Rural Housing Affordability

Defra
Research into Rural

Housing Affordability
Final Report
colinbuchanan.com
Research into Rural Housing Affordability
Final Report
Project No: 157701

May 2010
20 Eastbourne Terrace,
London,
W2 6LG
Telephone: 020 7053 1300
Fax: 020 7053 1301
Email : [email protected]
Prepared by: Approved by:
____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Nick Gallent/Steve Robinson/Chelsea Dosad/Ryan Emmett/John Siraut John Siraut
Status: Final Issue no: 0 Date: 22 March 2010
document4
(C) Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Defra no
other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Defra for
any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Defra using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the
same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly stated that no independent
verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Defra has been made
Final Report
Contents
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 5
1.1 Background 5
2 Context and study approach 7
2.2 Local affordability 7
2.3 Housing markets 8
2.4 Communities, networks and priority 9
2.5 Linking the three core issues 9
2.6 Critical questions 10
3 Selection of districts and parishes 11
3.1 Background 11
3.2 Selection of districts 11
3.3 Selection of villages/parishes 19
3.4 The evidence base & methods 21
4 Housing affordability and its consequences 22
4.1 Introduction 22
4.2 Defining affordability and understanding its outcomes 22
4.3 The geographical immediacy of local need 25
4.4 Mobility, employment and affordable housing 28
4.5 Local housing and the sustainability of rural communities 30
4.6 Housing access and social networks 32
5 Influences on house prices 36
5.1 Introduction 36
5.2 Where do people come from 36
5.3 Functional characteristics 37
5.4 Social characteristics and identity 44
5.5 Differences between what attract new residents and keeps existing residents
44
5.6 Quantifying house price influences 45
6 Local priority 61
6.1 Introduction 61
6.2 Localness from a local perspective 61
6.3 Local need as a flag of convenience 63
6.4 Local need and economic necessity 65
6.5 Assigning local priority, delivering sustainable communities 66
7 Conclusions 68
7.1 The study 68
7.2 Affordability 68
7.3 Influence on houses prices 70
7.4 Local people 72
Appendix
Appendix A: Literature Review 75
Part 1: Local Affordability and its Impact on Communities
Gentrification and displacement 76
Affordability 79
Part 2: Housing Markets and Market Determinants 86
Understanding rural housing markets 86
Final Report
Part 3: Communities, Networks and Local Priority 96

Networks and community cohesion 96
Localness and local rights 98
Appendix B: Shortlisting areas for consultation 121
Appendix C: Household survey 123
Appendix D: Estate agent survey 127
Appendix E: Hedonic pricing analysis
Defining the dependent and explanatory variables 129
Defining an appropriate functional form 136
Specification of the hedonic price model: Selection of variables 136
Tables
Table 1.1: Summary approach 6

Table 3.1: Selected case study districts 14
Table 3.2: Evidence base 21
Table 4.1: Can local people working locally afford to buy homes in the village? 23
Table 4.2: Proportion of respondents who think the supply of housing in the
village is insufficient by housing type 23
Table 4.3: If housing for local people is not available in the village, it is acceptable
to expect them to move.. 27
Table 4.4: If additional housing is built for local people, where should it go?28
Table 4.5: How long to you expect to stay in this village? 32
Table 4.6: Compared to 5 years ago, do you feel you socialise with: 33
Table 4.7: Over the past 5 years, have people you know well moved out of the
village? 33
Table 4.8: In the past 5 years, have people moved into the village who you have
come to know well 34
Table 4.9: Proportion stating the following factors are very or fairly important in
influencing their decision to stay in the village 35
Table 5.1: Where have you moved from? 37
Table 5.2: How far have you moved? 37
Table 5.3: Importance of transport accessibility in choice of village 38
Table 5.4: How important is the availability of facilities in your choice of village?
39
Table 5.5: How important is the quality of local schools in your choice of village?
41
Table 5.6: Importance of rurality issues in choice of village 43
Final Report
Table 5.7: Importance of community spirit in choice of village 44

Table 5.8: Difference between what attracts and retains residents (positive
number greater importance in retaining rather than attracting, negative
number greater importance in attracting than retaining) 45
Table 5.9: Results of correlation analysis: drivers of property price 53
Table 5.10: Hedonic model results for Mid Sussex 54
Table 5.11: Hedonic model results for North Norfolk 55
Table 5.12: Hedonic model results for South Shropshire 55
Table 5.13: Hedonic model results for Selby 56
Table 5.14: Quantifying the power of rurality 59
Table 6.1: Would you define the following as a “local person” 64
Table 6.2: How long do you have to live in the village to be regarded as local 65
Table 6.3: Are people who live in the vicinity local if… 65
Figures
Figure 3.1: Delimiting rural economies- key variables 11

Figure 3.2: A typology of rural England and Wales 12
Figure 3.3: Selected case study districts 14
Figure 3.4: South Shropshire Regional Context 15
Figure 3.5: North Norfolk regional context 16
Figure 3.6: Selby regional context 17
Figure 3.7: Mid Sussex regional context 18
Figure 3.8: Overview of selected parishes 19
Figure 4.1: Perceptions of housing affordability, Bishops Castle 24
Figure 4.2: Local need, Cawood 26
Figure 4.3: Time lived in the village 31
Figure 5.1: Schools as house price drivers, Cuckfield 40
Figure 5.2: ‘Access to solitude’ - Blakeney 42
Figure 5.3: Mid Sussex detached property price per room (2007) 48
Figure 5.4: North Norfolk detached property price per room (2007) 49
Figure 5.5: Selby detached property price per room (2007) 50
Figure 5.6: South Shropshire detached property price per room (2007) 51
Figure 5.7: Rural/Urban aggregated definitions 52
Figure 6.1: ‘Getting involved’, Handcross 62
Final Report
Executive Summary
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) commissioned Colin Buchanan
and Nick Gallent and Steve Robinson of University College London to conduct a study into rural
housing centring on three inter-related issues:
local affordability as it impacts on change in communities, stability and social
networks;
how the attributes of a rural location affect prices / affordability;
the expectation of priority for housing amongst local populations, its rationale, its
benefits and drawbacks and its achievability.
The objective is to expand the Department’s rural evidence base, increasing its understanding of rural
housing market dynamics and the part played by housing access in supporting the development of
communities.
The study consisted of: a literature review; case studies in four rural districts involving focus groups
(mainly made up of local residents with formal and informal roles in the village e.g. shopkeeper, school
teacher) and household surveys; and an hedonic price analysis to determine the influence of aspects
of rurality on rural house prices. The literature review (summarised in chapter 2) led to the
development of critical questions that were addressed in the focus groups and household surveys.
The case study areas were selected to reflect the differing typographies of rural areas as defined by
Lowe and Ward. The typologies and districts chosen were:
Dynamic commuter: (relatively high population densities with young to middle-age,

high-income professional classes predominating. Economically closely connected
to adjoining urban areas with high levels of out-commuting) - Mid Sussex.
Deep rural: (reflect traditional notions of the ‘countryside’, agriculture, particularly
livestock farming and tourism form an important aspect of the local economy.
Population and income levels are below rural averages) - South Shropshire.
Retirement retreat: (popular retirement destinations, found particularly along the
coast, retirement-related services including leisure, social care and health are
significant sources of jobs) - North Norfolk.
Transient rural: (situated relatively close to urban centres and, as sources of local
employment are not substantial, they experience significant levels of out-
commuting) – Selby.
Within each of these districts, villages/parishes were selected that typified the broad characteristics of
their typographies. The key findings of the study are set out under the three issues covered.
Housing affordability and its consequences

