changes which made the area significantly more attractive to in-movers.

8.8.3

Private rented housing is relatively affordable and strong growth is expected in this sector fuelled by the demand from new households. The social rented sector is expected to stagnate. While demand from new households outweighs deaths, demand is weakened by net out-migration. The modelling work also indicates a slow but steady loss to owner occupation which outweighs any in-moves from that sector.

Version 08 72

8.8.4

While excess demand for social housing is not generally an issue in Inverclyde, the analysis undertaken indicates that over 50% of people moving into social housing could afford LCHO. However, given the absence of strong excess need this may not be a key priority.

8.9

North Lanarkshire

8.9.1

North Lanarkshire is projected to experience strong population growth fuelled by inmigration from 2008. Most of this migration comes from other parts of Scotland and reflects the growth of the area as a destination for home owners.

8.9.2

Both natural increase in the population and in-migration are driving demand for owner occupation to about an equal degree. The sector is expected to grow by 22% over the 2008 to 2025 period. As with all areas, the demand from new households might be affected by lending constraints but the extent of this effect is uncertain. The pressure of demand from migration is likely to remain strong.

8.9.3

Private rented housing is relatively affordable and so the potential for growth in this very strong, particularly as it is quite small at present. If new households choose private over social housing then the sector could expand by 65% over the period to 2025. However, even after this the sector would be a modest 5% of the stock. Whether the sector can expand to meet this demand is less certain.

8.9.4

The Social Rented sector is presently quite large at 31% of the stock. The modelling predicts a modest increase in the overall size of the sector and a fall in market share. The outlook for the sector depends largely we consider on the inter-action with the private rented sector. The modelling implies that the private rented sector could attract 70% more new households than the Social Rented Sector. If the social rented sector increased its share of new households from the predicted 46% to over 60% then the sector would grow by about 10%: even this would still imply a loss of market share.

8.9.5

The analysis of LCHO suggests that a significant proportion of new social housing need – at least 25% and possibly more – could be met by low cost home ownership.

8.10

Renfrewshire

8.10.1

Renfrewshire has had a long term history of net out-migration but has experienced modest growth in recent years, gaining both from the rest of Scotland and the UK. It is forecast to experience significant household growth

8.10.2

Demand for owner occupation is strongly influenced by links with the surrounding areas with high matching levels of inflows and outflows. Net growth is driven by local demand which flows through the relatively large local private rented sector. The owner occupied sector is expected to grow steadily, by about 9%, to 2025.

8.10.3

Private rented housing is relatively affordable with the consequence that only 20% of new households are considered unable to afford market housing. This factor has the consequence that the modelling work predicts a large increase in private renting (about 36%) raising the sector to 7% of the stock. The corollary is that the social rented sector is predicted to stagnate in terms of numbers and to fall to 23% of the stock.

8.10.4

There are parallels with North Lanarkshire. The outlook for the sector depends largely on the inter-action with the private rented sector. The modelling implies that the private rented sector could attract 50% more new households than the Social Rented Sector. If the social rented sector increased its share of new households from the predicted 20% to over 30% then the sector would grow by about 14%: this would still imply a steady market share.

8.10.5

The analysis of LCHO suggests that a significant proportion of new social housing need – at least 25% and possibly more – could be met by low cost home ownership.

Version 08 73

8.11

South Lanarkshire

8.11.1

South Lanarkshire is projected to experience strong population growth fuelled by inmigration from 2008. Most of this migration comes from other parts of Scotland and reflects the growth of the area as a destination for home owners.

8.11.2

It is in-migration which is strikingly driving demand for owner occupation in the area. The modelling indicates that this will add about 8,000 to net demand over the forecast period. The sector is expected to grow by 19% over the 2008 to 2025 period. As with all areas, the demand from new households might be affected by lending constraints but the extent of this effect is uncertain. The pressure of demand from migration is likely to remain very strong.

8.11.3

As in North Lanarkshire, private rented housing is relatively affordable and so the potential for growth in this very strong, particularly as it is quite small (4% of stock) at present. The model projects growth of 73% in the sector. Even with this rapid growth of private renting, the social rented sector is projected to grow by 16% and to maintain its market share.

8.11.4

Given uncertainties over the capacity of the private rented sector to expand, it is clear that pressure on rented housing of all types is likely to be strong. In that regard it is significant that the analysis of low cost home ownership indicates that a high proportion of need for new social rented housing (25% to 60%) could be met by LCHO.

8.12

West Dunbartonshire

8.12.1

West Dunbartonshire is one of the most deprived and economically poorest performing parts of the Clyde Valley area. It has a very large social rented sector (38% of stock).

8.12.2

Demand for home ownership housing is relatively weak reflecting persistent outmigration which is expected to continue for some time. Growth is the owner occupied sector is thus expected to be weak and the share of owner occupation to be stable.

8.12.3

Private rented housing is relatively affordable and only 30% of new households are considered unable to afford market housing. This factor has the consequence that the modelling work predicts a very large increase in private renting (about 141%) raising the sector to 6% of the stock. The corollary is that the social rented sector is predicted to grow very slowly in absolute terms and to fall to 36% of the stock.

8.12.4

Because the social rented sector is so large, any shift from social to private renting has large impacts. Thus the modelling assumes that inflows by new households to social renting exceed those into private renting by 7%. However, even this leads to a large increase in private renting. For the private rented sector to be stable in size the assumed inflow by new households and migrants would have to be reduced in half. The projection of a large increase in pressure on the private rented sector appears robust.

8.12.5

West Dunbartonshire is thus likely to be characterised by a weak owner occupied market and pressure on rented housing. In that regard it is significant that the analysis of low cost home ownership indicates that a high proportion of need for new social rented housing (33% to 56%) could be met by LCHO.

8.13

Conclusions

8.13.1

We consider that the broad outlines of change in the GCV area housing market are fairly clear and will be broadly similar under different assumptions concerning the affordability of housing. Owner Occupation will remain by far the dominant tenure and will probably increase its overall share of the market to 67% of the total. The social rented sector will decline in market share terms and by about 1% – 2% in absolute terms.

8.13.2

Version 08 74

situation there would be some growth in demand for social renting but by far the main effects would be in the private rented sector. 8.13.3

Growth in home ownership will not be evenly spread – the main growth will be in Glasgow (provided migration is strong) and Lanarkshire with quite modest growth in other areas.

8.13.4

Version 08 75

Abbreviations used in the report ASHE

Annual Survey of Earnings and Hours

BMRA

Broad Market Rental Area – geography on which the LHA is applied

CACI

Commercially developed income dataset (CACI Paycheck), that is made available to all Scottish local authorities by Scottish Government

CHMA

Centre for Housing Market Analysis (Scottish Government)

DWP

Department of Work and Pensions

East Dunbartonshire

East Renfrewshire

Glasgow City

GCV

Glasgow Clyde Valley

HMA

Housing Market Area

HMP

Housing Market Partnership

HNDA

Housing Need and Demand Assessment

Inverclyde

Local Authority

LCHO

Local Cost Home Ownership

LHA

Local Housing Allowance

LIFT

Low-cost Initiative for First Time Buyers

North Lanarkshire

PRS

Private Rented Sector

Renfrewshire

RSL

Registered social landlord

SCORE

Scottish Continuous Recording

SDPA

Strategic Development Planning Authority

SEH

Survey of English Housing – annual data from 1999 through to 2006 (most recent available in summary form) were used. The 2006 data archive data were also analysed

SHCS

Scottish House Condition Survey – data from the 2002 survey were available from data archive and considered as a potential data source (but never actually used)

SHS

Scottish Household Survey – 2005/06 was used for this report

SHIP

Strategic Housing Investment Plan

South Lanarkshire

SRS

Social Rented Sector

West Dunbartonshire

Version 08 76

Appendix B: Income distribution of new housing association tenants Table B1: Income distribution of new tenants Percentile 10

80 £17,378

E Dunbartonshire

£3,192

£3,740

£5,678

£6,754

£9,100

£11,264

E Renfrewshire

£6,662

£7,491

£8,320

£8,580

£8,840

90 £ 26,052

Count 27 4

Glasgow

£3,016

£3,344

£4,264

£5,417

£6,809

£8,311

£13,000

£16,900

3,475

Inverclyde

£3,120

£4,160

£5,460

£8,320

£9,672

£11,700

£16,640

£21,867

119

North Lanarkshire

£3,912

£5,527

£7,108

£9,618

£11,700

£13,904

£19,699

£24,201

287

Renfrewshire

£3,120

£3,344

£4,880

£6,391

£7,540

£10,165

£15,309

£19,292

391

S Lanarkshire

£3,344

£4,968

£6,760

£8,011

£9,360

£11,274

£16,177

£21,466

231

W Dunbartonshire

£3,328

£6,589

£7,311

£9,653

£10,920

£12,922

£15,652

£20,072

173

Table Total

£3,120

£3,344

£4,680

£6,240

£7,211

£9,360

£14,040

£18,200

4,707

Source: SCORE 2009

Version 08 77

Appendix C: GCVSPDA Projections Model Key Assumptions and Parameters Parameter

Source/Definition

Comments

% of New Households by age who buy

Derived from formula. Spreadsheet “Formula 3”

% of New households who rent privately

% of households with enough income to rent a one bed flat. Income from SHS/CACI. Rent from Local Housing Allowance

Two sets of tables presented for each authority: typically assuming 25% and 33% allocated to PRS rent (exceptions East Dunbartonshire and Glasgow where ranges are 33% and 40%) See Tables 5.3 and 5.4

% of new households who rent socially

Total new households less owners and private renters

% of migrants who are owners

Based on actual % owners in each age group in each area

Assumption is that migrants are similar to residents of area to which they move

% of migrants who are private renters

Either 20% or 25% depending on size of PRS in area

Reflects region wide pattern

% of migrants who are social renters

Total migrants less owners and private renters

% of new households who COULD afford LCHO

Derived from a calculation of the income required to financed a 60% stake in a LIFT property in each local area compared against the data on household incomes. The key income assumption was that people could pay 3 times household income for a stake.

As all owners could afford LIFT, owners were subtracted from the total of potential LIFT buyers

Inter-tenure moves

% of households in each tenure moving is derived from SEH data

Shown in spreadsheet assumptions in each case

Population change and in-migration

From CORE group figures

Out-migration and Deaths

Broad rates based on previous research – results adjusted to be consistent with CORE group figures

Version 08 78

Shown in spreadsheet assumptions in each case

Appendix D: Lift values used in the analysis Open Market LIFT, at 31 March 2009 Local authority

Local price threshold areas

Apartment 1 sizes

Price thresholds 2 (£)

Argyll & Bute

2 3

80,000 85,000

4 5

95,000 145,000

195,000

70,000

3 4

90,000 105,000

5 6

145,000 190,000

Dumfries & Galloway

East Ayrshire North Ayrshire

North Ayrshire

East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire Glasgow

Inverclyde Renfrewshire

North Lanarkshire South Lanarkshire

Dumfries & Galloway

East & North Ayrshire

Arran

Glasgow area

Inverclyde & Renfrewshire

Lanarkshire

Version 08 79

65,000

3 4

70,000 80,000

5 6

100,000 180,000

70,000

3 4

75,000 90,000

5 6

110,000 195,000

75,000

3 4

95,000 105,000

5 6

160,000 230,000

60,000

3 4

70,000 90,000

5 6

120,000 195,000

65,000

3 4

70,000 80,000

5 6

115,000 175,000

Open Market LIFT, at 31 March 2009 Local authority

Local price threshold areas

Apartment 1 sizes

Price thresholds 2 (£)

South Ayrshire

75,000

3 4

80,000 105,000

5 6

130,000 190,000

65,000

3 4

75,000 90,000

West Dunbartonshire

5 155,000 6 190,000 Source http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/Housing/BuyingSelling/lift/west Notes: 1: The apartment size of a property means the number of rooms, but does not include kitchens or bathrooms. For example, a flat with 2 bedrooms and 1 living room would be a 3 apartment property. 2: Price thresholds for properties in local threshold areas that are predominantly rural have been uprated by 10 per cent. All price thresholds have been rounded up to the nearest £5,000.

Version 08 80

Appendix E: New Households able to afford to buy Table E1: Proportion of New Households able to Buy: East Dunbartonshire East Dunbartonshire

Bearsden and Milngavie

Strathkelvin

2008 - 09

69%

74%

83%

2009 - 10

69%

74%

83%

2010 - 11

69%

74%

83%

2011 - 12

69%

75%

83%

2012 - 13

69%

74%

83%

2013 - 14

69%

74%

83%

2014 - 15

69%

75%

83%

2015 - 16

69%

74%

83%

2016 - 17

69%

74%

83%

2017 - 18

69%

74%

83%

2018 - 19

69%

74%

83%

2019 - 20

70%

75%

83%

2020 - 21

70%

75%

83%

2021- 22

70%

76%

83%

2022 - 23

70%

75%

83%

2023 - 24

70%

75%

83%

2024 - 25

70%

75%

83%

Version 08 81

Table E.2: Proportion of New Households able to Buy: East Renfrewshire East Renfrewshire

Eastwood

Leven Valley

2008 - 09

74%

80%

60%

2009 - 10

74%

80%

60%

2010 - 11

75%

80%

60%

2011 - 12

75%

81%

60%

2012 - 13

75%

80%

60%

2013 - 14

75%

80%

60%

2014 - 15

75%

81%

60%

2015 - 16

75%

81%

60%

2016 - 17

75%

80%

60%

2017 - 18

75%

81%

60%

2018 - 19

75%

81%

60%

2019 - 20

75%

81%

60%

2020 - 21

76%

81%

61%

2021- 22

76%

82%

61%

2022 - 23

76%

82%

61%

2023 - 24

76%

82%

61%

2024 - 25

77%

82%

61%

Version 08 82

Table E.3: Proportion of New Households able to Buy: Glasgow Glasgow

West CPP

Central and West

Maryhill, Kelvin and Canal

North East CPP

East Centre and Calton

Baillieston Shettleston

Govan and Craigton

G Easterhouse

G Pollok and Newlands /Auldburn

Pollokshields and South Side

Langside and Linn

2008 - 09

41%

43%

38%

32%

33%

44%

41%

47%

43%

51%

2009 - 10

42%

41%

43%

38%

32%

33%

44%

41%

47%

43%

51%

2010 - 11

42%

41%

43%

38%

32%

33%

44%

41%

48%

43%

51%

2011 - 12

42%

41%

43%

38%

32%

33%

44%

41%

47%

43%

51%

2012 - 13

42%

41%

43%

38%

32%

33%

44%

41%

48%

43%

51%

2013 - 14

42%

41%

43%

38%

32%

33%

44%

41%

48%

43%

51%

2014 - 15

42%

41%

43%

38%

32%

33%

44%

41%

48%

43%

51%

2015 - 16

42%

41%

43%

38%

32%

33%

44%

41%

47%

43%

51%

2016 - 17

42%

41%

43%

38%

32%

33%

44%

41%

48%

43%

51%

2017 - 18

41%

43%

38%

32%

33%

44%

41%

47%

43%

51%

2018 - 19

41%

40%

42%

37%

31%

32%

43%

40%

46%

42%

50%

2019 - 20

40%

42%

37%

31%

32%

43%

40%

46%

42%

50%

2020 - 21

40%

39%

42%

37%

31%

32%

42%

40%

46%

41%

49%

2021- 22

40%

39%

42%

36%

31%

42%

40%

46%

41%

49%

2022 - 23

39%

41%

36%

30%

31%

41%

39%

45%

41%

48%

2023 - 24

39%

38%

40%

35%

30%

31%

41%

38%

44%

40%

48%

2024 - 25

39%

38%

40%

35%

30%

41%

38%

44%

40%

48%

Version 08 83

Table E.4: Proportion of New Households able to Buy: Inverclyde Inverclyde

Inverclyde East

Inverclyde West

Kilmacolm

2008 - 09

43%

36%

54%

60%

2009 - 10

43%

36%

54%

60%

2010 - 11

43%

36%

54%

60%

2011 - 12

43%

36%

54%

60%

2012 - 13

43%

37%

54%

60%

2013 - 14

43%

36%

54%

60%

2014 - 15

43%

37%

55%

61%

2015 - 16

43%

37%

55%

61%

2016 - 17

44%

37%

55%

61%

2017 - 18

43%

37%

54%

61%

2018 - 19

43%

36%

54%

60%

2019 - 20

42%

36%

54%

60%

2020 - 21

43%

36%

54%

60%

2021- 22

43%

36%

54%

60%

2022 - 23

42%

36%

53%

59%

2023 - 24

42%

35%

53%

59%

2024 - 25

42%

35%

52%

58%

Version 08 84

Table E.5: Proportion of New Households able to Buy: North Lanarkshire North Lanarkshire

Cumbernauld

Airdrie and Coatbridge

Motherwell

2008 - 09

46%

54%

45%

43%

2009 - 10

46%

54%

45%

43%

2010 - 11

46%

54%

45%

43%

2011 - 12

46%

54%

45%

43%

2012 - 13

46%

54%

45%

43%

2013 - 14

46%

54%

45%

43%

2014 - 15

46%

54%

45%

43%

2015 - 16

46%

54%

45%

43%

2016 - 17

46%

54%

45%

43%

2017 - 18

46%

54%

45%

43%

2018 - 19

46%

53%

44%

42%

2019 - 20

45%

53%

44%

42%

2020 - 21

46%

53%

44%

42%

2021- 22

45%

53%

44%

42%

2022 - 23

45%

53%

44%

42%

2023 - 24

45%

52%

44%

42%

2024 - 25

45%

52%

44%

42%

Version 08 85

Table E.6: Proportion of New Households able to Buy: Renfrewshire

Elderslie

West Renfrewshire

North Renfrewshire

53%

44%

62%

45%

53%

44%

63%

50%

45%

53%

44%

63%

2011 - 12

50%

45%

53%

44%

62%

2012 - 13

50%

45%

53%

44%

63%

62%

2013 - 14

50%

45%

53%

44%

63%

62%

2014 - 15

50%

45%

53%

44%

63%

2015 - 16

50%

45%

53%

44%

63%

2016 - 17

50%

45%

53%

44%

63%

2017 - 18

50%

45%

53%

44%

63%

62%

2018 - 19

49%

45%

53%

44%

62%

2019 - 20

49%

44%

53%

43%

62%

2020 - 21

49%

44%

53%

43%

62%

2021- 22

49%

45%

53%

44%

62%

2022 - 23

49%

44%

52%

43%

61%

2023 - 24

49%

44%

52%

43%

61%

2024 - 25

48%

44%

52%

43%

61%

Johnstone

Renfrewshire

Paisley and Linwood

Renfrew

2008 - 09

50%

45%

2009 - 10

50%

2010 - 11

Version 08 86

Table E.7: Proportion of New Households able to Buy: South Lanarkshire South Lanarkshire

Rutherglen and Cambuslang

East Kilbride

Hamilton

Clydesdale

2008 - 09

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2009 - 10

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2010 - 11

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2011 - 12

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2012 - 13

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2013 - 14

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2014 - 15

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2015 - 16

52%

51%

56%

50%

51%

2016 - 17

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2017 - 18

52%

51%

56%

50%

51%

2018 - 19

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2019 - 20

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2020 - 21

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2021- 22

52%

50%

56%

50%

51%

2022 - 23

51%

50%

55%

50%

2023 - 24

51%

50%

55%

50%

2024 - 25

51%

50%

55%

49%

50%

Version 08 87

Table E.8: Proportion of New Households able to Buy: West Dunbartonshire West Dunbartonshire

Clydebank and Villages

Dumbarton and Vale of Leven

2008 - 09

42%

39%

45%

2009 - 10

42%

39%

45%

2010 - 11

42%

39%

45%

2011 - 12

42%

39%

45%

2012 - 13

42%

39%

46%

2013 - 14

43%

39%

46%

2014 - 15

43%

40%

46%

2015 - 16

43%

40%

46%

2016 - 17

43%

40%

46%

2017 - 18

43%

40%

46%

2018 - 19

43%

39%

46%

2019 - 20

42%

39%

46%

2020 - 21

42%

39%

45%

2021- 22

42%

39%

45%

2022 - 23

42%

39%

45%

2023 - 24

42%

39%

45%

2024 - 25

42%

39%

45%

Version 08 88

Appendix F: Migrant households able to afford to buy Table F.1: Proportion of Migrant Households able to Buy: East Dunbartonshire East Dunbartonshire

Bearsden and Milngavie

Strathkelvin

2008 - 09

77%

83%

74%

2009 - 10

77%

83%

74%

2010 - 11

77%

83%

74%

2011 - 12

77%

83%

74%

2012 - 13

77%

83%

74%

2013 - 14

77%

83%

74%

2014 - 15

77%

83%

74%

2015 - 16

77%

83%

74%

2016 - 17

77%

83%

74%

2017 - 18

77%

83%

74%

2018 - 19

77%

83%

74%

2019 - 20

77%

83%

74%

2020 - 21

77%

83%

74%

2021- 22

77%

83%

74%

2022 - 23

77%

83%

74%

2023 - 24

77%

83%

74%

2024 - 25

77%

83%

74%

Version 08 89

Table F.2: Proportion of Migrant Households able to Buy: East Renfrewshire East Renfrewshire

Eastwood

Leven Valley

2008 - 09

84%

90%

67%

2009 - 10

84%

90%

67%

2010 - 11

84%

90%

67%

2011 - 12

84%

90%

67%

2012 - 13

84%

90%

67%

2013 - 14

84%

90%

67%

2014 - 15

84%

90%

67%

2015 - 16

84%

90%

67%

2016 - 17

84%

90%

67%

2017 - 18

84%

90%

67%

2018 - 19

84%

90%

67%

2019 - 20

84%

90%

67%

2020 - 21

84%

90%

67%

2021- 22

84%

90%

67%

2022 - 23

84%

90%

67%

2023 - 24

84%

90%

67%

2024 - 25

84%

90%

67%

Version 08 90

Table F.3: Proportion of Migrant Households able to Buy: Glasgow Glasgow

West CPP

Central and West

Maryhill, Kelvin and Canal

North East CPP

East Centre and Calton

Baillieston Shettleston

Govan and Craigton

G Easterhouse

G Pollok and Newlands

Pollokshields and South Side

Langside and Linn

/Auldburn

2008 - 09

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2009 - 10

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

46%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2010 - 11

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

46%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2011 - 12

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

46%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2012 - 13

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

46%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2013 - 14

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2014 - 15

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2015 - 16

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2016 - 17

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

46%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2017 - 18

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2018 - 19

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2019 - 20

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2020 - 21

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2021- 22

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2022 - 23

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

45%

53%

2023 - 24

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

44%

53%

2024 - 25

43%

42%

45%

39%

33%

34%

45%

43%

49%

44%

53%

Version 08 91

Table F.4: Proportion of Migrant Households able to Buy: Inverclyde Inverclyde

Inverclyde East

Inverclyde West

Kilmacolm

2008 - 09

56%

48%

71%

79%

2009 - 10

56%

48%

71%

79%

2010 - 11

56%

48%

71%

79%

2011 - 12

56%

48%

71%

79%

2012 - 13

56%

48%

71%

79%

2013 - 14

56%

47%

71%

79%

2014 - 15

56%

47%

71%

79%

2015 - 16

56%

47%

71%

79%

2016 - 17

56%

47%

71%

79%

2017 - 18

56%

47%

71%

79%

2018 - 19

56%

47%

71%

79%

2019 - 20

56%

47%

71%

79%

2020 - 21

56%

47%

71%

79%

2021- 22

56%

47%

71%

79%

2022 - 23

56%

47%

70%

78%

2023 - 24

56%

47%

70%

78%

2024 - 25

56%

47%

70%

78%

Version 08 92

Table F.5: Proportion of MigrantHouseholdsable toBuy: North Lanarkshire North Lanarkshire

Cumbernauld

Airdrie and Coatbridge

Motherwell

2008 - 09

65%

76%

63%

60%

2009 - 10

65%

76%

63%

60%

2010 - 11

65%

76%

63%

60%

2011 - 12

65%

76%

63%

60%

2012 - 13

65%

76%

63%

60%

2013 - 14

65%

76%

63%

60%

2014 - 15

65%

76%

63%

60%

2015 - 16

65%

76%

63%

60%

2016 - 17

65%

76%

63%

60%

2017 - 18

65%

75%

63%

60%

2018 - 19

65%

75%

63%

60%

2019 - 20

65%

75%

63%

60%

2020 - 21

65%

75%

63%

60%

2021- 22

65%

75%

63%

60%

2022 - 23

65%

75%

63%

60%

2023 - 24

65%

75%

63%

60%

2024 - 25

65%

75%

63%

60%

Version 08 93

Table F.6: Proportion of Migrant Households able to Buy: Renfrewshire

Elderslie

West Renfrewshire

North Renfrewshire

71%

58%

83%

60%

71%

58%

83%

66%

60%

71%

59%

84%

83%

2011 - 12

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2012 - 13

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2013 - 14

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2014 - 15

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2015 - 16

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2016 - 17

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2017 - 18

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2018 - 19

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2019 - 20

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2020 - 21

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2021- 22

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2022 - 23

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2023 - 24

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

2024 - 25

66%

60%

71%

58%

83%

Johnstone

Renfrewshire

Paisley and Linwood

Renfrew

2008 - 09

66%

60%

2009 - 10

66%

2010 - 11

Version 08 94

Table F.7: Proportion of Migrant Households able to Buy: South Lanarkshire South Lanarkshire

Rutherglen and Cambuslang

East Kilbride

Hamilton

Clydesdale

2008 - 09

69%

67%

74%

67%

68%

2009 - 10

69%

67%

74%

67%

68%

2010 - 11

69%

67%

74%

67%

68%

2011 - 12

69%

67%

74%

67%

68%

2012 - 13

69%

67%

74%

67%

68%

2013 - 14

69%

67%

74%

67%

68%

2014 - 15

69%

67%

74%

67%

68%

2015 - 16

69%

67%

74%

67%

68%

2016 - 17

69%

67%

74%

67%

68%

2017 - 18

69%

67%

74%

67%

68%

2018 - 19

69%

67%

74%

66%

67%

2019 - 20

69%

67%

74%

66%

67%

2020 - 21

69%

67%

74%

66%

67%

2021- 22

69%

67%

74%

66%

67%

2022 - 23

69%

67%

74%

66%

67%

2023 - 24

69%

67%

74%

66%

67%

2024 - 25

69%

67%

74%

66%

67%

Version 08 95

Table F.8: Proportion of Migrant Households able to Buy: West Dunbartonshire C2 West Dunbartonshire

Clydebank and Villages

Dumbarton and Vale of Leven

2008 - 09

46%

43%

50%

2009 - 10

46%

43%

50%

2010 - 11

46%

43%

50%

2011 - 12

46%

43%

50%

2012 - 13

46%

43%

50%

2013 - 14

46%

43%

50%

2014 - 15

46%

43%

50%

2015 - 16

46%

43%

50%

2016 - 17

46%

43%

50%

2017 - 18

46%

43%

50%

2018 - 19

46%

43%

50%

2019 - 20

46%

43%

50%

2020 - 21

46%

43%

50%

2021- 22

46%

43%

50%

2022 - 23

46%

43%

50%

2023 - 24

46%

43%

50%

2024 - 25

46%

43%

50%

Version 08 96

Supplementary Report: Current housing need (Backlog) Introduction The study brief required that an assessment of appropriate price and income thresholds (and, therefore, affordability) amongst the group of households assessed to be in Backlog Need should be carried out. It was noted that the Backlog Need assessment was being carried out as a separate exercise by local authorities, and a review by the consultants carrying out the affordability study was intended as triangulation to ensure consistency. Because the approach taken by the Tribal study is not a “traditional” affordability” study, in that has not adopted a set of affordability ratios, the risk of inconsistency between our work and any affordability analysis carried out by the authorities applying an affordability test to the backlog need would have been minimal. However, the application of an affordability test to the backlog would remain useful to the authorities as part of the development of the HNDA. Following several steering group discussions and comment from CHMA, it was agreed that the backlog should be treated as additional to the new need and total tenure change modelled within the main report. It was therefore agreed, not to relate the backlog need to the needs modelled in the Stage 2 analysis. This short report therefore sets out the approach used to assess the affordability of households in current need (the backlog).

Assessing backlog need The member authorities have developed a joint, systematic approach to producing an estimate of 18 current need . The approach was designed to be straightforward and systematic. Unavoidably, differences in recording systems and practice will have created some difficulties in delivering a fully consistent set of outputs across GCV. Nonetheless, broadly comparative information have been collected across the area, and the requirement that a record of data sources, methods and assumptions be maintained means that any variations between authorities are transparent. The key points from the approach adopted are;

■

The framework is based on the HNDA Guidance

■

The principal data source for most authorities envisaged were: the Council’s Local Housing Register (or stock transfer RSLs Register in Glasgow City and Inverclyde)/Common Housing Register, together with information from local RSLs

■

A single date for all data was specified (31 March 2009). If an alternative was used, it had to be explicitly stated, and the reason for its use explained and fully justified.

Full details of which were contained in Procedure Note: Backlog Need, 26 August 2009

Version 08 97

Current (Backlog) housing need was to be estimated as: Total (net) current housing need

Current (backlog) need among existing households

Cases where an in-situ solution would be appropriate

Proportion unable to buy or rent in the market

Allowance for additional need on RSL registers*

Overlap between LAs

* RSL data may already be included if Common Housing Register in operation

Current (backlog) need of existing households = homeless households/ in temporary accommodation + concealed households + overcrowded households + households with support needs + households whose home is in poor condition + households experiencing harassment ^

^ In most cases this will be taken to equal 0 as most of these households will be classed as homeless

It was determined that to maintain a level of consistency with the rest of the needs analysis that has been undertaken, that the test of current households in housing need unable to afford to buy or rent would be undertaken as part of the overall affordability study. To this end, a copy of the current needs estimates produced by each of the local authorities was provided to the study team. These broke current needs down into seven categories as shown on the table SR.1.

Version 08 98

Table SR.1: Total Current Need1 Local Authority

East Dunbartonshire

Homeless and in temporary accomm 455

Insecure Tenure

Concealed Households

Overcrowding

Support Needs

Poor Quality

Harassment

Other Categories

Total Current Need 4,074

1,490

833

712

577

East Renfrewshire

267

990

1,259

310

Glasgow City Council

3,900

7,275

617

1,189

6,494

8,894

28,428

Inverclyde Council

243

838

1,653

455

925

North Lanarkshire Council

682

1,735

4,514

253

564

540

4,117

731

Renfrewshire Council

210

820

2,401

1,476

414

644

9,041

360

6,325

South Lanarkshire Council

1,351

2,827

6,727

342

1,449

493

225

13,417

West Dunbartonshire Council

252

369

2,450

1,425

2,918

4,517

Glasgow & Clyde Valley 7,185 5,382 23,881 8,614 7,467 9,992 103 10,213 72,837 SDPA2 Notes 1: The total has already been adjusted by the authorities to remove existing social renters, and households that can adopt in-situ solutions, so this is not a true “gross” current need figure. 2: * Total not identical to HSMA total due to rounding

Version 08 99

Approach to affordability testing19 The affordability testing of the current need was undertaken in two stages. ■

First, we considered whether all households would be subject to the test.

■

Second, the test was applied to “eligible” households.

