The Evaluation of Low Cost Initiative for First Time Buyers (LIFT)

APPENDIX 9 - MIXED COMMUNITIES CASE STUDIES

Mixed, sustainable communities - neighbourhood indicators

We used the following indicators in considering the three mixed communities case studies we developed.

• Housing & the environment
  • a mix of housing types and tenures;
  • attractive; accessible public spaces, including some greenspace; and
  • clean, safe streets.
• Population
  • a wide spread of ages; and
  • people with varying needs.
• Crime
  • low perceptions of crime;
  • residents feel safe both in their houses and on the streets; and
  • low incidence of graffiti, litter or fly-tipping.
• Community cohesion
  • strong sense of community spirit;
  • residents feel like they belong to their local area; and
  • feel that it is a place where people can get on well together.
• Services
  • access to quality retail and recreational facilities; and
  • primary and secondary schools that residents want their children to attend.
• Transport
  • access to on reliable and user-friendly public transport; and
  • a design that encourages walking and cycling.

Case study - Aviemore North

Aviemore is a small town situated in Cairngorms National Park. As with other rural areas in the Highlands there are issues of housing affordability in part due to the prevalence of properties used as second homes. This case study looks at the development of a new mixed tenure neighbourhood in North Aviemore at a previous greenfield site on the outskirts of the town. The development was a partnership between Albyn Housing Society and Robertson Homes. The first phase took place in 2006.

The scheme

The neighbourhood includes housing for social rent, NSSE properties and private homes for outright sale. Roughly half of the properties in the 208 unit estate are for outright sale. None of the private housing attracted GRO subsidy. Table One gives a breakdown of the affordable housing developed at the site.

Table 1: Aviemore development phases

Phase	House types / size	Social rented	NSSE	Total
One	2 person flat	4	-	4
	3 person flat	4	-	4
	4 person house	6	6	12
	5 person house	4	4	8
Two	3 person flat	-	4	4
	4 person house	10	6	16
	5 person house	4	4	8
	6 person house	5	-	5
Three	2 person flat	8	4	12
	3 person flat	6	-	6
	4 person house	10	4	14
	5 person house	4	-	4
	6 person house	3	-	3
Total		68	32	100

Nearly a third of affordable properties in the scheme were NSSE. The remainder of the housing is for social rent. There is a significant range of property sizes among the affordable stock. NSSE properties range from two person flats to five person houses.

Household information was available for 26 of the NSSE purchasers. Of these, the largest group were couples without children (10 - 38%). Five households (19%) were couples with children, six (23%) were single parent households, four (15%) were single person households and one was 'other'.

Developing the scheme

The scheme was originally intended to include shared ownership - and received planning and tender approval for Phase One on this basis. However, Phase One was scheduled just as NSSE was being introduced and Albyn Housing Society in conjunction with Communities Scotland felt that Phase One should change to NSSE since future phases would be approved on that basis. They felt that the Aviemore site would be a suitable location for NSSE homes.

The RSL had been supportive of introducing a new LCHO option. They were in favour of NSSE as it allows full legal ownership to the purchaser. Under NSSE they had the option of using a 'golden share' (for all units) meaning that they could protect affordable stock. They would also be able to apply the 'Rural Housing Burden' giving them the ability to buy back affordable properties if necessary. The RSL felt that compared with shared ownership (and the inclusion of an occupancy charge) NSSE is a much more straightforward contract for the purchaser and their legal agents; as such, it is easier to understand and to sell. The RSL also felt that, in some respects, a minimum stake of 60 per cent is more desirable than the 25 per cent minimum for shared ownership in terms of establishing a long term, sustainable model of home ownership.

The balance between affordable homes and private housing was established by the Council's affordable homes quota which was set at 50 per cent for the site (due to the limited development opportunities in Aviemore).

