Northern Ireland Quarterly House Price Index

Key findings

• In 2010 the typical affordable home in Northern Ireland was sold for £100,000, compared with almost £150,000 in 2008.
• In 2010, households on a median income (£21,000) were able to service mortgage payments for a house costing approximately £147,000.
• The difference between the price of an average affordable home and median income households’ capacity to
service mortgage payments meant that there was a ‘positive’ affordability gap of £47,000 in 2010.
• The position in 2010 contrasted significantly with that in 2008, when households were only able to afford a home priced at £97,000. The lower price of an ‘affordable’ home in 2008 reflected both the lower household incomes and higher loan-to-value ratios at that time, and resulted in a negative affordability gap of -£53,000.
• The significant shift in the relationship between house prices and incomes between 2008 and 2010 is also reflected in the proportion of homes sold at or below the ‘affordable’. In 2008, only three per cent of homes sold in Northern Ireland were considered to be an affordable price, but by 2010 the proportion had increased to 58%.

Conclusions and challenges

The picture emerging from the most recent analysis of affordability in the Northern Ireland housing market is encouraging for first time buyers. By the first quarter of 2011, house prices had returned to their 2005 levels and the affordability index shows that, even in 2010, significantly lower house prices and slightly higher incomes meant that median income households were in a much better position to meet the mortgage costs on an affordable home. However, he much more stringent lending criteria being applied by banks and building societies (including lower loan-to-value ratios), continuing labour market uncertainty, the relatively high incidence of negative equity in Northern Ireland all continue to militate against higher transaction rates and improved opportunities for first-time buyers and investors.
Joe Frey
Head of Research, NIHE
Email:joe.frey@nihe.gov.uk

Professor Michael Ball of Henley Business School at the University of Reading recently uncovered some worrying statistics in his report, Housing markets and independence in old age. Presently, there are just 100,000 specialist private retirement homes in the UK, yet the country is set to see a 60% increase in the number of households aged over 65 years by 2033.

Professor Ball identifies owner occupied retirement housing (OORH) as a solution to the potentially huge shortfall. OORH is lease-based accommodation tailored for the elderly, and is the type of housing in which they are happy to live as customer satisfaction results attest.

Retirement housebuilders offer OORH housing in a range of apartments, cottages and houses for the active elderly, with on-site facilities and house managers (ie wardens). McCarthy & Stone, sponsor of the report, can accommodate the less mobile through its care packages.

But once more the planning system is preventing sufficient delivery of this type of housing, Professor Ball finds. Build rates are so low that they need to grow four times the level achieved before the housing crash to meet just a moderate increase in demand.

A Lack of Understanding

In his report Professor Ball says that both government and local authorities are failing to understand the numerous benefits of OORH. For example, it can provide a boost to local neighbourhoods as the elderly often shop locally. And when an elderly person switches to a retirement home, they could be leaving behind a three-bedroom house now available to the local housing market. This is all very localism-friendly.

"Housing and planning supply does tend to focus on the other end of the spectrum – first time buyers and affordable housing," comments Gary Day, McCarthy & Stone’s land and planning director. "Few local authorities have assessed the needs of the ageing population."

"Local authorities appear to show an understanding of the low numbers surrounding private retirement housing, but there is still an assumption that the elderly can just remain in their homes," says Guy Flintoft, director of planning consultancy Barton Willmore. "The government’s Lifetime Homes standard is not suitable for everyone. Some elderly people might need supported independence."

The report states that the unenthusiastic attitude towards OORH is evidenced by the number of times McCarthy & Stone has found itself going to appeal on its sites. Churchill Retirement Living has also experienced frustrating delays – one of five months when an appeal on its application was passed from one committee to another. "There is always a risk with any application that councillors will ignore the advice of professional planners and this is why we appealed in this case," says group chairman and md Spencer McCarthy. "But the lack of understanding about OORH is a concern. When we prepare a planning application we ensure that the social and economic benefits are highlighted to the planning officer, councillors and local community at the outset."

Strategic Guidance

Professor Ball recommends robust national and local strategic guidance to promote awareness. Local authorities should allocate sites for OORH in their local plans and include its plus-points in local housing strategies. "The greatest emphasis regarding housing for the elderly and planning is obviously at the local level," he writes.

But Spencer McCarthy comments that the policy changes that are needed require the force of the upcoming National Planning Policy Framework. And in his report, Professor Ball sees the opportunity for the new single document to provide a set of ground rules to cut through local bureaucracy.

McCarthy is encouraged by recent announcements. On May 10 [the report was launched in the House of Commons on May 9] CLG minister Bob Neill confirmed that the government was considering housing policies for older people as part of the NPPF.

"He also said that the housing needs of older people were a material consideration for local planning authorities in terms of local plan policies and when deciding planning applications."