Eligibility The eligibility test was based on the category of applicant. It was assumed that none of the homeless households/households in temporary accommodation would be able afford alterative accommodation in the market. The affordability test was not applied to these households. It was applied to all other households. The test The approach taken here is to assess whether households in housing need can access a range of flexible housing options: ■

The private rented sector - LHA rents (1 bedroom) were used as a proxy for market rent levels, and it was assumed that household incomes would not include housing benefit

■

LIFT – as before, LIFT thresholds (2 bedroom) were used to inform estimates of house prices, and income multipliers of 3 were used.

■

Intermediate renting – 80% of market rents (in this case of the relevant LHA rent) were assumed for intermediate renting

Household income data was sourced from SCORE. We are therefore assuming that households on the housing list are similar to those that are housed, which may be a stretch – we know that a number of applicants leave the list and make alternative arrangements, whereas the following analysis of the incomes of those that are housed suggested that only a very small proportion of those housed would be able to make such arrangements. However, in the absence of data of clear income information on applicants, we do believe that the SCORE information is the most likely the best proxy. We would also note that the sample is fairly small for some authority areas (in particular East Dunbartonshire). And was too small to generate an estimate for East Renfrewshire (in which case we used the typical value from across the conurbation). In our view, the data would not support further sub-analysis, and we would suggest that HMA and LA sub-analysis could be undertaken based on the broad estimates developed at local authority level. Table 8.2 shows the proportion of households on the waiting list in each local authority area that could afford alternative accommodation in each of the three tenures. Thus in East Dunbartonshire, incomes from SCORE would suggest about 10% of those on the waiting list could afford to rent in the PRS (without recourse to housing benefit), about 20% could afford an intermediate rent product and 20 25% could afford a LIFT product .

It is appreciated that the approach taken to estimating affordability in this study does not employ a formal affordability test that can be easily translated to the current need data. For consistency, therefore, we have adopted the affordability test, used with respect to the PRS component of the analysis.

There was insufficient income data in SCORE to make an assessment for East Renfrewshire. Given that the number of cases in East Dunbartonshire was also fairly small, we used the data from the other areas to develop a proxy for the area, and have suggested that 25% of households would be able afford intermediate rent products, 35% would be able to afford LIFT and 10% would be able to afford market rent. Again, we would not apply these affordability assumptions to homeless households. Version 08 100

Table SR.2: Households on housing list who could afford alternative accommodation Intermediate rent

LIFT

PRS

20%

25%

10%

Glasgow

10%

Inverclyde

25%

35%

15%

North Lanarkshire

35%

40%

25%

Renfrewshire

20%

25%

10%

South Lanarkshire

25%

15%

West Dunbartonshire

25%

35%

10%

East Dunbartonshire 1

East Renfrewshire

Note 1: Insufficient cases to produce an estimate. We therefore recommend: IR25%, LIFT35%, PRS 10% LIFT values sourced from the Scottish Government website. See Appendix D

Current (backlog) need estimate Table SR.3 sets out the results of applying the affordability test to the backlog need estimates provided by the local authorities. These have been produced by applying the affordability rates set out in table SR.2 to the total current need estimates set out in table SR.1. As noted above, the affordability modifier is not applied to the homeless households). Two sets of estimate have been developed. The first has been produced assuming households have access to a significant level of resources to make alternative arrangements – that is, they could access the PRS (assessed here as the most expensive option) and referred to as the upper (market housing) option. The second has been produced assuming households can access LIFT; access prices for LIFT are considerably lower than for the PRS, and consequently more households were assessed as being able to afford this as an alternative. It is referred to on the table as the l (intermediate housing) option. As in the main report we would stress that in practice there would be a number of factors altering the take-up of both of these tenures: ■

Access to PRS is constrained availability of a deposit, and we have not tested whether or not the household has a deposit.

■

Affordability of the PRS can be improved by improved if the household is eligible for housing benefit, which we cannot take into account in this calculation

■

There are clearly significant differences in the security of tenure between a short assured tenancy, and a Scottish Secure Tenancy

■

Simply because a household’s income in the past year was sufficient to “afford” a LIFT product, does not mean that the household would be able to secure a mortgage for a LIFT product – their income may be insecure, a mortgage company may consider them a poor risk, they may already have significant levels of debt, they may be elderly, etc

■

The household may not wish to purchase a property, because they have concerns around income security, etc.

■

There may be insufficient supply of LIFT products

The findings indicate that the by applying the affordability estimate, the total number of households in the backlog in Glasgow City falls by up to 10% from the total current estimate developed by the local authorities, while the estimates for the other authorise fall by around 10%-15% at the lower end of the estimate to around 22%-33% at the upper end (shown as % variation on the table below).

Version 08 101

The upper end of the modifier results from assuming that households access intermediate housing options. Sub-area estimates The estimates of current need have also been broken down to LA sub-area level. As noted above, the income data are too fragile to produce independent sub-area estimates. The LA affordability rates have therefore been applied to each of the sub-areas.

Version 08 102

Table SR.3: Current housing need: total need and excluding those able to address needs in the market/intermediate1, LA level Local Authority

Total backlog

Homeless and temporary accomm

Other groups unable afford own arrangement s (upper)

Other groups unable afford own arrangement s (lower)

Total - Unable to make their own arrangements (upper) No.

% variation from the backlog

Total - Unable to make their own arrangements max (lower) No.

% variation from the backlog

Total able to afford their own accommodation Upper (market housing)

Lower (intermediate housing)

East Dunbartonshire

4,074

455

3,257

2,714

3,712

-9%

3,169

-22%

362

905

East Renfrewshire

2,918

2,543

2,120

2,635

-10%

2,212

-24%

283

707

Glasgow City Council

28,428

3,900

24,528

22,075

28,428

25,975

-9%

2,453

Inverclyde Council

4,117

243

3,293

2,518

3,536

-14%

2,761

-33%

581

1,356

North Lanarkshire Council

9,041

682

6,269

5,015

6,951

-23%

5,697

-37%

2,090

3,344

Renfrewshire Council

6,325

210

5,504

4,586

5,714

-10%

4,796

-24%

612

1,529

South Lanarkshire Council

13,417

1,351

10,256

9,050

11,607

-13%

10,401

-22%

1,810

3,017

West Dunbartonshire Council

4,517

252

3,839

2,772

4,091

-9%

3,024

-33%

427

1,493

Glasgow & Clyde Valley SDPA*

72,837

7,185

59,489

50,850

66,674

-8%

58,035

-20%

6,163

14,802

* Total not identical to HSMA total due to rounding Note 1: Upper estimates of those in the backlog (and corresponding lower estimates of those able to afford to meet their needs themselves) are reached when we consider whether households can afford market (PRS) accommodation. The lower estimates of those in the backlog (and corresponding higher estimates of those able to afford to meet their needs in themselves) are reached when we consider whether households can afford Intermediate (LIFT) accommodation.

Version 08 103

Table SR.4: Current housing need: total need and excluding those able to address needs in the market/intermediate, LA sub-area level Components of housing need

Total current need

Annual flows into SRS from the backlog -

LA sub-area

Homeless/in temp accomm

Other groups unable afford own arrangements Upper estimate

Other groups unable afford own arrangements Lower estimate

Unable to make their own arrangements – Upper estimate

Unable to make their own arrangements – Lower estimate

Upper estimate

Lower estimate

Bearsden and Milngavie

1,011

842

1,098

929

110

Strathkelvin

368

2,246

1,872

2,614

2,240

261

224

Eastwood

1,999

1,666

2,024

1,691

202

169

Levern Valley

545

454

612

521

Baillieston, Shettleston and Greater Easterhouse

390

2,453

2,208

2,843

2,598

284

260

East Centre and Calton

390

2,453

2,208

2,843

2,598

284

260

Central and West

468

2,944

2,649

3,412

3,117

341

312

Maryhill/Kelvin and Canal

351

2,208

1,987

2,559

2,338

256

234

West

468

2,944

2,649

3,412

3,117

341

312

Govan and Craigton

390

2,453

2,208

2,843

2,598

284

260

Greater Pollok and Newlands/Auldburn

390

2,453

2,208

2,843

2,598

284

260

Langside and Linn

351

2,208

1,987

2,559

2,338

256

234

Pollokshields and Southside Central

351

2,208

1,987

2,559

2,338

256

234

North East

351

2,208

1,987

2,559

2,338

256

234

Inverclyde East

155

2,685

2,053

2,840

2,208

284

221

Inverclyde West

536

410

609

483

Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village

Version 08 104

Table SR.4: Current housing need: total need and excluding those able to address needs in the market/intermediate, LA sub-area level (cont.) Components of housing need

Total current need

Annual flows into SRS from the backlog -

LA sub-area

Homeless/in temp accomm

Other groups unable afford own arrangements Upper estimate

Other groups unable afford own arrangements Lower estimate

Unable to make their own arrangements – Upper estimate

Unable to make their own arrangements – Lower estimate

Upper estimate

Lower estimate

Airdrie and Coatbridge

196

1,994

1,595

2,190

1,791

219

179

Cumbernauld

158

1,617

1,294

1,775

1,452

178

145

Motherwell

328

2,658

2,126

2,986

2,454

299

245

Johnstone/Elderslie

740

617

755

632

North Renfrewshire

588

490

600

502

Paisley/Linwood

169

3,421

2,851

3,590

3,020

359

302

Renfrew

540

450

551

461

West Renfrewshire

215

179

218

182

Clydesdale

257

1,552

1,370

1,809

1,627

181

163

East Kilbride

267

2,223

1,961

2,490

2,228

249

223

Hamilton

611

4,149

3,661

4,760

4,272

476

427

Rutherglen and Cambuslang

216

2,332

2,058

2,548

2,274

255

227

DMA Dumbarton/Vale of Leven

135

1,583

1,143

1,718

1,278

172

128

Clydebank

117

2,255

1,629

2,372

1,746

237

175

7,186

59,490

50,852

66,676

58,038

6,668

5,804

Version 08 105

Appendix SR: A Backlog need base data

Version 08 106

Summary of LA sub-area current need data LA

1.1A Homeless Households and those in temporary accommodation

1.2 Concealed Households

1.3 Overcrowding

1.4 Support Needs

1.5 Poor Quality

Eastwood Levern Valley

ER ER

25 67

209 58

775 215

993 266

244 66

Bearsden and Milngavie Strathkelvin

ED ED

87 368

456 1,034

210 623

151 561

304 273

Inverclyde East Inverclyde West Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village

IC IC IC

155 73 15

754 66 18

1,297 300 55

301 144 11

804 121 0

Johnstone/Elderslie North Renfrewshire Paisley/Linwood Renfrew West Renfrewshire

RF RF RF RF RF

15 12 169 11 3

109 29 496 126 60

382 320 1,315 256 128

194 282 849 122 29

68 19 273 41 13

644

Clydesdale East Kilbride Hamilton Rutherglen and Cambuslang

SL SL SL SL

257 267 611 216

454 560 1,248 565

1,012 1,480 2,945 1,290

64 70 113 95

173 456 497 323

69 1 5 418

DMA Dumbarton/Vale of Leven Clydebank

WD WD

135 117

148 221

858 1,592

741 684

Airdrie and Coatbridge Cumbernauld Motherwell

NL NL NL

196 158 328

631 361 740

1,564 914 2,028

63 81 109

197 195 171

LA Sub Areas

1.1B Insecure Tenure

Version 08 107

1.6 Harassment

1.7 Other Categories

1.8 Total Backlog Need

LA Total

2,246 672

2,918

1,210 2,864

4,074

3,314 704 99

4,117

69 3 224 55 9

837 665 3,970 611 242

6,325

1 0 1 1

53 48 72 52

2,083 2,882 5,492 2,960

13,417

6 3

6 6

1,894 2,623

4,517

102 223 215

3 7 12

99 375 269

2,855 2,314 3,872

9,041

2 5 3

1.1A Homeless Households and those in temporary accommodation

GC GC GC GC GC GC GC GC GC GC

390 390 468 351 468 390 390 351 351 351

LA Sub Areas

Baillieston, Shettleston and Greater Easterhouse East Centre and Calton Central and West Maryhill/Kelvin and Canal West Govan and Craigton Greater Pollok and Newlands/Auldburn Langside and Linn Pollokshields and Southside Central North East Glasgow & Clyde Valley SDPA* Source: LA data, provided by GCVSDPA

7,186

1.1B Insecure Tenure

5,379

1.2 Concealed Households

1.3 Overcrowding

1.4 Support Needs

1.5 Poor Quality

1.6 Harassment

1.7 Other Categories

1.8 Total Backlog Need

728 728 873 655 873 728 728 655 655 655

62 62 74 56 74 62 62 56 56 56

119 119 143 107 143 119 119 107 107 107

649 649 779 585 779 649 649 585 585 585

6 6 7 5 7 6 6 5 5 5

889 889 1,067 800 1,067 889 889 800 800 800

2,843 2,843 3,412 2,559 3,412 2,843 2,843 2,559 2,559 2,559

28,430

23,874

8,613

7,467

9,993

103

10,225

72,839

* Total not identical to LA total due to rounding

Version 08 108

LA Total

Version 08 109

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Housing Market Partnership Housing Need and Demand Assessment Technical Appendix 05 House Price Analysis November 2010

HNDA W

Contents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Introduction House Price Change: 2004 to 2009 Spatial Analysis of Prices: 2004 to 2010 Spatial Analysis of Prices: 2007 to 2010 Spatial Analysis of Prices related to Income: 2009/2010 New Builds and Resales: 2009/2010 Mapping by Local Authority Sub Area New Builds and Resales: 2009/2010 by Local Authority Sub Area

List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38

Housing Market Areas Local Authority sub areas Change in average price 2004-09 (£) Change in lowest quartile price 2004-09 (£) Change in new build average price 2004-09 (£) Change in new build lowest quartile price 2004-09(£) Change in resale average price 2004-09 (£) Change in resale lowest quartile price 2004-09 (£) Change in average price 2004 to 2010 Change in lowest quartile price 2004 to 2010 Change in new build average price 2004 to 2010 Change in new build lowest quartile price 2004 to 2010 Change in resale average price 2004 to 2010 Change in resale lowest quartile price 2004 to 2010 Change in average price 2007 to 2010 Change in lowest quartile price 2007 to 2010 Change in new build average price 2007 to 2010 Change in new build lowest quartile price 2007 to 2010 Change in resale average price 2007 to 2010 Change in resale lowest quartile price 2007 to 2010 Average House Price 2009 /2010 Lowest Quartile House Price 2009 /2010 Mean Income Distribution 2009/2010 Median Income Distribution 2009/2010 Average House Price vs bottom 20% Mean Income Lowest Quartile House Price vs bottom 20% Mean Income New Build Average 2009-2010 New Build Lowest Quartile 2009-2010 Resale Average 2009-2010 Resale Lowest Quartile 2009-2010 Average Price by Local Authority Sub Area Lowest Quartile Price by Local Authority Sub Area Bottom 20% Mean Income vs Average Price by Local Authority Sub Area Bottom 20% Mean Income vs Lowest Quartile Price by Local Authority Sub Area New Build Average Price by Local Authority Sub Area New Build Lowest Quartile Price by Local Authority Sub Area Resale Average Price by Local Authority Sub Area Resale Lowest Quartile Price by Local Authority Sub Area

Introduction

1.1

This Background Paper focuses on the annual monitoring of house prices in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley over the period 2007 to 2010, in support of affordability analysis work in the HNDA (TA04). This document has two main parts:

1.2

Consideration of historic trends in house prices from 2004 to 2009/2010 and from 2007 to 2009/2010; and

Consideration of comparative house prices and affordability in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley for the most recent year of 2009/2010.

Data is from the Sasines records from 2004 to 2009/10 and from CACI’s (Paycheck data for 2009, at the housing market and sub market area (Figure 1) levels and also mapped at local authority sub-area level (see Figure 2).

Figure 1 Housing Market Areas

Figure 2 Local Authority sub areas

House Price Change: 2004 to 2009

2.1

The first stage of this analysis is to consider the change in house prices over time, from 2004 to 2009. Because of the availability of data by geography, this is by housing market area and not by local authority sub area. The overall change in average and lower quartile prices over the period is shown below in Figures 3 and 4, by local authority area. All areas have displayed price growth at similar rates, albeit with a range of prices, followed by near-to-zero growth or decline in most areas from 2008 onwards.

Figure 3 Change in average price 2004-09 (£)

195000

Greater Glasgo w No rth/West Cumbernauld East Kilbride Clydesdale Inverclyde

Strathkelvin/Springburn Greater Glasgo w So uth A irdrie/Co atbridge Hamilto n

Glasgo w East Renfrewshire M o therwell Dumbarto n/ Vale o f Leven

175000

155000

135000

115000

95000

75000 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 4 Change in lowest quartile price 2004-09 (£) Lowest Quartile House Price Greater Glasgo w No rth/West Cumbernauld East Kilbride Clydesdale Inverclyde

125000

Strathkelvin/Springburn Greater Glasgo w So uth A irdrie/Co atbridge Hamilto n

Glasgo w East Renfrewshire M o therwell Dumbarto n/ Vale o f Leven

115000 105000 95000 85000 75000 65000 55000 45000 2004

2.2

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

This can be scrutinised for new build average and lowest quartile prices (Figures 5 and 6), and also for resale average and lower quartile prices (figures 7 and 8) over recent years.

Figure 5 Change in new build average price 2004-09 (£) Greater Glasgow Nort h/ West Cumbernauld East Kilbride Clydesdale Inverclyde

350000

St rathkelvin/Springburn Greater Glasgow South Airdrie/Coatbridge Hamilt on

Glasgow East Renf rewshire M otherwell Dumbart on/ Vale of Leven

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 6 Change in new build lowest quartile price 2004-09(£) Greater Glasgo w No rth/West Cumbernauld East Kilbride Clydesdale Inverclyde

230000

Strathkelvin/Springburn Greater Glasgo w So uth A irdrie/Co atbridge Hamilto n

Glasgo w East Renfrewshire M o therwell Dumbarto n/ Vale o f Leven

210000 190000 170000 150000 130000 110000 90000 70000 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 7 Change in resale average price 2004-09 (£) Greater Glasgow No rth/West Cumbernauld East Kilbride Clydesdale Inverclyde

Strathkelvin/Springburn Greater Glasgo w South A irdrie/Co atbridge Hamilto n

Glasgow East Renfrewshire M o therwell Dumbarto n/ Vale o f Leven

190000 170000 150000 130000 110000 90000 70000 50000 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 8 Change in resale lowest quartile price 2004-09 (£)

Greater Glasgo w No rth/West Cumbernauld East Kilbride Clydesdale Inverclyde

115000 105000

Strathkelvin/Springburn Greater Glasgo w So uth Airdrie/Co atbridge Hamilto n

Glasgo w East Renfrewshire M o therwell Dumbarto n/ Vale o f Leven

95000 85000 75000 65000 55000 45000 2004

2.3

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Price growth until 2007 is evident in most sectors of the market, albeit with some fluctuations in market areas. Growth is more modest in the resale market at lower prices, but with a higher growth rate in the lowest quartile of the resale market. From 2007 onwards, the general trend is slight decline albeit with some fluctuations.

Spatial Analysis of Prices: 2004 to 2010

3.1

House prices can also be viewed spatially from 2004 to 2010 (Figures 9 to 14). Most areas have demonstrated overall price growth, albeit with some decline in the new build sector in certain locations.

Figure 9 Change in average price 2004 to 2010

Figure 10 Change in lowest quartile price 2004 to 2010

Figure 11 Change in new build average price 2004 to 2010

Figure 12 Change in new build lowest quartile price 2004 to 2010

Figure 13 Change in resale average price 2004 to 2010

Figure 14 Change in resale lowest quartile price 2004 to 2010

Spatial Analysis of Prices: 2007 to 2010

4.1

The more recent period 2007 to 2010 can be focused upon as well, to consider house prices in light of the economic downturn (Figures 15 to 20). In these maps, note that the colour scheme is reversed from previous maps. In general, the trend is decline in house prices, albeit with some growth in prices in some areas for new builds.

Figure 15 Change in average price 2007 to 2010

Figure 16 Change in lowest quartile price 2007 to 2010

Figure 17 Change in new build average price 2007 to 2010

Figure 18 Change in new build lowest quartile price 2007 to 2010

Figure 19 Change in resale average price 2007 to 2010

Figure 20 Change in resale lowest quartile price 2007 to 2010

Spatial Analysis of Prices related to Income: 2009/2010

5.1

The most recent year of 2009 /2010 can also be considered, in Figure 21 and Figure 22.

Figure 21 Average House Price 2009 /2010

Figure 22 Lowest Quartile House Price 2009 /2010

5.2

Income distribution is illustrated in Figures 23 and 24 below and mapped against house prices in Figures 25 and 26, for the lowest 20% of mean income by super output area overlaid on HMSA house prices. In general, there are locations where high house prices intersect with lower incomes, but this is not at the strategic level.

Figure 23 Mean Income Distribution 2009/2010

Figure 24 Median Income Distribution 2009/2010

Figure 25 Average House Price vs bottom 20% Mean Income

Figure 26 Lowest Quartile House Price vs bottom 20% Mean Income

New Builds and Resales: 2009/2010

6.1

Prices for new builds and resales, for average and for lowest quartile, are shown in Figures 27 to 30. In both sectors of the market, there is a wide price range following the general pattern of prices across Glasgow and the Clyde Valley.

Figure 27 New Build Average 2009-2010

Figure 28 New Build Lowest Quartile 2009-2010

Figure 29 Resale Average 2009-2010

Figure 30 Resale Lowest Quartile 2009-2010

Mapping by Local Authority Sub Area

7.1 This section considers the comparative house prices and affordability in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley for the most recent year of 2009/2010, and this is at the local authority subarea level (see Figure 1 earlier). Figures 31 and 32 show average and lowest quartile house prices, Figures 33 and 34 show prices versus bottom 20% mean salaries, and the subsequent figures (section 8) show average and lowest quartile by market sector (new build and resale). Figure 31 Average Price by Local Authority Sub Area

Figure 32 Lowest Quartile Price by Local Authority Sub Area

Figure 33 Bottom 20% Mean Income vs Average Price by Local Authority Sub Area

Figure 34 Bottom 20% Mean Income vs Lowest Quartile Price by Local Authority Sub Area

New Builds and Resales: 2009/2010 by Local Authority Sub Area

Figure 35 New Build Average Price by Local Authority Sub Area

Figure 36 New Build Lowest Quartile Price by Local Authority Sub Area

Figure 37 Resale Average Price by Local Authority Sub Area

Figure 38 Resale Lowest Quartile Price by Local Authority Sub Area

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Housing Market Partnership Housing Need and Demand Assessment Technical Appendix 06 Review of Supply and Demand / Need for Housing November 2010

HNDA W

Contents 1

Introduction

Methodology

Estimates of Stock and Households at Base Date a) Population b) Housing stock c) Households d) Household Types e) Geography

Existing Need 4

Backlog Need

Future Need/Demand 5

Projections of Population and Households – Descriptions of Assumptions and Results

Household Tenure Projections a. Introduction b. Stage 1 and Stage 2

Stock Projections a. Private Sector b. Affordable Sector

Private Sector a. Local and Mobile Demand b. Private sector Comparison of Demand and Supply

Affordable Sector a. Social Rented Comparison of Need and Supply i. Housing Needs Assessment ii. All Stock/All Households b. Intermediate Sector

Reconciliation of Methodologies 1 and 2 for the Affordable Sector

List of Tables List of Annexes Annex A Projections of Population and Households Tables Annex B Housing Supply Templates Please note as a working draft all information has not been presented. Results from the low migration (A1) scenario have not been included. Information has also to be provided for private sector households at 2020 and 2025 – dis-aggregation to housing market areas.

List of Tables Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Table 8.4 Table 8.5 Table 8.6 Table 9.1 Table 9.2 Table 9.3 Table 9.4 Table 9.5 Table 9.6 Table 9.7 Table 9.8 Table 9.9 Table 9.10

Total Population 2008 Estimates of Stock, Vacancies and Households, 30 June 2008 Total Current Need Current housing need: total need and excluding those able to address needs in the market/intermediate, LA level Population Change Annual Population Change by Component Annual Population Change by Age Households - Comparison of estimated and projected change 2001-2008 Household Change Annual Household Change by Age of Household Representative Projection C2 (High Affordability) Stage 1: Projected Inflows into Social Rented Sector Projection C2 (Low Affordability) Stage 1: Projected Inflows into Social Rented Sector Projection C2 (High Affordability) Stage 2: Projected Tenure Split of Total Households 2008-2025 Projection C2 (Low Affordability) Stage 2: Projected Tenure Split of Total Households 2008-2025 Summary of Household Projections for GCVSDPA 2008-2025 Private Sector Housing Land Supply 2009-2025 Private Sector Housing Stock Projections for LA and Housing Market Areas 2008 to 2020 and 2025 Social Rented Housing Stock Projections for LA 2008to 2016, 2020 and 2025 Percentage of house-buying movers who searched in more than one Sub-Market Area Private Households - 2013 Projection - Mobile and Local Demand Private Households – 2020 Projection – Mobile and Local Demand Private Households – 2025 Projection – Mobile and Local Demand Projection C2 High Affordability: Comparison of private supply and demand (including Lower Estimate Backlog Need) at 2020 Projection C2 High Affordability: Comparison of private supply and demand (including Lower Estimate Backlog Need) at 2020 Summary of GCV Area Housing Need Requirement in Accordance with Housing Needs Assessment Supply/Need Comparison Model 2008-2025 GCVSDPA Housing Needs Assessment Summary by Local Authority to 2025 – Low Affordability GCVSDPA Housing Needs Assessment Summary by Local Authority to 2025 – High Affordability East Dunbartonshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 – 2025 East Renfrewshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 – 2025 Glasgow City Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 Inverclyde Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 North Lanarkshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 Renfrewshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 South Lanarkshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025

Table 9.11 Table 9.12 Table 9.13 Table 9.14 Table 9.15 Table 9.16

West Dunbartonshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 Summary of GCV Area Cumulative Housing Need Requirement in Accordance with All Stock/All Households Supply/Need Comparison Model 2008-2025 Projection C2 Low Affordability Comparison of Projected Social Rented Households and Housing Stock at 2016 (including Backlog Need) Projection C2 Low Affordability Comparison of Projected Social Rented Households and Housing Stock at 2020 (including Backlog Need) Projection C2 Low Affordability Comparison of Projected Social Rented Households and Housing Stock at 2025 (including Backlog Need) Maximum potential LCHO 2016 by LA (Tribal/Optimal Economics)

List of Annex Tables Annex A

Projections of Population and Households Tables

Table A1

Net migration by Council area for 3 Health Board areas in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area in 1981-2008 Net migration by Component for 3 Health Board areas in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area in 1981-2008 Trend coefficients by component for different base periods Net migration (excluding asylum seekers) in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area and Rest of Scotland in 1981-2008 Derivation of migration assumptions HNDA projection Derivation of net migration assumptions by Council area Net migration assumptions by Council area for Scenarios A and C – after adjustment for initial years Comparison GROS and SDP migration assumptions with assumptions 2006 Plan Population Projections Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Council area Population Projections Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Component HNDA lower migration scenario (A) HNDA planning scenario (C) 2006 Structure Plan Alteration Population Projections Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Age Estimated annual changes by household type in 2001-2008 Household Projections Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Council area Household Projections Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area, by Household Type and by Age of Household Representative Household Projections by Local Authority Sub Area HNDA lower migration scenario (A) HNDA planning scenario (C) Example West Dunbartonshire 2008/09 – Detailed Calculations New households and terminations by Council Area 2008/09 and 2024/25 HNDA lower migration scenario (A) HNDA planning scenario (C) Projected new households by Local Authority Sub Area HNDA lower migration scenario (A) – 2008/09 HNDA lower migration scenario (A) – 2024/25 HNDA planning scenario (C) – 2008/09 HNDA planning scenario (C) – 2024/25 Projected in-migrant households by Local Authority Sub Area HNDA lower migration scenario (A) – 2008/09 HNDA lower migration scenario (A) – 2024/25 HNDA planning scenario (C) – 2008/09 HNDA planning scenario (C) – 2024/25

Table A2.1 Table A2.2 Table A3.1 Table A3.2 Table A4 Table A5 Table A6 Table A7 Table A8.1 Table A8.2 Table A8.3 Table A9 Table A10 Table A11 Table A12 Table A13.1 Table A13.2 Table A14 Table A15.1 Table A15.2 Table A16.1 Table A16.2 Table A16.3 Table A16.4 Table A17.1 Table A17.2 Table A17.3 Table A17.4

Annex B

Housing Supply Templates

Table B1

Table B1 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build - East Dunbartonshire Council Table B1 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build - East Renfrewshire Council Table B1 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build - Glasgow City Council Table B1 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build - Inverclyde Council Table B1 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build - North Lanarkshire Council Table B1 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build - Renfrewshire Council Table B1 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build - South Lanarkshire Council Table B1 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build - West Dunbartonshire Council

Table B2 Table B3 Table B4 Table B5 Table B6 Table B1 Table B1

1.0

Introduction

1.1

Under the new planning system Strategic Development Plans (SDPs) have replaced Structure Plans in city regions and the approach to assessing housing requirements has changed. The Scottish Government in 2008 introduced a new approach to planning for housing based on Housing Need and Demand Assessment Guidance (HNDA). Alongside SPP (and former SPP3) and Local Housing Strategy Guidance, authorities’ planning and housing departments are required to work together in a Housing Market Partnership, to produce an HNDA that will provide the evidence base for identifying future housing requirements by housing market areas, across all tenures, and will inform SDPs, Local Housing Strategies (LHSs) and Local Development Plans (LDPs).

1.2

The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee has for both the 2000 and 2006 Joint Structure Plans undertaken an assessment of supply and demand for housing by producing population and household projections, tenuring the household projections and comparing projected housing demand and housing stock to assess housing land requirements. Although this approach focussed on the owner occupied sector, a wider picture including the social rented sector was presented in the 2006 Joint Structure Plan. However, this view did not represent a full assessment of all housing needs in the social rented sector, or the scale or range of need identified in individual LHSs.

1.3

The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 placed a statutory requirement on local authorities to prepare a local housing strategy (LHS) supported by an assessment of housing need and demand. The eight GCV local authorities prepared their LHSs in 2004 to provide the strategic direction to tackle housing need and demand across the local authority area. The local needs assessment provided a more detailed spatial and sectoral analysis of housing needs than that undertaken in the Joint Structure Plan.

1.4

The Glasgow and Clyde Valley 2011 Strategic Development Plan Main Issues Report (MIR) has to provide an initial assessment of private sector housing land requirements based on comparisons of projected housing demand and housing stock, and an outline of what is termed the ‘affordable housing sector’. The purpose of this Technical Appendix is to describe in detail the methodology and to present the results of each stage of the projection process, for both the private (owner-occupied and private rented) sector, and the affordable (social rented and ‘intermediate’) sector.

1.5

Not all of the outcomes that have been generated are provided in this Technical Appendix, however the complete output will be available in the Finalised Draft HNDA in 2011 following further work by the Housing Market Partnership Core Group (HMPCG) and this round of consultation.