The 50/50 split of affordable and private homes meant that the RSL had to work closely with the private developer. The RSL had control of the design of the site and developed a brief to meet social and environmental sustainable issues. This took consideration of distribution of housing and ensured that affordable housing would be mixed throughout the site. The layout plan included integration of the affordable housing and this was increased further following consultation with the Cairngorms National Park Authority Board. Affordable housing is located in some of the most desirable parts of the site - i.e. with the best views of the Cairngorms. But a balance had to be struck to ensure that the design was also desirable for the private sector.

The brief for the site focused on a design with high environmental and sustainable credentials, social integration and trying to create a mixed sustainable community. As part of this they adopted the Homezone approach, putting the importance of the car further down the 'pecking order' and empathises things like integrated play.

Consultation for the development was not as extensive as the RSL might have liked but it involved members of the public, potential contractors and various stakeholder groups.

Public consultation was limited by the fact that there was no 'existing community' at the development site and also due to the termination of a contract with planning consultants. Nevertheless, there was an open public meeting held in Aviemore at the pre-planning stage. Local people were able to influence design ahead of the planning application.

There was a consultation event with suppliers and contractors. Presentations were made to various stakeholder groups. This included the National Park Board who influenced the integration of affordable housing at the site. There was strong inter-agency consultation between the Council, Scottish Government and the RSL on the mix at the site, pace of development, issues around environmental sustainability etc.

Marketing the scheme

Targeting of purchasers was relatively straightforward due to the consistently high demand for homes in Aviemore. The marketing of properties was limited. There were four weeks of press advertising and inclusion on the Scottish Government website. Most of the shared equity homes were sold before the current problems in the credit market.

Sales log information is available for 27 of the 32 NSSE purchasers. Of these, six (22%) were previously living with relatives or friends. Five (19%) were renting privately and eight (30%) were previously living in social rented accommodation. Four of the purchasers (15%) previously owned their home. Excluding those previously housed in social rented accommodation, 12 purchasers (44%) had their name on council and / or housing association waiting lists.

Purchasers bought stakes ranging between 52 per cent and 80 per cent. The (mean) average size of stake was 68%.

All of the NSSE purchasers came from the local area. In the latest development phase, seven of the eight purchasers were first time buyers. Household incomes ranged between £16,000 and £28,000. The occupation of purchasers included land workers, retail and staff in the hospitality industry. Two of the purchasers in the latest phase were living in social rented accommodation and five were on the Council's housing list.

The RSL feel that demand remains high at the site - to date there has been one buy-back / resale and two are ongoing with new purchasers identified.

Experiences of purchasers

We spoke to four NSSE purchasers to gather views on the neighbourhood. Most of the purchasers that we spoke to had previously lived in private rented accommodation (or hotel staff accommodation) although one person had previously lived in a shared equity home that she had bought outright. This person bought a larger NSSE home when her household size increased and they were unable to afford a suitably sized home on the open market.

For all the purchasers we spoke to location was the key factor when choosing their home. Purchasers were either local to the area and wanted to be near family / friends or wanted to be near their work. All of the purchasers had previously lived close to their new home.

Outcomes - Purchaser views

The NSSE purchasers were broadly positive about the neighbourhood with a few ongoing concerns about the provision of facilities. The purchasers were happy with the design and layout of the neighbourhood. They said that it is "very attractive" and that the "homes are up to a high specification".

The residents were positive about public spaces and were particularly pleased with the two play parks - one for younger children and one for older children. However there was some frustration that there have been delays in the development of a new football pitch.

The NSSE purchasers felt that the neighbourhood was a very safe place to live. None had any concerns about walking around the area and one person said that they frequently leave their house and car unlocked.

Shops have been newly developed in the neighbourhood. Residents also felt that the neighbourhood is well connected with the main town of Aviemore by bus and walking routes. Although restaurants and other facilities can be accessed in the town, some residents felt there was a lack of social facilities in the immediate neighbourhood. One resident was disappointed that the idea of a pub had been rejected and felt that there was the need for a community venue / social hall. NSSE purchasers were particularly positive about the housing mix in the area and the high level of integration between " RSL and private housing".