Rural housing affordability, explored in chapter 4, hinges a great deal around ‘within’ and ‘without’
affordability. Essentially, what are the consequences of the expectation that, on the one hand, housing
within a village will meet local needs against the alternative expectation that access to affordable
homes in nearby towns is sufficient? The case studies highlighted that the majority of respondents felt
local housing was not affordable especially for young people and that supply issues, both in terms of
the type of new housing built and approaches to the allocation of social/council housing were
contributory factors. However, it was also recognised that while young people had had to move away
from the village to find property, this move was often principally for employment reasons.
There were mixed views as to whether it was acceptable for local people to have to move from the
village to access affordable housing. In Mid Sussex and Selby over 60% of respondents believed it
was acceptable to move to the closest town or elsewhere within the district to obtain housing while in
South Shropshire and Norfolk that proportion was 47% and 30% respectively. In general in the less
1
Final Report
transient and more dispersed case study areas it was significantly less acceptable for people to have
to move away from their own village.
If people should not have to move away from their village, where should new housing be provided?
The focus groups tended to oppose new building believing that in the past it had not met a local
housing need and as a consequence they preferred alternative solutions. The vast majority of survey
respondents felt that housing should be provided within or on the outskirts of the village but to meet
the needs of local people. There was also little contradiction in peoples’ views. So, for example, North
Norfolk residents believed it was least acceptable for people to have to move elsewhere in the district
for their housing needs and were the most receptive to having new housing built locally. Whilst the
residents of Mid Sussex were more receptive to people having to move to neighbouring towns and
were the most likely to prefer new housing to meet local need being built in the closest town.
When asked how long they expect to remain in the village survey respondents in Mid Sussex were far
more likely to move. Almost a third of respondents expected to move within ten years compared to
less than a tenth in North Norfolk. Across all the districts, housing issues were the main reason for
people considering moving - making up a third of reasons, suggesting that they did not expect that
their future housing needs could be met locally. The next biggest reason for moving, in a fifth of cases
was employment, followed by a desire to move closer to family members.
Chapter 4 goes on to explore evidence for the importance of social networks in sustaining
communities (from p.30), which emerged strongly from the case studies. This was in terms of the
extent to which newcomers were considered active in village life and how this supported the village
‘life-cycle’ i.e. the balance between younger residents, families and older people. Life-cycle issues and
their importance for the long term social sustainability of villages were raised consistently in the focus
groups. It was felt that newcomers did not always support this through using local services (e.g.
schools by or getting involved in the community even at the most basic level.
In the surveys, residents who had lived in a village between 5-20 years typically socialised with more
people than five years ago, suggesting that as time goes on newcomers’ circle of acquaintances
increases within a fairly stable population as one might expect. It was clear that a village school or
nursery and having children in general served as a ‘gateway’ to meeting people and forming networks.
However, amongst the longer standing residents i.e. those who had lived in the villages more than 20
years, over a fifth reported that they socialised with fewer people as time went on. Older residents
reported friends moving away or dying and finding few opportunities to meet newcomers, with the loss
of local facilities such as pubs and less church going among younger residents. This was a factor
commented upon in the focus groups where there was a concern raised about a number of older
residents living in near isolation. In some cases newcomers (wealthier commuters, second home
owners, younger) were seen as being very different with little in common with existing (longer-term)
residents.
Influences on house prices

House prices and the factors that influence them provided a more quantitative focus in chapter 5. We
approached the issue of influence from several angles: investigations in parish meetings (attempting
to understand why migrants were drawn to particular locations and remained there), insights from the
village surveys, a focused telephone survey of estate agents (highlighting patterns of apparent
purchaser preference) and a statistical analysis of the Valuation Office residential property sales data.
The initial literature review (from p.7) highlighted some of the obvious influences on house prices,
linked to location, to property characteristics and to the value placed on living in a rural area (for
example, the utility value derived from access to open countryside, the perception of peace and quiet
and the belief that a greater community spirit can be found in rural areas). These issues were
investigated in the meetings and surveys, with the aim being to tie generic attributes to the case
studies and to particular locations. The key factors in attracting people to the case study villages, and
2
Final Report
hence influences on house prices, were predominantly accessibility, local facilities, schools, rurality
and the sense of community.
The household surveys highlighted considerable differences between the villages in terms of the
importance of transport accessibility in the choice of village of those who had recently moved in. For
Mid Sussex, which attracted many out-commuters, the ability to commute conveniently to work scored
highly. This was especially true in relation to rail access highlighting the importance of being able to
access central London. In the other districts good links to neighbouring towns were more important
than a convenient commute to work.
While participants of the focus groups believed the availability of local facilities were important the
household surveys stated this was less so in attracting recent incomers. With incomers having high
car ownership the availability of services within the village itself was not regarded as crucial, but rather
it was the ability to access such services in nearby towns that was important.
The importance of the quality of local schools in attracting people to a village varied depending on the
typography of the districts. In Mid Sussex, which had many professionals with young families, it was
important to over 80% of recent incomers. In Selby, which attracted a more varied group of incomers it
was only important to around half.
However, the household surveys highlighted that the most important factors in attracting people to the
villages surveyed were those related to their environment or rurality. Across the villages around 90%
of respondents reported that issues such as peace and tranquillity, quality of the surrounding
environment and safety and security were important in their choice of location.
The next step was to take the findings of the survey and see if these could be quantified in terms of
their influence on property prices (from p.45 chapter 5). Simply mapping house prices (using average
price per room data) across all four districts showed prices were higher in the rural areas. However,
the price of a home is some function of its structural and locational attributes which may include:
Structural (number of rooms, plot size, garage, garden, age etc);
Neighbourhood (e.g. crime rates, employment rate, private home ownership etc);
Accessibility (e.g. distance to schools, shops, transport etc); and
Surrounding environment (e.g. quality of open space, natural and built
environment, noise level etc);
Housing supply constraints relative to more urban areas
It is not possible to obtain data for all these factors, especially those in relation to property specific
issues and relative supply constraints (which were treated as a given in the rural areas surveyed) but
this was possible for many of the locational attributes. For each attribute that data is available
correlation analysis was undertaken to determine key explanatory variables of house prices by district.
Once this had been done regressions were run to assess the degree to which the explanatory
variables determined the variation in house prices in each district.
The limitations of the analysis should be noted in terms of the “goodness of fit” of the results which,
depending on the district, are only able to account for 50-60% of the variation in price. This reflects
that some structural attributes not captured within the model are important factors influencing house
prices. However, it was clear that in terms of the locational factors rurality was a key driver in all
districts being responsible for around 10% of the total variation in property price. However, there are
varying degrees of rurality, with prices rising as one moves further from urban areas but then they start
to fall again moving into very rural areas as access to services becomes remote. Other specific factors
vary by district. For example in Mid Sussex access to schools and services were most important,
whereas in North Norfolk, being in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was responsible for
the largest variation in price.
3
Final Report
Local Priority
The third focus of the study, set out in chapter 6, was the potential policy response: the case for
interventions that support ‘local’ needs, whether existing interventions have local support or how
communities would like to see them adjusted to better reflect local realities.
The household surveys looked to investigate this in much greater detail in an attempt to reveal exactly
who village residents consider to be ‘local’. So how is a local defined? Someone who lives in the
village is generally regarded as local, usually followed by someone who used to live in the village and
still has a family connection to it. After that there are some marked differences between districts. In
Mid Sussex people who are active or who work in the village but who do not live there are much more
likely to be regarded as local than is the case in the other districts.
A second issue within this theme is how long you have to live in the village before you are considered
a local. Again Mid Sussex stands out as being more accepting, with the majority of respondents
regard someone a local who has lived one year or more in the village, whereas in Selby 48% believe
you have to be in the village for more than 10 years before you can be regarded as local.
Across all the villages it is the case that the longer a respondent has lived in the village, the longer
they believe another person should have lived in the village before they can be regarded as local. In
terms of distance from the village, people who live in the closest village but not in the nearest town or
the wider county are generally considered as local.
Having defined a local person, the final question was concerned with whether people who are local
should receive priority in terms of locally provided affordable homes. There were differences in this
respect between the focus groups and the survey results. The focus groups were clearly of the view
that any additional housing should principally go to local people. The survey indicated that
respondents were more open to the needs of people across the district but that it was appropriate that
some account should be given to local people in the allocation of affordable homes within the village.
The full conclusions of the report are set out from page 68, but in summary these include:
That local affordability (driven in part by lack of supply of a range of property types) is an
issue that leads to young people moving away from rural areas but there is also a widely
shared recognition that employment factors play an equal part.
The acceptability of people having to move away to the nearest town to access housing
varies between the districts, but is generally higher in more dynamic (i.e. commuting
affected) areas than in more isolated areas.
Networks are built around family-ties and for in-migrants, in particular, the use of local
facilities especially schools. In those localities with a higher turnover of people (leading
to fewer local family ties) and few facilities (and hence less interaction) it can become
harder to maintain networks, especially for older people who can become isolated.
Rurality is a key driver of property prices provided there is still access to key services
(even if these are in neighbouring towns). Other key drivers relate to the typography of
the district. So where many residents commute out of the village the ability to access
employment outside the district is important.
The definition of a local person again varies by typography; districts with a more
transient population embrace far more people as local, while in more stable communities
and in older populations people are regarded as requiring much closer links with a
village and to have lived there longer to be regarded as local.
Nevertheless, a willingness to become involved in the community has a big impact in
attitudes, and facilities such as schools are important in assimilating newcomers.
The predominant view was that the needs of local people should be taken into account in
the allocation of local affordable housing and some villages had sought their own routes
to achieving this. However there is also recognition among the existing population that
people outside the area with housing needs should also be accommodated.
4
Final Report
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) commissioned Colin
Buchanan and University College London to conduct a study into a range of issues
centring on the supply of housing in rural areas. Defra is interested in exploring the forces
at work in rural housing markets and exploring the views of people affected by them.
More specifically the objective of the study is to expand the Department’s rural evidence
base, increasing its understanding of rural housing market dynamics and the part played
by housing access in supporting the development of communities.
1.1.2 The project places a strong emphasis on developing understanding from a residents’
perspective, with in-depth analyses of communities across rural England. This
understandably covers a wide range of issues, but Defra are particularly interested in the
following subject areas being explored further:
An informed discussion of the concept of ‘local affordability’.