1.6

The assessment of the requirement for additional housing land for the private sector covers two distinct time periods, determined through SPP (and former SPP3) by the anticipated adoption of LDPs. The SDP has to plan for a period of 10 years after LDP adoption, which is assumed to be 2015. Providing a 5 year effective land requirement for the LDPs determines that land requirements should be set out up to 2020 initially, and, in order to maintain this until the next LDP update, for the period 2020 to 2025. Given that the SDP timescale is determined by the anticipated adoption date of LDPs, the lead in time is longer than it has been in the past. The 5 year effective housing land supply for the LDPs will therefore have to include an element of urban capacity. The relevant dates to determine land requirements comprise the following:

Up to 2020 a) one year of completions 2008/2009 b) seven years effective land supply 2009-2016 (2009 HLA) c) urban capacity 2016-2020 2020-25 a) urban capacity 2020-2025 1.7

For the affordable housing sector (social rented and ‘intermediate housing’), to meet LHS requirements the relevant time periods are 2016, 2020 and 2025. It should be noted that for the purposes of this assessment the affordable sector has been defined as the social rented sector and ‘intermediate housing’ products which have been identified as Low Cost Home Ownership.

1.8

Sections 3, 5 and 6 set out the position on population, households, tenure and stock at the 2008 base date.

1.9

The estimates of housing demand are based on a set of population, household and tenure projections for 2016, 2020 and 2025, the final outcomes of which are separate household projections for the private (Section 8) and affordable sectors (Section 9). The methodology to project future tenure change is different from the approach adopted in former Structure Plans. The tenuring of projected households has been undertaken by Tribal/Optimal Economics as part of the HNDA process. The overall methodology and process adopted by Tribal/Optimal Economics are summarised in Section 6 and further detail can be obtained from TA05 Affordability Analysis.

1.10

The tenured projections require output within two different geographies. For the private sector, the geographical framework for the comparison of supply and demand is the Housing Market Area (HMA) system that was developed for the 2000 Joint Structure Plan and re-examined and reaffirmed for the 2006 Plan. This framework of HMAs has been reviewed again using more recent data on house-buying moves, the outcome of which is presented in TA01 ‘A Housing Market Framework’ For the affordable (predominantly social rented) housing sector, the relevant geography is at the level of local authorities, and for the defined LA sub-areas within these boundaries.

1.11

Data availability requires the population, household and tenure projections to be based, initially, on local authority areas, but the results are disaggregated to 31 local authority sub areas. The private sector housing requirements are then re-aggregated to 13 Housing Sub Market areas, which fit the HMA system. Underlying the population (and therefore household and tenure) projections is an implicit set of assumptions on housing-led migration within the GCV area. If left in this form and without an allowance for demand that can be met over a wider area (mobile demand), the projections would simply perpetuate past trends in housing-led migration and be inconsistent with a planled approach.

1.12

For the above reasons, it is important to view the housing demand projections as a two-stage process, setting out the projections and then assessing supply and demand in Section 8. The Affordable sector is covered separately in Section 9.

1.13

Before outlining the process and results of this second stage, Sections 5-7 produce a set of household projections that incorporate gross flows, i.e. new and in-migrant households and household terminations. This information was then provided to Tribal/Optimal Economics, who split the new and in-migrant household flows by tenure at LA and LA sub area level. In addition, Tribal/Optimal Economics split the household terminations by tenure and projected household inter-tenure flows at LA level. This resulted in the projected stock of households by tenure at LA level. The projected private sector households by LA area were disaggregated to LA sub areas and, after aggregation to Housing Sub-Market area level, this represents the private sector housing requirements. At this stage the projections are an intermediate stage in the process of estimating demand for the HMA framework. They should not be treated as demand figures for local authority areas as they do not allow for the effect of mobile demand. Section 7 sets out the private sector stock projections for each local authority and the HMA framework.

1.14

In Section 8, the effect of past housing-led migration is removed from the private sector household projections by making the distinction between local and mobile demand. This only applies to the Housing Sub Market Areas in the two Conurbation HMAs and the final stage compares projected supply and demand within the HMA framework. The affordable housing sector is again covered separately at the local authority level in Section 9.

Status of this document 1.15 This is a working draft for consultation purposes. It will be revised, taking account of comments and responses received, prior to submission of the HNDA to the Centre for Housing Market Analysis (CHMA) in 2011. 1.16

Section 2 will now set out a summary of the methodology adopted to undertake an assessment of housing land requirements.

2.0

Methodology

2.1

The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Housing Market Partnership (GCVHMP) has endeavoured to undertake an assessment of housing need and demand based on the HNDA guidance, however, this process has had its difficulties for several reasons. Firstly, the HNDA guidance focuses on a housing needs assessment approach as undertaken traditionally for the social rented sector in preparation of councils’ LHSs. As a result, there is very little guidance on how to undertake an assessment of demand for the private sector. It is not possible to use the same approach taken for the social rented sector, as the private market operates in a different way to the social rented sector. House prices and private rent levels reflect demand and social rent levels are set to meet social need. Also, for social rented housing there is detailed information on lettings and type of housing required, information which is not available to the same extent and detail for house purchases and private lettings. So it has been necessary to adopt two different methodologies for each sector. In addition the private market and social rented sector operate within different geographical frameworks (see TA01 HMA). The private sector operates in a housing market area framework which crosses local authority boundaries, while the affordable sector predominantly operates within local authority boundaries. As two different methodologies have been used the outcomes/results of these methodologies have to be reconciled to provide an overview for the housing market as a whole. Notwithstanding the difficulties of this new approach, the GCVHMP Core Group is confident that the assessment has been undertaken in the spirit of the HNDA guidance and more detail of the methodology can be found in TA05 ‘Affordability Analysis’.

2.2

The GCVSDPA undertook population and household projections for the period 20082025 as detailed in Section 5. The household projections are then tenured. In previous Structure Plans, this tenuring presented results for the private sector, while the social rented sector was treated as a residual outcome. This assessment was progressed through the planning system with the social rented sector represented by a broad strategic overview; while each local authority undertook more detailed assessments of this sector through their individual local housing strategies. With the introduction of the HNDA guidance, the Scottish Government has sought to encourage local authorities to undertake a strategic assessment of housing requirements so that it now requires the integration of the two assessments into one, to inform both the planning system and the LHS process. In order to achieve this, a more sophisticated model was considered essential and Tribal/Optimal Economics were commissioned to assist with this and undertake an affordability study.

Tribal/Optimal Economics Study 2.3

The GCVSDA provided Tribal/Optimal Economics with two sets of household projections: A Planning scenario (named C2) and a Low migration scenario (named A1), which were required as a minimum for the SDP. Projected households were provided both in terms of total projected households, and in terms of flows, i.e. new households and household terminations. The difference in the two household projection scenarios relates to the underlying migration and household formation assumptions used. Output was required for the three main tenures, owner occupied, private rented and social rented, with the addition of an assessment of the potential for an ‘intermediate sector’, which has been denfined by the HMPCG as being subsidised low cost home ownership. Social renting and the intermediate sector together, make up the affordable housing requirement for practical reasons.

2.4

The Affordability Study (refer TA05) sought to answer two questions: • •

2.5

How many new and migrant households could/could not afford to meet their housing needs in the market now and in the future? Of those unable to meet their needs in the market, how many could afford to meet their needs using ‘intermediate housing’ market products?

The study considered the components of projected tenure change and provided an alternative approach to tenuring the household projections. Tribal/Optimal Economics approached this by concluding that an income/house price ratio is an over-simplistic way to determine affordability and have developed an alternative behavioural model. They began their study by observing the choices made by households to seek to identify the factors that influence housing choices: stage in life cycle, employment status, household composition and income. They concluded that income and the age distribution of households are the key drivers of tenure choice among new households. More detail on the methodology can be found in Technical Appendice TA05 ‘Affordability Analysis’.

Stages 1 & 2 2.6 Tribal/Optimal Economics undertook their work in two stages. The first modelled tenure change for new (focussing on younger households, 35 and under) and migrant households for LA and LA sub area, the second stage models tenure flows for all households (ref 2.6). • Stage 1 models tenure choice for inflows of new and in-migrant households. The share of these households, which cannot afford private sector housing, is an important input for the social housing need assessment, in line with the HNDA Guidance, and is compared with councils’ projected re-lets. • Stage 2 models inter-tenure flows, as well as the tenure split for household terminations. These are required to calculate the total future private sector households, which have to be compared with future private sector housing stock, based on programmed housing completions from the private sector land supply. Private Rented Sector High/Low Affordability 2.7 Relatively robust data is available for the owner occupied sector, however, the private rented sector is much smaller and Tribal/Optimal Economics had to adopt an income/house rent ratio for this sector. There is some uncertainty over the proportion of income private rented (PRS) households are prepared to commit to housing costs due to the wide variation of tenants in this sector. Therefore, high and low affordability thresholds of 25%, 33% or 40% have been considered depending on the local authority. •

The low affordability scenario assumes households are able to spend up to 25% of their income on PRS (or 33% if they live in Glasgow or East Dunbartonshire)

•

The high affordability scenario assumes that households are able to spend 33% of their income on PRS (or 40% if they live in Glasgow or East Dunbartonshire)

The result for the GCV area under the low affordability scenario is significantly slower growth in owner occupation and growth of 10% in the social rented sector. Under the high affordability scenario there is continued growth in owner occupation, albeit at a slower pace than in the past and more modest changes in social and private renting.

2.8

Even though both levels of affordability show different results the overall finding is of a more stable tenure profile suggesting that growth in owner occupation has levelled and the decline in the social rented sector is slowing. Uncertainty remains due to the behaviour of the private rented sector and it is the level of affordability in this sector which has impacted on the results/outcomes in 2.7.

Current/Backlog Need 2.9 The HMPCG has undertaken an assessment of existing need and Tribal/Optimal Economics has applied an affordability test to Backlog Need to determine how many households could meet their own needs in the market. Backlog Need is discussed in more detail in Section 4. Tribal/Optimal Economics Results 2.10 Tribal/Optimal Economics has produced the following tenure projections: • Household projections for the planning scenario (C2) and the lower migration scenario (A1) • High and low PRS affordability • Upper and lower estimates of Backlog Need, based on affordability Summary Results 2.11 Results will be presented for the following: • Private sector – planning scenario (C2) - high affordability • Affordable sector – planning scenario (C2) - low affordability • Including the upper estimate of Backlog Need These results represent the maximum projected level of housing requirements as identified in the MIR. Housing Land Requirements 2.12 The Tribal/Optimal Economics results provide an important step in the process identifying the demand for housing for the relevant tenures. It is then necessary to compare demand and supply to ascertain housing requirements which is set out in Sections 8 and 9. 2.13

Section 3 will now set out the Estimates of Stock and Households at the Base Date.

3.0

Estimates of Stock and Households at Base Date

3.1

The initial step in the projection process is to establish the base from which the various elements of the projection are made. There is a need to ensure consistency between data sets so that there is a clear understanding of the relationship between population, households and housing stock at the base date. This section describes the sources and methodology used to determine population, housing stock and households at the 2008 base.

Population 3.2 The population base used is the 2008 Mid Year Estimates of Population (MYE) produced by GROS. This is considered to be the most accurate available and is consistent with the approach used in the approved 2006 Structure Plan. The base date population for the GCV area is 1,755,310. Table 3.1 sets out population at 2008 for each of the eight authorities. Table 3.1 - Total Population 2008 LA East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV Area Total Source:GROS, 2008

Total Population 104,720 89,220 584,240 80,780 325,520 169,800 310,090 90,940 1,755,310

Housing Stock 3.3 The housing stock data does not just provide a base for the stock projections. It is also a source for household estimates, which a) are used to calibrate the household projections (see Section 5), and b) provide a base for the tenure projections undertaken by Tribal/Optimal Economics (see Section 6) 3.4

The Council Tax Register, as the most reliable, up-to-date source, is used to derive a count of the total stock. However, it is not a reliable source for sub-dividing the stock by tenure, and information on social rented stock is provided directly by the Scottish Government and the eight local authorities in the GCV area.

3.5

Landlord Registration data is used to estimate the size of the private rented stock in each LA. In Glasgow, use is also made of ownership data relating to the Council Tax Register that has been collected over a number of years. Cross checking of these two sources provides a more accurate count of private rented stock in Glasgow, the LA in which the private rental market plays a particularly significant and increasing role. Owner-occupied stock in each LA is then estimated by subtracting all the rented stock (public and private) from the total stock count.

3.6

The stock information relates to 31 March 2008, but this has been rolled forward to 30 June to ensure consistency with the population base date. The stock at 30 June 2008 is shown in Table 3.2.

Households 3.7 Households are derived from total stock by subtracting vacant and other non-effective stock and adding an allowance for sharing households. The calculations are shown in Table 3.2. 3.8

As with total stock, the Scottish Government and the local authorities provide information on vacancies in the social rented sector. The Post Census Vacant Property Survey (PCVPS) is the only source of information on vacancies in the private sector, although there is no split between private rented and owner-occupied. A private rented vacancy rate of 5% is assumed for each local authority, with the remaining vacancies identified in the PCVPS allocated to the owner-occupied sector. Vacancy rates in the owner occupied sector have been updated to 2008 by applying a notional 1% vacancy rate (relating to stock turnover) to the increase in stock since the 2001 Census.

3.9

The vacancy definition is Census-based and relates to vacancy at a point in time. This definition therefore encompasses very short-term vacancies associated with stock turnover, as well as the longer-term vacancies found particularly in difficult-to-let stock in the social rented sector. Overall, nearly 3% of the total stock in the GCV area is estimated to be vacant in 2008.

3.10

Other non-effective stock comprises second homes and holiday homes. The source we have used is the 2001 Census and these figures have been used directly in the 2008 calculations. Overall, these elements of non-effective stock are relatively insignificant, accounting for less than 0.2% of the total stock.

3.11

The final stage in deriving a stock-based household estimate is to add an allowance for those households that are currently sharing and are therefore ‘hidden’ in the stock count. The only source is the Census and sharing is measured by the difference between the number of household spaces in shared dwellings and the number of shared dwellings. This allowance has always been insignificant outwith the private rented sector in Glasgow, but even there the 2001 Census identified a very low figure.

Household Types 3.12 The household projections are based on a sub-division by household type. The position at 2008 is established by applying potential headship rate data for 2008 to the 2008 population (see Section 5). The results of this initial exercise are then adjusted to ensure that household totals equal the stock-based household estimates for 2008. Geography 3.13 Population and Household projections are carried out at LA level. In order to progress the new HNDA methodology it was also necessary to disaggregate the results to LA sub area level. These are the 31 areas identified by local authorities representing local housing areas for which an assessment of housing need is required, and which also nest within the private sector sub market areas. More detail on LA sub-areas can be found in TA01 Housing Market Areas.

Table 3.2 - Estimates of Stock, Vacancies and Households, 30 June 2008

Total Stock Tenure East Dunbartonshire

East Renfrewshire

Glasgow City

Inverclyde

North Lanarkshire

Renfrewshire

South Lanarkshire

West Dunbartonshire

GCV Total

Non-effective stock

Sharing

Households

vacant (-)

other (-)

allowance (+)

(=)

Vacancy Rate (%)

Council Housing Association Private Rented Owner-occupied Total Council Housing Association Private Rented Owner-occupied Total Council (now GHA) Housing Association Private Rented Owner-occupied Total Council Housing Association Private Rented Owner-occupied Total

3,845 1,592 1,320 37,277 44,034 3,113 1,034 1,248 31,352 36,747 69,079 44,235 34,687 147,949 295,950 0 11,469 2,213 25,652 39,334

64 78 66 394 602 94 8 62 482 646 5,812 846 1,734 2,138 10,530 0 1,426 111 437 1,974

0 0 8 198 206 0 0 12 101 113 248 3 273 721 1,245 0 0 27 216 243

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 16 331 6 358 0 7 28 4 39

3,781 1,514 1,247 36,685 43,227 3,019 1,026 1,174 30,769 35,988 63,024 43,402 33,011 145,096 284,533 0 10,050 2,103 25,003 37,156

1.7 4.9 5.0 1.1 1.4 3.0 0.8 5.0 1.5 1.8 8.4 1.9 5.0 1.4 3.6 0.0 12.4 5.0 1.7 5.0

Council Housing Association Private Rented Owner-occupied Total Council Housing Association Private Rented Owner-occupied Total

37,720 8,270 5,283 95,190 146,463 13,893 7,243 4,338 56,793 82,267

621 103 264 1,465 2,453 1,261 148 217 1,318 2,944

0 0 15 283 298 0 0 31 274 305

2 1 0 0 3 0 3 14 2 19

37,101 8,168 5,004 93,442 143,715 12,632 7,098 4,104 55,203 79,037

1.6 1.2 5.0 1.5 1.7 9.1 2.0 5.0 2.3 3.6

Council Housing Association Private Rented Owner-occupied Total Council Housing Association Private Rented Owner-occupied Total

25,899 5,514 5,801 104,404 141,618 11,626 5,582 1,275 25,631 44,114

589 75 290 1,860 2,814 644 192 64 370 1,270

0 0 52 412 464 0 0 8 144 152

2 3 6 3 14 4 1 0 2 7

25,312 5,442 5,465 102,135 138,354 10,986 5,391 1,203 25,119 42,699

2.3 1.4 5.0 1.8 2.0 5.5 3.4 5.0 1.4 2.9

Council Housing Association Private Rented Owner-occupied Total

165,175 84,939 56,165 524,248 830,527

9,085 2,876 2,808 8,464 23,233

248 3 426 2,349 3,026

13 31 380 17 441

155,855 82,091 53,311 513,452 804,709

5.5 3.4 5.0 1.6 2.8

Existing Need 4.0

Backlog Need

4.1

The HNDA Guidance requires an assessment of existing (current) need i.e. Backlog Need. ‘Partnerships need a good understanding of the scale of current housing need, including any backlog, at the housing market area level’ (HNDA, 2008, Section 6). An assessment of Backlog Need was undertaken by local authorities at LA sub area and LA level and the methodology for this assessment is detailed in TA04 Gross Current/Backlog Need. As part of the assessment of Backlog Need, partnerships have to assess how many households in need can afford to meet their need in the market. Tribal/Optimal Economics were asked to apply an affordability test on the households in Backlog Need and subsequently decided to assess a household’s ability to pay for private renting and Low Cost Home Ownership (LCHO) to help identify those who could/could not afford to meet their own needs in the market. Upper estimates of backlog need have been reached when households who can afford private market renting have been deducted and lower estimates of Backlog Need have been reached when the number of households who can afford LCHO have been deducted from the gross backlog need figures

4.2

The total Gross Backlog Need identified is 72,837 across the GCV area ref Table 4.1. Tribal/Optimal Economics then assessed how many of these households could meet their own need in the market, the outcome of which is shown in Table 4.2. This assessment provides a set of results identifying the proportion of Backlog Need that could be met in the private sector and the remainder which has to be met in the affordable sector. The HMPCG agreed that the upper estimate of Backlog Need (i.e. fewer people in Backlog Need could meet their needs in the market) should be applied, therefore 66,674 households in Backlog Need would be added to the Affordable sector housing need and 6,163 would be added to the Private sector housing demand over a period of ten years as recommended in the HNDA guidance (2009-2019).

4.3

Backlog Need as a proportion of households at 2009 ranges from 6% in North Lanarkshire (9,041 household) to 11% in Inverclyde (4,117 households) and West Dunbartonshire (4,517 households). The average proportion of Backlog Need across the GCV area households is 9%.

4.4

There was some discussion within the HMPCG regarding the potential for double counting between the household projections and Backlog Need. CHMA advised that Backlog Need should be added to the household projections. For the purposes of this exercise Backlog Need has been considered over and above the household projections.

Table 4.1: Total Current Need

Local Authority

Homeless and in temporary accomm 455 92 3,900 243 682 210 1,351 252 7,185

Insecure Tenure

1,735 820 2,827 5,382

Concealed Households

Overcrowding

Support Needs

Poor Quality

Harassment

1,490 267 7,275 838 4,514 2,401 6,727 369 23,881

833 990 617 1,653 253 1,476 342 2,450 8,614

712 1,259 1,189 455 564 414 1,449 1,425 7,467

577 310 6,494 925 540 644 493 9 9,992

7 59 22 3 12 103

Other Categori es

Total Current Need

8,894 3 731 360 225

4,074 2,918 28,428 4,117 9,041 6,325 13,417 4,517 72,837

10,213

Notes 1: The total has already been adjusted by the authorities to remove existing social renters, and households that can adopt in-situ solutions, so this is not a true “gross” current need figure. 2: * Total not identical to HSMA total due to rounding Source: GCVSDPA Housing Affordability Study, Tribal/Optimal Economics October 2010 1

Table 4.2: Current housing need: total need and excluding those able to address needs in the market/intermediate , LA level Local Authority

Total backlog

4,074 2,918 28,428 4,117 9,041 6,325 13,417 4,517 72,837 * Total not identical to HSMA total due to rounding

Homeless and temporary accomm

455 92 3,900 243 682 210 1,351 252 7,185

Other groups - unable afford own arrangements (upper)

Other groups - unable afford own arrangements (lower)

3,257 2,543 24,528 3,293 6,269 5,504 10,256 3,839 59,489

2,714 2,120 22,075 2,518 5,015 4,586 9,050 2,772 50,850

Total - Unable to make their own arrangements (upper)

No. 3,712 2,635 28,428 3,536 6,951 5,714 11,607 4,091 66,674

% variation from the backlog -9% -10% 0% -14% -23% -10% -13% -9% -8%

Total - Unable to make their own arrangements - max (lower)

No. 3,169 2,212 25,975 2,761 5,697 4,796 10,401 3,024 58,035

% variation from the backlog -22% -24% -9% -33% -37% -24% -22% -33% -20%

Total able to afford their own accommodation

Lower (market housing) 362 283 0 581 2,090 612 1,810 427 6,163

Upper (intermediate housing) 905 707 2,453 1,356 3,344 1,529 3,017 1,493 14,802

Note 1: Upper estimates of those in the backlog (and corresponding lower estimates of those able to afford to meet their needs in themselves) are reached when we consider whether households can afford market (PRS) accommodation. The lower estimates of those in the backlog (and corresponding higher estimates of those able to afford to meet their needs in themselves) are reached when we consider whether households can afford Intermediate (LIFT) accommodation. Source: GCVSDPA Housing Affordability Study, Tribal/Optimal Economics October 2010

Future Need/Demand 5.0

Projections of Population and Households – Description of Assumptions and Results

Introduction 5.1

This Section reviews recent migration trends for the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley (GCV) area, describes the migration assumptions used in the HNDA projections, and reports on the population and household projection results. The migration assumptions take into account (1) the latest view from the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) on the demographic prospects for Scotland, as reflected in the population projections for Scotland (2008-base) published on 21st October 2009, and (2) an assessment of the economic prospects for the GCV area from Oxford Economics in their report “The strategic and economic implications of the recession for Scotland” of May 2009.

5.2

Two migration scenarios have been defined: • The lower migration scenario, or scenario A, which is an update of the migration assumptions incorporated in the 2006-base principal projections of the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS); • The planning scenario, or scenario C, which is an update of the migration assumptions incorporated in the 2004-base projections for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley 2006 Structure Plan Alteration (2006 Plan).

5.3

The HNDA projections have been prepared in November 2009. Since then the GROS sub-national population and household projections have been published on 3 February 2010 and 20 May 2010 respectively. The comparisons with GROS projection results given in this paper are with these latest projections. It should be noted that these GROS projections were not available when the HNDA projections were prepared. Also the more detailed assessment by Oxford Economics (report Economic outlook and scenarios for the Glasgow and Clyde valley region, April 2010) has not been incorporated in the present HNDA projections.

5.4

Tables A1 to A17 can be found in the Annex A of this paper. There can be small differences in the figures from the various Tables due to rounding.

5.5

Paragraph 5.10 comments on the new GROS fertility and mortality assumptions, as compared with the assumptions in the 2006-base projections.

5.6

Paragraphs 5.11 to 5.27 and Tables A1 to A5 in the Annex A describe how the migration assumptions have been derived, based on recent migration data, and taking into account the latest projection assumptions for Scotland from the GROS. The migration assumptions for the two HNDA scenarios (lower migration and planning) are compared with the migration assumptions used for the 2006 Plan projections (see Annex A, Table A6).

5.7

Paragraphs 5.28 to 5.31 gives the key results of the population projections for the above two scenarios. For comparison purposes, the results are also given for the GROS 2008-base projections and for the 2004-base projections from the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Alteration 2006 (2006 Plan). The latter projection is only for the period to 2018, which limits its’ comparability with the current projections. The Annex A gives further detail on the projection results in Tables A7 to A9.

5.8

Paragraphs 5.32 to 5.43 gives the key results of the household projections for the above two scenarios. With regard to household formation assumptions, the GROS approach has been applied to the population projection results of the lower migration scenario. GROS have based their projected headship rates on household formation trends in the period 1991 to 2001 (the two Census years). There is some evidence that there has been a change in the rate of household formation since 2001, especially for Glasgow City (see Annex A Table A10). For the planning scenario, the projected headship rates have been calibrated so that they reflect household formation trends in the period 1991 to 2008. More detailed household projection results are given in Tables A11 and A12. Table A13 gives the disaggregated household projection results for the 31 Local Authority sub areas.

5.9

Paragraphs 5.44 to 5.51 describe the methodology (see Annex A Table A14) and the results of the calculation of new households and in-migrant households by Council area (Table A15). These new and in-migrant households have also been disaggregated to the 31 Local Authority sub areas (Tables A16 and A17).

Fertility and Mortality Rates 5.10

For the HNDA projections the new fertility and mortality rate assumptions from the 2008-base GROS projections have been used. GROS has increased the assumed long-term average completed family size from 1.65 in the 2006-base projection to 1.70 in the 2008-base projection. This has resulted in a higher projected number of births. The mortality rates from the latest GROS projections are only slightly below those of the 2006-base projections.

Migration Assumptions HNDA Projections Review of Recent Migration 5.11 Table A1 (see Annex A) and Chart 1 show the clear improvement in the migration position for the GCV area over the last 27 years, 1981 – 2008. The trend shown in Chart 1 implies an annual improvement in net migration of 821, with positive net migration values in 2000/01 and from 2002 onwards. 5.12

Table A1 also contains data for Argyll and Bute, so that migration data can be analysed for the combination of the three (former) Health Board areas Argyll and Clyde, Greater Glasgow and Lanarkshire. The data for Argyll and Bute show no clear rate of change, with net migration at, on average, around +200 per year.

5.13

GROS has published, for Health Board areas, Tables with a breakdown of migration by component for the same period, 1981 – 2008. In Table A2.1 the net migration for the combination of three (former) Health Board areas is split by “net migration within UK” and “net international migration”. The latter is estimated by subtraction of “net migration within UK” from “total migration”. This estimate includes some overall migration adjustments, which are not necessarily international migration.

5.14

Table A2.2 gives the trend coefficients, or rate of annual change in migration, for each of the components and for the two base periods 1981-2008 and 1991-2008. The total annual improvement of 818, estimated for base period 1981-2008, is made up of an annual improvement of 488 for “migration within UK” and 330 for “international migration”. Data for the more recent period 1991-2008 suggests that there has been a slowdown in the rate of improvement for “migration within UK” (to 279 per year). Care has to be taken with the interpretation of the increase in the rate of improvement for international migration (to 631 per year), as this has been affected by the Asylum seeker contract for Glasgow City and the recent surge in migrants from EU Accession Countries. It is clear that the shorter the base period, the larger the impact of these factors on the trend coefficients. Chart 2 shows the trend values of “migration within UK” for both the 1981-2008 and the 1991-2008 base periods.

GROS 2006-base projections 5.15 As stated in the Introduction, the lower migration scenario is an update of the migration assumptions incorporated in the 2006-base GROS principal projections. 5.16

In response to recent high in-migration into Scotland, GROS assumed a higher net inflow than in the 2004-base projection. GROS also assumed that future migration levels would be below current levels, as recent sizable inflows from EU Accession countries were unlikely to be sustained in the longer term. The move towards a lower net migration level was assumed to be gradual. Therefore the GROS projection included higher, but gradually reducing, net inflows in the first six years of the projection, i.e. till 2012. Beyond 2012, GROS assumed a constant level of migration.

5.17

Generally net migration assumptions by Council area in the GROS projections were based on net migration levels in the previous five years, i.e. 2001-06. For Glasgow City the migration assumption was based on recent net migration excluding asylum seekers, but with an asylum seeker adjustment of +600 per year in the long term migration figure for Glasgow City.

5.18

To reflect the uncertainty over future levels of net inflows, GROS included a high migration variant projection, which assumed a smaller reduction in the long term migration position, as compared with recent migration levels. The planning scenario uses the GROS high migration variant assumptions as a base for the initial years.

Net Migration for Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area as a whole 5.19 The first step in the preparation of the migration assumptions was to assess the likely level of net migration for the GCV area as a whole. Table A3.1 in the Annex A contains the average net migration for Scotland (excluding asylum seekers), split by (1) Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area (GCV area) and (2) Rest of Scotland (R of S), for the two five-year periods 2001-06 and 2003-08. 5.20

GROS had published the net migration assumption by area (GCV area and Rest of Scotland) for the 2006-base projection. At the time when the HNDA migration assumptions were prepared, the GROS 2008-base projection was available at a Scotland level only. Therefore the split by area has been estimated in Table A3.2 (see Annex A) using the split in the 2006-base projection, resulting in an annual net migration assumption of -1,050 for the lower migration scenario (rounded value of 1,056 in Table). The planning scenario reflects the GROS high migration variant assumptions for the initial years, which give a net annual migration of +1,050 (rounded value of 1,044 in Table).

Technical Detail. For the 2006-base projection, the downward adjustment (see row “difference” in Table A3.2) in the migration assumption was -3,865 as compared with the annual migration in the previous 5 years (2001-06). Almost a quarter of this adjustment (-905) was allocated to the GCV area. For the 2008-base projection, the downward adjustment in the migration assumption is -9,553 as compared with the migration in the previous 5 years (200308). Allocation of the same proportion gives an adjustment of -2,237 for the GCV area, which results in a long term migration of approximately -1,050. The latter value includes an asylum seekers adjustment of 600 to Glasgow’s net migration position (which has also been applied by GROS in the 2006-base projections). Migration levels for the high migration variant are 8,500 above migration levels for the principal projection in both the 2006-base and the 2008base projection of the GROS. Therefore the difference in migration for the GCV area in the 2006-base projection (2,100 = 150 – (-1,950)) has also been applied in the 2008-base projection. This gives an annual migration of 1,050 (= -1,050 + 2,100). 5.21

The move towards a lower net migration level was assumed to be gradual. Therefore the GROS projection included higher, but gradually reducing, net inflows in the first six years of the projection, i.e. until 2012 for the 2006-base and till 2014 for the 2008-base projection. Beyond 2012 or 2014, GROS assumed a constant level of net-migration.

5.22

As stated in the Introduction, the planning scenario is an update of the migration assumptions incorporated in the 2004-base projections for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley 2006 Structure Plan Alteration (2006 Plan). As has been mentioned already, the migration assumption for the planning scenario takes a base migration position that reflects the GROS high migration variant assumption, and assumes a continuation of the improvement in migration position seen in recent decades. However, the assessment done by Oxford Economics suggests that this improvement in migration is likely to be delayed, possibly by ten years. Also, it has been assumed that the rate of increase will be lower than in the past when the net migration resumes its rise in 2018/19. The projected rate of improvement is 279 per year, which is the trend coefficient for “within UK migration” estimated from the 1991-2008 period. The lower rate of improvement reflects the area’s positive net migration position since 2002 and the prospect that recent high migration levels for international migration are unlikely to continue in the longer term.

