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

6. MIXED AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

Introduction

6.1 This section considers how successful the LIFT schemes have been at supporting mixed and sustainable communities in Scotland. Supporting neighbourhoods to become more 'sustainable' has become a key objective in regeneration activity. Establishing a strong housing balance and encouraging positive neighbourhood attributes can help places become more sustainable in terms of self-sufficiency and durability.

6.2 However sustainability can be difficult to define and approaches to deliver sustainability can vary for different types of neighbourhood in different locations. Good practice guidance on Creating and Sustaining Mixed Income Communities set out key components for a sustainable community:

• a 'sense of place' but connection to the wider area;
• an integrated mix of housing of different types and tenures to support a range of household sizes, ages and incomes;
• appropriate size, scale and density and the right layout to support basic amenities;
• a strong local economy providing jobs and wealth;
• good quality public services for all age groups; and
• good urban design and transport infrastructure. ¹⁸

Location and Deprivation

6.3 Across Scotland LIFT has been used to deliver low cost home ownership alongside other tenures. This has included neighbourhoods where there has been a predominance of social rented accommodation. LIFT has also provided affordable housing alongside market-value homes.

6.4 In order to assess the LIFT schemes in relation to introducing low cost home ownership in areas of relative deprivation we analysed the SIMD datazone ranking for all available LIFT postcodes ¹⁹. A breakdown by local authority area is provided in Appendix 8.

Table 6.1: SIMD ranking of location of LIFT properties 2005/06 to 2009/10

Relative deprivation by SIMD ranking	Most deprived 5%		Most deprived 10%		Most deprived 15%		Average %age rank		Total
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	Mean	Median
NSSE	132	7.9	227	13.5	389	23.2	40.7	38.5	1,676
OMSEP	86	3.0	218	7.6	366	12.8	43.0	40.9	2,857
GRO	0	0	39	34.5	51	45.1	29.1	32.8	113

Source: LIFT Sales Log Database

6.5 Nearly a quarter of NSSE properties were in the 15 per cent most deprived datazones. There was significant variation across Scotland with NSSE properties being developed in both affluent and deprived areas. Of the 27 local authority areas where NSSE was used, 11 (40.7%) did not build NSSE properties in any of the 15 per cent most deprived datazones in Scotland. Overall, NSSE properties were developed in the more deprived half of Scotland's datazones.

6.6 All of the NSSE properties that were developed in East Renfrewshire, Falkirk and West Dunbartonshire were located in datazones within the most deprived 15 per cent. There were proportionately high volumes of NSSE properties in deprived areas in Inverclyde, Stirling, Glasgow, North Ayrshire and Edinburgh. Just more than half of the NSSE properties developed in Glasgow were in the most deprived 15 per cent of datazones.

6.7 Just 13 per cent of OMSEP properties were in the 15 per cent most deprived datazones in Scotland. This is significantly lower than the comparable figure for NSSE. Just three per cent were in the most deprived five per cent of datazones. However, overall OMSEP properties were purchased in the more deprived half of Scotland's datazones.

6.8 There were proportionately high volumes of OMSEP properties located in the most deprived 15 per cent in South Ayrshire, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire (respectively with 50 per cent, 47.1 per cent and 45.5 per cent in the 15 per cent most deprived datazones). South Ayrshire, Inverclyde and Glasgow had the highest proportions of OMSEP purchases in datazones in the most deprived five per cent although the highest number of units in the most deprived five per cent were in Edinburgh (where the largest volume of OMSEP sales have been).

6.9 A much higher proportion of GRO properties were in the 15 per cent most deprived areas - almost half. However, the data is only available for a small amount of GRO properties (13% of completions) and should be treated with caution. More than a third (39 - 34.5%) were in the most deprived 10 per cent of datazones. None of the GRO properties were in datazones in the most deprived 5 per cent. The average datazone for GRO properties was ranked in the most deprived third (29.1%; median 32.8%).

Perceptions of Mixed Communities

6.10 Our qualitative interviews with LIFT purchasers gathered views on the communities where the purchasers lived. Almost half of the GRO purchasers interviewed felt that their community was mixed, but none felt that it was a strong, supportive community. Three felt strongly that there was no community spirit, with concerns about properties being rented privately resulting in high turnover of households. One purchaser felt very isolated due to high levels of private renting and lack of community spirit.

6.11 NSSE purchasers had mixed views on the neighbourhoods they lived in. Almost a third felt that there was a mix of households in the area, but many didn't know or felt that there should be more of a mix. A quarter of NSSE purchasers felt that there was a sense of community spirit in their area.