"There is a good variety of housing with 2, 3 and 4 bed flats, and houses including semi-detached and detached homes."

"The development is a very integrated one with a good mix of private owners, RSL tenants and shared equity owners."

"There's a mix of different tenures on the same street. On my street there are four shared equity homes and two homes for rent."

The purchasers were positive that NSSE homes were available in some of the best locations in the neighbourhood and not in a poorer location than the homes for outright sale.

"I think my house is in the best location in the estate. I've got spectacular views looking out over woodland. You wouldn't think I was living in a 'social housing scheme'."

The consultees felt that people in the estate 'get on' well and that there is 'mixing' across different tenure groups. They felt that this was due to the integration of tenures and household types in close proximity (i.e. on the same street). One person suggested that there is a strong sense of community because it is a 'new neighbourhood' with a lot of people moving in at the same time. It was also stated that in a relatively small area like Aviemore people tend to know each other and have connections.

All of the NSSE purchasers that we spoke to hoped to continue living in their home in the longer term. They thought that the only reason for moving would be to relocate for work (or study). However, one purchaser raised the issue of the 'golden share' and felt that not being able to staircase above 80 per cent may influence her housing choices in future. This purchaser said that she would like to add a garage to her home but didn't think it would be worth doing financially (without being able to purchase the property outright).

Outcomes - Developer views

The RSL developer feels that North Aviemore has been a very successful scheme. They have received good feedback and are particularly pleased with the level of integration that has been achieved. They are pleased that affordable housing has not been 'relegated' to less desirable parts of the site. The developer feels that in terms of effective housing management 'pepper-potting' throughout the scheme would not have been possible; instead they have phased social housing into groups of 20 to 30 units.

In the neighbourhood shared equity acts as a mechanism which allows the development to appear that it has grown up over time with different income levels, different family circumstances and different tenure patterns, much like any successful existing community.

"Shared equity meets real needs of people in a particular income bracket but it has a dual purpose of making a mixed scheme work. It helps avoid a 'them and us' situation between private owners and social renters."

In terms of design, they have delivered private and affordable homes that are very difficult to distinguish between. This was achieved by establishing a clear Design Code for the site - the private developer understood the requirements.

The RSL developer is pleased that all the NSSE units have a 'golden share'. They didn't want to see 'hard won' affordable homes being lost to the second / holiday home market which is an issue in the area. When developing sites in the National Park area there have been questions from some stakeholders about retaining affordable housing investment - so they feel it was important to protect affordable housing in this way.

There have been no particular housing management issues in the neighbourhood. One issue has been kids being places they are 'not wanted'. This has been a 'side effect' of the Homezone concept and might indicate that it takes time for people to adjust to the approach.

Conclusions

• NSSE was the preferred LIFT scheme as a 'golden share' could be applied to safeguard affordable homes and ensure mix over the longer term.
• A high affordable housing quota and the fact that the RSL had control of the design brief has contributed to strong integration of affordable housing throughout the site. The process benefitted from strong masterplanning.
• The development has been very successful in creating tenure mix at the street level. Affordable housing has not been relegated to less desirable parts of the site and residents back this up in terms of satisfaction with their homes.
• NSSE purchasers were happy with the neighbourhood in terms of housing design and mix, amenities and personal safety. There was some frustration that a promised facility (a football pitch) was taking a long time to develop and some views that the neighbourhood would benefit from more social facilities.
• The 'golden share' was recognised as a limiting factor by at least one resident, in terms of future housing options.
• NSSE was seen as playing an important role in making the 'mix' of the scheme work successfully. As an intermediary tenure it acts a bridge between social renters and owner-occupiers.

Case study - Ruchazie, Glasgow

The Ruchazie area in the north-east of Glasgow has seen significant regeneration in recent years. This case study looks at the introduction of mixed tenure housing in the area as a result of demolition and new-build by Ruchazie Housing Association. This included the introduction of NSSE properties in the latest phase of development.