Net Migration by Council area 5.23 The second step in the preparation of the migration assumptions was to derive net migration assumptions by Council area (see Annex A Table A4). Fundamentally, under the lower migration scenario, the projected net migration for each Council area is based on the average net migration over the previous ten years (1998-2008), with the difference in GCV migration (549 = -1,050 + 1,599) allocated to Council areas based on population levels at 2008. 5.24

For Glasgow City the migration assumption has been based on net migration excluding asylum seekers in 1998-2008, but with an asylum seeker adjustment of +600 per year in the long term migration figure for Glasgow City (-931 = -1,531 + 600).

5.25

As stated above, the migration assumption for the planning scenario reflects, for the initial years, the updated net migration position of the GROS high migration variant. At a Council level, the net migration assumed is calculated by taking the difference between the longer term migration assumptions for the high migration variant and for the principal projection (from the GROS 2006-base projection) and adding this to the migration assumptions for the lower migration variant. From 2018/19 onwards, a continuation of the improvement in migration position at a rate of 279 per year has been assumed, which has been allocated to Council areas based on their population share (see Annex A Table A5).

Migration adjustments for initial years 2008-12 5.26 The GROS has assumed, in its’ 2006-base projections, that there will be higher net inflows in the short term, i.e. in the years up to 2012. These short term adjustments, which the GROS has applied to their long term migration assumption, have also been applied to the migration assumptions for the lower migration scenario. This gives the proposed net migration by Council area, after adjustment for initial years (see Annex A Table A5). Comparison with Migration Assumptions 2006 Plan 5.27 A comparison of the migration assumptions for the lower migration and planning scenarios with the migration assumptions used in the 2006 Plan for the ten-year period 2008-2018, is given in Annex A Table A6. This shows that, for the GCV area, the annual average migration for the lower migration scenario is over 2,000 below the migration average for the 2006 Plan. The annual average migration for the planning scenario is more than 500 below the migration average for the 2006 Plan. Population Projection Results 5.28

In terms of population change, Table 5.1 shows that the range of outcomes from HNDA scenarios (23,000 to 67,000 more population) is somewhat higher than the range of outcomes from the GROS projections (17,000 to 52,000 more population).

5.29

The results for the lower migration scenario compare with the GROS principal projection and the results for the planning scenario compare with the GROS high migration variant. As stated before, the comparisons are given with the latest GROS projections (2008-base), which were not available when the HNDA projections were prepared.

Table 5.1 - Population Change population 2008 lower migration (A) 1,755,310 planning scenario (C) 1,755,310 GROS - Low Migration 1,755,310 GROS - Principal 1,755,310 GROS - High Migration 1,755,310

population 2025 1,778,181 1,822,048 1,719,932 1,772,696 1,807,804

change annual annual annual 2008-2025 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 22,871 1,798 1,397 581 66,738 3,347 4,108 4,706 -35,378 -1,119 -2,224 -3,505 17,386 1,838 890 -176 52,494 3,558 3,187 2,257

More detailed projection results are given in the Annex A, Tables A7 to A9. 5.30

Natural change is responsible for a sizeable population increase in all projections shown in Table 5.2. These figures are higher than the projected natural change in the 2006-Plan projections (see Annex A Table A8.3). The latter projection (2004-base) did not incorporate the positive changes in fertility rates and in mortality improvement rates from the 2006-base and 2008-base GROS projections.

Table 5.2 - Annual Population Change by Component due to natural change due to net migration 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 lower migration (A) 2,178 2,451 1,629 -380 -1,054 -1,048 planning scenario (C) 2,299 2,846 2,258 1,048 1,262 2,448 GROS - Low Migration 1,843 1,476 195 -2,963 -3,700 -3,700 GROS - Principal 2,120 2,190 1,124 -281 -1,300 -1,300 GROS - High Migration 2,251 2,587 1,657 1,306 600 600

5.31

Table 5.3 shows that population ageing will result in large increases for the population age 60+ and in likely reductions for the population age 16 to 59.

Table 5.3 - Annual Population Change by Age age 16-59 2008-2016 2016-2020 lower migration (A) -2,231 -7,352 planning scenario (C) -1,009 -5,447 GROS - Low Migration -4,292 -9,647 GROS - Principal -2,074 -7,647 GROS - High Migration -743 -6,057

age 60+ 2020-2025 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 -7,394 4,479 7,855 9,135 -4,579 4,553 8,018 9,414 -9,741 4,215 7,569 8,781 -7,734 4,353 7,748 9,034 -6,133 4,434 7,875 9,187

Household Projection Results GROS household formation assumptions and recent household change 5.32 For their household projections, GROS uses projected headship rates based on household formation between 1991 and 2001, the two Census years. A comparison of the actual stock-based estimates of households for 2001 and 2008 with the change that would have occurred if the projected headship rates for 2008 had proved to be accurate, shows that the estimated change, at 34,312 for the GCV area, was 3,178 lower than the projected change, at 37,490 (see Table 5.4 below). This shortfall was entirely due to a lower than projected household growth for Glasgow City: an estimated change of 8,771, compared with a projected change of 18,198. For the other 7 Council areas the estimated change has been higher than the projected change. Table 5.4 - Households - Comparison of estimated and projected change 2001-2008

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire Glasgow & Clyde Valley

5.33

proj change 2001-2008 based on headship rates 316 593 18,198 78 7,840 1,390 8,461 615 37,490

stock-based estimated change 2001-2008 812 752 8,771 95 9,399 2,230 11,110 1,143 34,312

estim change minus proj change 2001-2008 496 159 -9,427 17 1,559 840 2,649 528 -3,178

An examination of household changes over the same period 2001-2008, using data from the Scottish Household Survey (SHS), indicates a virtually constant average household size (at 2.09) for Glasgow City over that period, compared with a projected reduction in the average household size from 2.05 in 2001 to 1.94 in 2008, based on GROS projected headship rates. For the Rest of the GCV area, SHS data indicates a reduction in average household size (from 2.40 in 2001 to 2.29 in 2008), which corresponds more closely to the projected reduction (from 2.35 in 2001 to 2.26 in 2008). The above raises questions about the validity of using the GROS projected headship rates, based on 1991-2001 data, for the HNDA household projections. However, it is uncertain whether the changes found in 2001-2008 reflect a permanent change in household formation trends or a temporary difference due to e.g. higher house prices in 2001-2008.

Adjustment to household formation assumptions for planning scenario 5.34 Given that the purpose of the lower migration scenario is to anticipate the GROS 2008base projections, it has been decided to apply the GROS household projection methodology to this option without any adjustment. Implicitly it has been assumed that, following the recent (2001-2008) changes, household formation will get back on track with the trends seen in the 1990s. 5.35

For the planning scenario, a different approach has been chosen to address the above issues. Future household formation trends have been based on household formation in the 1991-2008 period, rather than 1991-2001, as currently used for GROS projected headship rates. This did not involve a recalculation of all of GROS headship rates. Instead, a series of calibration factors have been applied to the initial projections of total households based on these headship rates.

5.36

The advantage of applying the above adjustments to the household formation assumptions of the planning scenario, is, that use is made of the most up-to-date information in a consistent way for all Council areas. By taking 1991-2008 as a base period there is less room for criticism that a particular set of circumstances, i.e. household formation under higher house prices in 2001-2008, is projected into the future.

5.37

For this projection the projected households by type from the GROS headship rates have been calibrated to the projected total number of households. In view of the changes in household formation that have taken place in 2001-2008, these projections by household type have to be used with caution and interpreted in the light of the differences as presented in Table A10 (see Annex A).

Household Projection Results 5.38 In terms of household change, Table 5.5 shows that the range of outcomes from the HNDA lower migration and planning scenarios (96,000 to 114,000 more households) is higher than the range of outcomes from the GROS principal and higher migration variant projections (88,000 to 104,000 more households). The difference between the two ranges is greater than one would expect, given the similarity of results for the HNDA and GROS population projections. One reason may be the use, in the HNDA projections, of 2006 values for the proportions of people living in Communal Establishments. GROS have updated these proportions in their 2008-base projections. Another reason is that GROS constrain the results for individual Council areas to a Scotland-wide total, which has reduced projected household figures for Council areas in the GCV area. 5.39

The household projections for the GCV Structure Plan Alteration 2006 showed a relatively high rate of annual household growth: 7,611 per year in 2008-2016 (see Annex A Table A11). This higher rate of growth is partly due to the use of a different set of projected headship rates (derived from 1991 and 2001 Census data for a different breakdown of household types).

Table 5.5 - Household Change households households 2008 2025 lower migration (A) 804,708 901,052 planning scenario (C) 804,708 918,408 GROS - Low Migration 795,410 860,130 GROS - Principal 795,410 882,980 GROS - High Migration 795,410 899,728

change annual annual annual 2008-2025 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 96,344 6,276 5,495 4,830 113,700 6,805 6,576 6,591 64,720 4,614 3,735 2,574 87,570 5,810 5,160 4,090 104,318 6,584 6,287 5,300

5.40

Population ageing will result in large increases in the number of households “headed” by a person age 60+ and in very limited growth or reductions in the number of households “headed” by a younger person (see Table 5.6).

Table 5.6 - Annual Household Change by Age of Household Representative age 16-59 age 60+ 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 lower migration (A) 3,438 438 -1,269 2,838 5,057 6,100 planning scenario (C) 3,922 1,409 306 2,882 5,168 6,285 GROS - Low Migration 2,185 -1,035 -2,928 2,429 4,770 5,502 GROS - Principal 3,321 275 -1,566 2,489 4,885 5,656 GROS - High Migration 4,057 1,318 -462 2,527 4,969 5,761

5.41

More detail on the household projection results is given in the Annex A, Tables A11 and A12.

Projected Households by LA sub area 5.42 The projected change in households by Council area has been allocated to the Local Authority sub areas, using a pro-rata allocation method based on number of households in 2008. Consideration has been given to the use of a method based on recent change in the number of households. However, particularly for smaller areas, recent change could have been influenced by a disproportionately higher or lower level of housing completions or demolitions, which do not necessarily provide a fair reflection of demand in that area. Therefore it has been decided to use a pro-rata allocation method, based on the total number of households in 2008. 5.43

Tables A13.1 and A13.2 (see Annex A) give the projected number of households, both for the planning scenario and for the lower migration scenario.

Calculation of New Households and Household Terminations New Households and Household Terminations by Council area 5.44 Household projections are obtained by applying headship rates to future populations. These population levels are the result of flows, i.e. births, deaths, in- and out-migration, in the preceding periods. Therefore, headship rates have been applied to these population flows. Table A14 in the Annex A specifies the detailed calculations involved and Tables A15.1 and A15.2 give the results for the 8 Council areas for the first year (2008/09) and the last year (2024/25) of the projection period. 5.45

In general, there is a greater propensity to form households as the population ages, leading to new households. New households are also formed through population inflows and through greater household formation (i.e. higher headship rates lead to more households for the same population). Household terminations take place as a result of deaths and out migration.

5.46

Headship rates have been applied to all population flows and not just to population in households. This necessitates an adjustment for population in Communal Establishments.

5.47

New households can also be broken down by age-group, as is clear from the detailed calculations given in Table A14.

5.48

The results (see Table A15) show some different patterns by Council area. The ageing of the population is expected to have an increasing impact on new households for East Renfrewshire (for planning scenario: from 771 in 2008/09 to 904 in 2024/25) and a decreasing impact on new households for Glasgow City (from 7,974 in 2008/09 to 6,707 in 2024/25) and for Inverclyde (from 871 in 2008/09 to 745 in 2024/25). Household terminations due to death are projected to increase for East Dunbartonshire (from 688 in 2008/09 to 762 in 2024/25) and to decrease for Glasgow City (from 5,246 in 2008/09 to 4,308 in 2024/25).

Some Observations on this Methodology to calculate New Households 5.49 This is the first time that new households and household terminations have been derived from the household projections for strategic planning in the GCV area. As part of the above methodology, the following assumptions have been made: a. The methodology used assumes that headship rates for migrants are the same as for the resident population. There have been indications that, for some types of migrants, household sizes are larger. This has not been taken account of in the results. b. Migrant moves lead to a new household for in migrants and to a household termination for out migrants. Moves have been recognised as a migrant move, when and only when this involves a move across a Council area boundary. This implies that moves within a Council area do not result in a new household for Local Authority sub areas, when, in fact, the move would result in a new household for the Local Authority sub area. New and In-Migrant Households by Local Authority sub area 5.50 The allocation of new and in-migrant households by Council area to Local Authority sub areas has been done using the same pro-rata method, as applied in the disaggregation of projected households by Local Authority sub areas. Tables A16 and A17 give the projected new households and in-migrant households by age band for the Local Authority sub areas for the first year (2008/09) and the last year (2024/25) of the projection period.

6.0

Household Tenure Projections to 2016, 2020 and 2025 Introduction As mentioned in Section 2 the previous Structure Plan tenuring methodology has been replaced by an Affordability Study undertaken by Tribal/Optimal Economics. Results are presented in Tables 6.1-6.4 for local authority areas. Detailed results for all tenures are presented in Tribal/Optimal Economics report TA05, however, for the purposes of the comparison of supply and demand two tenure categories are required, the private and social rented sectors. Owner occupied and private rented sectors are combined to present the private sector.

6.1

High and Low Affordability Scenarios Two affordability scenarios have been applied to the household tenure projections Low and High Affordability (as detailed in 2.7). The high affordability scenario assumes a willingness to spend a higher proportion of income on private rent, which results in a larger private sector, and low affordability assumes that households will only spend a lower proportion of their income on private rent. This results in a smaller private rented sector and a correspondingly larger social rented sector.

6.2

Household Tenure Projection Summary Overall the GCV area is seeing a projected increase in households under the Planning scenario from 805,000 at the 2008 base date to 918,000 in 2025, an increase of 113,000 households over the projection period. A summary of the household tenure projection results is given below for both affordability scenarios.

6.3

• •

•

6.4

Private Sector Planning scenario (C2) high affordability: the private sector increases from 567,000 households in 2008 to 684,000 in 2025, an increase of 117,000 households. Planning scenario (C2) low affordability: the private sector increases from 567,000 households in 2008 to 658,000 in 2025, an increase of 92,000 households. Affordable Sector Planning scenario (C2) high affordability: social rented sector households decrease from 238,000 households in 2008 to 235,000 in 2025, a decrease of around 3,000 households with some fluctuation in the intervening years. This shows a slowing decline in the social rented sector, and indicates that the sector is stabalising. Planning scenario (C2) low affordability social rented sector households increase from 238,000 households in 2008 to 260,000 in 2025, an increase of 22,000 households. This results in a corresponding lower increase in private sector households for the low affordability scenario. Although both sets of results are presented, for the purposes of this working draft, the private sector from this point on adopts planning scenario (C2) high affordability and the social rented sector planning scenario (C2) low affordability (ref Sections 8 and 9). This means that, if Tribal/Optimal Economics’ figures on outflows and terminations are used, then the total private sector demand and social rented sector need would exceed the overall number of households from the household projections.

Table 6.5 Summary of Household Projections for GCV Area 2008-25 2008 All Households 805,000 Private Sector Private sector C2 High 567,000 Private sector C2 Low 567,000 Affordable (Social Rented) Sector Social rented sector C2 High 238,000 Social rented sector C2 Low 238,000 * figures may not total due to rounding 6.5

6.6

2025 918,000

2008-2025 Change +113,000

684,000 658,000

+117,000 +92,000

235,000 260,000

- 3,000 +22,000

Stage 1 and Stage 2 Results As mentioned in 2.6 Tribal/Optimal Economics undertook their tenure split of household projections in two stages. Stage 1 models tenure choice for new and inmigrant households. This is required for the affordable sector in line with the HNDA Guidance to compare with re-lets information (ref tables 6.1 and 6.2). Stage 1 results are used as the input to the Housing Needs Assessment model explained in Section 9 Section Aii (para 9.11-9.12). Stage 2 models inter-tenure flows and the tenure split of household terminations. This results in a projected tenure split for the total number of households, which is required for the private sector giving a projection of total future households by inflows and outflows (ref tables 6.3 and 6.4). The outflows from the private sector to the affordable sector have also been included in housing needs proformas in line with HNDA guidance (ref table 6.3 and 6.4). Stage 2 results are used as the input to the Private Sector Supply/Demand comparison in Section 8 and also to the Affordable sector All Stock/All Households Supply/Need comparison in Section 9 Section Ai (para 9.3-9.10).

TABLE 6.1 PROJECTION C2 (HIGH AFFORDABILITY) TRIBAL STAGE 1: PROJECTED INFLOWS INTO SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR 2008-16

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV Total

New Households

In-Migrant Households

InterTenure Moves from Private Rented

1,574 972 21,969 2,127 6,054 2,991 5,554 2,582 43,823

400 248 7,989 802 2,870 1,206 2,352 1,821 17,688

541 450 13,940 966 5,291 1,935 3,482 839 27,443

2016-20 InterTenure Moves from OwnerOccupied

Total Inflows

New Households

588 501 12,574 402 1,559 895 1,686 404 18,609

3,103 2,171 56,471 4,297 15,774 7,027 13,074 5,646 107,563

794 519 10,064 984 2,990 1,452 2,819 1,263 20,884

2020-25

In-Migrant Households

InterTenure Moves from Private Rented

InterTenure Moves from OwnerOccupied

Total Inflows

New Households

206 124 4,201 418 1,500 627 1,222 946 9,245

290 224 7,218 522 3,104 1,079 2,084 544 15,065

297 259 7,045 204 842 462 898 208 10,216

1,587 1,126 28,529 2,127 8,437 3,620 7,024 2,961 55,410

1,017 674 12,005 1,175 3,776 1,783 3,558 1,526 25,514

In-Migrant Households

InterTenure Moves from Private Rented

InterTenure Moves from OwnerOccupied

Total Inflows

266 158 5,503 544 1,967 815 1,591 1,231 12,073

369 286 9,171 659 4,043 1,383 2,751 712 19,375

374 334 9,369 256 1,109 591 1,179 268 13,481

2,027 1,452 36,048 2,635 10,895 4,572 9,079 3,736 70,443

InterTenure Moves from OwnerOccupied

Total Inflows

369 329 9,230 251 1,074 573 1,143 260 13,229

2,443 1,769 38,723 3,102 12,502 5,988 11,842 4,337 80,707

TABLE 6.2 PROJECTION C2 (LOW AFFORDABILITY) TRIBAL STAGE 1: PROJECTED INFLOWS INTO SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR 2008-16

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV Total

New Households

In-Migrant Households

InterTenure Moves from Private Rented

2,360 1,631 28,246 3,190 12,107 5,982 11,108 3,873 68,499

400 248 7,989 802 2,870 1,206 2,352 1,821 17,688

459 380 13,258 851 2,461 1,610 2,786 699 22,504

2016-20 InterTenure Moves from OwnerOccupied

Total Inflows

New Households

587 500 12,536 400 1,544 890 1,677 402 18,537

3,807 2,759 62,029 5,244 18,983 9,689 17,922 6,795 127,227

1,191 865 12,939 1,475 5,980 2,904 5,638 1,894 32,887

2020-25

In-Migrant Households

InterTenure Moves from Private Rented

InterTenure Moves from OwnerOccupied

Total Inflows

New Households

In-Migrant Households

InterTenure Moves from Private Rented

206 124 4,201 418 1,500 627 1,222 946 9,245

223 165 6,698 430 1,439 808 1,506 426 11,693

294 257 6,971 201 822 453 880 204 10,082

1,914 1,411 30,809 2,523 9,741 4,792 9,246 3,470 63,907

1,526 1,072 15,435 1,763 7,553 3,565 7,115 2,289 40,318

266 158 5,503 544 1,967 815 1,591 1,231 12,073

282 210 8,555 544 1,909 1,035 1,993 558 15,086

TABLE 6.3 PROJECTION C2 (HIGH AFFORDABILITY) TRIBAL STAGE 2: PROJECTED TENURE SPLIT OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS, 2008-25 2008

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV Total

Private Sector Households

Social Rented Sector Households

37,932 31,943 178,107 27,106 98,446 59,307 107,600 26,322 566,763

5,295 4,045 106,426 10,050 45,269 19,730 30,754 16,377 237,946

2016

Total Households

Private Sector Households

Social Rented Sector Households*

43,227 35,988 284,533 37,156 143,715 79,037 138,354 42,699 804,709

38,470 33,241 207,851 27,971 110,946 62,566 118,911 28,438 628,394

6,132 4,547 96,947 9,875 44,859 19,346 32,670 16,370 230,746

2020

Total Households

Private Sector Households

Social Rented Sector Households*

44,602 37,788 304,798 37,846 155,805 81,912 151,581 44,808 859,140

38,730 34,066 219,030 28,187 116,351 63,935 124,338 29,254 653,891

6,521 4,805 95,055 9,868 45,263 19,378 33,995 16,664 231,549

2025

Total Households

Private Sector Households

Social Rented Sector Households*

Total Households

45,251 38,871 314,085 38,055 161,614 83,313 158,333 45,918 885,440

39,167 35,239 231,289 28,374 122,696 65,568 131,193 30,149 683,675

6,972 5,138 94,109 9,857 46,360 19,468 35,722 17,097 234,723

46,139 40,377 325,398 38,231 169,056 85,036 166,915 47,246 918,398

TABLE 6.4 PROJECTION C2 (LOW AFFORDABILITY) TRIBAL STAGE 2: PROJECTED TENURE SPLIT OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS, 2008-25 2008

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV Total

Private Sector Households

Social Rented Sector Households

37,932 31,943 178,107 27,106 98,446 59,307 107,600 26,322 566,763

5,295 4,045 106,426 10,050 45,269 19,730 30,754 16,377 237,946

2016

Total Households

Private Sector Households

Social Rented Sector Households*

43,227 35,988 284,533 37,156 143,715 79,037 138,354 42,699 804,709

37,876 32,744 203,756 27,214 108,173 60,348 114,784 27,487 612,382

6,726 5,045 101,043 10,633 47,634 21,563 36,797 17,320 246,761

2020

Total Households

Private Sector Households

Social Rented Sector Households*

44,602 37,789 304,799 37,847 155,807 81,911 151,581 44,807 859,143

37,938 33,389 214,077 27,231 112,729 61,030 118,791 28,000 633,185

7,314 5,483 100,007 10,825 48,886 22,283 39,542 17,918 252,258

2025

Total Households

Private Sector Households

Social Rented Sector Households*

Total Households

45,252 38,872 314,084 38,056 161,615 83,313 158,333 45,918 885,443

38,169 34,410 225,695 27,249 118,182 62,000 124,168 28,609 658,482

7,970 5,966 99,703 10,982 50,875 23,036 42,746 18,635 259,913

46,139 40,376 325,398 38,231 169,057 85,036 166,914 47,244 918,395

* Please note that the Stage 2 social rented sector figures are an input to the All Stock/All Households supply/need model. Stage 1 results are used for the HNA model

7.0

Stock Projections

7.1

Projections of housing stock are required to enable a comparison with projected demand in the private sector and with projected need in the affordable sector. Both sectors will be addressed separately in the following sections.

A - Private Sector Housing Stock Projections to 2020 and 2025 7.2

Projections of private housing stock and vacancies are required to enable the effective housing stock to be compared with projected demand in the private sector. The housing market area system provides the geographical framework for comparing supply and demand and stock projections are required for these areas. Stock projections have been collected on a LA sub-area basis and aggregated to local authority and HMA level (this data has been presented at HMA level for the private sector and LA level for the Affordable sector).

Private Sector Stock Projections 7.3 The most significant component of the increase in private sector stock is the level of new housing completions. For the 2020 projection, this is based on one year actual completions 2008/09, the programmed output from sites in each local authority’s finalised 2009 effective housing land supply (2009-16), and the anticipated output from years 2009-20 of the Urban capacity study. 7.4

For the 2025 projection, possible sources of additional housing are identified in the Urban Capacity Study (see BR 12 Urban Capacity Study 2009). The sources of sites in the urban capacity study include housing sites as well as, for example, vacant and derelict land, industrial and business areas and public sector housing demolition areas. Table 7.1 summarises the data for each housing sub market area.

7.5

Projections of private stock for Housing Market Areas (HMA) and local authorities are shown in Table 7.2. Within the Central Conurbation and Eastern Conurbation HMAs, projected private sector stock is required for each of the Sub Market Areas (SMA) to allow comparisons with estimated local demand.

7.6

In Tables 7.2 and 7.3 the base stock at June 2008 has been reduced by the number of completions between 31 March and 30 June to avoid double counting with the completions data that have a 31 March base date.

7.7

The sale of rented stock to sitting tenants via ‘Right-to Buy’ (RTB) is also significant in terms of the increase in private sector stock. RTB is, however, completely neutral in its effect on the balance between supply and demand because an equal number of households change tenure. Each local authority has provided RTB projections, which show a falling level of sales.

7.8

It cannot be assumed that all stock is available to satisfy housing demand. Effective stock excludes vacant and other non-effective stock such as second homes and holiday homes. Vacant stock at 2020 has been estimated by adding the vacancies that will arise in the new owner-occupied stock to the number of vacancies in 2008. The additional vacancies have been calculated by applying a 1% ‘frictional’ vacancy rate to the increase in stock to allow for the short-term vacancies associated with stock turnover. Other non-effective stock is assumed to remain constant. Therefore, demand is compared with ‘effective’ stock.

B - Affordable Sector Housing Stock Projections to 2016, 2020 and 2025 7.9

Projections of social rented stock at 2016, 2020 and 2025 for local authorities are shown in Table 7.3. The stock projections show the base stock at June 2008, completions 2008/09, land supply from the HLA and UCS, RTB sales, demolitions and also take into account vacancy rates. This sector includes local authority and RSL stock. However, based on currently known data, it is only possible to present a partial assessment of future stock changes in this sector. In particular, the known land supply for social rented housing is closely related to council’s Strategic Housing Investment Plans (SHIPs) and their relatively short-term nature of the funding horizons. The SHIPs are reviewed annually and generally a confident view of future new building and other investment can only be provided for up to three to four years.

7.10

The programmed completions included in the stock projections, therefore, are limited to: (a) the known sites in the 2009 land supply for the 2009/16 period and (b) potential social rented sector sites identified in the Urban Capacity Study for the longer term period to 2025. These figures do not, therefore, take full account of likely, future new build in the social rented sector. On the other hand, for most of the local authorities, future demolition estimates provide a longer-term view, e.g. the planned demolition of over 16,000 Glasgow Housing Association and RSL properties between 2008 and 2025. Overall therefore, there is likely to be an undercount of projected stock changes for this sector, which should be borne in mind when comparing these estimates against projected households in need.

Table 7.1 Private Sector Housing Land Supply, 2009-2025

HSMA

2009/16 HLA Effective Supply

2009/20 Urban Capacity Study

Private Sector

Owner Occupied

Shared Equity/ Shared Ownership*

27,523

26,361

Greater Glasgow North/West

6,343

Strathkelvin/Springburn

2020/25 Urban Capacity Study

Total

Owner Occupied

Shared Equity/ Shared Ownership*

Total

740

27,101

22,530

374

22,904

4,861

347

5,208

5,861

262

6,123

1,955

2,334

2,378

2,144

2,157

Glasgow East

3,946

4,610

4,693

4,889

4,943

Cumbernauld

1,360

2,467

709

Greater Glasgow South

6,746

5,265

5,331

5,105

Renfrewshire

4,301

5,183

200

5,383

2,980

3,025

East Kilbride

2,872

1,641

842

842 6,808

Central Conurbation

Eastern Conurbation

9,981

9,044

6,808

Airdrie/Coatbridge

2,333

2,332

1,854

Motherwell

2,686

3,843

3,674

Clydesdale

2,265

987

106

Hamilton

2,697

1,882

1,174

Dumbarton/Vale of Leven

1,750

801

185

986

1,059

160

1,219

Inverclyde

1,700

2,042

265

2,307

1,736

285

2,021

Conurbation Total

37,504

35,405

740

36,145

29,338

374

29,712

GCV AREA Total

40,954

38,248

1,190

39,438

32,133

819

32,952

Discrete HSMAs

* Shared Equity/Shared Ownership sites have been identified separately in the Housing Land Audit and Urban Capacity Study and have not been included in the Private Sector Land Supply for the Supply/Demand Comparison

2008 Stock

2008/09 Completions

2009/16 Completions (HLA)

2009/20 Completions (UCS)

2008/20 RTB Sales

2008/20 Demolitions

2020 Stock

2020 Vacant Stock

2020 Vacancy Rate

Other non-effective stock

2020 Effective Stock

2020/25 Completions (UCS)

2020/25 RTB Sales

2020/25 Demolitions

2025 Stock

2025 Vacant Stock

2025 Vacancy Rate

Other non-effective stock

2025 Effective Stock

Table 7.2 Private Sector Housing Stock Projections for LA and Housing Market Areas 2008 to 2020 and 2025 TOTAL PRIVATE SECTOR STOCK

Local Authority East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV Total

38,597 32,600 182,636 27,865 100,473 61,131 110,205 26,905 580,412

142 99 1,755 150 1,115 635 1,134 184 5,214

1,457 1,373 12,518 1,414 6,379 3,717 9,889 2,449 39,196

1,262 829 12,808 1,777 8,766 4,554 5,769 1,417 37,182

411 279 6,899 425 5,558 1,047 1,752 761 17,132

0 73 629 206 427 22 31 0 1,388

41,869 35,107 215,987 31,425 121,864 71,029 128,848 31,718 677,847

492 570 4,207 583 1,943 1,633 2,334 482 12,244

1.2% 1.6% 1.9% 1.9% 1.6% 2.3% 1.8% 1.5% 1.8%

206 113 994 243 298 305 464 152 2,775

41,171 34,424 210,786 30,599 119,623 69,091 126,050 31,084 662,828

408 277 15,906 1,453 6,427 2,745 2,544 1,746 31,506

105 75 2,749 110 2,125 425 730 217 6,536

0 25 0 0 0 0 12 0 37

42,382 35,434 234,642 32,989 130,416 74,232 131,980 33,679 715,754

497 573 4,394 599 2,028 1,665 2,366 502 12,624

1.2% 1.6% 1.9% 1.8% 1.6% 2.2% 1.8% 1.5% 1.8%

206 113 994 243 298 305 464 152 2,775

41,679 34,748 229,254 32,147 128,090 72,262 129,150 33,025 700,355

Housing Market Area/ Sub Market Area Greater Glasgow North & West Strathkelvin & Springburn Glasgow East Cumbernauld Greater Glasgow South Renfrewshire East Kilbride Airdrie & Coatbridge Motherwell Hamilton Clydesdale Dumbarton & Vale of Leven Inverclyde GCV Total

93,310 31,951 36,433 29,032 116,886 70,885 32,306 29,759 41,682 36,538 21,044 14,984 25,602 580,412

967 147 499 222 781 665 201 512 381 277 319 93 150 5,214

5,877 1,858 3,733 1,360 6,120 4,413 2,842 2,333 2,686 2,697 2,265 1,782 1,230 39,196

4,514 2,290 4,527 2,909 5,199 4,983 1,641 2,014 3,843 1,882 987 616 1,777 37,182

2,857 770 1,644 834 2,904 1,208 372 2,043 2,681 696 324 374 425 17,132

180 191 127 427 203 33 3 0 0 6 12 0 206 1,388

107,404 36,825 46,709 33,930 132,299 81,983 37,389 36,661 51,273 41,572 24,927 17,792 29,083 677,847

2,035 493 817 552 2,428 1,817 687 575 816 764 446 275 539 12,244

1.9% 1.3% 1.7% 1.6% 1.8% 2.2% 1.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 1.9% 1.8%

726 141 120 87 453 350 137 88 123 154 88 84 224 2,775

104,643 36,191 45,772 33,291 129,418 79,816 36,565 35,998 50,334 40,654 24,393 17,433 28,320 662,828

5,599 2,131 4,835 1,311 5,105 2,937 842 1,442 3,674 1,174 106 899 1,451 31,506

1,090 259 639 321 1,154 472 155 771 1,033 290 135 107 110 6,536

0 0 0 0 25 5 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 37

114,034 39,215 52,183 35,562 137,921 85,526 38,356 38,874 55,980 43,546 25,163 18,855 30,539 715,754

2,102 517 872 568 2,484 1,852 697 597 863 784 448 286 554 12,624

1.8% 1.3% 1.7% 1.6% 1.8% 2.2% 1.8% 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 1.8% 1.8%

726 141 120 87 453 350 137 88 123 154 88 84 224 2,775

111,206 38,557 51,191 34,907 134,984 83,324 37,522 38,189 54,994 42,608 24,627 18,485 29,761 700,355

* excluding 31 March - 30 June completions

Table 7.3 Social Rented Housing Stock Projections for LA 2008 to 2016, 2020 and 2025

2008/09 Completions

2009/16 Completions (HLA)

2009/16 Completions (UCS)

2009/16 RTB Sales

2009/16 Demolitions

2016 Stock

2016 Vacancies

2016 Vacancy Rate

Other non-effective stock

2016 Effective Stock

2016/20 Completions (UCS)

2016/20 RTB Sales

2016/20 Demolitions

2020 Stock

2020 Vacancies

2020 Vacancy Rate

Other non-effective stock

2020 Effective Stock

Local Authority East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV Total

June 2008 Stock

TOTAL SOCIAL RENTED STOCK

5,437 4,147 113,314 11,469 45,990 21,136 31,413 17,208 250,114

88 17 827 93 235 91 199 121 1,671

261 275 6,308 1,199 826 637 579 788 10,873

0 0 898 53 0 205 187 25 1,368

305 200 4,657 319 3,622 707 1,168 548 11,526

370 4 12,448 2,920 513 1,252 649 697 18,853

5,111 4,235 104,242 9,575 42,916 20,110 30,561 16,897 233,647

37 85 3,424 352 671 495 315 249 5,628

0.72% 2.01% 3.28% 3.68% 1.56% 2.46% 1.03% 1.47% 2.41%

0 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 248

5,074 4,150 100,570 9,223 42,245 19,615 30,246 16,648 227,771

74 120 1,962 434 636 120 1,131 278 4,755

106 79 2,242 106 1,936 340 584 213 5,606

0 0 2,511 400 155 0 76 900 4,042

5,079 4,276 101,451 9,503 41,461 19,890 31,032 16,062 228,754

37 86 2,433 349 647 485 323 238 4,598

0.73% 2.01% 2.40% 3.67% 1.56% 2.44% 1.04% 1.48% 2.01%

0 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 248

5,042 4,190 98,770 9,115 40,814 19,405 30,716 15,049 223,101

2025 Stock

2025 Vacancies

2025 Vacancy Rate

105 75 2,749 110 2,125 425 730 217 6,536

0 0 1,573 500 150 0 95 533 2,851

4,974 4,279 97,688 9,282 39,663 19,465 30,897 15,748 221,996

37 84 2,338 341 620 473 324 234 4,451

0.74% 1.96% 2.39% 3.67% 1.56% 2.43% 1.05% 1.49% 2.00%

* excluding 31 March - 30 June completions

0 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 248

2025 Effective Stock

2020/25 Demolitions

0 78 559 389 477 0 690 436 2,629

Other non-effective stock

2020/25 RTB Sales

Local Authority East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire GCV Total

2020/25 Completions (UCS)

* excluding 31 March - 30 June completions

4,937 4,195 95,102 8,941 39,043 18,992 30,573 15,514 217,297

8.0

Private Sector

A. Local and Mobile Demand at 2020 and 2025 8.1

For most of the GCV area, the HMA framework is a tiered system that recognises local areas (Housing Sub –Market Areas) that have a degree of self-containment, but which are linked to wider market areas.