1.1.3 Average house prices in rural places are higher than in urban places. There are fewer
houses available within the price band that is described, for any particular locality, as
‘affordable’ in rural than in urban areas. However, this effect can be substantially reduced
in most rural areas if the market for potential homes is expanded by a few miles. Less
expensive housing, of a type suitable for first-time buyers and young families can be
found in the nearest market town or urban area and often in closer proximity to the range
of jobs and services that these people might need.
1.1.4 In addition to this, to what extent is it the case that people need to stay in close proximity
to ‘social networks’? Indeed to what extent do people tend to stay within the boundaries
of where they originate if other things are equal, for example, the quality of the place or
the opportunities available? Defra is seeking a challenging and informed discussion
around these issues, drawing on the best available evidence, to enhance knowledge of
this area.
Analysis of the power of rurality in various forms to predict rural house

prices and where this sits relative to other determining factors
1.1.5 This relates to the factors which contribute to explaining rural house prices. In particular,
to what extent is being rural in itself a contributor to the hedonic value of a dwelling and
how much of this is universal. In other words, how much of the value of an average house
is determined by (a) being rural and (b) being in this rural settlement. Of particular interest
is the role of exploring amenity values and how much people are willing to pay to live in
more attractive rural environments.
An informed discussion of the reasons and consequences of including

‘local ties’ in eligibility criteria for social housing or assisted home
ownership
1.1.6 There is an expectation in some quarters that the descendants of rural families should
have some additional rights to remain resident in their families’ neighbourhood than is
afforded by their ability or willingness to do so. The final issue, therefore, is to examine
the case for extending and strengthening policies that target assistance to ‘local
households’, helping those having a connection with an area, through work or residence,
5
Final Report
to access homes.
1.1.7 In response to the original project brief, the research team formulated the following
approach:
Table 1.1: Summary approach
Summary Approach
1 Systematic Literature Review across the three Issues
2 4 District Case Studies focusing on specific parishes
A Economic data analysis across each district
B Open meetings at the parish level
C Sample household surveys within the identified parishes
1.1.8 The aim was to address the three key issues in an integrated way. Firstly, to review what
had already been written and the existing studies that have looked at these issues. For
this reason, we proposed that the three questions be bundled together and examined
through a systematic review of the existing literature. This, secondly, was to be
‘refreshed’ through four local case studies that focused (a) across the rural districts,
providing an economic analysis that would help explain house price influences, on
specific parishes that typified a range of local situations firstly through parish meetings
with key informants (b) and then through follow-up surveys (c) which aimed to test the
generality of views, opinions and explanations offered in the meetings. The approach and
the data it generated, is explained more fully in the next section.
1.1.9 A systematic review of past literature was conducted in the first phase of this project. The
complete version forms an appendix to this report. From the literature review, a series of
critical questions emerged: issues of continuing debate surrounding the impacts of
housing affordability, influences on prices (from accessibility to the qualities of particular
rural experiences) and the rights of local households. These critical questions formed a
second key output and were transformed into practical questions for the parish meetings
and follow-up surveys. But before the empirical work could begin, a critical stage in the
project was the selection of districts and parishes able to represent the range of rural
experiences across England, accepting that not all rural areas are the same but rather
experience contrasting pressures, impacting on residents and communities in a variety of
ways.
1.1.10 The report is structured as follows:

Chapter two provides a brief synopsis of the literature review which led to the
critical questions that formed the basis for the village consultations and surveys;
Chapter three explains the choice of districts and villages which were surveyed;
Chapters four to six report the findings of the consultation, surveys and house price
analysis; and
Chapter seven presents our conclusions.
1.1.11 The full literature review, details of surveys and hedonic house price analysis are
provided in the appendices.
6
Final Report
2 Context and study approach

2.1.1 This chapter sets out the approach to the study and the context for the research based on
a summary of the literature review, the full version of which can be found at appendix A.
Drawing on existing literature and past studies, it addresses three critical issues:
local affordability as it impacts on change in communities, creates stability and
helps preserve social networks;
the expectation of priority amongst local populations, its rationale, its benefits and
drawbacks and its achievability.
2.1.2 Under these three headings, the following key messages emerge:
2.2 Local affordability