The scheme

The neighbourhood has been developed in six phases since 1997 with NSSE properties introduced in 2009. Table One shows the development phases at the site (including planned final phase). Table Two gives a breakdown of the house types and sizes developed by NSSE.

Table 1: Ruchazie development phases

Phase / date	House types	Social rented	NSSE	Outright sale	Total
1. 1997 (rehab)	Flats	24	-	-	24
2. 1998	Flats / houses	36	-	-	36
3a. 2000	Flats / houses	39	-	-	39
3b. 2001	Flats / houses	41	-	-	41
3c. 2002	Flats / houses	34	-	-	34
4. 2009	Flats / houses	40	18	-	58
Current total	-	214	18	-	232
5. Planned	Flats / houses	16	14	30	60
Planned total	-	230	32	30	292

Table 2: NSSE housing mix - Ruchazie

Type	Size - apts	Size - person	No.
Cottage flat	3 apt	3 person	4
Cottage flat	3 apt	4 person	2
House	3 apt	4 person	6
House	4 apt	5 person	5
House	6 apt	6 person	1
Total	-	-	18

The NSSE properties represent the first introduction of homes for low cost home ownership in the area by Ruchazie Housing Association. They are the first stage of introducing tenure balance in an area which has been predominantly made up of social rented housing.

The NSSE homes are situated on relatively main roads in the neighbourhood. This ensured that they are prominent in the site but means that they are separate from the other housing.

There are a range of households living in the NSSE properties. Household information was available for 17 of the properties. Nearly half (8 - 47%) were couples with children, two (12%) were single parent households, three (18%) were couples without children, three (18%) were single person households and one was 'other'.

Developing the scheme

Decisions on the tenure and housing mix were made in discussion between the RSL, the Council and the house builder. The process was considered to be pragmatic and the special characteristics of the site influenced decisions - particularly in relation to house sizes.

The RSL had originally considered building a mix of shared ownership and NSSE properties. However, they preferred the option of NSSE as they felt it was best suited to the target group they were hoping to attract and preferred NSSE as there is no management obligation on the RSL.

The house size mix was dictated by available space for the units - some of the NSSE properties are small. The RSL feel that although the units sold quickly purchasers find them small and in future they would want to build with a larger specification.

The main objective for the neighbourhood was to introduce a better tenure balance. Owner occupation rates have been historically low and there has been a low uptake of the Right to Buy in Ruchazie. There has only been a small number of NSSE built (18) but this will be increased in the final phase of development along with provision of homes for outright sale. The RSL told us that for the outright sale properties to 'stack up' financially the land will need to be transferred at a nominal sum. Another option would be the use of GRO subsidy if this is available.

For the final phase, they hope to be at cost plan stage by the end of 2010. They have still to get full planning and roads consent. They hope to have achieved tender approval by the third quarter of 2011.

Consultation on the development has been mainly internal (i.e. between partners). There has been some public consultation on the housing to be developed through open days, forums and newsletters. The RSL said that the shared equity housing was going to be occupied by people previously living outwith Ruchazie.

Marketing the scheme

The NSSE homes were deliberately built in visible locations on main roads in the neighbourhood. The RSL felt that this would help market the properties.

The homes were targeted at first time buyers. All purchasers were first time buyers with the exception of one buyer whose previous home had been demolished. They had assessed what prices people would be able to afford. There was no 'golden share' at the properties.

The NSSE properties sold quickly and were very easy to market. Properties were advertised in local housing offices in the East End of Glasgow and the RSL felt that they "sold themselves". The RSL feel that having the Scottish Government as the other 'purchaser' brings security and is a "big selling point" for NSSE homes (compared with shared equity provided by a private developer).