8.2

Inverclyde (excluding Kilmacolm) and the Dumbarton / Vale of Leven area are identified as discrete HMAs where the concepts of local and mobile demand are not applicable. For these two areas, projected stock and households are compared with no further adjustments.

8.3

Mobility is an inherent characteristic of metropolitan housing market areas and this was recognised in SPP 3 and PAN 38, although this is omitted from SPP and PAN 2/2010. The twin concepts of mobile demand and a tiered system of HMAs have been a feature of the way in which the comparison of supply and demand has been managed in the Conurbation first by Strathclyde Regional Council and subsequently for the GCV Structure Plan. This approach is based on the premise that while most demand is localised, there is an element that cannot simply be allocated to a particular area and can be considered to be mobile.

8.4

Sasines evidence of house-buying moves provides the basis for the calculation of mobile demand. There are two categories of movers that potentially can be considered as mobile: (a) incoming households from outside the GCV area (SDPA); and (b) households moving within the GCV area between Sub Market Areas.

8.5

It cannot be assumed that all such movers are genuinely mobile in the sense that they search in more than one area and that their destination could be influenced by the distribution of housing opportunities. Housing search patterns are crucial in differentiating between mobile and local demand, i.e. (a) Local - households whose search area for housing is limited to one particular Sub Market Area; (b) Mobile - households whose search area for housing is wider than any one Sub Market Area. Raw Sasines data, however, only gives the outcome of housing search patterns.

8.6

Projected mobile demand is therefore based on updated Sasines evidence (2002-08) of house-buying moves in conjunction with new evidence of housing search patterns from the 2007/08 Housing Choice Survey1. Each stage in the process of splitting the private sector household projections between local and mobile demand is described below.

8.7

Evidence of the number of households moving into each Housing Sub Market Area (HSMA), either from outside the GCV area or from other Sub Market Areas, has been derived from Sasines data covering the 2002-08 period. Moves between Sub Market Areas that have a significant link or are contiguous are included. Other moves have been excluded to allow for the possibility that some of the longer-distance moves within the GCV Area are not housing-led. There are no discernible trends in the overall level of cross-boundary moves and it is therefore assumed that the levels of mobility seen in the 2002-08 period would continue in the future.

A full report on the 2007/08 Housing Choice Survey can be found on the GCVSDPA website.

8.8

The previous Housing Choice Survey (2000), used in the 2006 GCV Structure Plan, showed that the proportion of movers whose housing search area was not limited to one particular Sub-Market Area was 40% in the Central Conurbation and 50% in the Eastern Conurbation.

8.9

For the 2007/08 Housing Choice Survey, the opportunity was taken to streamline the survey and improve the quality of the results through the use of a more focussed set of questions on housing search patterns. The survey shows a slightly higher proportion of movers searching in more than one Sub-Market Area than previously identified: 50% in the Central Conurbation and 60% in the Eastern Conurbation (ref Table 8.1). These latest figures are used in the calculation of mobile demand. Table 8.1 Percentage of house-buying movers who searched in more than one Sub-Market Area

Central Conurbation Eastern Conurbation

2000 Housing Choice Survey 40% 50%

2007/08 Housing Choice Survey 50% 60%

8.10

Local demand in each Sub Market Area is calculated by subtracting mobile demand from the projected private sector households. The logic behind this procedure is set out in the following paragraph.

8.11

The household projections already implicitly contain a set of assumptions on housingled migration by virtue of the fact that the underlying population projections have been based on past migration trends. Although the projection assumes an improving migration position overall, the relationship between local authorities is still firmly based on past trends. If no allowance were made for mobile demand, the projection would simply perpetuate past trends in housing-led migration, thereby building in an undesirable policy bias. This would not allow for the possibility that a different distribution of housing opportunities could change the pattern of housing-led migration.

8.12

The level of mobile demand is based on an analysis of house-buying moves (Sasines) covering the period to 2008. This is generally consistent with the mobile demand estimates used in the 2006 Plan which were based on the period 1996 to 2002. This consistency provides a degree of confidence in the assumption that this level of mobile demand will continue. It can then be reasonably assumed that the pattern of moves identified in the Sasines is, implicitly, included in the population and household projections. Subtracting mobile demand from the projected private sector households thereby provides a neutral estimate of local demand in each Sub Market Area uninfluenced by the past distribution of housing opportunities in the Conurbation.

8.13

The calculation of mobile demand needs to cover the whole projection period from 2008 to 2025. However, to simply sum 17 years-worth of past evidence of mobile demand would significantly exaggerate the proportion of projected households at 2025 that could be considered to have been “mobile” during that period. Historically, home owners have tended to move house every five to seven years and, over a 17-year period, many households will move more than once.

8.14

To overcome this problem, the relationship between mobile demand and projected households has been established for a period of only five years beyond the 2008 base date, i.e. 2013. This relationship is expressed in terms of mobile demand as a percentage of projected households at 2013, as shown in Table 8.2. The percentages derived at 2013 are then applied to projected households at 2020 and 2025 (see tables 8.3 and 8.4). This methodology results in the estimated level of mobile demand of 28,728 at 2013 rising only slightly to 31,391 at 2020 and 32,936 at 2025, reflecting the overall growth in private sector households in that period.

8.15

Tables 8.3 (2020) and 8.4 (2025) show the mobile demand estimates and how these are used to calculate local demand for each Sub Market Area. The figures shown in these tables relate to the Planning scenario C2 (High Affordability) projection only. Three sets of mobile demand figures are shown: a) moves from outside the GCV area; b) moves between Sub Market Areas (origin Central Conurbation); and c) moves between Sub Market Areas (origin Eastern Conurbation).

8.16

The distinction between the latter two enables mobile demand to be calculated separately for each of the two second-tier HMAs (Central Conurbation and Eastern Conurbation) and the first-tier Conurbation HMA. As Table 8.3 shows, although total mobile demand in the Conurbation at 2020 amounts to 31,391 households, only a small proportion (3,353 households) is mobile across the whole Conurbation HMA. The vast majority is mobile solely within either the Central Conurbation (22,329 households) or the Eastern Conurbation (5,710 households).

Table 8.2 Private Households - 2013 Projection - Mobile and Local Demand Mobile Demand 50% of In50% of InMigrant Migrant Households Households from Central from Eastern Conurbation Conurbation

Mobile Demand as a % of Projected Private Households at 2013 50% of In50% of In50% of InMigrant Migrant Migrant Households Households Households from outside from Central from Eastern Total Mobile GCVSPA Conurbation Conurbation Demand

Projected Private Households at 2013

50% of InMigrant Households from outside GCVSPA

97,436 32,330 39,351 30,316 122,255 71,486 33,545 426,719

3,507 322 1,131 403 2,118 1,088 307 8,876

Projected Private Households at 2013

60% of InMigrant Households from outside GCVSPA

Eastern Conurbation Airdrie & Coatbridge Motherwell Hamilton Clydesdale Total

31,623 44,222 38,064 21,912 135,821

493 686 643 560 2,382

479 229 1,229 109 2,046

284 1,286 781 490 2,841

1,256 2,201 2,653 1,159 7,269

1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 2.6% 1.8%

1.5% 0.5% 3.2% 0.5% 1.5%

0.9% 2.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.1%

4.0% 5.0% 7.0% 5.3% 5.4%

Conurbation Totals

562,540

11,258

13,618

3,852

28,728

2.0%

2.4%

0.7%

5.1%

Central Conurbation Greater Glasgow North & West Strathkelvin & Springburn Glasgow East Cumbernauld Greater Glasgow South Renfrewshire East Kilbride Total

2,140 1,020 1,838 718 3,828 1,287 741 11,572

0 0 418 84 309 0 200 1,011

Mobile Demand 60% of In60% of InMigrant Migrant Households Households from Central from Eastern Conurbation Conurbation

Total Mobile Demand

5,647 1,342 3,387 1,205 6,255 2,375 1,248 21,459

Total Mobile Demand

3.6% 1.0% 2.9% 1.3% 1.7% 1.5% 0.9% 2.1%

2.2% 3.2% 4.7% 2.4% 3.1% 1.8% 2.2% 2.7%

0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.2%

5.8% 4.2% 8.6% 4.0% 5.1% 3.3% 3.7% 5.0%

Mobile Demand as a % of Projected Private Households at 2013 60% of In60% of In60% of InMigrant Migrant Migrant Households Households Households from outside from Central from Eastern Total Mobile GCVSPA Conurbation Conurbation Demand

Table 8.3 Private Households - 2020 Projection - Mobile and Local Demand

Projected Private Households at 2020

Mobile Demand as a % of Projected Private Households % Mobile % Mobile – % Mobile – In-Migrant In-Migrant In-Migrant Households Households Households from outside from Central from Eastern GCVSPA Conurbation Conurbation

In-Migrant Households from outside GCVSPA

Mobile Demand In-Migrant In-Migrant Households Households from from Central Eastern Conurbation Conurbation

Total Mobile Demand

Local Demand

Central Conurbation Greater Glasgow North & West Strathkelvin & Springburn Glasgow East Cumbernauld Greater Glasgow South Renfrewshire East Kilbride Total

106,988 34,477 44,824 32,837 133,936 73,815 36,322 463,199

3.6% 1.0% 2.9% 1.3% 1.7% 1.5% 0.9%

2.2% 3.2% 4.7% 2.4% 3.1% 1.8% 2.2%

0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6%

3,851 343 1,288 437 2,320 1,123 332 9,695

2,350 1,088 2,094 778 4,194 1,329 802 12,634

0 0 476 91 339 0 217 1,122

6,201 1,431 3,858 1,305 6,853 2,452 1,351 23,451

100,787 33,046 40,966 31,532 127,083 71,363 34,971 439,748

Eastern Conurbation Airdrie & Coatbridge Motherwell Hamilton Clydesdale Total

34,840 48,674 41,283 23,754 148,551

1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 2.6%

1.5% 0.5% 3.2% 0.5%

0.9% 2.9% 2.1% 2.2%

543 755 697 607 2,603

528 252 1,333 118 2,231

313 1,415 847 531 3,107

1,384 2,423 2,877 1,256 7,940

33,456 46,251 38,406 22,498 140,611

Conurbation Totals

611,750

12,298

14,865

4,229

31,391

580,359

Central Conurbation Eastern Conurbation Conurbation Total

Mobile Demand at 2020 22,329 (9,695+12,634) 5,710 (2,603+3,107) 3,353 (1,122+2,231) 31,319

Table 8.4 Private Households - 2025 Projection - Mobile and Local Demand

Projected Private Households at 2025

In-Migrant Households from outside GCVSPA

Mobile Demand In-Migrant In-Migrant Households Households from from Central Eastern Conurbation Conurbation

Total Mobile Demand

Local Demand

Central Conurbation Greater Glasgow North & West Strathkelvin & Springburn Glasgow East Cumbernauld Greater Glasgow South Renfrewshire East Kilbride Total

111,939 35,428 47,478 34,497 140,720 75,659 38,312 484,033

3.6% 1.0% 2.9% 1.3% 1.7% 1.5% 0.9%

2.2% 3.2% 4.7% 2.4% 3.1% 1.8% 2.2%

0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6%

4,029 353 1,365 459 2,438 1,152 351 10,145

2,459 1,118 2,218 817 4,406 1,362 846 13,225

0 0 504 96 356 0 228 1,184

6,488 1,471 4,087 1,371 7,200 2,514 1,425 24,555

105,451 33,957 43,391 33,126 133,520 73,145 36,887 459,478

Eastern Conurbation Airdrie & Coatbridge Motherwell Hamilton Clydesdale Total

36,813 51,387 43,564 25,061 156,825

1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 2.6%

1.5% 0.5% 3.2% 0.5%

0.9% 2.9% 2.1% 2.2%

574 797 736 640 2,747

558 266 1,407 125 2,355

331 1,494 894 560 3,279

1,462 2,558 3,036 1,326 8,382

35,351 48,829 40,528 23,735 148,443

Conurbation Totals

640,858

12,893

15,580

4,463

32,936

607,922

Central Conurbation Eastern Conurbation Conurbation Total

Mobile Demand at 2025 23,370 (10,145+13,225) 6,026 (2,747+3,729) 3,539 (1,184+2,355) 32,936

B. Private Sector Comparison of Demand and Supply at 2020 and 2025 8.17

In order to establish if there is a requirement for additional land for private housing at 2020 and 2025, the projected effective stock is compared with projected demand. The comparisons are set out in Table 8.5 and 8.6. Please note that demand figures in these tables differ to those shown in 8.3 and 8.4 because these include the lower estimate of backlog need while tables 8.3 and 8.4 do not.

8.18

Dumbarton & Vale of Leven and Inverclyde HMAs are treated as self-contained market areas and the concept of mobile demand is not applicable. The comparison is therefore simply between total demand and effective stock. Tables 8.4 and 8.5 show that in both Dumbarton & Vale of Leven and Inverclyde no shortfall in supply emerges by 2020 or 2025. There is, therefore, an adequate supply of land already identified in the existing supply. The surplus stock at 2020 is carried forward to help meet demand in the 2020-25 period, and, consequently, the balance of supply and demand shown at 2025 is a cumulative one covering both periods . Table 8.5 shows that the surplus in both areas increases between 2020 and 2025. This indicates that, based on the potential capacity identified in the Urban Capacity Study, an adequate supply of housing land can be identified.

8.19

In the wider conurbation HMA the comparison involves a three-stage process: a) The first stage is a test of the adequacy of the projected stock in meeting local demand. Local demand is compared with the effective stock in each Sub Market Area. b) The second stage involves the comparison of supply and mobile demand for each of the two second-tier HMAs. The local surpluses of stock that emerge from the first stage are summed for the Central Conurbation and the Eastern conurbation separately and compared with mobile demand that is specific to those areas. c) The third and final stage involves the comparison of supply and mobile demand for the Conurbation first-tier HMA. If any surpluses emerge from the second stage they are summed and compared with the estimate of demand that is mobile across the wider conurbation. Any shortfalls in supply that emerge from each stage in the comparison should be remedied at the relevant tier in the HMA system.

8.20

In fact, as Table 8.5 shows, at 2025 there are no projected shortfalls in supply at any stage of the supply/demand comparison. The only shortfall identified is a strategically insignificant 94 in the Conurbation HMA as a whole at 2020 (see Table 8.4). A significant factor in the increasing surplus of stock over demand projected between 2020 and 2025 is the impact of backlog need. In accordance with HNDA guidance, it is assumed that backlog need should be met over a ten-year period: 2009 to 2019. Consequently, the level of completions required to meet both the increase in private demand and backlog need by 2020 is significantly higher than that required to meet private demand only in the following five years.

8.21

For the purposes of this assessment, and recognising the role of intermediate housing products in helping to meet affordable housing needs, any sites in the Housing Land Audit and Urban Capacity Study that are identified for shared equity or shared ownership have been excluded from the projections of private sector supply.

TABLE 8.5 PROJECTION C2 HIGH AFFORDABILITY Comparison of private supply and demand (including Lower Estimate Backlog Need*) at 2020 STAGE1 Locally Targeted Demand at 2020

Effective Stock at 2020

Local Shortfall

Local Surplus

Greater Glasgow North & West Strathkelvin & Springburn Glasgow East Cumbernauld Greater Glasgow South Renfrewshire East Kilbride Central Conurbation

101,150 33,296 40,966 32,071 127,717 72,047 35,363 442,610

104,643 36,191 45,772 33,291 129,418 79,816 36,565 465,696

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3,493 2,895 4,806 1,220 1,701 7,769 1,202 23,086

Airdrie & Coatbridge Motherwell Hamilton Clydesdale Eastern Conurbation

34,121 47,137 39,138 22,772 143,168

35,998 50,334 40,654 24,393 151,379

0 0 0 0 0

1,877 3,197 1,516 1,621 8,211

Mobile Demand at 2020

Local Surpluses at 2020 (from Stage 1)

Mobile Shortfall

Mobile Surplus

22,329 5,709 28,038

23,086 8,211 31,297

0 0 0

757 2,502 3,259

Mobile Demand at 2020

Mobile Surplus at 2020 (from Stage 2)

Mobile Shortfall

Mobile Surplus

3,353

3,259

Demand at 2020

Effective Stock at 2020

Shortfall

Surplus

16,391 26,500

17,433 28,320

0 0

1,042 1,820

Sub-Market Area

STAGE 2

2nd Tier Market Area Central Conurbation Eastern Conurbation

STAGE 3

1st Tier Market Area Conurbation

Individual HMA Dumbarton & Vale of Leven Inverclyde

GCV-wide position Projected completions (09-20) included in above projected stock figures 76,477 Sum of above surpluses/shortfalls 2,768 Required completions (09-20) 73,709 Required completions - annual 6,701 *Tribal applied an affordability test to those in Backlog Need to identify what proportion could meet their needs in the private market. The Lower Estimate of Backlog Need refers to the lower level of those who could meet their need in the private market, the remainder are assumed to require social rented housing

TABLE 8.6 PROJECTION C2 HIGH AFFORDABILITY Comparison of private supply and demand (including Lower Estimate Backlog Need*) at 2025 STAGE1 Locally Targeted Demand at 2025

Effective Stock at 2025

Local Shortfall

Local Surplus

Greater Glasgow North & West Strathkelvin & Springburn Glasgow East Cumbernauld Greater Glasgow South Renfrewshire East Kilbride Central Conurbation

105,814 34,207 43,391 33,665 134,154 73,829 37,279 462,340

111,264 38,557 51,191 34,907 135,590 83,184 37,552 492,245

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5,450 4,350 7,800 1,242 1,436 9,355 273 29,905

Airdrie & Coatbridge Motherwell Hamilton Clydesdale Eastern Conurbation

36,016 49,715 41,260 24,009 151,000

38,189 54,994 42,101 24,627 159,911

0 0 0 0 0

2,173 5,279 841 618 8,911

Mobile Demand at 2025

Local Surpluses at 2025 (from Stage 1)

Mobile Shortfall

Mobile Surplus

23,371 6,027 29,397

29,905 8,911 38,815

0 0 0

6,534 2,884 9,418

Mobile Demand at 2025

Mobile Surplus at 2025 (from Stage 2)

Mobile Shortfall

Mobile Surplus

3,539

9,418

5,879

Demand at 2025

Effective Stock at 2025

Shortfall

Surplus

Dumbarton & Vale of Leven Inverclyde

16,892 26,677

18,429 29,865

0 0

1,537 3,188

GCV-wide position Projected completions (09-25) included in above projected stock figures

107,981

Sum of above surpluses/shortfalls Required completions (09-25) Required completions - annual

10,604 97,377 6,086

Sub-Market Area

STAGE 2

2nd Tier Market Area Central Conurbation Eastern Conurbation

STAGE 3

1st Tier Market Area Conurbation

Individual HMA

*Tribal applied an affordability test to those in Backlog Need to identify what proportion could meet their needs in the private market. The Lower Estimate of Backlog Need refers to the lower level of those who could meet their need in the private market, the remainder are assumed to require social rented housing

9.0

Affordable Sector

A. Social Rented Sector Comparison of Need and Supply 9.1

The SDP, under HNDA Guidance, is required to provide an assessment of housing requirements for all tenures. Tribal/Optimal Economics’ affordability analysis provided a set of future household tenure outcomes which can form the basis of two alternative approaches to the assessment of housing needs in the affordable sector. Tribal/Optimal Economics’ Stage 2 outputs of the total number of projected households in the affordable/social rented sector can be compared with total projected stock. This is similar to the approach used for the private sector, the main difference being the geographical basis on which the comparisons are made. However, the preferred approach is that set out in the HNDA guidance which is based on a comparison of projected household inflows and housing re-lets in the social rented sector. Although the first of these approaches will be presented in section 9Aii it is the Housing Needs Assessment methodology presented in 9Ai that has been adopted by the HMPCG in accordance with HNDA Guidance and represents housing requirements in the Affordable Sector.

9.2

The Housing Market Area system developed for the 2000 Plan provides the geographical framework for comparing supply and demand in the private sector. In the social rented sector, there is insufficient data on which to base an HMA system operating beyond local authority boundaries. In the absence of a wider framework, the demand and stock projections for the affordable sector are presented at the local authority level. These are subsequently disaggregated to the 31 LA Sub-Areas identified by each Council as the most appropriate geography for more localised housing needs assessments.

i) Housing Needs Assessment Method to 2016, 2020 and 2025 9.3

As outlined in the introduction and methodology, the HNDA guidance outlines a method to assess the a requirement for social rented housing - this is essentially the traditional ‘Housing Needs Assessment’ method. The basic framework of this model has in recent years been used by local authorities to assess local housing needs to help inform LHS development and is a common recognisable approach in the UK to assessing the housing requirement for social renting housing.

9.4

As outlined in the HNDA Guidance, the traditional housing needs method has essentially three separate components: current housing (backlog) need, future housing need and affordable housing supply. • Current housing need – as explained in Section 4, the assessment of current housing (backlog) need has been undertaken in accordance with the HNDA Guidance and full details of the approach can be found at Technical Annex A 3 ‘Backlog Need’. • Future housing need – this comprises of new households falling into need and existing households falling into need. The household tenure projections produced by Tribal/Optimal Economics provide the estimates for both parts of future housing need; stage 1 of the Tribal/Optimal Economics study provides the proxy for new households falling into need and stage 2 of the study provides the proxy for existing households falling into need i.e. existing households moving to social renting housing. • Affordable housing supply – this section largely follows the HNDA Guidance by looking at projected stock levels of social rented stock, future void levels, analysing past re-let trends (turnover) and projecting them forward to give annual supply of social rented to meet housing need.

9.5

Net annual housing need is estimated by summing the annual quota of current housing need to the annual newly arising need and by then subtracting the future annual supply of affordable housing from this total. A negative figure implies a net surplus of affordable housing.

9.6

The summary results are set out by GCV area and local authority for 2016, 2020 and 2025 in Table 9.1. Annual figures by LA can be seen in Tables 9.2 and 9.3. For the city region the results show a net housing need for nearly 50,000 affordable households by 2016, and an additional 24,000 in net housing need by 2020 and an additional 7,600 by 2025 – in total there is an estimated 81,000 households with a net housing need over the period 2008-25. It should be noted that the LHS time period is 2011-16 and that Backlog Need is included for the years 2009-19. Table 9.1 Summary of GCV Area Housing Need Requirement in Accordance with Housing Needs Assessment Supply/Need Comparison Model 2008-2025 2008-16

2016-20

C2 Low Affordability East Dunbartonshire 4,375 2,038 East Renfrewshire 2,134 954 Glasgow City 31,914 15,689 Inverclyde 3,026 1,396 North Lanarkshire -1,537 -152 Renfrewshire 1,146 -61 South Lanarkshire 9,158 4,302 West Dunbartonshire -249 -154 GCV area 49,967 24,013 NB. Negative figures are surpluses Backlog Need is included for the years 2009-19

2020-25

2008-25 Total

1,221 204 9,990 412 -1,879 -2,081 1,279 -1,517 7,630

7,634 3,292 57,593 4,834 -3,568 -995 14,739 -1,919 81,610

9.7

Individual local authorities’ Housing Needs Assessment Proformas and their inputs can be seen in tables 9.4 – 9.11.

9.8

In order to undertake the HNA the constituent LAs were required to develop and populate a Housing Supply Template (ref Tables 9.12 - 9.19). Developed in line with HNDA Guidance the Housing Supply Template (HST) presents information on social rented newbuild, demolitions and right-to-buy (RTB) to determine the end-year social rented stock. Consideration is then given to void rates to determine the end-year total lettable stock. By assessing turnover rates for the past 3 years and taking an average, this turnover rate is projected to 2025. The turnover rate is applied to the end-year total lettable stock to give annual projected re-lets. It should be noted that to maintain consistency the HST social rented new build figures 2009-16 are taken from the 2009 Housing Land Audit undertaken annually by local authorities and post 2016 from the Urban Capacity Study 2009. All other information is provided by local authorities.

9.9

The end-year total lettable stock in the HST is then used as an input to the Housing Needs Assessment Proforma (ref Tables 9.4 – 9.11). This supply is set against need, the outputs from the Tribal Affordability Study – Backlog Need and newly arising need, and the turnover rate is applied to determine the total annual supply (new social rented lets). In the HNAs results are presented for both the high and low estimates of Backlog Need, however, it is the high estimate of Backlog Need that is being used in the Affordable sector. Tribal applied an affordability test to those in Backlog Need to identify what proportion could meet their needs in the private market. The Upper Estimate of Backlog Need means that fewer households could meet their needs in the private market, therefore, more are assumed to require social rented housing (the corresponding lower level of Backlog Need has been included in the Private sector demand).

9.10

It should be noted that a net housing need does not directly translate into a new build housing requirement for affordable housing. As indicated in the HNDA Guidance, information about net need and the resulting housing requirement should be presented with evidence from the other stages of the needs assessment to inform decisions about appropriate policy interventions.