2.2.1 Affordability is a key concept for planning and public policy. It is a measure of the linkage
(usually expressed as a ratio) between local wages and local house prices (or the
average loan credit needed to purchase a property on the open market) or between
wages and rents.
2.2.2 Successive studies have identified an affordability problem affecting some rural areas.
This often relates to strong demand for local homes combined with low rural wage levels
and inadequate supply of affordable housing. These three factors may come together, in
certain locations, to produce difficulties for some rural households, even when the
majority of households in an area are adequately housed. It is a selective problem, in
most instances, rather than a general issue facing all rural households.
2.2.3 Affordability has a spatial scale. Across entire housing markets, there may be a
‘satisfactory’ relationship between incomes and house prices. This means that the ‘ratio’
may be low and people on a typical local income may be able to afford to buy or rent a
home without any apparent difficulty (being able to secure adequate loan credit). But
when residential choice and need is put into the equation, the picture may become more
complex. Households may not be able to exercise choice (to stay, for example, close to
friends or relatives) or live close to work, because (for example), planning is restricting
supply in an area (maybe in a particular village) when exogenous consumption habits are
pushing up prices. This may create a localised problem that does not extend across the
entire area.
2.2.4 Seen at this local scale, low levels of affordability (expressing complex relationships
between planning, consumption habits and local wages) may undermine social balance.
Many issues and debates stem from this status quo: issues of basic social equity and
local rights; issues of social balance and sustainability; issues of community capacity and
cohesion; and questions over what constitutes rural sustainability and sustainable
communities in rural areas.
2.2.5 As access to housing is determined by income and wealth, it may underpin an observed
pattern of gentrification in some locations. Those who are attracted to a rural location
because of its rural nature rather than to access a local employment market can lead to
changes in the socio-economic make up of the community.
2.2.6 Whether this gentrification leads to displacement of the ‘local’ population is a disputed
topic: is it driven by the consumption habits of an ex-urban population, or is change in the
population profile merely symptomatic of underlying forces causing social change
(economic restructuring and a consequent lack of attractive jobs). Most analyses steer a
middle path, concluding that demand and supply side forces (including the supply of jobs
7
Final Report
and other opportunities) conspire to produce the patterns of change seen in the modern
countryside;
2.3 Housing markets

2.3.1 Rural housing markets have key functional characteristics (settlement pattern, housing
mix etc), important political economy characteristics (how regulation treats them) and
social characteristics (how buyers conceive rural areas and perceive the benefits that
they offer). A basic understanding of rurality can provide some clues as to what drives
rural housing markets.
2.3.2 Perceptions of rural areas are important in driving and shaping patterns of demand,
especially demand from non-rural households wishing to move to the countryside to gain
a better quality of life or to down-shift. Physical and social perceptions are important: the
quality of the environment and the perceived nature of rural communities and the
‘neighbourliness’ of rural people. But rural housing markets are also shaped by tangible,
hard factors (that may have softer underpinnings): by demographic shift, economic
restructuring and consumption patterns (for example, second home buying since the
1960s).
2.3.3 However, rural markets are not homogenous. These forces act out differently on different
rural areas and markets are locally differentiated. For example, patterns of consumption
will be driven by convenience: by accessibility to schools and services, to market towns,
to main roads (facilitating commuting flows) and so on. Markets are physically and
socially differentiated: the preferences of retired households are second home seekers
will differ from those of working households, families with children or young people setting
up home for the first-time.
2.3.4 It is possible to identify drivers, but whilst these may shape markets at a macro level, at a
micro level, individual choices and needs will play an important part in determining
patterns of demand and property prices;
2.3.5 Hedonic price theory tries to bring together hard and soft drivers: not only macro and
micro patterns, but also hard locational and property characteristics with less tangible
drivers. Hedonic analyses often deal with location, neighbourhood, structure (the
property) and externality. They try to mix things that people are directly paying for
(number of bedrooms for example) with the benefits they come to enjoy through property
purchase, which therefore may have had some (indirect) impact on price;
2.3.6 But arguably, the psychological drivers of rural property prices are difficult to measure. In
particular, the preconceived benefits of a rural lifestyle (especially if reality does not live
up to expectation) may be difficult to quantify. Home buyers may compete for rural
property, driving up prices, because of a preconception that has more to do with
television and media portrayals of the countryside that experience. However, the idea of
the rural idyll (a potentially powerful determinant of prices) cannot be discounted out of
hand. For incomers with money and means, rural areas may live up to the idea of the
’idyll’. But those with less income may find rural living more of a challenge, especially if
they are forced into a competition for housing with incomers who will pay a premium for a
home in the country;
2.3.7 Assembling the data for hedonic price analysis can be challenging. Some variables may
be given undue weight; or there can be accidental or co-incidental relationships which
provide spurious explanations for price patterns.
8
Final Report
2.4 Communities, networks and priority

2.4.1 The meaning of community is keenly contested. It is sometimes defined as a group of
individuals who share both common values / beliefs and a common space. They think
similar things and their similarity in belief (in identity and culture) is a product of living in
close proximity. Using this definition, what we have is a ‘place community’, community
centred on a physical location.
2.4.2 Two interpretations have accompanied the process of community change. Change is
interpreted either as a ‘loss’ or erosion of community or as a ‘transition’ from one form of
(traditional) community to something different and inherently more modern. The loss of
place-based communities is accompanied by the rise of network-based communities.
This is the essential transition of the modern age.
2.4.3 On the one hand, this can be seen as a tide that cannot be turned; but on the other, it can
be viewed as an unacceptable change in rural areas which are built around closely-knit
place-based social networks. It is an anathema to many people to project 20 years hence
and see a complete breakdown of place-based community networks: villages as
dormitories for electronically networked city workers, who shop and socialise online. From
the rejection of this vision flows a belief that action must be taken to preserve the social
characteristics of village England.
2.4.4 This moves the debate full-circle. Strong local social networks are seen to be the realm of
local households, whose ties and attitudes are inherently local. By protecting the interests
of such groups, protection and enhancement of local community is the inevitable outcome
(or so the argument goes).
2.4.5 Local rights and local priority then become issues of community preservation: local
people are seen as the life-blood of the community. They are thought to socialise and
work locally and to have short but intense networks (and emotional ties to place) in
contrast with incomers whose networks are extensive but not as anchored in the local
community.
2.4.6 Alongside arguments concerned with equity and need, this provides a justification of a
kind for granting local priority. But policy-makers are then left with the challenge of setting
appropriate local priorities and dealing with the thorny issue of who, exactly, is local.
2.4.7 The setting of such priorities can have an adverse effect on the operation of local housing
markets. But the case for priority must be seen in the context of delivering sustainable
rural communities. Social mix and balance appears to be an important ingredient and
social networks have practical benefit to society and to the national economy.
2.4.8 These networks not only support identity, they also provide care for the young and the
old. In some areas, there may be a strong case for using local housing priority policies to
sustain social networks. Elsewhere, the case for preferential support may be more
limited: particularly in areas where the transition to a more extensively networked
community is more progressed.
2.5 Linking the three core issues

2.5.1 The issues summarised above have a circular relationship. Affordability ties together the
key drivers of market and social change. It is an expression of the relationship between
housing supply, planning, incomes and consumption habits. It is changing communities.
Arguably, gentrification is a social-economic expression of the transition to extensively
networked communities, but it can also intensify networks where incomers comprise
retired households or down-shifters.
9
Final Report
2.5.2 The brief analysis of market drivers here provides us with a point of departure for better
understanding the impacts of consumption and supply change. Local priority and
community issues are, perhaps, the area in which this study is likely to make its key
recommendations. Working backwards, priority policies will not reshape housing markets,
but may counter the forces of gentrification where, in particular instances, this process
may be undermining the local networks that play a crucial role in sustaining communities.
2.6 Critical questions