The majority of purchasers were local to the East End. Sales log information is available for 17 of the 18 NSSE properties. Five purchasers (29%) had been renting from a private landlord, eight (47%) had been renting from an RSL, and three (18%) had been living with friends or relatives. Two of the purchasers that were previously in private rented accommodation were on a waiting list for social housing.

Nine purchasers (of 17) bought 60 per cent stakes, three bought 80 per cent stakes and the (mean) average size of stake was 66 per cent.

Experiences of purchasers

We spoke to four NSSE purchasers to gather views on the neighbourhood. All of the residents we spoke to stressed location as a key factor influencing their choice of home. Most said that they wanted to live near their family, and one person chose their home to remain near their child's school. Purchasers were attracted to NSSE as it was seen as an affordable option. One person said that it gave them the chance to get on the housing ladder.

Outcomes - Purchaser views

Generally, purchasers were positive about the layout and design of the scheme in Ruchazie. Consultees that were familiar with the area felt that the new housing had resulted in "dramatic" change and a "transformation" of the area. Residents were happy with the design and layout of the housing but there were complaints that there had not been enough space allocated for car parking.

Residents were also pleased with the public transport links and with the local shops which are within walking distance. However, one person was concerned about personal safety and said that she does not use the shops for this reason.

The residents we spoke to were pleased that the area is well maintained and kept clean. However, one person felt that social renters tend to have less respect for their homes than the NSSE owners and said that the areas where there is social housing are less tidy.

The residents were positive about the mix of house types and sizes in the area. Consultees liked the fact that houses and flats are mixed together in the same blocks.

It is not clear how much social mixing has taken place between residents living in different tenures within the scheme. This may be affected by the layout of the scheme with NSSE properties located on specific streets. One resident suggested that there hasn't been much mixing due to the newness of the scheme and the fact that residents are still "settling in". One consultee (who was generally dissatisfied with the neighbourhood) told us that she chose a house that was surrounded by other shared equity homes in order to keep away from rented houses, and in the hope that neighbours would respect their properties and environment.

There is a developing ethnic mix in the area with growing numbers of Eastern European people living in the scheme. The RSL feel that this mix has added vibrancy to the neighbourhood. While the residents did not imply that there were any tensions between the two groups, some felt that the Eastern European residents tend to "keep themselves to themselves" and that social mixing was limited.

The residents had mixed views on the level of safety in the neighbourhood and views appear to be influenced by location in the scheme. A majority of consultees felt that the neighbourhood is a safe place to live and half felt that it was a safe place to walk about in at night.

One resident felt unsafe in the area. This resident said that she would not venture out at night and is reluctant to let her son out as well.

Residents were relatively positive about the social facilities in the neighbourhood although use of the facilities varied. These include a community centre and a five-a-side football centre which includes a children's soft-play facility.

Consultees were less positive about public space in the neighbourhood (and lack of play facilities for children).

"There's not enough public space and no play areas for younger children within the estate."

"There's a big park nearby but nothing in it for kids to do. It's not being used to the advantage of the local community. And there's no play park in the local neighbourhood."

The RSL is currently in the process of developing a children's play area in the neighbourhood as part of their planning obligations. And an outdoor football court has been developed by the local authority. The RSL is also looking at the potential of establishing a development trust to support improvements at the local park.

Despite these issues the majority of residents consulted felt a strong sense of belonging in the area. The residents were happy with their homes and most had strong connections with family and friends in the nearby area. All but one of the residents we spoke to plan to stay in the area over the long-term. Consultees only expected to move if their household size changes (having more children) but would want to remain in the local area. One person who is unhappy in the area hopes to move when they are able to afford it.

Outcomes - Developer views

The RSL developer believes that the project has met expectations although it is relatively 'early days'. The introduction of NSSE has been the first step towards creating a better tenure balance. They feel that the success of NSSE has disproved any doubts about the market and shown that people want to buy houses in the area.

The RSL are happy with the direction of travel but feel that, if anything, the current level of NSSE is low; and they could probably have developed more in the fourth phase. This will be addressed in the next development phase where more than half will be for shared equity or outright sale.