Table 9.2 GCVSDPA Housing Needs Assessment Summary by Local Authority to 2025 including High Estimate of Backlog Need C2 LOW AFFORDABILITY (25/33%) inc High Estimate of Backlog Need

ED ER GC IC NL RF SL WD GCV

200809 208 46 854 89 1,115 318 38 -417 21

200910 587 301 4,367 278

201011 585 295 4,390 447

201112 594 292 4,399 444

201213 590 293 4,468 444

201314 597 306 4,414 431

201415 606 302 4,490 441

201516 606 299 4,531 452

200816 4,375 2,134 31,914 3,026

201617 598 301 4,661 441

201718 602 301 4,643 437

201819 605 309 4,580 436

201920 232 43 1,805 82

201620 2,038 954 15,689 1,396

202021 243 33 1,830 85

202122 246 44 2,000 93

202223 248 43 2,024 79

202324 252 43 2,034 82

202425 234 41 2,103 73

202025 1,221 204 9,990 412

200825 7,634 3,292 57,593 4,834

-205 99 1,251 16 6,695

-164 109 1,268 25 6,956

-88 133 1,290 23 7,088

-52 126 1,300 25 7,195

-6 102 1,295 21 7,160

27 119 1,348 33 7,366

66 140 1,367 25 7,486

-1,537 1,146 9,158 -249 49,967

108 128 1,380 43 7,661

108 127 1,369 61 7,647

164 128 1,371 65 7,658

-531 -444 183 -323 1,048

-152 -61 4,302 -154 24,013

-460 -441 220 -308 1,201

-370 -402 280 -291 1,600

-370 -408 250 -296 1,570

-327 -409 272 -311 1,635

-352 -422 257 -310 1,623

-1,879 -2,081 1,279 -1,517 7,630

-3,568 -995 14,739 -1,919 81,610

Please note that Backlog Need is included in years 2009-2019 Table 9.3 GCVSDPA Housing Needs Assessment Summary by Local Authority to 2025 including High Estimate of Backlog Need C2 HIGH AFFORDABILITY (33/40%) inc High Estimate of Backlog Need

ED ER GC IC NL RF SL WD GCV

200809 115 -36 57 -42 1,605 -48 -642 -577 2,778

200910 493 223 3,582 148

201011 497 222 3,653 321

201112 506 220 3,694 326

201213 506 221 3,788 327

201314 512 231 3,780 321

201415 519 231 3,878 332

201516 521 230 3,926 346

200816 3,671 1,540 26,359 2,079

201617 516 230 4,060 339

201718 518 231 4,063 337

201819 522 237 4,031 338

201920 150 -29 1,255 -15

201620 1,707 669 13,409 999

202021 159 -30 1,294 -12

202122 163 -21 1,444 -5

202223 164 -21 1,483 -14

202324 167 -20 1,510 -10

202425 155 -20 1,584 -15

202025 806 -113 7,314 -57

200825 6,184 2,097 47,082 3,022

-664 -258 598 -140

-586 -232 648 -125

-490 -209 685 -120

-428 -200 713 -115

-370 -206 731 -113

-322 -189 773 -103

-280 -172 798 -108

-4,745 -1,514 4,305 -1,401

-235 -173 811 -89

-215 -168 810 -69

-165 -162 815 -60

-1,456 -1,234 2,079 -665

-784 -722 -330 -431

-719 -697 -293 -418

-693 -695 -299 -418

-650 -690 -281 -426

-641 -692 -281 -424

-3,487 -3,495 -1,484 -2,118

-9,688 -6,242 4,900 -4,183

3,983

4,399

4,613

4,813

4,886

5,120

5,259

30,295

5,460

5,507

5,556

-840 -731 -356 -447 1,012

15,510

-858

-547

-493

-401

-336

-2,633

43,172

Please note that Backlog Need is included in years 2009-2019

Table 9.4 East Dunbartonshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 ED Housing Need Assessment - C2 33% affordability 2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25 Traditional HNA Approach Gross Current Housing Need Net Current Housing Need - High Estimate(Affordability test applied) Net Current Housing Need - Low Estimate (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - newly forming households (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - migrants moving into social renting Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (owners) Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (private renters) Total Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Total Annual Housing Need (low estimate) Total Social Rented Lettable Stock Social Rented Turnover Rate (new lets as % of all Stock) Total annual supply (new social rented lets) Net Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Net Annual Housing Need (low estimate)

279 49 73 62 463 463 5,104 5.0% 255 208 208

407 371 317 294 50 73 60 848 794 5,011 5.2% 261 587 533

407 371 317 287 50 73 58 839 785 4,879 5.2% 254 585 531

407 371 317 296 50 73 57 847 793 4,859 5.2% 253 594 540

407 371 317 293 50 73 56 843 789 4,857 5.2% 253 590 536

407 371 317 299 50 73 56 849 795 4,849 5.2% 252 597 543

407 371 317 308 50 73 55 857 803 4,819 5.2% 251 606 552

407 371 317 305 51 73 55 855 801 4,791 5.2% 249 606 552

4,374 3,996

407 371 317 296 51 74 55 847 793 4,781 5.2% 249 598 544

407 371 317 298 51 74 56 850 796 4773 5.2% 248 602 548

407 371 317 300 52 74 56 853 799 4,766 5.2% 248 605 551

298 52 74 56 480 480 4,760 5.2% 248 232 232

2,038 1,876

307 52 74 56 489 489 4,738 5.2% 246 243 243

308 53 74 56 491 491 4,718 5.2% 245 246 246

309 53 74 56 492 492 4,698 5.2% 244 248 248

310 54 74 57 495 495 4,679 5.2% 243 252 252

291 54 74 57 476 476 4,661 5.2% 242 234 234

2008-25

1,221 1,221

7,634 7,094

2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

2008-25

ED Housing Need Assessment - C2 40% affordability

Traditional HNA Approach Gross Current Housing Need Net Current Housing Need - High Estimate(Affordability test applied) Net Current Housing Need - Low Estimate (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - newly forming households (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - migrants moving into social renting Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (owners) Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (private renters) Total Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Total Annual Housing Need (low estimate) Total Social Rented Lettable Stock Social Rented Turnover Rate (new lets as % of all Stock) Total annual supply (new social rented lets) Net Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Net Annual Housing Need (low estimate)

186 49 73 62 370 370 5,104 5.0% 255 115 115

407 371 317 196 50 73 64 754 700 5,011 5.2% 261 493 439

407 371 317 191 50 73 66 751 697 4,879 5.2% 254 497 443

407 371 317 197 50 73 68 759 705 4,859 5.2% 253 506 452

407 371 317 195 50 74 69 759 705 4,857 5.2% 253 506 452

407 371 317 199 50 74 70 764 710 4,849 5.2% 252 512 458

407 371 317 205 50 74 70 770 716 4,819 5.2% 251 519 465

407 371 317 203 51 74 71 770 716 4,791 5.2% 249 521 467

3,670 3,292

407 371 317 197 51 74 72 765 711 4,781 5.2% 249 516 462

407 371 317 198 51 74 72 766 712 4773 5.2% 248 518 464

407 371 317 200 52 74 73 770 716 4,766 5.2% 248 522 468

199 52 74 73 398 398 4,760 5.2% 248 150 150

1,707 1,545

205 52 75 73 405 405 4,738 5.2% 246 159 159

206 53 75 74 408 408 4,718 5.2% 245 163 163

206 53 75 74 408 408 4,698 5.2% 244 164 164

207 54 75 74 410 410 4,679 5.2% 243 167 167

194 54 75 74 397 397 4,661 5.2% 242 155 155

806 806

6,184 5,644

Table 9.5 East Renfrewshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 ER Housing Need Assessment - C2 33% affordability 2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 Traditional HNA Approach Gross Current Housing Need Net Current Housing Need - High Estimate(Affordability test applied) Net Current Housing Need - Low Estimate (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - newly forming households (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - migrants moving into social renting Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (owners) Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (private renters) Total Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Total Annual Housing Need (low estimate) Total Social Rented Lettable Stock Social Rented Turnover Rate (new lets as % of all Stock) Total annual supply (new social rented lets) Net Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Net Annual Housing Need (low estimate)

197 31 62 59 349 349 4,091

292 264 221 198 31 62 53 608 565 4,147

292 264 221 199 31 62 49 605 562 4,190

292 264 221 198 31 64 47 604 561 4,220

292 264 221 203 31 63 45 606 563 4,228

292 264 221 216 31 63 43 617 574 4,202

292 264 221 211 31 63 42 611 568 4,181

292 264 221 208 31 64 42 609 566 4,189

7.4%

303 46 46

307 301 258

310 295 252

312 292 249

313 293 250

311 306 263

309 302 259

310 299 256

2,134 1,833

2016-17

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

292 264 221 212 31 64 41 612 569 4,198

292 264 221 212 31 64 41 612 569 4,206

292 264 221 221 31 64 41 621 578 4,216

219 31 65 41 356 356 4,230

7.4%

311 301 258

312 309 266

313 43 43

954 825

209 31 65 41 346 346 4,230

219 31 65 42 357 357 4,229

216 32 66 42 356 356 4,229

216 32 66 42 356 356 4,230

7.4%

313 33 33

313 44 44

313 43 43

212 32 67 43 354 354 4,233 7.4% 313 41 41

204 204

2008-25

3,292 2,862

ER Housing Need Assessment - C2 33% affordability 2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 Traditional HNA Approach Gross Current Housing Need Net Current Housing Need - High Estimate(Affordability test applied) Net Current Housing Need - Low Estimate (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - newly forming households (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - migrants moving into social renting Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (owners) Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (private renters) Total Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Total Annual Housing Need (low estimate) Total Social Rented Lettable Stock Social Rented Turnover Rate (new lets as % of all Stock) Total annual supply (new social rented lets) Net Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Net Annual Housing Need (low estimate)

116 31 62 59 267 267 4,091

292 264 221 116 31 62 57 530 487 4,147

292 264 221 119 31 62 56 532 489 4,190

292 264 221 119 31 62 56 532 489 4,220

292 264 221 122 31 63 55 534 492 4,228

292 264 221 129 31 63 55 542 499 4,202

292 264 221 127 31 64 55 540 498 4,181

292 264 221 126 31 64 55 540 497 4,189

7.4%

303 -36 -36

307 223 181

310 222 179

312 220 177

313 221 179

311 231 188

309 231 188

310 230 187

1,541 1,243

2016-17

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

292 264 221 126 31 64 55 540 498 4,198

292 264 221 127 31 65 56 542 500 4,206

292 264 221 134 31 65 56 549 507 4,216

132 31 65 56 285 285 4,230

7.4%

311 230 187

311 231 189

312 237 195

313 -29 -29

669 542

129 31 66 57 283 283 4,230

137 31 66 57 292 292 4,229

136 32 67 57 292 292 4,229

137 32 67 57 293 293 4,230

7.4%

313 -30 -30

313 -21 -21

313 -20 -20

136 32 68 58 293 293 4,233 7.4% 313 -20 -20

-113 -113

2008-25

2,097 1,672

Table 9.6 Glasgow City Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 GC Housing Need Assessment - C2 33% affordability

2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16

2016-17

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

2008-25

2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2598 2598 2598 2598 2598 2598 2598 3,588 3,709 3,638 3,607 3,561 3,421 3,364 3,357 969 978 987 995 1,003 1,011 1,019 1,028 1,451 1,484 1,520 1,553 1,586 1,618 1,648 1,676 1,651 1,651 1,654 1,655 1,658 1,661 1,663 1,665 7,659 10,665 10,642 10,653 10,651 10,554 10,537 10,569 7,659 10,420 10,397 10,408 10,406 10,309 10,292 10,324 109,756 107,660 106,864 106,898 105,692 104,960 103,359 103,210 6.2% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 6,805 6,298 6,252 6,254 6,183 6,140 6,047 6,038 854 4,367 4,390 4,399 4,468 4,414 4,490 4,531 31,915 854 4,122 4,145 4,154 4,223 4,169 4,245 4,286 30,200

2,843 2,843 2598 3,358 1,036 1,704 1,668 10,609 10,364 101,672 5.9% 5,948 4,661 4,416

2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2598 2598 3,277 3,151 3,153 1,044 1,054 1,067 1,731 1,756 1,780 1,672 1,676 1,682 10,567 10,480 7,682 10,322 10,235 7,682 101,260 100,862 100,461 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5,924 5,900 5,877 4,643 4,580 1,805 15,689 4,398 4,335 1,805 14,954

9,990 9,990

57,594 55,144

2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16

2016-17

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

2008-25

2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2598 2598 2598 2598 2598 2598 2598 2,791 2,884 2,830 2,806 2,769 2,661 2,617 2,611 969 978 987 995 1,003 1,011 1,019 1,028 1,451 1,484 1,521 1,556 1,590 1,625 1,658 1,689 1,651 1,691 1,724 1,748 1,766 1,780 1,788 1,793 6,862 9,880 9,905 9,948 9,971 9,920 9,925 9,964 6,862 9,635 9,660 9,703 9,726 9,675 9,680 9,719 109,756 107,660 106,864 106,898 105,692 104,960 103,359 103,210 6.2% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 6,805 6,298 6,252 6,254 6,183 6,140 6,047 6,038 57 3,582 3,653 3,694 3,788 3,780 3,878 3,926 26,360 57 3,337 3,408 3,449 3,543 3,535 3,633 3,681 24,645

2,843 2,843 2598 2,612 1,036 1,719 1,798 10,008 9,763 101,672 5.9% 5,948 4,060 3,815

2,843 2,843 2,843 2,843 2598 2598 2,549 2,451 2,452 1,044 1,054 1,067 1,748 1,776 1,802 1,803 1,807 1,811 9,987 9,931 7,132 9,742 9,686 7,132 101,260 100,862 100,461 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5,924 5,900 5,877 4,063 4,031 1,255 13,409 3,818 3,786 1,255 12,674

47,083 44,633

3,093 1,077 1,803 1,690 7,663 7,663 99,717 5.9% 5,833 1,830 1,830

3,176 1,090 1,825 1,699 7,790 7,790 98,978 5.9% 5,790 2,000 2,000

3,113 1,101 1,847 1,710 7,771 7,771 98,236 5.9% 5,747 2,024 2,024

3,035 1,112 1,868 1,722 7,737 7,737 97,494 5.9% 5,703 2,034 2,034

3,018 1,123 1,888 1,734 7,763 7,763 96,754 5.9% 5,660 2,103 2,103

GC Housing Need Assessment - C2 40% affordability

2,406 1,077 1,827 1,817 7,127 7,127 99,717 5.9% 5,833 1,294 1,294

2,470 1,090 1,851 1,823 7,234 7,234 98,978 5.9% 5,790 1,444 1,444

2,421 1,101 1,875 1,833 7,230 7,230 98,236 5.9% 5,747 1,483 1,483

2,360 1,112 1,898 1,843 7,213 7,213 97,494 5.9% 5,703 1,510 1,510

2,348 1,123 1,919 1,854 7,244 7,244 96,754 5.9% 5,660 1,584 1,584

7,314 7,314

Table 9.7 Inverclyde Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 IC Housing Need Assessment C2 - 25% affordability 2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 2016-2017 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25 Traditional HNA Approach Gross Current Housing Need Net Current Housing Need - High Estimate(Affordability test applied) Net Current Housing Need - Low Estimate (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - newly forming households (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - migrants moving into social renting Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (owners) Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (private renters) Total Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Total Annual Housing Need (low estimate) Total Social Rented Lettable Stock Social Rented Turnover Rate (new lets as % of all Stock) Total annual supply (new social rented lets) Net Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Net Annual Housing Need (low estimate)

392 98 50 105 645 645 10,117 5.5% 556 89 89

412 354 276 409 98 50 105 1,017 939 9,984 7.4% 739 278 200

412 354 276 414 99 50 106 1,023 945 9,762 5.9% 576 447 369

412 354 276 401 100 50 106 1,011 933 9,611 5.9% 567 444 366

412 354 276 405 101 50 107 1,017 939 9,710 5.9% 573 444 366

412 354 276 390 101 50 107 1,002 924 9,684 5.9% 571 431 353

412 354 276 391 102 50 107 1,004 926 9,541 5.9% 563 441 363

412 354 276 389 102 50 107 1,003 925 9,324 5.9% 550 452 374

3026 2480

412 354 276 375 103 50 107 990 912 9,305 5.9% 549 441 363

412 354 276 370 104 50 107 985 907 9,288 5.9% 548 437 359

412 354 276 366 105 50 107 983 905 9,271 5.9% 547 436 358

365 106 50 108 628 628 9,254 5.9% 546 82 82

1,395 1,161

363 107 50 108 628 628 9,210 5.9% 543 85 85

367 108 50 108 634 634 9,167 5.9% 541 93 93

349 109 50 109 617 617 9,124 5.9% 538 79 79

349 110 50 109 618 618 9,083 5.9% 536 82 82

335 111 50 110 606 606 9,041 5.9% 533 73 73

410 410

2008-25

4832 4052

IC Housing Need Assessment C2 - 33% affordability 2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 2016-2017 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25 Traditional HNA Approach Gross Current Housing Need Net Current Housing Need - High Estimate(Affordability test applied) Net Current Housing Need - Low Estimate (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - newly forming households (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - migrants moving into social renting Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (owners) Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (private renters) Total Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Total Annual Housing Need (low estimate) Total Social Rented Lettable Stock Social Rented Turnover Rate (new lets as % of all Stock) Total annual supply (new social rented lets) Net Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Net Annual Housing Need (low estimate)

261 98 50 105 515 515 10,117 5.5% 556 -42 -42

412 354 276 273 98 50 112 887 809 9,984 7.4% 739 148 70

412 354 276 276 99 50 117 897 819 9,762 5.9% 576 321 243

412 354 276 267 100 50 122 893 815 9,611 5.9% 567 326 248

412 354 276 270 101 50 125 900 822 9,710 5.9% 573 327 249

412 354 276 260 101 50 127 893 815 9,684 5.9% 571 321 243

412 354 276 260 102 50 129 895 817 9,541 5.9% 563 332 254

412 354 276 259 102 51 130 896 818 9,324 5.9% 550 346 268

2080 1534

412 354 276 250 103 51 130 888 810 9,305 5.9% 549 339 261

412 354 276 247 104 51 130 885 807 9,288 5.9% 548 337 259

412 354 276 244 105 51 130 885 807 9,271 5.9% 547 338 260

243 106 51 131 531 531 9,254 5.9% 546 -15 -15

999 765

242 107 51 131 531 531 9,210 5.9% 543 -12 -12

245 108 51 131 535 535 9,167 5.9% 541 -5 -5

233 109 51 132 525 525 9,124 5.9% 538 -14 -14

232 110 51 132 526 526 9,083 5.9% 536 -10 -10

224 111 51 132 518 518 9,041 5.9% 533 -15 -15

-57 -57

2008-25

3,022 2,242

Table 9.8 North Lanarkshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 NL Housing Need Assessment - C2 25% affordability

2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 2016-2017 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

2008-25

0 0 0 1,481 350 187 250 2,268 2,268 45,067 7.5% 3,383 -1,115 -1,115

-1,879 -1,879

-3,568 -4,818

2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 2016-2017 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

2008-25

0 0 0 741 350 187 500 1,778 1,778 45,067 7.5% 3,383 -1,605 -1,605

-9,688 -10,938

904 695 570 1,519 353 188 274 3,029 2,904 44,974 7.2% 3,234 -205 -330

904 695 570 1,517 355 190 292 3,049 2,924 44,620 7.2% 3,213 -164 -289

904 695 570 1,529 358 192 308 3,082 2,957 44,032 7.2% 3,170 -88 -213

904 695 570 1,516 360 194 321 3,086 2,961 43,579 7.2% 3,138 -52 -177

904 695 570 1,520 363 196 331 3,105 2,980 43,207 7.2% 3,111 -6 -131

904 695 570 1,510 365 198 339 3,107 2,982 42,784 7.2% 3,080 27 -98

904 695 570 1,515 368 200 346 3,124 2,999 42,477 7.2% 3,058 66 -59

-1,537 -2,412

904 695 570 1,520 370 202 352 3,139 3,014 42,102 7.2% 3,031 108 -17

904 695 570 1,487 372 204 358 3,116 2,991 41,783 7.2% 3,008 108 -17

904 695 570 1,505 377 206 362 3,145 3,020 41,396 7.2% 2,981 164 39

0 0 0 1,468 380 209 367 2,424 2,424 41,047 7.2% 2,955 -531 -531

-152 -527

0 0 0 1,499 385 211 372 2,467 2,467 40,657 7.2% 2,927 -460 -460

0 0 0 1,553 389 213 376 2,531 2,531 40,285 7.2% 2,901 -370 -370

0 0 0 1,515 393 215 382 2,505 2,505 39,932 7.2% 2,875 -370 -370

0 0 0 1,523 397 217 387 2,524 2,524 39,597 7.2% 2,851 -327 -327

0 0 0 1,463 402 219 392 2,476 2,476 39,279 7.2% 2,828 -352 -352

NL Housing Need Assessment - C2 33% affordability

904 695 570 760 353 189 573 2,570 2,445 44,974 7.2% 3,234 -664 -789

904 695 570 758 355 191 628 2,627 2,502 44,620 7.2% 3,213 -586 -711

904 695 570 765 358 193 669 2,680 2,555 44,032 7.2% 3,170 -490 -615

904 695 570 758 360 196 701 2,710 2,585 43,579 7.2% 3,138 -428 -553

904 695 570 760 363 199 724 2,741 2,616 43,207 7.2% 3,111 -370 -495

904 695 570 755 365 201 742 2,758 2,633 42,784 7.2% 3,080 -322 -447

904 695 570 757 368 204 754 2,778 2,653 42,477 7.2% 3,058 -280 -405

-4,745 -5,620

904 695 570 760 370 207 764 2,796 2,671 42,102 7.2% 3,031 -235 -360

904 695 570 743 372 209 774 2,793 2,668 41,783 7.2% 3,008 -215 -340

904 695 570 753 377 212 779 2,816 2,691 41,396 7.2% 2,981 -165 -290

0 0 0 734 380 214 787 2,115 2,115 41,047 7.2% 2,955 -840 -840

-1,456 -1,831

0 0 0 749 385 217 792 2,143 2,143 40,657 7.2% 2,927 -784 -784

0 0 0 776 389 219 798 2,182 2,182 40,285 7.2% 2,901 -719 -719

0 0 0 757 393 222 810 2,182 2,182 39,932 7.2% 2,875 -693 -693

0 0 0 762 397 224 818 2,201 2,201 39,597 7.2% 2,851 -650 -650

0 0 0 732 402 227 826 2,187 2,187 39,279 7.2% 2,828 -641 -641

-3,487 -3,487

Table 9.9 Renfrewshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 RF Housing Need Assessment - C2 25% affordability 2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 Traditional HNA Approach Gross Current Housing Need Net Current Housing Need - High Estimate(Affordability test applied) Net Current Housing Need - Low Estimate (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - newly forming households (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - migrants moving into social renting Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (owners) Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (private renters) Total Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Total Annual Housing Need (low estimate) Total Social Rented Lettable Stock Social Rented Turnover Rate (new lets as % of all Stock) Total annual supply (new social rented lets) Net Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Net Annual Housing Need (low estimate)

2016-17

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

1,146 509

632 571 480 736 155 113 201 1,776 1,685 19621 8.4% 1,648 128 37

632 571 480 729 156 113 202 1,771 1,680 19568 8.4% 1,644 127 36

-2,081 -2,081

-995 -1,905

2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16

2016-17

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

2008-25

632 571 480 368 155 114 267 1,475 1,384 19621 8.4% 1,648 -173 -264

632 571 480 365 156 115 269 1,476 1,385 19568 8.4% 1,644 -168 -259

-6,242 -7,152

0 0 0 733 148 110 205 1,196 1,196

878 318 318

632 571 480 750 148 111 203 1,783 1,692 19947 8.4% 1,684 99 8

632 571 480 747 149 111 201 1,779 1,688 19878 8.4% 1,670 109 18

632 571 480 769 150 111 200 1,801 1,710 19856 8.4% 1,668 133 42

632 571 480 755 152 111 200 1,789 1,698 19802 8.4% 1,663 126 35

632 571 480 732 152 112 200 1,767 1,676 19823 8.4% 1,665 102 11

632 571 480 740 153 112 200 1,776 1,685 19730 8.4% 1,657 119 28

632 571 480 756 154 112 200 1,793 1,702 19675 8.4% 1,653 140 49

632 571 480 724 157 113 202 1,767 1,676 19514 8.4% 1,639 128 37

715 159 114 203 1,191 1,191 19461 8.4% 1,635 -444 -444

-61 -334

709 160 114 204 1,187 1,187 19377 8.4% 1,628 -441 -441

738 162 114 205 1,219 1,219 19294 8.4% 1,621 -402 -402

721 163 115 207 1,206 1,206 19212 8.4% 1,614 -408 -408

710 165 115 208 1,198 1,198 19129 8.4% 1,607 -409 -409

687 166 115 210 1,178 1,178 19045 8.4% 1,600 -422 -422

2008-25

11,718 2,501 1,806 3,246

RF Housing Need Assessment - C2 33% affordability

0 0 0 367 148 110 205 830 830

878 -48 -48

632 571 480 375 148 111 221 1,426 1,335 19947 8.4% 1,684 -258 -349

632 571 480 374 149 111 233 1,438 1,347 19878 8.4% 1,670 -232 -323

632 571 480 384 150 111 243 1,459 1,368 19856 8.4% 1,668 -209 -300

632 571 480 377 152 112 251 1,463 1,372 19802 8.4% 1,663 -200 -291

632 571 480 366 152 113 257 1,459 1,368 19823 8.4% 1,665 -206 -297

632 571 480 370 153 113 261 1,468 1,377 19730 8.4% 1,657 -189 -280

632 571 480 378 154 114 264 1,481 1,390 19675 8.4% 1,653 -172 -263

-1,514 -2,151

632 571 480 362 157 116 271 1,477 1,386 19514 8.4% 1,639 -162 -253

357 159 116 272 904 904 19461 8.4% 1,635 -731 -731

-1,234 -1,507

355 160 117 274 906 906 19377 8.4% 1,628 -722 -722

369 162 118 275 924 924 19294 8.4% 1,621 -697 -697

361 163 118 277 919 919 19212 8.4% 1,614 -695 -695

355 165 119 278 917 917 19129 8.4% 1,607 -690 -690

343 166 119 280 908 908 19045 8.4% 1,600 -692 -692

-3,495 -3,495

Table 9.10 South Lanarkshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 SL Housing Need Assessment - C2 25% affordability

Traditional HNA Approach Gross Current Housing Need Net Current Housing Need - High Estimate(Afford test applied) Net Current Housing Need - Low Estimate (Afford test applied) Newly Arising Need - newly forming households (Afford test applied) Newly Arising Need - migrants moving into social renting Newly Arising Need - existing h/holds falling into need (owners) Newly Arising Need - existing h/holds falling into need (private renters) Total Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Total Annual Housing Need (low estimate) Total Social Rented Lettable Stock Social Rented Turnover Rate (new lets as % of all Stock) Total annual supply (new social rented lets) Net Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Net Annual Housing Need (low estimate)

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

2008-25

0 0 1,360 288 204 328 2,180 2,180 31,499 0 2,142 38 38

1,279 1,279

14,739 13,529

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

2008-25

0 0 680 288 204 328 1,500 1,500 31,499 0 2,142 -642 -642

4,900 3,690

1,161 1,040 1,388 290 206 335 3,380 3,259 31,312 0 2,129 1,251 1,130

1,161 1,040 1,382 292 207 341 3,383 3,262 31,104 0 2,115 1,268 1,147

1,161 1,040 1,394 293 209 347 3,404 3,283 31,081 0 2,114 1,290 1,169

1,161 1,040 1,393 295 210 352 3,411 3,290 31,039 0 2,111 1,300 1,179

1,161 1,040 1,372 296 212 357 3,398 3,277 30,921 0 2,103 1,295 1,174

1,161 1,040 1,409 298 214 361 3,443 3,322 30,803 0 2,095 1,348 1,227

1,161 1,040 1,411 300 215 366 3,453 3,332 30,683 0 2,086 1,367 1,246

9,158 8,311

1,161 1,040 1,425 302 217 370 3,475 3,354 30,802 0 2,095 1,380 1,259

1,161 1,040 1,413 304 219 374 3,471 3,350 30,919 0 2,102 1,369 1,248

1,161 1,040 1,415 306 221 378 3,481 3,360 31,036 0 2,110 1,371 1,250

0 0 1,386 309 223 383 2,301 2,301 31,149 0 2,118 183 183

4,302 3,939

0 0 1,411 312 225 388 2,336 2,336 31,124 0 2,116 220 220

0 0 1,459 316 227 393 2,395 2,395 31,098 0 2,115 280 280

0 0 1,417 318 229 399 2,363 2,363 31,073 0 2,113 250 250

0 0 1,427 321 231 404 2,383 2,383 31,044 0 2,111 272 272

0 0 1,400 324 233 409 2,366 2,366 31,016 0 2,109 257 257

SL Housing Need Assessment - C2 33% affordability

1,161 1,040 694 290 206 376 2,727 2,606 31,312 0 2,129 598 477

1,161 1,040 691 292 207 412 2,763 2,642 31,104 0 2,115 648 527

1,161 1,040 697 293 209 439 2,799 2,678 31,081 0 2,114 685 564

1,161 1,040 696 295 211 461 2,824 2,703 31,039 0 2,111 713 592

1,161 1,040 686 296 214 477 2,834 2,713 30,921 0 2,103 731 610

1,161 1,040 704 298 216 489 2,868 2,747 30,803 0 2,095 773 652

1,161 1,040 705 300 218 500 2,884 2,763 30,683 0 2,086 798 677

4,305 3,458

1,161 1,040 713 302 221 509 2,906 2,785 30,802 0 2,095 811 690

1,161 1,040 706 304 223 518 2,912 2,791 30,919 0 2,102 810 689

1,161 1,040 707 306 226 525 2,925 2,804 31,036 0 2,110 815 694

0 0 693 309 228 532 1,762 1,762 31,149 0 2,118 -356 -356

2,079 1,716

0 0 706 312 231 537 1,786 1,786 31,124 0 2,116 -330 -330

0 0 730 316 233 543 1,822 1,822 31,098 0 2,115 -293 -293

0 0 709 318 236 551 1,814 1,814 31,073 0 2,113 -299 -299

0 0 714 321 238 557 1,830 1,830 31,044 0 2,111 -281 -281

0 0 700 324 241 563 1,828 1,828 31,016 0 2,109 -281 -281

-1,484 -1,484

Table 9.11 West Dunbartonshire Housing Needs Assessment - Scenario C2 Low and High Affordability 2008 - 2025 WD Housing Need Assessment - C2 25% affordability 2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25 Traditional HNA Approach Gross Current Housing Need Net Current Housing Need - High Estimate(Affordability test applied) Net Current Housing Need - Low Estimate (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - newly forming households (Affordability test applied) Newly Arising Need - migrants moving into social renting Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (owners) Newly Arising Need - existing households falling into need (private renters) Total Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Total Annual Housing Need (low estimate) Total Social Rented Lettable Stock Social Rented Turnover Rate (new lets as % of all Stock) Total annual supply (new social rented lets) Net Annual Housing Need (high estimate) Net Annual Housing Need (low estimate)

480 223 50 60 813 813 16,401 7.5% 1,230 -417 -417

452 409 302 491 225 50 73 1,248 1,141 16,425 7.5% 1,232 16 -91

452 409 302 491 226 50 82 1,258 1,151 16,436 7.5% 1,233 25 -82

452 409 302 482 226 50 89 1,256 1,149 16,439 7.5% 1,233 23 -84

452 409 302 485 228 50 94 1,266 1,159 16,547 7.5% 1,241 25 -82

452 409 302 477 230 50 98 1,264 1,157 16,571 7.5% 1,243 21 -86

452 409 302 489 231 50 101 1,280 1,173 16,629 7.5% 1,247 33 -74

452 409 302 480 233 51 103 1,276 1,169 16,685 7.5% 1,251 25 -82

-249 -998

452 409 302 481 233 51 105 1,279 1,172 16,477 7.5% 1,236 43 -64

452 409 302 479 236 51 106 1,281 1,174 16,270 7.5% 1,220 61 -46

452 409 302 467 236 51 107 1,270 1,163 16,065 7.5% 1,205 65 -42

468 240 51 108 867 867 15,862 7.5% 1,190 -323 -323

-154 -475

465 242 52 109 868 868 15,677 7.5% 1,176 -308 -308

476 244 52 110 882 882 15,644 7.5% 1,173 -291 -291

465 246 52 112 875 875 15,610 7.5% 1,171 -296 -296

444 248 52 113 857 857 15,578 7.5% 1,168 -311 -311

439 251 52 114 856 856 15,551 7.5% 1,166 -310 -310

2008-25

-1,517 -1,517

-1,919 -2,989

2008-09 2009-10 20010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2008-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2016-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2020-25

2008-25

WD Housing Need Assessment - C2 33% affordability

320 223 50 60 653 653 16,401 7.5% 1,230 -577 -577

452 409 302 327 225 50 81 1,092 985 16,425 7.5% 1,232 -140 -247

452 409 302 327 226 50 96 1,108 1,001 16,436 7.5% 1,233 -125 -232

452 409 302 321 226 50 107 1,113 1,006 16,439 7.5% 1,233 -120 -227

452 409 302 323 228 50 116 1,126 1,019 16,547 7.5% 1,241 -115 -222

452 409 302 318 230 51 122 1,130 1,023 16,571 7.5% 1,243 -113 -220

452 409 302 326 231 51 127 1,144 1,037 16,629 7.5% 1,247 -103 -210

452 409 302 320 233 51 130 1,143 1,036 16,685 7.5% 1,251 -108 -215

-1,401 -2,150

452 409 302 320 233 52 133 1,147 1,040 16,477 7.5% 1,236 -89 -196

452 409 302 319 236 52 135 1,151 1,044 16,270 7.5% 1,220 -69 -176

452 409 302 311 236 52 137 1,145 1,038 16,065 7.5% 1,205 -60 -167

312 240 53 138 743 743 15,862 7.5% 1,190 -447 -447

-665 -986

310 242 53 140 745 745 15,677 7.5% 1,176 -431 -431

317 244 53 141 755 755 15,644 7.5% 1,173 -418 -418

310 246 54 143 753 753 15,610 7.5% 1,171 -418 -418

296 248 54 144 742 742 15,578 7.5% 1,168 -426 -426

293 251 54 144 742 742 15,551 7.5% 1,166 -424 -424

-2,118 -2,118

-4,183 -5,253

ii)

All Stock/All Households Method to 2016, 2020 and 2025

9.11

Table 9.12 summarises, for each local authority, the results of the All Stock/All Households approach, the methodology consistent with that used for the private sector. The ‘households’ side of the equation includes both the projected number of social rented households and Backlog Need. Tribal/Optimal Economics applied an affordability test to those in Backlog Need to identify the proportion that could meet their needs in the private market. Two levels of affordability were tested, but the measure that has been used is the higher test that produces the ‘Upper Estimate’ in the social rented sector and a correspondingly ‘Lower Estimate’ that can meet their needs in the private sector. The latter figures are included in the private sector demand projections. For the GCV area, there is a shortfall of 66,000 affordable houses at 2016, and additional shortfalls of 30,000 by 2020 and 14,000 by 2025. This produces a cumulative shortfall of 109,000 affordable houses across the GCV area at 2025. Detailed results for local authorities at 2016, 2020 and 2025 are shown in Tables 9.13 – 9.15. The housing stock inputs at local authority level, before dis-aggregation, can be viewed in Section 7.

