Arley Housing Needs Survey
Survey commissioned in partnership with Arley Parish Council and North Warwickshire Borough Council.
Analysis by Paul Roberts
Housing Strategy and Development Officer
North Warwickshire Borough Council
June 2011
ContentsPage No
Summary of Results3
Planning Context4
Survey Results5
Resident’s Comments (Appendix A)10
Properties for Sale (Appendix B)19
Contact Details20
Summary of results
1260 forms were distributed throughout the village and we received a return rate of 254 returns. This equates to a response rate of 20%.
A survey was done in 2008 by Warwickshire Rural Community Council which showed a need for 3 rented properties which consisted of:
2 x 2 bedroom houses
1x2 bedroom bungalow
However, whenever consultation was done within the village, locals were showing up expressing a need that far outweighed the results of the survey and therefore a decision was taken to redo the survey and to include a reference on the front page of the survey as to why people needed to complete the Housing Needs Survey and its relevance. This has resulted in an increased return rate of 6% compared to the survey in 2008.
The format of the survey was also changed to take into account the views of the village and what residents thought would be the appropriate tenure and type of building if further development was to take place and these comments will now be taken on board.
From changing the format of the survey, it has shown that out of the 248 returns, 52 households have expressed a housing need, but only 34 left their contact details to enable us to follow up.
When we have followed up, we have been able to establish the following need within Arley.
Flats
3 for social rent
2 for shared ownership
2 bed houses
4 for social rent
4 for shared ownership
3 bed houses
11 for social rent
7 for shared ownership
4 Bed Houses
4 for social rent
2 bed bungalows
3 for social rent
7 for shared ownership.
Planning Context
North Warwickshire Borough Council’s Local Plan adopted in July 2006 sets out a Settlement Hierarchy that identifies, among others, Local Service Centre’s (such as Arley).
Although planning policy at all levels (national, regional and local) imposes considerable restraint on new housing development in rural areas, the Local Plan sets out the circumstances under which new housing development will be permitted.
In Local Service Centre’s, housing developments will be permitted at a scale proportionate to their position in the Settlement Hierarchy and where such development would maintain or enhance the function of the settlement.
An element of affordable housing will be sought on all housing developments in Local Service Centre’s that provide 5 or more dwellings or involve sites of 0.2 hectares or more. The element of affordable housing sought will be expected to amount to 40% (minimum) of the total housing provision on the site concerned.
There is further capacity for this restraint to be relaxed in exceptional circumstances where new housing would meet an identified local need and the Local Plan also deals with the provision of Rural Exception Sites as an important source of affordable housing within or adjacent to existing villages.
In exceptional circumstances, Councils can provide sites for affordable housing where market housing would be refused. Sites that are released for this type of development will be small in nature and remain affordable in perpetuity.
When making applications for such sites it is expected that evidence will be provided of local need based on research within the settlement and its hinterland.
This report, based on the Housing Needs Survey, will be provided as evidence of local need in Arley as a Local Service Centre.
Any housing that may be provided as a result of this survey would be subject to a planning obligation, known as a Section 106 agreement, being placed on the development. This would limit occupation of the homes to people with a local connection. In the first place, priority will be given to those who currently live or work where the development is taking place.
Survey Results
Do you own your own home (with or without a mortgage?)
(If yes, go directly to Question 5)
Yes – 199
No - 55
If you rent your home, which of the following do you rent from?
Private Landlord – 17
Housing Association – 7
Local Authority – 30
Employer – 0
Other - 0
Would you like to own your home, but cannot afford to buy one in Arley that suits your needs.
Yes – 17
No – 34
No answer - 1
Would you be happy to continue to rent your home or consider moving to another form of rental arrangement?
Yes – 43
No – 7
No answer - 1
Are you aware of the range of housing options potentially available for local people?
Yes – 121
No – 121
No answer - 6
At the beginning of this survey, you were given explanations about the four key housing tenure options that could be available to local people unable to purchase a home outright. Were you aware of these options before you received this survey?
Shared ownership/shared equity – 152
Social rent via Housing Association – 170
Open Market Rent – 164
Intermediate rent -91
No answer - 6
Is your home of sufficient size for your present and/or future needs?
(If yes, please go to Question 9)
Yes – 215
No – 36
No answer - 1
Do you need to move to larger accommodation, either now or in the foreseeable future, but are unable to do so because you cannot afford a suitable property?
Yes – 24
No – 90
No answer - 4
Do you have family or dependents (either living with you or elsewhere) who wish to purchase their own home in Arley, but cannot afford to buy in the open market?
Yes – 29
No – 221
No answer - 3
Do you know of anyone who works in Arley, but who cannot afford to live in the village?