Although it is relatively early in the life of the neighbourhood turnover is low. There has been no turnover (i.e. resales) at the NSSE properties.

The RSL told us that there have not been any particular management issues at the scheme. The only difficulty they have had has been ensuring adequate car parking. They developed a car parking plaza to deal with the problem of limited on-street parking.

The RSL felt that the development allowance element of subsidy was essential for success. One member of staff had to develop their expertise in shared equity and took control of the NSSE process. They do not think they would have had the capacity for this without the additional allowance. Despite the allowance marketing was done at minimal cost. The RSL also felt that the project has been successful due to partnership working. They have learnt lessons from the experiences of other housing associations and they have received helpful support from the local authority.

Conclusions

• NSSE introduced on a limited scale but will expand in subsequent development phases.
• NSSE has delivered a range of household sizes, with homes ranging from three person to six person. NSSE purchasers were positive about the mix of housing available.
• NSSE was viewed as a good option by the RSL compared with shared ownership.
• Decisions on the development were taken pragmatically and there was limited consultation.
• NSSE has been used to stimulate the housing market in an area where owner-occupation has been very limited.
• NSSE properties were easy to market and have been meeting local demand.
• There has been limited social mixing across tenures / groups. There may be lessons in relation to layout / 'pepper-potting' and the provision of quality public spaces and facilities where local people can interact.
• There are some positive signs in relation to sustainability with a long-term commitment to the neighbourhood from NSSE purchasers.

Case study - St Andrews Braes, St Andrews

The St Andrews Braes development sits on the outskirts of St Andrews near the main road into the town from the south. It was developed as a new neighbourhood in 2006/07 and includes a mix of homes for social rent, shared ownership, and owner-occupation. The homes for owner-occupation received subsidy through GRO grant. The development is within a housing market area that experiences high demand and typically sees high house prices. The development was a partnership between Hillcrest Housing Association and Thomas Mitchell Homes (no longer trading).

The scheme

The development includes 25 homes for social rent, 24 shared ownership properties, 21 GRO-funded homes for owner-occupation and two homes designed to support independent living for people with a physical disability. The wider neighbourhood also includes private retirement flats and a nursing home. We do not have a detailed breakdown of property types and sizes for the shared ownership (or social rented) homes at the site but properties range between two apartment flats and five apartment houses.

All of the GRO properties are flats. Eleven are three apartment, two bedroom flats and the remaining ten are four apartment, three bedroom flats. In 2006, the price of the three apartment GRO flats ranged between £75,500 and £86,750. The price of the larger four apartment flats ranged between £99,250 and £104,250.

Three of the GRO properties have subsequently been resold. Since these resales took place within the grant period this has resulted in a claw-back of £65,871 by the Scottish Government.

Developing the scheme

The brief for the development was based on assessed housing need in the area and the requirements of the local authority's Strategic Housing Investment Plan ( SHIP).

There was a drive for introducing affordable housing (through both shared ownership and GRO) due to demand and the comparatively high property prices in St Andrews. It was recognised that there were people in the local area who could not afford to get on the property ladder but could afford more than social renting. This was considered to be a particular issue in relation to people who could be classed as 'key workers' who are important to the local economy but finding it difficult to access full ownership on the open market.

The RSL developer also felt that shared ownership was a favourable option as it reduced the amount of HAG funding that was required to develop the site. Hillcrest received HAG funding and some Social & Environmental Grant ( SEGs) for the environmental element. This was not considered to be high at about £1,250 per unit. Planning issues (including design requirement that detail on housing matched the neighbouring nursing home) added about 10 per cent to the costs of the project.

"It took leverage to make the development stack up. Planning issues added to costs and there was limited funding available for the project".
RSL developer

A Homezone approach was included as part of the brief for the site. Although this was successfully established there was some opposition from the Council planners and the roads department who were sceptical about the approach.