9.12

The net requirement for additional social rented housing (Tables 9.13 to 9.15, third column) does not represent a full assessment of total new housing required. The projected stock already incorporates assumptions on future new build based on sites identified in either the 2009 Housing Land Audit or the Urban Capacity Study (as shown in Tables 9. 13 to 9.15, fourth column). When these are combined (see fifth column) they identify a total housing requirement, for the GCV area as a whole, rising from nearly 78,000 at 2016 to nearly 129,000 at 2025. It should be noted that Backlog Need is included for the years 2009-19.

9.13

Please note that the requirements for affordable housing, identified via this approach, cannot be added to the private sector housing requirements (in section 8) to obtain an all-tenure housing requirement. Adding these requirements would involve a degree of double counting, as the private sector results are based on the high affordability assumption and the affordable sector results are based on the low affordability assumption. Table 9.12 Summary of GCV Area Cumulative Housing Need Requirement in Accordance with All Stock/All Households Supply/Need Comparison Model 20082025 2016

2020

C2 Low Affordability ED 4,250 5,984 ER 2,740 3,929 GC 20,374 29,670 IC 3,884 5,205 NL 10,255 15,023 RF 5,946 8,593 SL 14,676 20,439 WD 3,536 6,183 65,661 95,026 GCV Area NB. Negative figures are surpluses Backlog Need is included for the years 2009-19

2025 6,744 4,408 33,033 5,576 18,784 9,758 23,780 7,211 109,294

TABLE 9.13 PROJECTION C2 LOW AFFORDABILITY Comparison of Projected Social Rented Households and Housing Stock at 2016 (including Backlog Need)

Effective Social Rented Stock at 2016

Social Rented Households at 2016 + Upper Estimate of Backlog Need

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

5,074 4,150 100,570 9,223 42,245 19,615 30,246 16,648

GCV Total

227,771

Surplus (+) Shortfall (-)

New Build included in Stock Projections (HLA & UCS)

Total New Housing Requirement 2009-16

9,324 6,890 120,944 13,107 52,500 25,561 44,922 20,184

-4,250 -2,740 -20,374 -3,884 -10,255 -5,946 -14,676 -3,536

261 275 7,206 1,252 826 842 766 813

4,511 3,015 27,580 5,136 11,081 6,788 15,442 4,349

293,432

-65,661

12,241

77,902

TABLE 9.14 PROJECTION C2 LOW AFFORDABILITY Comparison of Projected Social Rented Households and Housing Stock at 2020 (including Backlog Need)

Effective Social Rented Stock at 2020

Social Rented Households at 2020 + Upper Estimate of Backlog Need

Surplus (+) Shortfall (-)

New Build included in Stock Projections (HLA & UCS)

Total New Housing Requirement 2009-20

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

5,042 4,190 98,770 9,154 40,814 19,405 30,709 15,824

11,026 8,119 128,440 14,359 55,837 27,998 51,148 22,007

-5,984 -3,929 -29,670 -5,205 -15,023 -8,593 -20,439 -6,183

335 395 9,168 1,686 1,462 962 1,897 1,091

6,319 4,324 38,838 6,891 16,485 9,555 22,336 7,274

GCV Total

223,908

318,934

-95,026

16,996

112,022

TABLE 9.15 PROJECTION C2 LOW AFFORDABILITY Comparison of Projected Social Rented Households and Housing Stock at 2025 (including Backlog Need)

Effective Social Rented Stock at 2025

Social Rented Households at 2025 + Upper Estimate of Backlog Need

Surplus (+) Shortfall (-)

New Build included in Stock Projections (HLA & UCS)

Total New Housing Requirement 2009-25

East Dunbartonshire East Renfrewshire Glasgow City Inverclyde North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire South Lanarkshire West Dunbartonshire

4,937 4,195 95,102 8,941 39,043 18,992 30,573 15,514

11,681 8,603 128,135 14,517 57,827 28,750 54,353 22,725

-6,744 -4,408 -33,033 -5,576 -18,784 -9,758 -23,780 -7,211

335 473 9,727 2,075 1,939 962 2,587 1,527

7,079 4,881 42,760 7,651 20,723 10,720 26,367 8,738

GCV Total

217,297

326,591

-109,294

19,625

128,919

9.0

AffordableSector

Intermediate Sector

9.14

In undertaking their Affordability Study, Tribal/Optimal Economics were also asked to identify “of those households unable to meet their housing need in the open market, how many could afford to meet their need using intermediate housing products”. For the purposes of the HNDA the HMPCG defined the Intermediate Sector as subsidised low cost home ownership (LCHO). Tribal/Optimal Economics in their study identified the Scottish Government’s Low Cost Initiative for First Time Buyers (LIFT) scheme as the most appropriate way to explore ‘intermediate housing’. LIFT provides a range of assistance including new supply, shared equity and open market shared equity.

9.15

Tribal/Optimal Economics defined the intermediate sector as those who could afford low cost home ownership products if they were available; therefore the requirement for this sector can only be measured as potential rather than an actual figure.

9.16

Tribal/Optimal Economics defines the intermediate sector as those newly-forming households that could access low cost home ownership products if they were available, but excluding those who could afford either owner-occupation or private renting. Affordable housing needs can therefore be expressed in terms of the minimum and maximum contribution that social renting and LCHO products could make. The intermediate sector can therefore be regarded as a potential sector. The minimum level would assume that all of those who could potentially meet their needs in low cost home ownership products do so because there is no supply constraint, they have a desire to so and the household has unrestricted access to mortgage finance. The maximum social rented figure assumes that there is restricted access to LCHO and therefore those households would have to be housed in the social rented sector.

9.17

Table 9.16 shows the maximum potential number of households that have been assessed as being unable to access market housing (private rented and owner occupation) but who could afford LCHO up to 2016. This identified that under Planning scenario C2 (low affordability) at 2016 the ‘intermediate sector’ could range from zero to 27,000 households if there was no constraint on supply, a desire for the LCHO product and unrestricted access to mortgage finance. Under Planning scenario C2 (high affordability) the range would reduce to a smaller range: from zero to 5,500 households. The HMPCG are in the process of considering the implications of these results. Table 9.16 Maximum potential LCHO 2016 by Local Authority (Tribal/Optimal Economics) – Planning Scenario (C2) Local Authority Low Affordability East Dunbartonshire 786 East Renfrewshire 659 Glasgow 3,138 Inverclyde 2,127 North Lanarkshire 7,567 Renfrewshire 3,738 South Lanarkshire 6,942 West Dunbartonshire 2,152 GCVSDPA 27,109 - refers to new households

High Affordability 0 0 0 1,064 1,514 747 1,388 861 5,574

9.18 • • •

•

• •

These estimates for a potential intermediate sector should be treated with caution as identified by Tribal/Optimal Economics: The intermediate sector is relatively new so limited statistical information is available Supply is limited and dependant on a degree of Scottish Government subsidy There is a lack of real understanding of the choices people will make; even if intermediate products are available households may not choose to take up the product. The Tribal/Optimal Economics approach is limited, as it focuses on new households only. Intermediate sector housing may be attractive to existing households. Thus it could free up currently occupied social rented or private rented houses, as well as meeting some of the housing requirements of new households. Access to mortgage finance may hinder households moving into this sector. Access to wealth (i.e. initial deposit) has not been taken into account in the analysis.

10.0

Reconciliation of Methodologies for the Affordable Sector

10.1

The assessment of housing requirements in the GCV area has identified a surplus of 10,000 units in the private sector at 2025.

10.2

For the affordable sector, the two different methodologies used have produced two different sets of results (ref Section 9). The first approach (Housing Needs Assessment Model) is consistent with HNDA Guidance and the approach traditionally undertaken in LHSs (this approach is not consistent with the private sector approach). The second approach (All Stock/All Households) is consistent with the methodology adopted for the private sector, but is not in line with the HNDA Guidance or housing authority practice.

10.3

To help explain why these methodologies provide different results, Tribal/Optimal Economics were asked to consider both approaches to help reconcile the results.

10.4

Tribal/Optimal Economics concluded that the difference in the results could almost entirely be attributed to the fact that the All Stock/All Households approach uses all of the Tribal/Optimal Economics inputs to undertake the Supply/Need comparison, i.e. we take account of inflows to the affordable sector as well as outflows from the sector. In the Housing Needs Assessment model the inflows from Tribal/Optimal Economics’ work are included but a turnover (re-let) rate is then applied which is a proxy for outflows. Tribal/Optimal Economics replaced the turnover (re-let) rate in the HNA model with the outflows from their model and the resultant net need figures were very close to the All Stock/All Households results.

10.5

HMPCG, in line with the HNDA Guidance, intend to progress the Housing Needs Assessment Model through the LHS process and as such the results of the HNA model are the preferred approach for assessing affordable housing requirements.

10.6

When considering the all tenure results of the GCV HNA it is important to note that: • Private sector is based on the planning scenario (C2) High affordability PRS • Affordable sector is based on the planning scenario (C2) Low affordability PRS • When totalled by tenure using Tribal/Optimal Economics’ figures then the total private sector demand and social rented sector need exceeds the overall number of households from the household projections. This is because there is an overlap of households in high and low affordability scenarios. This allows greater flexibility. • Backlog Need, on advice from the CHMA, is in addition to the household projections i.e. there are 72,000 households accounted for in addition to the GCV household projections. Of these 6,000 are estimated to be able to meet their needs in the private market and have been added to the private sector supply/demand comparison.

Annex A

Table A1 - Net migration by Council area for 3 Health Board Areas in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area in 1981-2008

1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

East Dunbartonshire 47 85 -3 -173 -799 -298 -784 -571 -353 -659 -847 -594 -7 66 -817 -104 -424 -482 -19 -385 -949 -246 -340 -518 -485 -484 -118

East Renfrewshire 29 -214 97 434 84 431 1,225 676 519 -124 -22 220 -107 657 -227 308 195 86 413 264 150 19 -61 -84 -361 -43 -72

Glasgow City

Inverclyde

North Lanarkshire

Renfrewshire

-8,386 -8,494 -6,591 -7,916 -6,001 -8,415 -11,298 -7,795 -7,281 -1,699 -7,043 -4,849 -3,402 -7,368 -3,770 -7,713 -2,830 -2,445 -4,516 2,695 -214 982 1,343 1,626 2,169 1,414 1,903

-624 -787 -1,237 -1,075 -1,043 -1,005 -1,349 -1,028 -905 -615 -512 -795 -376 -551 -1,378 -421 -370 -363 -383 -240 -186 -295 -339 -169 -403 -317 -189

-2,624 -1,618 -2,391 -3,011 -3,817 -2,276 -3,597 -1,207 -530 -2,815 -1976 -2012 -834 -870 -1433 -360 -862 -547 -901 -557 -97 262 521 150 -35 347 212

-1,069 -2,097 -1,777 -679 -561 -1,932 -1,355 -151 447 -1,571 -566 -67 109 922 -72 -718 -578 -778 -545 -767 -668 -611 -195 -484 -272 60 142

Source: General Register Office for Scotland Migration Estimates - CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED

West South DunbartonLanarkshire shire -2,191 -1,331 -2,097 -1,431 -1,653 -1,253 -2,294 -1,334 -1,864 -1,260 -988 -966 -1,389 -715 -204 -1,258 -272 -32 -980 -525 43 -386 177 -29 913 -277 -547 -1002 -191 -475 -447 -61 -1047 -244 -661 -380 -170 -344 197 -453 14 -281 1158 -293 2500 -193 981 -405 1249 -107 1675 -95 428 -147

GCV Structure Plan Area -16,149 -16,653 -14,808 -16,048 -15,261 -15,449 -19,262 -11,538 -8,407 -8,988 -11,309 -7,949 -3,981 -8,693 -8,363 -9,516 -6,160 -5,570 -6,465 754 -2,231 976 3,236 1,097 1,755 2,557 2,159

Argyll and Bute

3 Health Board areas

112 841 636 564 -57 368 521 341 -302 53 -1,835 -304 988 227 107 293 332 347 -163 553 158 678 239 64 819 297 -514

-16,037 -15,812 -14,172 -15,484 -15,318 -15,081 -18,741 -11,197 -8,709 -8,935 -13,144 -8,253 -2,993 -8,466 -8,256 -9,223 -5,828 -5,223 -6,628 1,307 -2,073 1,654 3,475 1,161 2,574 2,854 1,645

19 81 19 /82 82 19 /83 83 19 /84 84 19 /85 85 19 /86 86 19 /87 87 19 /88 88 19 /89 89 19 /90 90 19 /91 91 19 /92 92 19 /93 93 19 /94 94 19 /95 95 19 /96 96 19 /97 97 19 /98 98 19 /99 99 20 /00 00 20 /01 01 20 /02 02 20 /03 03 20 /04 04 20 /05 05 20 /06 06 20 /07 07 /0 8

net migration

Chart 1 - Net Migration Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area 1981-2008

5,000

-5,000

-10,000 GCV area trend in migration

-15,000

-20,000

-25,000

year

Table A2.1 - Net Migration by Component for 3 Health Board Areas in Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area in 1981-2008

Year 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

net migration Net migration with rest of Armed Forces with rest of UK Scotland -5,637 -6,133 -5,646 -5,406 -4,997 -5,238 -4,617 -945 -6,337 -2,017 -4,355 -3,865 -3,093 -2,697 -1,859 -3,391 -1,744 -2,185 -2,028 -1,575 -2,466 -2,780 -2,697 -2,911 -1,857 -1,950 -1,610

-4,503 -5,805 -7,572 -8,927 -7,653 -8,187 -9,425 -5,719 -3,111 1,426 -1,001 -894 -206 -2,382 -3,556 -4,226 -1,890 -2,291 -4,077 -1,075 -1,204 -1,198 891 751 -136 696 1,785

216 -48 3 -158 -106 -216 -385 -584 -627 -94 261 335 426 418 284 214 0 -81 56 157 23 40 161 263 159 245 179

Net migration within UK (source: NHSCR) -9,924 -11,986 -13,215 -14,491 -12,756 -13,641 -14,427 -7,248 -10,075 -685 -5,095 -4,424 -2,873 -4,661 -5,131 -7,403 -3,634 -4,557 -6,049 -2,493 -3,647 -3,938 -1,645 -1,897 -1,834 -1,009 354

Derived Total migration estimate of net 3 Health Board international areas migration -6,113 -16,037 -3,826 -15,812 -957 -14,172 -993 -15,484 -2,562 -15,318 -1,440 -15,081 -4,314 -18,741 -3,949 -11,197 1,366 -8,709 -8,250 -8,935 -8,049 -13,144 -3,829 -8,253 -120 -2,993 -3,805 -8,466 -3,125 -8,256 -1,820 -9,223 -2,194 -5,828 -666 -5,223 -579 -6,628 3,800 1,307 1,574 -2,073 5,592 1,654 5,120 3,475 3,058 1,161 4,408 2,574 3,863 2,854 1,291 1,645

Source: General Register Office for Scotland NHSCR Tables - CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED

Table A2.2 - Trend coefficients by component for different base periods Base period

1981-2008

1991-2008

Rest Scotland Rest UK Armed forces Within UK International Total

154 320 14 488 330 818

96 194 -11 279 631 910

net migration

Chart 2 - Net Migration within UK for Three Health Board areas 1981-2008

2,000

-2,000

-4,000

-6,000

-8,000 Net migration within UK trend for base 1981-2008 trend for base 1991-2008

-10,000

-12,000

-14,000

-16,000

year

Table A3.1 - Net Migration (excluding asylum seekers) for Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area and Rest of Scotland in 2001-2008 Glasgow and the Rest of Scotland Clyde Valley area

Year

Scotland

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 averages 2001-06 2003-08

-6,992 5,929 22,712 16,579 20,595 25,524 19,353

-5,888 -2,224 936 -1,003 -45 1,857 1,159

-1,104 8,153 21,776 17,582 20,640 23,667 18,194

11,765 20,953

-1,645 581

13,409 20,372

Source: General Register Office for Scotland CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED

Table A3.2 - Derivation of migration assumptions HNDA projection GROS 2006-base long term migration assumptions Principal Projection Scotland GCV area net migration 8,500 -1,950 asylum seekers 600 600 net migration adjusted 7,900 -2,550 average 2001-06 11,765 -1,645 difference -3,865 -905

GROS 2006-base long term migration assumptions High Migration Variant Rest of Scotland Scotland GCV area 10,450 net migration 17,000 150 0 asylum seekers 600 600 10,450 net migration adjusted 16,400 -450 13,409 average 2001-06 11,765 -1,645 -2,959 difference 4,635 1,195

GROS 2008-base long term migration assumptions Principal Projection with estimated split GCV area/Rest of Scotland Scotland GCV area Rest of Scotland net migration 12,000 -1,056 13,056 asylum seekers 600 600 0 net migration adjusted 11,400 -1,656 13,056 average 2003-08 20,953 581 20,372 difference -9,553 -2,237 -7,316

Rest of Scotland 16,850 0 16,850 13,409 3,441

GROS 2008-base long term migration assumptions High Migration Variant with estimated split GCV area/Rest of Scotland Scotland GCV area Rest of Scotland net migration 20,500 1,044 19,456 asylum seekers 600 600 0 net migration adjusted 19,900 444 19,456 average 2003-08 20,953 581 20,372 difference -1,053 -137 -916

Table A4 - Derivation of Net Migration Assumptions by Council Area

1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

East Dunbartonshire -847 -594 -7 66 -817 -104 -424 -482 -19 -385 -949 -246 -340 -518 -485 -484 -118

East Renfrewshire -22 220 -107 657 -227 308 195 86 413 264 150 19 -61 -84 -361 -43 -72

West South DunbartonLanarkshire shire 43 -386 177 -29 913 -277 -547 -1002 -191 -475 -447 -61 -1047 -244 -661 -380 -170 -344 197 -453 14 -281 1158 -293 2500 -193 981 -405 1249 -107 1675 -95 428 -147

Glasgow City

Inverclyde

North Lanarkshire

Renfrewshire

-7,043 -4,849 -3,402 -7,368 -3,770 -7,713 -2,830 -2,445 -4,516 -2,810 -3,871 -2,218 -957 -474 369 714 903

-512 -795 -376 -551 -1,378 -421 -370 -363 -383 -240 -186 -295 -339 -169 -403 -317 -189

-1976 -2012 -834 -870 -1433 -360 -862 -547 -901 -557 -97 262 521 150 -35 347 212

-566 -67 109 922 -72 -718 -578 -778 -545 -767 -668 -611 -195 -484 -272 60 142

325,520 -65

169,800 -412

310,090 737

90,940 -270

-359

834

-241

1,755,310 -1,599 -1,050 -1,050

50 250 200

-500 -350 150

1,050 1,350 300

-300 -200 100

-1,950 150 2,100

237

-209

1,134

-141

1,050

migration assumptions lower migration scenario (A) population 2008 104,720 89,220 584,240 80,780 aver. mig. 1998-08 -403 31 -931 -288 migration assumption by Council area scenario A -370 59 -747 -263 planning scenario (C) longer term migration assumption GROS (2006-base) principal -550 -100 -1,300 -300 high migration -450 0 -200 -250 difference 100 100 1,100 50 migration assumption by Council area for years 2008-2018 scenario C -270 159 353 -213

GCV Area -11,309 -7,949 -3,981 -8,693 -8,363 -9,516 -6,160 -5,570 -6,465 -4,751 -5,888 -2,224 936 -1,003 -45 1,857 1,159

Table A5 - Net migration assumptions by Council area for Scenarios A and C - after adjustment for initial years East East Glasgow Dunbarton- RenfrewCity shire shire net migration lower migration scenario (A) 2008/09 -354 59 250 2009/10 -337 59 586 2010/11 -337 59 240 2011/12 -370 59 13 2012/13 -370 59 -555 2013/14 -370 59 -664 2014-2025 -370 59 -747 net migration planning scenario (C) 2008/09 -270 159 353 2009/10 -270 159 353 2010/11 -270 159 353 2011/12 -270 159 353 2012/13 -270 159 353 2013/14 -270 159 353 2014/15 -270 159 353 2015/16 -270 159 353 2016/17 -270 159 353 2017/18 -270 159 353 2018/19 -253 173 446 2019/20 -237 187 539 2020/21 -220 202 632 2021/22 -203 216 724 2022/23 -187 230 817 2023/24 -170 244 910 2024/25 -153 258 1,003

West South DunbartonLanarkshire shire

Inverclyde

North Lanarkshire

Renfrewshire

-263 -263 -263 -263 -263 -263 -263

37 37 37 37 37 37 37

-297 -259 -260 -264 -340 -342 -359

896 901 900 882 853 834 834

-179 -174 -175 -194 -222 -241 -241

150 550 200 -100 -800 -950 -1,050

-213 -213 -213 -213 -213 -213 -213 -213 -213 -213 -200 -187 -174 -162 -149 -136 -123

237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 289 340 392 444 496 547 599

-209 -209 -209 -209 -209 -209 -209 -209 -209 -209 -182 -155 -128 -101 -74 -47 -20

1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,134 1,183 1,233 1,282 1,331 1,380 1,430 1,479

-141 -141 -141 -141 -141 -141 -141 -141 -141 -141 -127 -112 -98 -83 -69 -54 -40

1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,329 1,608 1,888 2,166 2,444 2,724 3,003

GCV Area

Table A6 - Comparison GROS and SDP migration assumptions with assumptions 2006 Plan East Dunbartonshire

East Renfrewshire

Inverclyde

North Lanarkshire

Renfrewshire

-672 -145 -17 110 237 364 492 619 747 874

-39 -21 -2 16 35 53 72 90 109 127

-52 19 90 161 231 302 373 444 515 586

-27 11 49 87 125 163 200 238 276 314

158 225 291 358 424 491 558 624 691 758

-27 -7 14 34 55 75 96 116 137 157

-528 257 643 1,027 1,412 1,796 2,183 2,566 2,953 3,338

249

261

267

144

458

1,565

-120 -45

-995 205

-305 -255

45 230

-465 -330

1,070 1,355

-280 -180

-1,595 535

59 159

-312 353

-263 -213

37 237

-320 -209

860 1,134

-215 -141

-515 1,050

-369 -294

-1,256 -56

-349 -299

-222 -37

-609 -474

612 897

-345 -245

-3,160 -1,030

-190 -90

-573 92

-307 -257

-230 -30

-463 -353

402 676

-280 -206

-2,080 -515

Migration assumptions for 2006 Plan 2008/09 -29 160 2009/10 -5 180 2010/11 18 200 2011/12 42 219 2012/13 66 239 2013/14 89 259 2014/15 113 279 2015/16 137 298 2016/17 160 318 2017/18 184 338 annual average 2008-2018 2006 Plan 78 GROS principal projection -545 high migration variant -445 SDP lower migration (A) -362 planning scenario (C) -270 difference with 2006 Plan GROS principal projection -623 high migration variant -523 SDP lower migration (A) -439 planning scenario (C) -348

West South DunbartonLanarkshire shire

Glasgow City

GCV Area

Table A7 - Population Projections Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Council area Lower migration scenario (A) Glasgow and East Dunbar- East RenfrewYEAR Glasgow City Clyde Valley tonshire shire 2008 1,755,310 104,720 89,220 584,240 2016 1,769,690 102,043 90,618 591,298 2020 1,775,276 100,594 91,597 593,850 2025 1,778,181 98,488 92,974 595,415 annual change 2008-2016 1,798 -335 175 882 2016-2020 1,397 -362 245 638 2020-2025 581 -421 275 313 Planning scenario (C) Glasgow and East Dunbar- East RenfrewYEAR Glasgow City Clyde Valley tonshire shire 2008 1,755,310 104,720 89,220 584,240 2016 1,782,088 102,823 91,501 596,036 2020 1,798,519 101,914 93,042 603,933 2025 1,822,048 100,869 95,482 614,795 annual change 2008-2016 3,347 -237 285 1,475 2016-2020 4,108 -227 385 1,974 2020-2025 4,706 -209 488 2,172 GCV Structure Plan Alteration 2006 Glasgow and East Dunbar- East RenfrewYEAR Glasgow City Clyde Valley tonshire shire 2008 1,734,944 105,832 90,324 570,111 2016 1,741,084 105,748 92,060 575,785 2018 1,747,684 106,044 92,724 579,611 annual change 2008-2016 2016-2018

768 3,300

-11 148

217 332

80,780 77,754 76,222 74,038

North Lanarkshire 325,520 331,727 334,489 337,131

-378 -383 -437

776 691 528

Inverclyde

80,780 78,213 77,000 75,510

North Lanarkshire 325,520 333,452 337,321 342,563

-321 -303 -298

992 967 1,048

Inverclyde

80,744 78,817 78,571

North Lanarkshire 322,648 324,736 325,937

-241 -123

261 601

Inverclyde

709 1,913

169,800 167,801 166,627 164,793

South Lanarkshire 310,090 318,947 323,155 327,815

West Dunbartonshire 90,940 89,502 88,742 87,527

-250 -294 -367

1,107 1,052 932

-180 -190 -243

169,800 168,671 168,298 168,112

South Lanarkshire 310,090 321,250 327,053 334,868

West Dunbartonshire 90,940 90,142 89,958 89,849

-141 -93 -37

1,395 1,451 1,563

-100 -46 -22

169,427 168,444 168,579

South Lanarkshire 304,893 304,839 305,358

West Dunbartonshire 90,965 90,655 90,860

-123 68

-7 260

-39 103

Renfrewshire

Table A8.1 - Population Projection Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Component - HNDA lower migration scenario (A)

year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 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

annual total change 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 annual natural change 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 annual net migration 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025

population at start 1,755,310 1,757,210 1,759,706 1,761,956 1,764,008 1,765,418 1,766,803 1,768,208 1,769,690 1,771,194 1,772,663 1,774,034 1,775,276 1,776,354 1,777,182 1,777,815 1,778,128

births

deaths

21,166 20,740 20,565 20,443 20,353 20,280 20,251 20,238 20,192 20,108 19,991 19,846 19,678 19,499 19,311 19,117 18,927

19,402 18,791 18,536 18,302 18,108 17,943 17,814 17,711 17,641 17,588 17,556 17,549 17,566 17,606 17,660 17,731 17,823

natural change 1,764 1,949 2,030 2,141 2,245 2,337 2,436 2,527 2,551 2,521 2,435 2,297 2,112 1,892 1,650 1,386 1,105

Glasgow and Clyde Valley

East Dunbartonshire

East Renfrewshire

Glasgow City

Inverclyde

1,798 1,397 581

-335 -362 -421

175 245 275

882 638 313

-378 -383 -437

776 691 528

-250 -294 -367

1,107 1,052 932

-180 -190 -243

2,178 2,451 1,629

25 9 -53

116 187 216

1,085 1,384 1,062

-115 -118 -176

739 653 491

59 68 -8

241 217 98

28 52 -2

-381 -1,054 -1,048

-360 -371 -369

59 58 60

-203 -746 -749

-263 -265 -261

37 38 37

-309 -361 -358

866 835 834

-208 -242 -241

net migration total change 136 547 220 -89 -835 -952 -1,031 -1,045 -1,047 -1,052 -1,064 -1,055 -1,034 -1,064 -1,017 -1,073 -1,052

1,900 2,496 2,250 2,052 1,410 1,385 1,405 1,482 1,504 1,469 1,371 1,242 1,078 828 633 313 53

population at end 1,757,210 1,759,706 1,761,956 1,764,008 1,765,418 1,766,803 1,768,208 1,769,690 1,771,194 1,772,663 1,774,034 1,775,276 1,776,354 1,777,182 1,777,815 1,778,128 1,778,181

North South Lanarkshire Renfrewshire Lanarkshire

West Dunbartonshire

Table A8.2 Population Projection Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Component - HNDA planning scenario (C)

year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 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

annual total change 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 annual natural change 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025 annual net migration 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025

population at start 1,755,310 1,758,128 1,761,145 1,764,320 1,767,560 1,770,985 1,774,557 1,778,253 1,782,088 1,786,023 1,789,985 1,794,140 1,798,519 1,803,026 1,807,671 1,812,391 1,817,191

births

deaths

21,166 20,775 20,625 20,534 20,483 20,465 20,493 20,540 20,552 20,523 20,459 20,371 20,264 20,148 20,027 19,905 19,790

19,402 18,793 18,537 18,308 18,116 17,958 17,836 17,740 17,677 17,631 17,606 17,608 17,634 17,685 17,751 17,834 17,941

natural change 1,764 1,981 2,087 2,226 2,367 2,508 2,657 2,800 2,875 2,892 2,853 2,764 2,629 2,463 2,276 2,071 1,849

Glasgow and Clyde Valley

East Dunbartonshire

East Renfrewshire

Glasgow City

Inverclyde

3,347 4,108 4,706

-237 -227 -209

285 385 488

1,475 1,974 2,172

-321 -303 -298

992 967 1,048

-141 -93 -37

1,395 1,451 1,563

-100 -46 -22

2,299 2,846 2,258

33 29 -22

127 215 257

1,121 1,553 1,355

-108 -99 -150

755 692 550

68 95 37

263 275 184

40 86 47

1,049 1,262 2,448

-270 -256 -187

158 170 231

354 422 817

-213 -204 -148

237 275 499

-209 -188 -74

1,132 1,175 1,379

-140 -132 -69

net migration total change 1,054 1,036 1,088 1,014 1,058 1,064 1,039 1,035 1,060 1,070 1,302 1,615 1,878 2,182 2,444 2,729 3,008

2,818 3,017 3,175 3,240 3,425 3,572 3,696 3,835 3,935 3,962 4,155 4,379 4,507 4,645 4,720 4,800 4,857

population at end 1,758,128 1,761,145 1,764,320 1,767,560 1,770,985 1,774,557 1,778,253 1,782,088 1,786,023 1,789,985 1,794,140 1,798,519 1,803,026 1,807,671 1,812,391 1,817,191 1,822,048