6.12 OMSEP purchasers had far less to say about the mix of people within their area, with many not knowing or having contact with their neighbours. A fifth felt that their area was mixed and a similar proportion felt that their area had good community spirit.

6.13 Although almost half of the sharing owners felt that they now lived in a mixed community, there were different views on whether this was a positive outcome, with some concerned about anti-social behaviour. Very few felt that they lived in a strong, supportive community with community spirit. Some sharing owners that we consulted had been in their home for a number of years and spoke about the area changing over the period. There were some concerns about neighbourhoods deteriorating as a result of owners moving on and renting out properties privately.

Views on Housing Mix

6.14 Most sharing owners did not have strong views on the tenure mix in their neighbourhood. NSSE consultees tended to have clearer views, and several raised concerns about other groups of residents, reflecting some tensions resulting from tenure diversification. Some NSSE owners raised issues in relation to problem tenants being housed in social rented accommodation in their area.

6.15 Other NSSE consultees raised concerns about the insufficient mix of households in their area, and attitudes towards shared equity owners. Some felt that a lack of tenure-blindness in the neighbourhood meant that there was stigma towards people living in shared equity homes.

"I am concerned about some of the tenants in the neighbourhood. (The RSL) don't want to know about it. In my view, there should have been a wider mix of households."
NSSE owner

"We feel there is some tension as the owners think the shared equity houses are owned by the RSL and they look down on them. It is unfortunate that the shared equity houses are the semi-detached ones and look different to the other [private] houses in the development."
NSSE owner

6.16 GRO owners also raised concerns about stigma towards residents in affordable housing - and suggested that there should have been better 'pepper-potting' of properties around the neighbourhood.

6.17 Our consultations revealed a number of tensions between tenure groups. In summary, some NSSE purchasers raised concerns about neighbourhood problems resulting from residents in social housing. Other NSSE purchasers were worried about being stigmatised as the 'poor neighbours' by private owners and as a result of distinct housing design. Some OMSEP and GRO owners also raised concerns about social renters living nearby - and GRO purchasers were also concerned about private renters and anti-social behaviour from these properties.

Community Safety

6.18 Experiences in relation to community safety varied across LIFT purchasers. Overall, sharing owners were positive about the level of safety in their neighbourhood. Some were concerned about anti-social behaviour and a couple of respondents said that they felt unsafe in their area at night.

"The area is safe during the day, but I would not go out at night... Other owners are now renting out their properties which is creating problems and bringing the area down. There is noise in the block late at night."
Sharing owner

6.19 OMSEP and GRO owners were broadly positive about community safety, although a minority reported problems in their neighbourhood. One OMSEP purchaser said that social tenants were responsible for anti-social behaviour and vandalism in their block. Some GRO purchasers were concerned about anti-social behaviour among residents in GRO funded properties which had passed into the private rented sector.

6.20 In contrast, roughly a fifth of NSSE owners felt that there were real problems in their area. These related to anti-social behaviour, personal safety and/or drug abuse. A minority said that they felt "trapped" in a poor neighbourhood.

Lessons from Three Mixed Neighbourhoods

6.21 We carried out three case studies looking at mixed communities where LIFT subsidy had been used.

• Ruchazie (Glasgow) - a mix of NSSE and social rented housing;
• St Andrews - GRO, shared ownership and social rented housing; and
• Aviemore - NSSE, social rented and private housing.

The three case studies, and a note of the indicators that we used to explore mixed and sustainable communities, are included as Appendix 9.

Housing and the Environment

6.22 In the three areas we looked at there was a strong mix of housing types, sizes and tenures. Tenure mix was more limited in Ruchazie where NSSE had only recently been introduced.

6.23 There were different levels of integration of tenures across the three sites. This was most successful in Aviemore where there was a strong masterplanning process and commitment that affordable housing would be available throughout the site (including in the most 'attractive' parts of the neighbourhood). The imperative to give NSSE homes a high profile in the Ruchazie area (in the first phase of NSSE) meant that the homes are distinct from the other housing in the neighbourhood.

6.24 Purchasers in the three areas were generally positive about the attractiveness of their neighbourhoods and design of their homes. This was particularly the case in Aviemore where innovative housing design has been used and where it is very difficult to distinguish between the private and affordable housing.

6.25 In St Andrews, developers had to modify the site design in response to strong objections from local residents. Residents felt that the neighbourhood is an attractive place to live but there were concerns about the quality of houses.

6.26 Residents in Aviemore were happiest with the public spaces available to them. However, in both Aviemore and St Andrews, where the Homezone concept was used, residents had grievances in relation to available parking and boundaries for children's play. There were no significant concerns about cleanliness although one NSSE owner felt that the social housing was less well maintained by residents.