There were a number of objections from local people about the site and particularly its visibility for people entering St Andrews from the south. It became a condition of planning that people wouldn't be able to see the rooftops of buildings from the south side of St Andrews. This meant that the elevation of the housing had to be lowered by digging foundations deeper into the sub-structure. As such the development cost an additional £250,000 and took a year and a half to complete.

Public consultation was led by the private developer and involved meetings with Community Councils and a series of public meetings. Discussions focused on design at the site: the Homezone approach, the colours of the properties and the elevation of the site.

Marketing the scheme

The homes were targeted at first-time buyers and at key workers and young people.

Sales log information is available for the 21 GRO properties at the site. All of the GRO purchasers were in full-time employment. Of the 21 GRO households, nine (43%) were couples without children, three (14%) were couples with children and two (10%) were single parents. Five (24%) were single person households and two households (10%) were 'other'.

The average age of the first household member was 28, and none of the first occupants were aged above 39. Sixteen of the GRO purchasers (76%) were in their 20s.

All of the GRO purchasers were first-time buyers. Of the 21 GRO purchasers in the scheme, nine were previously living with parents / relatives and one person was living with friends. This means that nearly half (10 - 48%) were newly forming households. Eight GRO purchasers (38%) were previously living in private rented accommodation. Two (10%) were in social rented accommodation and one person was renting employer-owned accommodation. In addition to the two previously renting from an RSL / Council, 14 of the GRO purchasers (67%) were on an RSL and / or Council waiting list.

The area experiences high housing demand and the developers feel that the shared ownership and GRO properties "marketed themselves". Shared ownership properties were advertised on the RSL website but interest was generated from signs on the construction site and local 'word-of-mouth'. All of the GRO properties sold within a short period of time.

"Demand was so high I think we could have sold or rented the units three or four times over."
RSL developer

Experiences of purchasers

We spoke to seven GRO purchasers / sharing owners living in the neighbourhood. Most of the consultees had previously been living in private rented accommodation although one sharing owner had been renting an RSL property and one GRO purchaser had previously owned her home but been through a marriage break-up. All of the GRO owners had been on the Council's housing list but not been a priority for housing, or expected to be allocated a Council house. One GRO purchaser said that they put themselves on the Council list not to get a home but because she was told she would be kept informed of opportunities at new build developments in the area.

Many residents said that location (and particularly being close to work and family) was an important factor in choosing their home but affordability was also a key issue for the purchasers. Several said that although they aspired to home ownership in the area, house prices in St Andrews were exorbitant and one person said that buying outright was "impossible". Some GRO purchasers said that location was less important than moving out of the expensive private rented sector in St Andrews.

Outcomes - Purchaser views

GRO purchasers were particularly pleased at the affordable cost of their homes, giving them access to home ownership that would not otherwise have been possible in the area.

"I was attracted to the property because of the price. It was heavily subsidised and I was amazed at what we could get for the cost."
GRO purchaser

GRO purchasers were positive that the scheme had helped them onto the housing ladder and that they would have raised significant deposits for a subsequent purchase if they choose to move home. Some GRO purchasers were confident that they would make large profits on their homes.

"It has been an excellent opportunity to get on the housing ladder without overstretching ourselves and our outgoings are less than they would be renting in Edinburgh."
GRO purchaser

Sharing owners were less positive about affordability and one person was hoping to move because they didn't feel it was a good deal paying an occupancy rate and having full responsibility for repairs and insurance costs (despite only owning half the property).

Residents were generally positive about the neighbourhood. All consultees felt that it was a safe place to live. Residents feel that there are good transport links, the housing is near shops and the town centre. There were concerns about limited public spaces in the area. This is not helped by the 'compact' design of the neighbourhood and the fact that it is bordered by a hill at the back of the site. There is one children's play area in the neighbourhood although two were originally planned.