2.6.1 The output from the literature review led to the development of a series of critical
questions that formed the basis of the parish consultation and surveys. These can be
summarised as:
1. Affordability and impact on communities:
a) How affordability is understood
b) Local debates about within and without affordability
c) Affordability and mobility: to what extent can travel costs offset the gains of
moving further afield;
d) How lack of affordable housing may affect achievement of UK Sustainability
Strategy goals;
e) Gentrification / displacement and its impact on networks and social capacity
2. The determinants of rural house prices:

a) The extent to which functional characteristics can explain prices
b) The extent to which preconception drives migration and prices
3. Attitudes towards local priority:

a) Local priority as a means of mustering support for development
b) Priority and economic need: an essential link?
c) Priority as a means, simply, of delivering social mix and therefore sustainable
communities
10
Final Report
3 Selection of districts and parishes
3.1 Background
3.1.1 A key part of the study is to undertake consultation and survey work within a range of
rural communities. This chapter outlines the approach used to select the districts and
then the villages within those districts that were to be surveyed.
3.2 Selection of districts

3.2.1 It was agreed early on that the team would select districts on the basis of a classification
of rural England recently constructed by Lowe and Ward (2007). Relying on data from the
2001 Population Census (using Local Authority Districts as the spatial unit), Lowe and
Ward constructed a typology comprising seven area types, each representing specific
and tangible social and economic characteristics and the various ways that these
currently manifest themselves. Having removed ‘urban districts’ from the Census
database (using Defra’s own classification of rural areas), data for more than 100
variables were subjected to a factor analysis enabling the identification of 15 critical,
uncorrelated variables, from which to develop a new typology centred on economic
rurality (Figure 3.1). A map depicting the geography of rural types across England was
then generated as shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.1: Delimiting Rural Economies- key variables

1. number of residents per 100 hectares;
2. percentage change in resident population 1991-2001;
3. proportion of population aged 65 and over, 2001;
4. percentage change in total employment 1991-2001;
5. rate of economic growth 1991-2001;
6. average total income 2000-2001;
7. proportion of ‘knowledge workers’ to total economically active 2001;
8. percentage change in ‘knowledge sector’ employment 1991-2001;
9. proportion of managerial and professional workers to total economically active,
2001;
10. number of hotel and restaurant businesses;
11. proportion of employment in agriculture, hunting and forestry relative to total
economically active;
12. proportion of households with two or more cars 2001;
13. net commuting 2001 (GB=100);
14. number of national heritage sites per 1000 sq. km 2002;
15. index of tranquillity 2001 (GB=100).
11
Final Report
Figure 3.2: A typology of rural England and Wales
3.2.2 The seven countryside types identified by the authors and their characteristics are
outlined below.
3.2.3 Dynamic Commuter Areas: Socially and economically dynamic and affluent, these
areas have relatively high population densities and young to middle-age, high-income
professional classes predominate. Economically, they are closely connected to adjoining
urban areas with high levels of out-commuting. They can be considered as a form of
wealthy outer suburb. A concentration of these areas is found in South East England.
3.2.4 Settled Commuter Areas: Similar to the above but less economically vibrant, these
areas are located on the edges of the provincial conurbations such as Birmingham,
Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield. The fortunes of these areas are closely
linked to economic trajectories of their related city regions, again due to high levels of out-
commuting.
3.2.5 Dynamic Rural Areas: These slightly lower density rural areas have fast growing
economies and an increasing population. Characterised by high concentrations of
professional and knowledge workers they experience lower levels of out-commuting and
are less connected economically to urban conurbations than the above. The presence of
major institutions such as universities or research centres tends to be a key feature of
these areas which are to be found mainly south of a line between Avon and the Wash.
3.2.6 Deep Rural Areas: These areas perhaps best reflect traditional notions of the
‘countryside’. Agriculture, particularly livestock farming and tourism form an important
aspect of the local economy. Population and income levels are below rural averages.
Economically and in terms of net migration, they may appear to be in steady state, but
12
Final Report
recent events (such as foot and mouth disease in 2001) have revealed fragility about this
situation. Commuting to urban areas is limited (due to physical remoteness or poor
infrastructure) as is the ability to attract younger in-migrants and entrepreneurial activity.
These areas are found, for example, in Northumberland and mid Devon.
3.2.7 Retirement Retreat Areas: These areas form popular retirement destinations and are
found particularly along the coast, most notably in Southern England. Retirement-related
services including leisure, social care and health are significant sources of jobs. Although
income levels tend to be below average, the relatively high population density of these
areas means that service provision is economically viable. With the ageing population
fuelling demand, the economies of these areas are relatively vibrant.
3.2.8 Peripheral Amenity Areas: These rural areas present some of the most significant
economic and social challenges in the countryside. Located in marginal zones often in
coastal locations such as the west coast of Cumbria, the economic structure is dominated
by agriculture, tourism and retirement-related services. However, they are secondary
tourist or retirement destinations due to their isolation, or poorer quality environment,
sometimes associated with past industrial or mining activities. Income levels are well
below the national average amongst both existing and incoming populations, attracted by
low house prices. Generation of new economic activity tends to depend on public
intervention.
3.2.9 Transient Rural Areas: These areas are situated relatively close to urban centres and,
as sources of local employment are not substantial, they experience significant levels of
out-commuting. However, unlike the Dynamic and Settled Commuter Area categories,
commuting does not imply high incomes. Although the majority of the population is
economically active, average income levels remain very low. These areas are not
attractive for entrepreneurial activity. The East Riding of Yorkshire and South Norfolk
serve as examples.
3.2.10 Like all classifications, Lowe and Ward’s typology allocates areas to a class based on
best fit: the picture they generally adhere to. However, there are also differences at the
very local level, between specific parishes and villages. For this reason, it was felt that for
the purpose of this study a smaller number of cases could be used to represent the seven
types noted in the Lowe and Ward typology, given the possibility of focusing on different
villages with their own particular characteristics. Classifications capture the varied nature
of communities (and markets) that characterise rural England: areas that are out of the
way and dominated by those retreating to rural areas; areas under the influence of a
major urban economy; areas that are economically peripheral and isolated; and areas
where villages are in the sphere of market towns but where incomes are not necessarily
high.
3.2.11 Following the decision to employ the above typology as a critical frame for case study
selection, the team set about collapsing the typology into four critical types: ‘Dynamic
Commuter’; ‘Rural Retreat’; ‘Deep Rural’; and ‘Transient Rural’, capturing issues of
commuter influence, retirement, relative isolation (from urban influence) and areas that
remain economically peripheral despite proximity to apparently stronger urban
economies.
3.2.12 Four areas were selected, indicated in Table 1.1 and Figure 3.3, in order to represent this
collapsed typology of rural England, drawn from a long list following discussions with the
steering group.
13
Final Report
Table 3.1: Selected case study districts
District Regional Location Type

1 South Shropshire West Midlands Deep Rural
2 North Norfolk East of England Rural Retreat
3 Mid Sussex South East Dynamic Commuter
4 Selby Yorkshire and the Transient Rural
Humber
Figure 3.3: Selected case study districts
3.2.13 This selection was based on not only fit with the Lowe and Ward typology, but
investigations that revealed issues of critical interest, discussed below.
14
Final Report
South Shropshire: deep rural

Figure 3.4: South Shropshire Regional Context
3.2.14 Key characteristics of the district of interest are:

Second homes and retirement pressures across the district, but concentrated in
market towns such as Ludlow;
Pressures concentrated in stock of smaller properties. This has two discernible
effects: suppresses household formation and increases pressure on social
housing;
Creates pressure for more affordable housing, which has been the council’s priority
in recent years (Gallent et al, 2002);
Fears that housing associations are overwhelmed; would welcome more consistent
way to supply local housing for local people;
Retirement and commuting seen as big issues for the district, bigger than second
homes;
Desire to create the economic context in which communities flourish.
Summary: A district of mixed rural pressures which appear to come together around
Ludlow/Shrewsbury
15
Final Report
North Norfolk: retirement retreat