Population

6.27 Sales log data shows a strong mix of household types living in the LIFT properties. These included single people, couples and families with children. In Ruchazie and Aviemore, NSSE properties had been purchased by couples of pensionable age. In both areas the average age of LIFT purchasers was less than 40, as would be expected for first-time buyers. In St Andrews the age profile of GRO owners was low (averaging 28 years). This reflected the way in which properties were targeted. Household data was not available for shared ownership (or social rented) properties but it might be assumed that the spread of ages would be greater across the neighbourhoods (with the LIFT properties having a younger age profile).

6.28 The LIFT properties have been built to Housing for Varying Needs standards. However, we are not aware of any LIFT purchasers in the three areas having a disability. In St Andrews the neighbourhood includes housing to support independent living.

Crime

6.29 Overall, the residents in the three areas felt that the neighbourhoods were safe although there were some concerns in Ruchazie about personal safety in the area at night.

6.30 Residents had some concerns about anti-social behaviour. RSLs felt that issues of managing anti-social behaviour were no greater than would be expected in other areas where there is social housing. Interestingly, in St Andrews there were concerns that anti-social behaviour was happening at homes that had been sold as GRO properties but had moved into the private rented sector.

6.31 Residents were not experiencing any significant issues with vandalism, fly tipping etc and felt that the neighbourhoods were well maintained in respect of these issues.

Community Cohesion

6.32 In all areas, residents had a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood. Although difficult to measure from brief case study research, community cohesion seemed strongest in Aviemore. This may be the result of strong local bonds in a semi-rural community but has been helped by close integration of LIFT homes with social and private housing. In Ruchazie, NSSE purchasers came from the local area and there was a sense that people 'get along' sufficiently well. However, people are still settling into the neighbourhood. There was less evidence of social mixing compared with Aviemore.

6.33 Community cohesion appears more of an issue in St Andrews. Residents noted the distinction between social renters, sharing owners and GRO owners. There was a particular issue about GRO properties being lost to the private rented sector with high local demand for student accommodation. The presence of private renters was causing some tension in the area.

6.34 In St Andrews and Ruchazie there was a suggestion that cohesion and community spirit would be strengthened through the provision of better community facilities. In Ruchazie, the RSL hopes that this can be enhanced through the development of the local park.

Services

6.35 In each area, residents were happy with access to local shopping facilities. Very few of the residents that we spoke to in the case study areas had children attending school but where this was the case it was a clear reason for wanting to remain in the neighbourhood.

6.36 There were some concerns in Aviemore about the lack of a local community / social venue that would be a focus for adults living in the area. In St Andrews, GRO owners were less concerned about community facilities; there was a sense that purchasers were more focused on accessing home ownership in the St Andrews area than on improving facilities in their immediate neighbourhood.

Transport

6.37 Residents felt that public transport links are good in each of the areas. Homezones were used in Aviemore and St Andrews and there are good walking links to the main town.

Summary

Location and Deprivation

6.38 Shared equity homes have been delivered in both deprived and affluent areas in Scotland. Nearly a quarter of NSSE properties were developed in the 15 per cent most deprived datazones. Overall, NSSE properties tended to be developed in the more deprived half of datazones in Scotland.

6.39 Nearly 13 per cent of OMSEP properties were purchased in the most deprived 15 per cent of datazones. This means that NSSE properties were more likely to be found in deprived areas.

6.40 The data shows that GRO subsidy was far more likely to be used in deprived areas than shared equity. The available data shows that 45 per cent of GRO completions were in the most deprived 15 per cent of datazones.

Views on Mixed Communities

6.41 We spoke to LIFT purchasers about their neighbourhoods. Sharing owners did not have particularly strong views on the tenure mix in their area. NSSE owners expressed views reflecting some tensions between different tenure groups within neighbourhoods, and raised concerns about social renters in their local area. There were also concerns about the way they are perceived by full owners - and calls for better balance of tenures and pepper-potting in neighbourhoods.

6.42 OMSEP purchasers were generally less concerned about issues of mix in their neighbourhood.

6.43 GRO owners were concerned about the profile of their neighbourhood changing over time and there were also concerns about the visibility of the affordable housing in mixed neighbourhoods.

Case Studies

6.44 Our case studies demonstrated that LIFT schemes have contributed to a strong mix of housing types, sizes and tenures. A variety of household types have been accessing LIFT properties within neighbourhoods. Tenure integration has succeeded where there has been good neighbourhood design and strong masterplanning.

6.45 LIFT has been used in safe, popular areas where there is a growing sense of community cohesion. However, in some areas there is evidence of tension between tenure groups. These might be eased through better 'tenure blindness' and developing shared community facilities.