GRO purchasers expressed concern about the quality of their properties and some felt that there had been 'cost-cutting' when developing the affordable homes. Another key concern is limited parking in the neighbourhood. The situation was described as "atrocious" with residents having to double park or park on grass verges.

Although residents generally felt that people in the neighbourhood 'get along' and mix well there were some views indicating tensions between GRO owners and sharing owners. There were also perceptions about 'invalid' occupants at GRO properties including GRO properties being rented out privately. There were issues about growing numbers of students renting GRO properties.

There were concerns that the affordable housing is distinct from private homes in the wider neighbourhood. In the scheme GRO properties are grouped together on one street.

"If you build fancy houses all around the scheme and in one little corner have first-time buyers, it's like putting poorer people in with posher people. Why do they have to be in an allocated street - why can't they just be dotted about?"
GRO purchaser

One GRO owner spoke about the shared ownership properties "at the other side of the estate" and said that police visit these properties regularly.

A key concern (among GRO purchasers) was that GRO properties were not being used to provide affordable homes for those in need. There was general scepticism among consultees that GRO properties had been purchased dishonestly by people hoping to make a profit and there was concern that GRO properties are now being rented out privately.

Three GRO properties in the area have been resold (with claw back of subsidy) and one of these properties is registered under the Scottish Landlord Registration scheme. However, there is a perception among residents that a high number have been lost to the private rented sector. One resident estimated that more than a third of the GRO properties are now being let to students. There was a general (unsubstantiated) view that families are now being replaced by students in the GRO properties and there have been complaints about noise levels from properties rented by students.

"It's a lovely neighbourhood but there's now a relatively high turnover of people. It was initially young families but they are moving out and being replaced by students. The GRO funded properties are not supposed to be sub-let more and more appear to be - why is this being allowed?"
GRO purchaser

"People who were not in need of affordable housing bought properties only as a profit making vehicle or to let their student children live in them, whilst people in St Andrews who actually needed affordable housing were not able to get on the scheme."
GRO purchaser

Nevertheless, the residents that we spoke to were positive about their homes and nearly all intended to stay in their property for a long time. Most GRO purchasers only expected to move due to changes in their household composition or the location of their work.

Outcomes - Developer views

The developer is happy with the design and quality of the scheme. The housing design is of a high quality and many properties are in excess of the Housing for Varying Needs requirements. They are pleased that the neighbourhood is attractive: the homes have been painted a range of colours. There were some problems at the homes with drainage but these issues have been overcome.

They are pleased that the Homezone was delivered. There were some grievances most notably around limited parking (one space per home) but they feel that it takes some time for people to get used to the new approach.

They are positive that there has been mixing between social renters and sharing owners. A residents association was established about a year after the development was completed. Renters and sharing owners are dealing with neighbourhood issues together.

In terms of the housing mix established, types and sizes seem appropriate - the biggest issue was the overall number which was not enough to meet demand.

The RSL developer believes that there is good stability in the neighbourhood with low turnover and voids in the rented and shared ownership homes.

"People want to stay in the area. Those moving home have had to do so for a particular reason."
RSL Developer

Conclusions

• GRO and shared ownership have been used to help people in a pressured housing market. High private rental prices (due partly to the student population in the town) added to demand for more affordable housing options.
• The LIFT schemes were targeted at key workers and young people who were particularly affected by high property prices in the area.
• Developing shared ownership homes reduced the level of HAG funding needed at the development. Considerable local objections were overcome through redesigning the site but this impacted on costs.
• Residents feel that 'tender blindness' has not been achieved at the site and there are some tensions between different tender groups.
• There is suspicion that GRO properties were sold to people who were not in real need of affordable housing. There is some evidence that GRO purchasers put themselves on council / RSL waiting lists to make them eligible for GRO properties.
• There is anecdotal evidence that GRO properties are being used as private rented accommodation, typically for students.
• GRO purchasers were confident that they would make a good financial return on their property and that this would help them move up the property ladder. Sharing owners did not feel their housing costs are particularly good value.