North South Lanarkshire Renfrewshire Lanarkshire

West Dunbartonshire

Table A8.3 Population Projection Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Component - 2006 Structure Plan Alteration population at start 1,734,944 1,733,427 1,732,887 1,732,928 1,733,511 1,734,622 1,736,250 1,738,399 1,741,084 1,744,200

births

deaths

18,010 18,060 18,151 18,254 18,353 18,448 18,579 18,726 18,821 18,867

18,997 18,857 18,753 18,699 18,654 18,618 18,613 18,608 18,658 18,722

natural change -987 -797 -602 -445 -301 -170 -34 118 163 145

Glasgow and Clyde Valley

East Dunbartonshire

East Renfrewshire

Glasgow City

Inverclyde

annual total change 2008-2016 2016-2018

768 3,300

-11 148

217 332

709 1,913

-241 -123

261 601

-123 68

-7 260

-39 103

annual natural change 2008-2016 2016-2018

-402 154

-64 -24

-12 4

586 1,103

-266 -241

65 50

-229 -228

-398 -465

-83 -45

annual net migration 2008-2016 2016-2018

1,170 3,146

54 172

229 328

124 811

26 118

196 551

106 295

391 725

45 147

year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

net migration total change -530 257 643 1,028 1,412 1,798 2,183 2,567 2,953 3,339

-1,517 -540 41 583 1,111 1,628 2,149 2,685 3,116 3,484

population at end 1,733,427 1,732,887 1,732,928 1,733,511 1,734,622 1,736,250 1,738,399 1,741,084 1,744,200 1,747,684

North South Lanarkshire Renfrewshire Lanarkshire

West Dunbartonshire

Table A9 - Population Projections Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Age

lower migration scenario (A) YEAR total 0 to 15 2008 1,755,310 315,002 2016 1,769,690 311,393 2020 1,775,276 314,967 2025 1,778,181 309,168 annual change 2008-2016 1,798 -451 2016-2020 1,397 894 2020-2025 581 -1,160

16 to 29 345,578 323,306 304,436 293,185

30 to 44 369,575 348,797 356,926 365,430

45 to 59 356,558 381,763 363,095 328,871

60 to 74 244,304 264,269 284,921 308,246

75+ 124,293 140,162 150,931 173,281

-2,784 -4,718 -2,250

-2,597 2,032 1,701

3,151 -4,667 -6,845

2,496 5,163 4,665

1,984 2,692 4,470

0 to 15 315,002 313,425 319,575 318,931

16 to 29 345,578 326,953 310,063 302,449

30 to 44 369,575 353,680 366,097 381,795

45 to 59 356,558 383,007 365,691 334,712

60 to 74 244,304 264,730 285,888 310,230

75+ 124,293 140,293 151,205 173,931

-197 1,538 -129

-2,328 -4,223 -1,523

-1,987 3,104 3,140

3,306 -4,329 -6,196

2,553 5,290 4,868

2,000 2,728 4,545

GCV Structure Plan Alteration 2006 YEAR GCV 0 to 15 2008 1,734,944 306,179 2016 1,741,084 290,890 2018 1,747,681 292,426

16 to 29 336,790 316,119 307,291

30 to 44 366,314 344,047 348,375

45 to 59 355,870 384,515 379,897

60 to 74 246,099 266,498 276,330

75+ 123,692 139,015 143,362

annual change 2008-2016 2016-2018

-2,584 -4,414

-2,783 2,164

3,581 -2,309

2,550 4,916

1,915 2,174

planning scenario (C) YEAR total 2008 1,755,310 2016 1,782,088 2020 1,798,519 2025 1,822,048 annual change 2008-2016 3,347 2016-2020 4,108 2020-2025 4,706

768 3,299

-1,911 768

Table A10 - Estimated Annual Changes by Household Type 2001-2008

2+ adults with child(ren)

total households

1 adult

2 adults

3+ adults

1 adult with child(ren)

229 108 -121

154 311 157

-37 -31 6

28 68 40

-258 -340 -82

116 116 0

160 250 90

102 -155 -258

-31 73 104

32 -60 -92

-155 0 155

107 107 0

1,822 174 -1,649

-260 1,036 1,296

-144 963 1,107

520 -726 -1,246

-686 -193 493

1,253 1,253 0

213 106 -107

26 19 -6

-52 -43 10

22 -75 -97

-195 6 201

14 14 0

1,176 723 -452

520 890 370

-130 -122 8

306 113 -193

-528 -262 266

1,343 1,343 0

508 534 26

151 -99 -250

-106 -38 68

86 -159 -245

-320 80 400

319 319 0

1,163 848 -315

608 784 176

-87 168 255

277 -122 -399

-374 -91 283

1,587 1,587 0

295 217 -78

65 -58 -123

-56 196 252

38 -33 -71

-180 -160 19

163 163 0

5,567 2,961 -2,606

1,365 2,728 1,363

-644 1,167 1,811

1,310 -994 -2,303

-2,696 -961 1,736

4,902 4,902 0

Table A11 - Household Projections Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Council area Lower migration scenario (A) Glasgow and East Dunbar- East RenfrewYEAR Glasgow City Clyde Valley tonshire shire 2008 804,709 43,227 35,988 284,533 2016 854,917 44,065 37,349 307,175 2020 876,897 44,381 38,159 316,360 2025 901,048 44,693 39,192 326,281 annual change 2008-2016 6,276 105 170 2,830 2016-2020 5,495 79 203 2,296 2020-2025 4,830 62 207 1,984 Planning scenario (C) Glasgow and East Dunbar- East RenfrewYEAR Glasgow City Clyde Valley tonshire shire 2008 804,709 43,227 35,988 284,533 2016 859,147 44,607 37,789 304,798 2020 885,452 45,260 38,872 314,085 2025 918,408 46,149 40,377 325,398 annual change 2008-2016 6,805 173 225 2,533 2016-2020 6,576 163 271 2,322 2020-2025 6,591 178 301 2,263 GCV Structure Plan Alteration 2006 Glasgow and East Dunbar- East RenfrewYEAR Glasgow City Clyde Valley tonshire shire 2008 808,635 43,551 36,812 288,137 2016 869,521 46,194 39,530 313,365 2018 885,508 46,916 40,239 320,050 annual change 2008-2016 2016-2018

7,611 7,994

330 361

340 355

37,156 37,632 37,696 37,560

North Lanarkshire 143,715 154,186 159,025 164,655

60 16 -27

1,309 1,210 1,126

Inverclyde

37,156 37,846 38,055 38,231

North Lanarkshire 143,715 155,806 161,615 169,057

86 52 35

1,511 1,452 1,488

Inverclyde

38,117 39,776 40,150

North Lanarkshire 143,686 155,367 158,447

207 187

1,460 1,540

Inverclyde

3,154 3,343

79,037 81,077 81,883 82,554

South Lanarkshire 138,354 149,154 154,394 160,467

West Dunbartonshire 42,699 44,279 44,999 45,646

255 202 134

1,350 1,310 1,215

198 180 129

79,037 81,912 83,314 85,036

South Lanarkshire 138,354 151,581 158,332 166,915

West Dunbartonshire 42,699 44,808 45,919 47,245

359 351 344

1,653 1,688 1,717

264 278 265

79,187 83,256 84,316

South Lanarkshire 136,578 146,624 149,185

West Dunbartonshire 42,567 45,409 46,205

509 530

1,256 1,281

355 398

Renfrewshire

Table A12 - Household Projections Glasgow and the Clyde Valley area by Household Type and by Age of Representative Lower migration scenario (A) YEAR

Total

one adult

two+ adults

2008 804,709 2016 854,918 2020 876,899 2025 901,052 annual change 2008-2016 6,276 2016-2020 5,495 2020-2025 4,831 Planning scenario (C)

305,517 358,093 382,088 410,370

284,696 293,283 294,812 294,123

6,572 5,999 5,656

1,073 382 -138

YEAR

Total

one adult

two+ adults

2008 2016 2020 2025 annual change 2008-2016 2016-2020 2020-2025

804,709 859,147 885,452 918,408

305,517 359,174 384,730 416,564

284,696 294,624 297,362 298,975

6,805 6,576 6,591

6,707 6,389 6,367

1,241 685 323

one adult and two+ adults child(ren) and child(ren) 68,721 145,775 78,773 124,769 83,701 116,298 89,470 107,089 1,257 1,232 1,154

-2,626 -2,118 -1,842

one adult and two+ adults child(ren) and child(ren) 68,721 145,775 79,422 125,927 85,037 118,323 92,234 110,635 1,338 1,404 1,439

-2,481 -1,901 -1,538

age 16-29

age 30-44

age 45-59

age 60-74

age 75+

102,942 104,858 102,823 101,166

228,169 228,595 240,095 252,689

222,231 247,395 239,682 222,400

159,594 171,142 183,628 197,939

91,773 102,928 110,671 126,858

240 -509 -331

53 2,875 2,519

3,146 -1,928 -3,456

1,444 3,122 2,862

1,394 1,936 3,237

age 16-29

age 30-44

age 45-59

age 60-74

age 75+

102,942 105,887 104,537 104,176

228,169 230,978 244,997 262,372

222,231 247,856 240,821 225,338

159,594 171,404 184,155 198,979

91,773 103,022 110,942 127,543

368 -338 -72

351 3,505 3,475

3,203 -1,759 -3,097

1,476 3,188 2,965

1,406 1,980 3,320

Annex B

Table B1 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build Local Authority: East Dunbartonshire Council

SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR Council rented new build RSL rented new build Total Social Rented New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 62 72 68 34 25 0 0 19 19 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 88 62 72 68 34 25 0 0 19 19 18 18 0 0 0 0 0

Council demolitions RSL demolitions Total Demolitions

16 36 52

74 0 74

44 150 194

50 0 50

0 0 0

Council RTB RSL RTB Total RTB

45 6 51

41 5 46

39 1 40

37 1 38

35 0 35

33 0 33

32 0 32

30 0 30

29 0 29

27 0 27

26 0 26

24 0 24

23 0 23

22 0 22

21 0 21

20 0 20

19 0 19

3801 1614 5415

3686 1671 5357

3603 1592 5195

3516 1659 5175

3481 1693 5174

3448 1718 5166

3416 1718 5134

3386 1718 5104

3357 1737 5094

3330 1756 5086

3304 1774 5078

3280 1792 5072

3257 1792 5049

3235 1792 5027

3214 1792 5006

3194 1792 4986

3175 1792 4967

Council Voids (%) RSL Voids (%)

5.2% 7.0%

6.2% 7.0%

5.7% 7.0%

Council Voids RSL Voids Total Voids

198 113

229 117

205 111

200 116

198 119

197 120

195 120

193 120

191 122

190 123

188 124

187 125

186 125

184 125

183 125

182 125

181 125

3457 1554 5011

3398 1481 4879

3316 1543 4859

3283 1574 4857

3251 1598 4849

3221 1598 4819

3193 1598 4791

3166 1615 4781

3140 1633 4773

3116 1650 4766

3093 1667 4760

3071 1667 4738

3051 1667 4718

3031 1667 4698

3012 1667 4679

2994 1667 4661

5.2%

261

254

253

252

251

249

248

246

245

244

243

242

Council RSL End-Year Total Social Rented Stock

3890 1555 5445

3862 1568 5430

Council RSL End-Year Total Lettable Social Rented Stock

3890 1555 5445

3862 1568 5430

3603 1501 5104

Social Rented New Lets (general) Council RSL

50 90

22 95

20 111

Social Rented New Lets (homeless) Council RSL

154 14

140 15

106 17

Social Rented Transfer Lets Council RSL

48 28

99 28

64 32

Council RSL TOTAL SOCIAL RENTED LETS

252 132 384

261 138 399

190 160 350

7.1%

7.3%

6.9%

5.7%

5.0%

SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (total lets as %age of total stock) SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (new lets as %age of total stock) PROJECTED RELETS

INTERMEDIATE SECTOR Council LCHO/SO/SE new build RSL LCHO/SO/SE new build Total 'Other Affordable' New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table B2 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build Local Authority: East Renfrewshire Council

SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR Council rented new build RSL rented new build Total Social Rented New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 84 69 60 34 0 0 28 30 30 30 30 16 16 16 16 14 17 84 69 60 34 0 0 28 30 30 30 30 16 16 16 16 14

Council demolitions RSL demolitions Total Demolitions

0 0 0

4 0 4

0 0 0

Council RTB RSL RTB Total RTB

26 1 27

25 2 27

25 1 26

20 1 21

15 1 16

10 1 11

3097 1052 4149

3072 1134 4206

3047 1202 4249

3018 1261 4279

2993 1294 4287

2968 1293 4261

2948 1292 4240

2928 1319 4247

2908 1348 4256

2888 1377 4265

2868 1406 4274

2853 1435 4288

2838 1450 4288

2823 1465 4288

2808 1480 4288

2793 1495 4288

2783 1508 4291

Council Voids (%) RSL Voids (%)

1.6% 1.0%

Council Voids RSL Voids Total Voids

48 10

48 11

47 12

46 13

45 13

45 14

44 14

44 15

43 15

3024 1123 4147

3000 1190 4190

2971 1249 4220

2947 1281 4228

2922 1280 4202

2902 1279 4181

2883 1306 4189

2863 1335 4198

2843 1363 4206

2824 1392 4216

2809 1421 4230

2794 1436 4230

2779 1450 4229

2764 1465 4229

2750 1480 4230

2740 1493 4233

7.5%

311

314

317

315

314

315

316

317

Council RSL End-Year Total Social Rented Stock

3163 1018 4181

3123 1036 4159

Council RSL End-Year Total Lettable Social Rented Stock

3163 1018 4181

3123 1036 4159

3049 1042 4091

Social Rented New Lets (general) Council RSL

124 96

112 75

66 112

Social Rented New Lets (homeless) Council RSL

96 17

102 11

112 10

Social Rented Transfer Lets Council RSL

47 22

38 23

75 21

Council RSL TOTAL SOCIAL RENTED LETS

267 135 402

252 109 361

253 143 396

9.6%

8.7%

9.7%

8.0%

7.2%

7.3%

SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (total lets as %age of total stock) SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (new lets as %age of total stock) PROJECTED RELETS

INTERMEDIATE SECTOR Council LCHO/SO/SE new build RSL LCHO/SO/SE new build Total 'Other Affordable' New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 8 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 8 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table B3 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build Local Authority: Glasgow Council

SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR GHA & RSL rented new build Total Social Rented New Build GHA demolitions RSL demolitions Total Demolitions

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 702 769 827 886 1124 1686 984 805 607 1114 494 493 488 487 113 113 112 111 110 702 769 827 886 1124 1686 984 805 607 1114 494 493 488 487 113 113 112 111 110

2179 129 2308

2675 38 2713

2400 0 2400

1315 53 1368

853 259 1112

1254 321 1575

666 275 941

1262 395 1657

386 296 682

1071 420 1491

0 350 350

0 333 333

0 337 337

0 314 314

0 315 315

488 173 661

433 108 541

470 144 614

431 133 564

409 130 539

507 126 633

485 122 607

455 121 576

464 119 583

448 117 565

445 116 561

445 114 559

445 112 557

445 109 554

445 105 550

445 104 549

445 101 546

72347 43637 115984

69738 44116 113854

66630 44797 111427

63760 45539 109299

62014 46477 108491

60752 47774 108526

58991 48311 107302

57840 48719 106559

56123 48810 104933

55273 49509 104782

53754 49466 103220

53309 49493 102802

52864 49534 102398

52419 49572 101991

51974 49262 101236

51529 48956 100485

51084 48648 99732

50639 48340 98979

50194 48034 98228

GHA Voids (%) RSL Voids (%)

1.5% 1.5%

GHA Voids RSL Voids Total Voids

999 672

956 683

930 697

911 717

885 725

868 731

842 732

829 743

806 742

800 742

793 743

786 744

780 739

773 734

766 730

760 725

753 721

62804 44856 107660

61084 45780 106864

59841 47057 106898

58106 47586 105692

56972 47988 104960

55281 48078 103359

54444 48766 103210

52948 48724 101672

52509 48751 101260

52071 48791 100862

51633 48828 100461

51194 48523 99717

50756 48222 98978

50318 47918 98236

49879 47615 97494

49441 47313 96754

5.9%

6298 6429 -131

6252 6382 -130

6254 6381 -127

6183 6310 -127

6140 6265 -125

6047 6170 -123

6038 6159 -121

5948 6069 -121

5924 6046 -122

5900 6022 -122

5877 5999 -122

5833 5954 -121

5790 5911 -121

5747 5867 -120

5703 5822 -119

5660 5779 -119

GHA RTB RSL RTB Total RTB GHA RSL End-Year Social Rented Stock

GHA RSL End-Year Total Lettable Social Rented Stock

69738 44116 113854

65631 44125 109756

Social Rented New Lets (general) GHA RSL

2618 1488

2717 1746

Social Rented New Lets (homeless) GHA RSL

1330 875

1568 780

Social Rented Transfer Lets GHA RSL

1536 1390

1829 1414

5484 3753 9237

6114 3940 10054

8.1%

9.2%

5.5%

6.2%

GHA RSL TOTAL SOCIAL RENTED LETS SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (total lets as %age of total stock) SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (new lets as %age of total stock) PROJECTED RELETS

INTERMEDIATE SECTOR GHA LCHO/SO/SE new build RSL LCHO/SO/SE new build Total 'Other Affordable' New Build

0 0 0

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 86 119 181 154 247 91 102 117 255 87 86 84 83 21 21 20 19 18 38 86 119 181 154 247 91 102 117 255 87 86 84 83 21 21 20 19 18

Table B4 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build Local Authority: Inverclyde Council

2008/09 0 93 93

2009/10 0 263 263

Council demolitions RSL demolitions Total Demolitions

0 263 263

0 495 495

0 503 503

0 416 416

0 190 190

0 304 304

Council RTB RSL RTB Total RTB

0 80 80

0 40 40

0 38 38

0 36 36

0 34 34

SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR Council rented new build RSL rented new build Total Social Rented New Build

2006/07

2007/08

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 0 0 0 0 0 177 173 219 198 136 177 173 219 198 136

2015/16 0 86 86

2016/17 0 109 109

2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 108 108 78 78 78 78 77 109 108 108 78 78 78 78 77

0 363 363

0 386 386

0 100 100

0 32 32

0 30 30

0 29 29

0 28 28

0 27 27

0 26 26

0 25 25

0 24 24

0 23 23

0 22 22

0 21 21

0 20 20

Council RSL End-Year Total Social Rented Stock

8422 3488 11910

11566 11566

0 11316 11316

0 11044 11044

0 10680 10680

0 10401 10401

0 10396 10396

0 10258 10258

0 10001 10001

0 9672 9672

0 9653 9653

0 9635 9635

0 9617 9617

0 9600 9600

0 9554 9554

0 9509 9509

0 9465 9465

0 9422 9422

0 9379 9379

Council Voids (%) RSL Voids (%)

15.0% 2.2%

12.3%

10.6%

9.6%

8.6%

7.6%

6.6%

5.6%

4.6%

3.6%

Council Voids RSL Voids Total Voids

1267 77

1423

0 1199

0 1060

0 918

0 790

0 686

0 574

0 460

0 348

0 347

0 346

0 344

0 342

0 341

0 339

0 338

Council RSL End-Year Total Lettable Social Rented Stock

7155 3411 10566

0 10143 10143

0 10117 10117

0 9984 9984

0 9762 9762

0 9611 9611

0 9710 9710

0 9684 9684

0 9541 9541

0 9324 9324

0 9305 9305

0 9288 9288

0 9271 9271

0 9254 9254

0 9210 9210

0 9167 9167

0 9124 9124

0 9083 9083

0 9041 9041

Social Rented New Lets (general) Council RSL

198 194

149 220

392

522

Social Rented New Lets (homeless) Council RSL

123 21

92 27

165

214

Social Rented Transfer Lets Council RSL

255 25

191 149

277

311

Council RSL TOTAL SOCIAL RENTED LETS

576 240 816

432 396 828

0 834 834

0 1,047 1047

7.7%

8.2%

10.5%

5.1%

4.8%

5.5%

7.4%

5.9%

736

576

567

573

571

563

550

549

548

547

546

543

541

538

536

533

2015/16 0 59 59

2016/17 0 63 63

SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (total lets as %age of total stock) SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (new lets as %age of total stock) PROJECTED RELETS

INTERMEDIATE SECTOR Council LCHO/SO/SE new build RSL LCHO/SO/SE new build Total 'Other Affordable' New Build

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09 0 0 0

2009/10 0 79 79

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 0 0 0 0 0 37 14 53 80 58 37 14 53 80 58

2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 62 62 57 57 57 57 57 63 62 62 57 57 57 57 57

Table B5 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build Local Authority: North Lanarkshire Council

SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR Council rented new build RSL rented new build Total Social Rented New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 209 125 47 70 106 98 171 159 159 159 159 96 96 95 95 95 235 209 125 47 70 106 98 171 159 159 159 159 96 96 95 95 95

Council demolitions RSL demolitions Total Demolitions

220 0 220

0 41 41

0 0 0

161 0 161

0 47 47

0 0 0

0 44 44

0 0 0

0 56 56

0 0 0

0 69 69

15 15 30

Council RTB RSL RTB Total RTB

390 64 454

200 64 264

420 64 484

399 64 463

379 64 443

360 64 424

342 64 406

325 64 389

37380 8409 45789

37180 8513 45693

36760 8574 45334

36179 8557 44736

35759 8516 44275

35339 8558 43897

34919 8548 43467

34499 8655 43154

34079 8694 42773

33659 8789 42448

33239 8815 42054

32804 8895 41699

32390 8912 41302

31996 8929 40925

31621 8945 40566

31264 8961 40225

30924 8977 39901

Council Voids (%) RSL Voids (%)

1.65% 1.25%

Council Voids RSL Voids Total Voids

617 105 722

613 106 719

607 107 714

597 107 704

590 106 696

583 107 690

576 107 683

569 108 677

562 109 671

555 110 665

548 110 658

541 111 652

534 111 645

528 112 640

522 112 634

516 112 628

510 112 622

37990 8238 46228

36763 8304 45067

36567 8407 44974

36153 8467 44620

35582 8450 44032

35169 8410 43579

34756 8451 43207

34343 8441 42784

33930 8547 42477

33517 8585 42102

33104 8679 41783

32691 8705 41396

32263 8784 41047

31856 8801 40657

31468 8817 40285

31099 8833 39932

30748 8849 39597

30414 8865 39279

Council RSL End-Year Social Rented Stock

37990 8238 46228

Council RSL End-Year Total Lettable Social Rented Stock Social Rented New Lets (general) Council RSL

1480 556

1455 521

1428 675

1470 584

Social Rented New Lets (homeless) Council RSL

1293 117

1159 71

1190 90

1087 93

Social Rented Transfer Lets Council RSL

574 82

599 65

561 104

655 85

Council RSL TOTAL SOCIAL RENTED LETS

3347 755 4102

3213 657 3870

3179 869 4048

3212 762 3974

8.4%

9.0%

8.8%

6.9%

7.5%

7.2%

3234

3213

3170

3138

3111

3080

3058

3031

3008

2981

2955

2927

2901

2875

2851

2828

SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (total lets as %age of total stock) SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (new lets as %age of total stock) PROJECTED RELETS

INTERMEDIATE SECTOR Council LCHO/SO/SE new build RSL LCHO/SO/SE new build Total 'Other Affordable' New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table B6 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build Local Authority: Renfrewshire Council

SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR Council rented new build RSL rented new build Total Social Rented New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 284 153 133 68 106 69 29 30 30 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 91 284 153 133 68 106 69 29 30 30 30 30 0 0 0 0 0

Council demolitions RSL demolitions Total Demolitions

443 122 565

307 90 397

89 50 139

47 24 71

38 0 38

0 0 0

80 0 80

0 0 0

Council RTB RSL RTB Total RTB

99 13 112

75 10 85

13438 7162 20600

13056 7346 20402

12892 7439 20331

12770 7538 20308

12657 7596 20253

12582 7692 20274

12427 7751 20178

12352 7770 20122

12277 7790 20067

12202 7810 20012

12127 7830 19957

12052 7850 19902

11977 7840 19817

11902 7830 19732

11827 7820 19647

11752 7810 19562

11677 7800 19477

Council Voids (%) RSL Voids (%)

2.4% 2.0%

Council Voids RSL Voids Total Voids

323 143 466

308 147 455

304 149 453

301 151 452

299 152 451

297 154 451

293 155 448

292 155 447

290 156 446

288 156 444

286 157 443

284 157 441

283 157 440

281 157 438

279 156 435

277 156 433

276 156 432

12588 7290 19878

12469 7387 19856

12358 7444 19802

12285 7538 19823

12134 7596 19730

12060 7615 19675

11987 7634 19621

11914 7654 19568

11841 7673 19514

11768 7693 19461

11694 7683 19377

11621 7673 19294

11548 7664 19212

11475 7654 19129

11401 7644 19045

Council RSL End-Year Total Social Rented Stock

13980 7206 21186

Council RSL End-Year Total Lettable Social Rented Stock

13980 7206 21186

13115 7019 20134

12748 7199 19947

Social Rented New Lets (general) Council RSL

714 569

463 565

545 544

Social Rented New Lets (homeless) Council RSL

326 122

487 72

467 128

Social Rented Transfer Lets Council RSL

369 184

220 198

222 148

1409 875 2284

1170 835 2005

1234 820 2054

10.8%

10.0%

10.1%

8.2%

7.9%

8.4%

1684

1670

1668

1663

1665

1657

1653

1648

1644

1639

1635

1628

1621

1614

1607

1600

Council RSL TOTAL SOCIAL RENTED LETS SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (total lets as %age of total stock) SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (new lets as %age of total stock) PROJECTED RELETS

INTERMEDIATE SECTOR Council LCHO/SO/SE new build RSL LCHO/SO/SE new build Total 'Other Affordable' New Build

0 0 0

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 23 23 23 23 23 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 25 25 23 23 23 23 23 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9

Table B7 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build Local Authority: South Lanarkshire Council

SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR Council rented new build RSL rented new build Total Social Rented New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 83 122 197 199 75 45 45 284 284 283 280 139 139 139 137 136 199 83 122 197 199 75 45 45 284 284 283 280 139 139 139 137 136

Council demolitions RSL demolitions Total Demolitions

76 5 81

119 7 126

177 9 186

65 9 74

86 9 95

40 9 49

10 9 19

Council RTB RSL RTB Total RTB

126 20 146

Council RSL End-Year Total Social Rented Stock

26384 5493 31877

26182 5667 31849

25937 5723 31660

25634 5816 31450

25443 5984 31427

25231 6154 31385

25065 6200 31265

24929 6216 31145

24793 6232 31025

24657 6487 31144

24521 6742 31263

24385 6996 31381

24249 7247 31496

24113 7357 31470

23977 7467 31444

23841 7577 31418

23705 7685 31390

23569 7792 31361

Council Voids (%) RSL Voids (%)

1.1% 1.1%

288 62

285 63

282 64

280 66

278 68

276 68

274 68

273 69

271 71

270 74

268 77

267 80

265 81

264 82

262 83

261 85

259 86

25652 5660 31312

25352 5752 31104

25163 5918 31081

24953 6086 31039

24789 6132 30921

24655 6148 30803

24520 6163 30683

24386 6416 30802

24251 6668 30919

24117 6919 31036

23982 7167 31149

23848 7276 31124

23713 7385 31098

23579 7494 31073

23444 7600 31044

23310 7706 31016

6.8%

2129

2115

2114

2111

2103

2095

2086

2095

2102

2110

2118

2116

2115

2113

2111

2109

Council Voids RSL Voids Total Voids Council RSL End-Year Total Lettable Social Rented Stock

26075 5493 31568

26384 5493 31877

25894 5605 31499

Social Rented New Lets (general) Council RSL

813 398

693 449

637 536

Social Rented New Lets (homeless) Council RSL

797 40

987 54

1047 67

Social Rented Transfer Lets Council RSL

481 110

486 126

432 151

Council RSL TOTAL SOCIAL RENTED LETS

2091 548 2639

2166 629 2795

2116 754 2870

8.4%

8.8%

9.1%

6.5%

6.8%

7.3%

SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (total lets as %age of total stock) SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (new lets as %age of total stock) PROJECTED RELETS

INTERMEDIATE SECTOR Council LCHO/SO/SE new build RSL LCHO/SO/SE new build Total 'Other Affordable' New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table B8 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Housing Supply Template 'Affordable Sector' - HLA/UC New Build Local Authority: West Dunbartonshire Council

SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR Council rented new build RSL rented new build Total Social Rented New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 98 108 100 132 112 131 132 70 70 70 68 88 88 87 87 86 95 98 108 100 132 112 131 132 70 70 70 68 88 88 87 87 86

Council demolitions RSL demolitions Total Demolitions

0 54 54

12 50 62

48 50 98

49 50 99

95 0 95

96 0 96

225 0 225

228 0 228

76 0 76

77 0 77

Council RTB RSL RTB Total RTB

68 15 83

50 22 72

50 21 71

50 20 70

50 19 69

50 18 68

41 17 58

41 16 57

41 15 56

41 14 55

41 13 54

36 12 48

36 11 47

36 10 46

36 9 45

36 8 44

28 7 35

11670 5602 17272

11602 5628 17230

11540 5654 17194

11442 5691 17133

11344 5721 17065

11245 5784 17029

11100 5878 16978

10964 5992 16956

10827 6108 16935

10561 6163 16724

10295 6219 16514

10029 6276 16305

9768 6332 16100

9504 6409 15913

9392 6487 15879

9280 6565 15845

9168 6644 15812

9063 6723 15786

5.5% 3.4%

5.0% 3.4%

4.5% 3.2%

4.0% 3.0%

3.0% 2.5%

2.5% 2.2%

2.0% 1.8%

1.4% 1.6%

638 191

577 192

515 182

454 172

337 145

278 129

219 108

152 98

148 99

144 100

140 100

137 101

133 103

131 104

130 105

128 106

127 108

11670 5602 17272

10964 5437 16401

10963 5462 16425

10927 5509 16436

10890 5549 16439

10908 5639 16547

10822 5749 16571

10745 5884 16629

10675 6010 16685

10413 6064 16477

10151 6119 16270

9889 6176 16065

9631 6231 15862

9371 6306 15677

9261 6383 15644

9150 6460 15610

9040 6538 15578

8936 6615 15551

7.5%

1232

1233

1241

1243

1247

1251

1236

1220

1205

1190

1176

1173

1171

1168

1166

Council RSL End-Year Total Social Rented Stock

11720 5634 17354

Council Voids (%) RSL Voids (%) Council Voids RSL Voids Total Voids Council RSL End-Year Total Lettable Social Rented Stock Social Rented New Lets (general) Council RSL

534 256

443 213

384 184

Social Rented New Lets (homeless) Council RSL

488 234

355 170

528 253

Social Rented Transfer Lets Council RSL

223 107

149 71

155 74

Council RSL TOTAL SOCIAL RENTED LETS

1245 597 1842

947 454 1401

1067 511 1578

8.1%

9.6%

6.8%

8.2%

SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (total lets as %age of total stock) SOCIAL RENTED TURNOVER RATE (new lets as %age of total stock) PROJECTED RELETS

INTERMEDIATE SECTOR Council LCHO/SO/SE new build RSL LCHO/SO/SE new build Total 'Other Affordable' New Build

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 4 35 32 97 96 96 96 78 78 78 78 78 0 0 18 0 0 4 35 32 97 96 96 96 78 78 78 78 78

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority Lower ground floor, 125 West Regent Street, Glasgow G2 2SA t 0141 229 7730 | e info@gcvsdpa.gov.uk | w www.gcvsdpa.gov.uk