Yet other industry members are not so confident about OORH’s inclusion in the NPPF. McCarthy & Stone made representations to the advisory group’s draft, but Day says that discussions with ministers have not provided hope that substantial guidance will appear.

"If anyone is looking for better strategy guidance through the NPPF they’re going to be disappointed," says Flintoft. "The NPPF is meant to replace hundredsof pages of planning guidance and I think something only very brief on retirement housing will be offered."

Affordable Housing/S106

"Requiring retirement housebuilders to provide affordable housing can have the effect of making retirement housing more expensive," points out Guy Flintoft. "Affordable housing shouldn’t come from a tax on development; it should come from the need to create mixed communities."

This is not the only contentious issue with s106 charges. The charges are impacting negatively on sites.

"Affordable housing is our biggest frustration," says Gary Day and cites an example: "McCarthy & Stone was going to develop a site in Kent. We had positive meetings with the planners until we arrived at the affordable housing element and the demands were unreasonable and costly. We looked to renegotiate and go to appeal, but lost out to McDonalds who could purchase the site unconditionally."

Tied into these "unreasonable" s106 charges is the conflict over retirement’s use class. Should it be categorised as C3 – normal housing with affordable housing obligations, or C2 – institutional housing and exempt from the obligation? The situation has been somewhat inflamed in the London area by the new draft London Plan proposals which state that the affordable housing provision should now also apply to C2.

"Policy is heading in the wrong direction," comments Roger Battersby, md of PRP Architects. "There needs to be recognition that appropriate housing for older people is inherently more expensive than general residential housing as it accommodates changing needs. The product is uncompetitive in terms of land values in an open market situation."

He explains that currently, retirement builders rely upon the C2 classification and seek to achieve viability through zero or reduced contributions.

OORH should actually be treated as a form of affordable housing in terms of negotiations over development charges because of its substantial benefits, Professor Ball proposes. All OORH should enjoy the same enhanced planning status as low cost home ownership, already viewed as a type of affordable housing.

Spencer McCarthy says that this change in status would be possible if a new retirement housing use class was introduced. "The definition could then be used by planning authorities to differentiate retirement housing from other types of housing. This would not just be a means of reducing financial contributions and providing affordable housing but also as a way of encouraging new ideas and approaches to older peoples’ housing."

But Flintoft warns that defining the level of care needed to qualify for the category could be difficult. Taking a different tack, Bill Gair, chief executive of Urban Renaissance Villages, says that it is "perfectly equitable, and politically acceptable" in the short term until the retirement housing pipelines begin to match demand, to exempt retirement housing from affordable housing contributions. "Tax breaks could help," he says.

The Local Authority View

Having the last word is Andrew Taylor, divisional head of planning and building control at Uttlesford District Council. He says that OORH should not change class or be viewed as a type of affordable housing. "As it is private sector housing a lot of councillors believe it should contribute to affordable housing provisions. Changing its use category would not be equitable or moral."

"We need contributions from across the board and it should not be seen as a tax on schemes."

Taylor states that his own council has not recently seen any applications for private retirement housing going to appeal. But Taylor’s previous council refused a private retirement scheme which was later dismissed at appeal because of its design, scale and location in a conservation area, Taylor says.

He concedes that as local authorities tend to treat OORH as simply another form of housing, its benefits are perhaps underappreciated. "Not many local authorities are making specific provisions and they should be planning positively for private retirement housing. We are considering doing this."

There is of course, a sizeable gap between considering and actually doing. "Local authorities need to be in better contact with developers rather than sitting back on this," Taylor admits. "The two should be working together to assess needs."

The government would be pleased to hear this and Professor Ball too. It sounds remarkably like localism. But it is the large elderly population who could be sporting the biggest smiles if local authorities and industry work together. "The most common response I get when speaking to our customers is ‘Why didn’t I do this sooner?’" says Gary Day.

Original Article

Andrew and Judith Frame are first buyers who have been able to buy with no deposit, and have done so for less than £400 per month, cheaper than what they were paying in rent beforehand. Andrew and Judith are buying their home from WJ LAW who have a long history of helping home buyers achieve the house of their dreams.

Andrew and Judith are buying their home at Avonmore Court, near Bangor, and have bought a 3-bedroom end townhouse for £140,000 and have been able to buy thanks to the help of Northern Ireland Co-Ownership. With Co – Ownership, buyers can rent half the home, and buy the other half with no deposit, making owning the house of people’s dream a reality.

Within the figure of £95 per week, is the cost of renting half the house, and the cost of buying half the house with a repayment mortgage; and is based on buyers having zero deposit, clearly if buyers have some deposit, the figures will get better and better.

www.co-ownership.org/