Figure 3.5: North Norfolk regional context
Concentrated second home pressures in the coastal zone, especially around

Cromer;
Second homes result in a ‘cultural transformation’: grocery stores become
upmarket delicatessens, for example;
Gentrification (and displacement) is one outcome, but so too is a perceived positive
benefit for the area;
Affordable housing is a solution, but causes some social polarisation. General
building is inappropriate, it is not possible for rural areas to ‘build themselves out’ of
their problems;
Social rented sector solutions are important; shared ownership is more difficult: it is
suggested that this may not create opportunities that are sufficiently affordable for
those in acutest need;
Real resistance to trying to ‘plan out’ second homes: second homes seen to have
legitimacy for a variety of reasons;
The desirability of setting local priorities strongly resisted, but local people need to
be ‘empowered’;
Desire to avoid ‘retirement ghettoes’.
Summary: key pressures focused around retirement and a desire to empower local
communities to formulate their own responses.
16
Final Report
Selby: transient rural

Figure 3.6: Selby regional context
‘Deep rural’ villages in the hinterland of a key provincial centre;

Increasing influx of retirement and older households, ‘balanced’ by the outflow of
the younger population and associated political concerns;
Legacy of undersupply of social housing and former miner housing, relatively
affordable and attractive to incomers;
Resident population generally work in lower paid occupations compared to
newcomers;
Commuting an issue for areas with closer access to Leeds and York transport
links;
Second homes less of an issue in this district, which continues to haemorrhage
population from some of its rural parts.
Summary: an area with critical economic challenges, for which the loss of younger
population members is potentially a greater issue than the arrival of newcomers.
17
Final Report
Mid Sussex: dynamic commuter

Figure 3.7: Mid Sussex regional context
Within the influence of London commuting area as well as Brighton;

Relatively low presence of pensioner households but growing retirement-related
demand and associated demand for sheltered housing;
Proximity of London means there are other demographic/ lifestyle factors present
e.g. younger households starting families away from the capital (‘economic
refugees’ from London’s housing market);
Reluctance to accommodate further growth within villages due to infrastructure
constraints and a fear over the further erosion of rural character;
Newcomers tend to be more pro-active and well connected e.g. in resisting new
development;
Summary: an area facing a variety of urban influences (physical and social) and
characterised by commuting pressure and an increasing degree of retirement.
18
Final Report
3.3 Selection of villages/parishes

3.3.1 Following the selection of districts, the next stage involved the selection of specific
villages/parishes1. The aim here was to identify parishes (using ward level data from the
2001 population census) that typified the broad characteristics of their district: e.g., they
were characteristically ‘dynamic commuter’ or obviously ‘rural retreats’. This selection
involved the examination of Census data and began with a ranking of all parishes in each
district by population size and the deletion of those in urban areas and those without an
active Parish Council (the decision was taken to focus on parishes where there were
likely to be obvious points of contact, usually beginning with a contactable Parish Clerk).
3.3.2 A long list of candidate parishes was drawn up for each district before being whittled
down to three to four proposed consultation areas. A full description of the methodology
and analysis that was undertaken and the recommendations made for the selection of
consultation areas is set out in Appendix B.
3.3.3 For South Shropshire, the aim was to identify villages (within parishes) that were deeply
rural, being economically marginal (reflected in activity rates), affected by second home
and retirement pressures and with high proportions of pensioner households. The parish
of Bishop’s Castle and the village of Hope Bowdler (to the east of Church Stretton) were
eventually selected. In North Norfolk, the clear objective was to find parishes with high
proportions of retired households and correspondingly low levels of economic activity.
Happisburgh, near Mundesley and the small coastal villages of Blakeney and Wiveton,
just north of the market town of Holt, were selected on this basis. For Mid Sussex, the
critical selection criterion was evidence of high levels of outward commuting. This was
often coupled with high levels of educational attainment and a concentration of people in
managerial and profession economic classes. It was also linked to strong migration
inflow. Analysis of Travel to Work data provided the basis of identifying outward
commuting and showed that several candidate parishes had significant numbers of
residents commuting to Crawley and London.
3.3.4 Within these same parishes, house prices far exceeded the district average. Using this
combination of criteria, Slaugham Parish (comprising four small villages) and the village
of Cuckfield were selected for analysis. Finally, some of the same characteristics were
examined for Selby, but this time the emphasis was placed on the exchange of incoming
and outgoing residents, dependence on the regional centre (Leeds in this case) and on
variation in house prices, socio-economic classes, rates of economic activity and by
inference, incomes. Using these criteria, the villages of Riccall and Cawood were
identified and selected as this district’s consultation areas. Brief descriptors of all the
selected parishes are provided in figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8: Overview of selected parishes

South Shropshire
Bishop’s Castle is one of the district’s Hope Bowdler is located in the Apedale
smaller market towns with a resident Valley which runs eastward from Church
population of 1630 in 707 households. Stretton and is within the Shropshire Hills
It is a local service hub, with two banks, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The
a post office, three grocery stores, parish’s resident population in 2001 was 233
several cafes, six pubs and two in 95 households. The village is entirely
breweries. The parish council website dependant on the services found within
is run from Enterprise House, an Church Stretton, just 1.5 miles away, with no
important social and economic centre services, apart from buses to Church
1
The terms parish and village are often used interchangeably which in reality may not always be the case. In
some instances a parish may contain a number of villages while in other instances they are in effect the same
entity. The approach adopted was to use parishes due to the benefits of being able to utilise the knowledge of
the local parish clerk in identifying potential consultees in an area.
19
Final Report
for the town. An IT drop-in centre, the Stretton in the village itself.
‘Village Outreach Project’, several
regeneration projects, a library, a sub-
office of South Shropshire Housing
Association, Dial-a-Ride and several
private offices all operate from this
location.
North Norfolk
Happisburgh is a larger coastal village Blakeney and Wiveton are separate parishes
(with 1,372 residents in 607 located roughly 9 miles west of Sheringham.
households) located roughly 12 miles Blakeney, the larger of the two villages (with
from Cromer. It is dominated by two a population of 789) was once a commercial
land-mark buildings, St Mary’s Church sea port, but its harbour is now silted up. The
and the Lighthouse, both of which are village is popular with tourists and has two
open to visitors. One notable feature of large hotels and several pubs. The historic
the villages is its vulnerability to coastal Blakeney Guildhall also draws visitors to the
erosion, with some houses now village. Wiveton, on the other hand, is much
precariously perched on the cliff edge. smaller (with 158 residents in 74
The village has a single pub, a village households) and located just over a mile to
store and post office, a fishmonger and the south of Blakeney. It has a single pub,
a primary school. The nearest medical the Wiveton Bell, which is popular with
centre is in Mundesley visitors.
Mid Sussex
Slaugham Parish, with its 2226 The village and parish of Cuckfield, with a
residents in 951 households, comprises population of 3266 in 1342 households, was
four villages: Handcross (the largest), the largest settlement examined in this study.
Pease Pottage, Warninglid and It is located less a mile from the edge of
Slaugham (the smallest). Handcross is Hayward’s Heath (with its 23000 residents).
the obvious hub of the parish, having a The village centre has a range of services
mix of shops, two schools, two including shops, restaurants and pubs. It was
churches, three pubs and some light once the market town for the district. Today,
industrial units. The Parish Hall at the Queen’s Hall contains the parish council
Handcross provides a social focus for office and museum as well as a library and
the community. The other villages, meeting rooms for hire. Other key services
including Slaugham, have some include a doctor’s surgery, a pharmacy and a
specific shops though residents tend to post office. It has excellent transport links: a
see Handcross as the main local mainline rail station only 2 miles away, easy
service centre. access to the M23 and Gatwick Airport is
some 15 miles. Cuckfield is enveloped by
Cuckfield rural parish, which was not the
focus of this study.
Selby
Riccall in the Humberhead Levels is Cawood is a village of 1700 residents
only 3.5 miles north of Selby and 9 centred on the historic Cawood Castle and
miles south of York. In 2001, it had a located on the Yorkshire Ouse. It was once a
population of 2317 in 922 households. market town, but this function ceased in the
The village has a range of services: a 19th as nearby Selby (6 miles to the south)
primary school, post office, grocery came to dominate the commercial life of the
store, hairdresser, butcher, a tavern area. Today, the village has three pubs, a
and inn, Italian and Indian restaurants, post office, a primary school, one shop, a
a village institute comprising two halls hairdresser, two doctors’ surgeries, a church
for hire and the ‘Regen Centre’, a and a Methodist chapel. An old boy’s school
conference, events and community at the centre of the village is used as a
facility. Until 2004, the Riccall Mine, meeting venue and is currently rented to the
part of the Selby Coalfield, was an parish council.
important local employer. It is now the
site of a business park.
20
Final Report
3.4 The evidence base & methods