Yes – 11
No – 239
No answer - 3
To your knowledge have you, or any of those indicated as being unable to afford a suitable home in Arley, registered this need with North Warwickshire Borough Council?
Yes – 16
No -209
No answer - 25
In your opinion do you think that Arley suffers from the right type of housing provision for local people and their families?
Yes – 115
No -113
No answer - 26
Do you think that Arley should have any more of the following accommodation?
A – Shared equity and/or shared ownership priced below open market levels – 67
B – Social rented homes provided by a Housing Association – 60
C – Rented accommodation provided by landlords at open market rent levels – 33
D – Rented accommodation provided by landlords at rents below open market levels – 45
E – Homes for Local People – 154
F – Fist Time Buyers – 121
G – Other – 17 (included in Appendix A)
H – No answer – 65
Do you think that Arley should provide affordable homes for people who do not live, work or have a family connection to the village?
Yes – 63
No – 181
No answer - 9
Appendix A
Respondents were invited to provide any additional comments. Although intended to focus on housing issues, the comments relate to a range of subjects. The comments are reproduced below, whole and verbatim.
If the Council are going to build more houses, then they will. They have no regard for “greenbelt land” or open spaces. As for a housing need – the population is huge now; there are too many people for property available. The Council needs to acknowledge this. As for these housing association homes, just look at the problem in Coventry. I am sorry that I have withheld my name and address. It would be great not to build anymore houses/flats/bungalows and for people to “not live on benefits”, this costs the Government million of pounds. Councils now need to cut back on their budgets – this is surely a good way to start.
I have lived here in Arley for 40 years and more new houses would bring more people into this area. London is only 120 miles away on the train. Bungalows for older people to buy and first time homes for young people from the village to buy is Arley looking good. Don’t try and bring it down with social cheap houses. We all had to work for what we have.
I think everything possible should be done to help young couples who have tried to save to get on the property ladder.
Arley is in desperate need of O.A.P. accommodation as Stewart Court is not a large enough facility.
Bungalows for O.A.P. and the Disabled
We do not need further homes as we do not have the infrastructure to support it, i.e. doctor’s struggle already to give suitable appts, lack of shop in Old Arley.
There is no room for more housing in Arley. The bus service is being cut (proposed) the medical facilities cannot cope. The Police/Fire/Ambulance services are being cut.
The type of housing that is lacking in the village is bungalows and flats.
In view of the new housing being built in Old Arley, we have enough housing required – taking into account already empty property.
More bungalows are needed for disabled and elderly, more 3 bed roomed homes of a reasonable size for families to encourage new life into the village and hopefully raise standards. Parking is a big issue within the village, more off road spaces needed for existing homes as most homes have two or more vehicles due to lack of public transport ( none on Sundays and bank holiday) and people have to travel out of the village to work.
Something done about the provision of the water pressure, school and community facilities and the medical provision for local families.
I feel that the current level of building is sufficient unless infill land can be used, we moved here to be in the countryside and small village – not somewhere that has it green spaces built on.
No more houses needed. 1) Spring Hill traffic HGV traffic from industrial estate from early morning and late at night with cars still speeding in Spring Hill and through village and vice versa. 2) Traffic congestion from Ransome Road to Sycamore Crescent e.g. shops and school. 3) Water pressure continues to be low. 4) Fire on Industrial Estate, water was turned off twice. 5) Rectory Road, Old Arley through traffic to HerbertFowlerSchool single file traffic through double parking.
No more houses in these two villages
This was also covered in the Arley Parish Plan Survey in 2010, why is money being spent again to gather the same information?
Homes that are not owned (rented) are very seldom looked after in the way that they should be. The people who rent, not all, but some would not respect the property or the area and could lead to further deterioration of both property and area.
We do not wish for any more housing in Old Arley, we didn’t want the bungalows or houses which are or in the near future being built. The village of New Arley has now been ruined. With additional properties being built, there are insufficient amenities in Old Arley i.e. local store/post office etc. Leave our village alone!!
There is land in the centre of New Arley (The Old Miners Welfare) that has lain vacant for years that would be ideal for affordable housing; this is a terrible waste of a Brownfield site.
I haven’t lived in the village long enough to be bake to comment with any authority.
Get some more shops, disgusting for the old village, no competition at Gun Hill. Why not have a shopping complex to cater for the population.
Private landlords no because they don’t care who they rent to. 9 times out of 10, they put scum (trouble makers) in who have no regard or respect for neighbours or village life.
Generally a good mix of different housing needs – need to keep up this mix.