3.4.1 The approach set out in Table 3.2 yielded the following critical outputs, generally and
linked to the specific case studies. These provide the research evidence for this report.
Table 3.2: Evidence base
Task Methodology
1 Systematic literature review across the three issues
South North Norfolk Mid Sussex Selby
Shropshire
2 a Consultation b Consultation c Consultation d Consultation
reports (2) reports (2) reports (2) reports (2)
3 a Household b Household c Household d Household
survey (1) survey (1) survey (1) survey (1)
4 a Agent b Agent c Agent d Agent
survey survey survey survey
5 a House price b House price c House price d House price
analysis analysis analysis analysis
3.4.2 The literature review is presented in full in Appendix A; the approach to selecting the case
study areas is presented in full in Appendix B; the Household Survey findings in Appendix
C; the findings of the Agent Survey in Appendix D; and the House Price Analysis (with
technical description) in Appendix E. The consultation reports provide the basis of the
discussions around the three critical issues presented in the next three chapters.
3.4.3 How was this evidence base developed? The following is a summary of the methods
used in this study:
Parish meetings (leading to consultation reports): Two meetings were held in each
of the selected parishes, with the Parish Clerk normally providing the point of initial
contact. The meetings employed a ‘pinpoint facilitation’ approach with questions
evolved from the initial literature review. The meetings focused on the three
themes of the study, but mixed treatment of specific questions with broader
discussions around general themes such ‘what it means to be local’. Meeting
discussions were recorded and transcribed, but facilitation notes were also taken:
recorded on large A1 sheets that provided references for the discussions.
Household surveys also centred on questions evolved from the literature review
and were conducted by professional survey teams in the four locations. The teams
administered door-to-door interviews throughout the day and into the evening in
order to gain a representative sample of household types.
Estate agent survey was conducted by telephone. A total of 13 estate agents were
contacted across the four locations and asked a series of questions, namely which
villages tended to be the most popular or sought after and why; whether people
pay a premium for these villages; and whether buyer’s could expect more for their
money by purchasing a property closer to/within a town. Additional discussion was
tailored specifically around the issues of critical interest raised by the rural typology
of each location.
House price analysis drew upon VOA (Valuation Office Agency) property sales
data for the four districts. The data was used to assess the extent to which a rural
location adds value to residential property in each district. This was determined
through the application of the hedonic pricing technique, which uses a series of
regression analyses to compare prices of properties when there are observable
differences in the attributes of each property sold.
3.4.4 The next chapters present the results of the above analysis in terms of addressing each
of the three core study questions.
21
Final Report
4 Housing affordability and its consequences
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This study is not concerned with quantifying levels of housing affordability in villages or
across parishes. Such analyses already exist and provide the basis of local policy
interventions. Rather, its purpose was to uncover the experiences that ensue from a real
or perceived lack of housing that is affordable to local residents. The discussions
designed to unearth these experiences and local attitudes, were rooted in the review of
past studies conducted at the beginning of this project. The review highlighted a number
of critical concerns:
Differences in the way that affordability is understood, its geographical
characteristics, issues of who benefits and issues of who is adversely affected by
low levels of affordable housing: just individual residents or communities as a
whole;
Local differences concerning ‘within’ and ‘without’ affordability: whether measures
of affordability could, or should, deal with immediate village or parish needs or
whether policies should focus on wider areas. Essentially, whether there is an
expectation that the housing resources of a village or parish will meet all local
need, or whether access to affordable homes in nearby settlements is sufficient for
dealing with local need;
But related to this, local debates over mobility and employment: whether it is
reasonable to expect people working in a village to move away but commute back
for employment;
How affordability contributes to the sustainability of rural areas and communities:
whether the addition of more affordable housing contributes to (by facilitating more
balanced communities) or detracts from (by consuming rural land resources)
sustainable development; and linking to this;
How access to housing affects social networks and social capital, whether
networks have evolved, in some instances, as a result of gentrification, or whether
they have been eroded and severed because of displacement attendant on in-
migration.
4.1.2 These were broadly the issues emerging from the literature review and provided a frame
of reference for the parish meetings and village household surveys.
4.2 Defining affordability and understanding its outcomes

4.2.1 Housing affordability can be a sensitive subject within some communities. Accepting that
there is an ‘affordability problem’ may be regarded as an admission that a community
needs additional housing. Where such housing is not wanted, residents may prefer to talk
about the different ways of ensuring that people get the housing that they need, avoiding
reference to issues of ‘affordability’, which may be seen as a green light to unwanted
development.
4.2.2 We looked to disentangle some of this association in the household surveys conducted
across each district. People were asked whether in their view, people on local wages can
afford to buy homes in their village. The results indicated that across all four districts2
housing affordability was an issue. Just over 70% of respondents in North Norfolk and
South Shropshire had the view that people on local wages could not afford local housing,
whilst in Selby and Mid Sussex the figure was just over 50%, table 4.1. It is interesting to
2
The household survey results are presented throughout the report at a district level which is a shorthand for
the two villages surveyed in each instance which in turn represent the four typologies outlined in table 3.1
22
Final Report
note that in the former two districts a far higher proportion of people are dependent on
local employment than in the later two and there are also greater second and holiday
home pressures in the former.
Table 4.1: Can local people working locally afford to buy homes in the village?
Mid North Selby South

Sussex Norfolk Shropshire
no 52% 74% 51% 71%
yes 24% 15% 35% 10%
do not know 24% 11% 15% 19%
4.2.3 The survey respondents were very clear in their views that there were not enough
affordable homes in their village. Apart from Mid Sussex nearly two thirds of respondents
reported an insufficient supply of affordable homes, as shown in table 4.2.
4.2.4 In Mid Sussex those who felt there was sufficient affordable housing stressed the level of
new housing that had recently been built and their concerns about their village growing
too big. There was also a concern about attracting the “wrong type” of person to the
village. Elsewhere respondents stated that either there were no affordable homes or in
districts like Selby that former council homes had been brought under ‘right to buy’
legislation and had not been replaced.
4.2.5 When respondents were asked whether housing supply by housing type was sufficient or
not in the village there were some clear differences based on typologies.
Table 4.2: Proportion of respondents who think the supply of housing in the
village is insufficient by housing type
Housing type Mid Sussex North Selby South