Only if the type of housing determines the type of people who live in them. Some current village residents behave inconsiderately: examples include loud noise late at night and blocking what should be shared right of way. It would be better if all villagers and their visitors could be considerate and well behaved.
I feel North Warwickshire Borough Council should consider providing council homes for people living outside the area. My granddaughter is on the waiting list and has been informed she does not stand a chance because she has no immediate family here, i.e. mother or father. Her mother abandoned her when she was a small child and I brought her up, I am the only mother figure she has. I depend on her for help with my cleaning etc twice a week – it is a long journey for her from Birmingham. I feel that her case should be reconsidered for a home here.
Arley is a great village to live in. It has a community spirit typical of a village and it would be a horrendous mistake to include any type of housing that would change this ideal situation. There is a need for more bungalows to be built in order that those who want to can move into them so staying in the community, but freeing up family homes at the same time, thus continuing the cycle of life. Arley already has enough affordable housing. Long term strategy should be to be building next stage housing.
I believe that if you investigate the current property market in Arley, you will find many houses already for sale/to let that might be considered affordable housing ranging from £72,000 - £100,000. I don’t believe for one second that we need more housing of any kind. Because of where the village is, the people buying here can’t afford to buy in Birmingham/Coventry or Nuneaton. I am personally surrounded by people who work in Coventry, Nuneaton, Coleshill etc. We don’t want or need anymore letting properties to be taken by benefit claimers (long term) or their offspring. Because we currently have a very high proportion of scroungers with lots of kids who have a free home in Arley. Please don’t let this happen, a number of people that I have spoken to have said that they will move away if a housing development is built near us, me included.
I do not think that Arley needs any more houses as a whole. The houses that have already been built for rent/or buy are already above the affordability of the working village people. If affordable means £130,000 to £175,000 as the prices are in Rectory Road then it is a big joke unless you have just sold a property in Birmingham etc and can afford those sort of prices, even if I sold my own house, I would not even have enough to buy one of the cheapest and at £90+ per week for rent, only people on housing benefits could afford one. In our opinion any houses which are to be built to buy are for people outside of the village. It all boils down to how much profit can be made, but it is a big price of turning a village into what we are now being called (a service area) with no thought to the people who have lived here all their lives and have no wish to see the green land turned into bricks and concrete.
The village is not big enough for more housing. The roads are too small, we already have lorries travelling through the village, cars at speed, over parking outside schools, plus the water pressure is already too low! Lack of public transport.
If more houses was provided, better services would have to be provided too!! i.e. buses, park, shops etc.
Having 2 children that could and would be interested in buying and living in Arley.
We think more of first time buy homes for young people to be able to buy, also more bungalows for elderly folks to buy all over Arley and not just in the villages of Old Arley and New Arley
Too many new houses are being built rather than improving ones sat empty. Arley (George Street) cannot cope having any more traffic generated by new homes.
We moved to Arley because of its rural location, already the village green is now a housing development with more green space being allotted for new builds. Any further builds will ruin the village atmosphere and landscape. There are already a range of house prices (starting £65,000 - £250,000) therefore Arley is an affordable housing option with its current stock. To see more green areas used for housing is a blot on Arley’s landscape.
Bungalows for elderly relatives
The current housing provisions are sufficient. I would not want to see additional social housing built although I would support small developments of private development aimed towards affordability ( first time)
I think the NWBC are a good landlord and are ok all round.
Bungalows for old people
Arley is one of the cheapest villages around to purchase property. The last thing we need is any more cheap property. It is already stilted in that direction from expensive to cheap which is exactly what we have. If people can’t afford to buy in Arley, then they can’t afford to buy at all.
The way this questionnaire is laid out suggests that Arley is some sort of stockbroker belt, high priced village pushing out local people. If you look at the prices around Gun Hill, you can see that it clearly is not. Arley does not need exploiting by housing development companies. It already has a wide range from tiny bungalows for the elderly to larger more expensive properties. Leave us alone!!
The rectory road new builds that are currently being developed should provide adequate housing for local people considering the size and amenities for the village.
It appears that local government want top use Arley as a dumping place for the unwanted in Nuneaton and Atherstone. There is virtually no work min Arley, public transport is pathetic and policing non existent. There are numerous empty properties, ripe for renovation and use. We don’t need more unemployed in the village.
We need single person accommodation.
Need properties for the infirm and disabled.
If too many houses are built the village will lose its identity as a village like Galley Common. Everyone knows each other and housing is heap, affordable anyway and plenty for sale, too much rented would encourage more of the wrong type of drug addicts etc who are already coming in from the city. There is no amenities for teenagers etc. I think bungalows or the like, but affordable types would be appropriate, also part rent/part buy encourages people to care for their own home.