Norfolk Shropshire
housing for young people 68% 81% 80% 80%
affordable homes 51% 89% 81% 80%
housing for the elderly 44% 53% 41% 43%
housing for rent 40% 70% 53% 53%
housing for families 33% 59% 38% 62%
4.2.6 In all cases respondents felt there was insufficient housing for young people (smaller
starter homes) with the homes built locally tending to be larger. However, it was also felt
that property types like flats were not appropriate to villages. In addition the employment
opportunities for young people were to be found in larger urban areas. So while
respondents reported that their children had had to move away from the village to find
property they also recognised this move was often for employment reasons.
4.2.7 The availability of housing for the elderly raised some interesting points. With the
exception of the Selby villages, all the villages surveyed had a higher than average
elderly population when compared to the district as a whole. The reason why
respondents reported a lack of housing for the elderly was due to the lack of sheltered
accommodation in their villages. They also raised the point that older people had left the
village due to lack of local medical and care facilities. It was felt the provision of sheltered
accommodation would not only enable the elderly to stay within the village but would free
up housing for younger people thereby improving the age profile of their villages.
4.2.8 For other types of housing the main issue was cost, housing was available in the village
but in the views of many respondents it was not affordable due in part to pressure from
second homes in some locations.
23
Final Report
4.2.9 Interviews with estate agents in highlighted the impact of second homes in some districts.
For example, in North Norfolk agents identified a unique sub-market within the district
along the western coast revealing a cycle of demand for holiday homes, generated by the
popularity of its character villages (stretching west of Cromer and along to Sheringham,
Blakeney and Wells-next-the-Sea), which has led to considerable development and
increased tourism, reinforcing demand and continual upward pressure on property prices.
4.2.10 In the Slaugham Parish Consultation (Dynamic Commuter), affordability was defined by
reference to ‘other rural areas in the country’: if housing costs in the parish compared
favourably to other areas, then it could not be said that housing was unaffordable. More
specifically, it was considered impossible to conclude that the parish had an ‘affordability
problem’ by relating incomes to property prices. In Bishop’s Castle, however, there was a
more precise interpretation of affordability in terms of local incomes. Such relationships
highlight a potential for difficulty but this potential only becomes real if it can be shown
that named individuals needing to live in a village are being prevented from doing so as a
result of high prices. In fact ‘unaffordability’ is meaningless unless linked to need. And
what was the actual need? In Slaugham, the need and desire of people not already
housed in the parish to live there was questioned: such people ‘prefer more urban
locations’ and so development would not meet their needs.
4.2.11 Slaugham typifies the tendency in more ‘mobile areas’ to project the value of mobility on
households that might find themselves in housing need. Moving away from the village
was not seen as a threat to social networks, unless the move involved an older and less
mobile person. In such instances, there is a case for housing, presumably affordable and
certainly sheltered, to meet the needs of the elderly. And indeed, decanting older
residents from family homes was also viewed as a means of dealing with other housing
tensions (the same belief was aired in Happisburgh).
Figure 4.1: Perceptions of housing affordability, Bishops Castle

Following the addition of a recent housing development in the village, it was found
that up to 75% of those people in Bishop’s Castle who applied for the affordable
homes in the scheme were unable to get a large enough mortgage (this was prior
to the 2007 credit crunch). As a result a number of these homes went unsold and
were eventually placed on the open market, while the affordable homes for rent
meanwhile were well over-subscribed. This outcome was attributed to the
affordability formula applied by the Housing Association which used an average
income variable which did not reflect local wage levels (it was based on the district
average which was considerably above that of the town). The consultees therefore
felt that the price of supposedly affordable new housing in addition to open market
housing remains some way out of reach of those living locally and in need of
housing.
4.2.12 Similar perspectives were offered in other cases, reinforcing the view that ‘affordability’
only becomes a real issue if prices prevent people from living where they need to
(otherwise, high prices have no obvious downside). In Happisburgh (Rural Retreat),
property prices, combined with low turnover in social housing, had prevented young
people from staying in the village and local area. But, was the real barrier homes or jobs?
Young people went to Norwich, ‘where the work is’, so what is the real need for affordable
housing in the village? The desire to innovate solutions (and which were being pursued
by the District Council), rather than building new affordable homes (for ‘people on
benefits’), was also strong in Happisburgh. Might it be possible to relax restrictions on
barn conversions if they are to be used as social housing, rather than solely for rich
incomers? Conversion costs are likely to be prohibitive for social providers, but such
sentiments underscored the desire to limit development to that which was absolutely
essential.
24
Final Report
4.2.13 Elsewhere, a view was aired that a focus on ‘affordability’ does not necessarily result in
interventions that aid local people with a legitimate need. In Hope Bowdler (Deep Rural),
it was strongly felt that ‘affordable housing’ eventually ends up being unaffordable to
locals. It is often sold on at market cost (a problem that government has recently
recognised and sought to remedy) or is not affordable in the first place to those who really
need it. In the same village, it was argued that ‘affordability’ is held up as a reason to
build more homes (perhaps with the aim of addressing an imbalance in supply and
demand), resulting in large developments that will detract from the environmental
qualities of the area and be intrinsically problematic owing to the lack of infrastructure
investment in this and similar rural areas.
4.2.14 Similar sentiments were expressed in Riccall, although there was a feeling that inevitably
further new developments would be built and a risk of the village ‘growing out of all
proportion’. Still that new developments may eventually help in meeting local need meant
that there was generally less outright resistance to new housing.
4.2.15 Two issues emerge from this and from the discussion above. Firstly, ‘affordability’ is not
necessarily the trigger that local communities think should drive development; rather, this
should be a measured response to evidence of very local need, with solutions led by the
community (a view strongly held in Slaugham and Bishop’s Castle). Secondly, where
affordability concerns (presumably tracked by the principal authority) do trigger house
building, there is a concern that this building is often inappropriate, goes to the” wrong
people”, mainly someone who is not local and is not accompanied by the right
infrastructure investments.
4.2.16 The normative concept of affordability is understood, but it is contested as a basis for
development. There was no sense that affordability (as a tension) locks lower income
residents out of social networks, but there is consensus around the need to help specified
local households access housing: essentially, to formulate local solutions that are not
driven by top-down economic analysis.
4.3 The geographical immediacy of local need

4.3.1 This issue boils down to something very simple: is there belief in the need for more
development within villages, or a view that local need should be dealt with in the wider
area, particular in nearby market towns. Bramley (2009) talked about ‘within’ and ‘without’
affordability. He argued that many smaller rural villages are unaffordable if they are seen
as discrete markets; but, that if these markets are extended to cover larger centres then
levels of affordability rise. Furthermore, it makes sense to concentrate development in
bigger centres where needs can be more easily and more efficiently serviced.
4.3.2 In essence, ‘within’ affordability is frequently low in many parts of rural England, whereas
‘without’ affordability is high. If villages are seen as discrete markets, then their housing
problems become intractable: if they are seen as components of a network of
settlements, including larger centres, then solutions seem nearer at hand.
4.3.3 So do villages see needs as being ‘geographically’ immediate or as something to tackle

across the wider area? The consultation at Slaugham delivered an interesting story.
Participants were firstly asked to rate the need for affordable housing in the borough.
Contradicting some earlier views on affordability as a guiding concept, they were
unanimous in the view that the supply of affordable housing in the parish was
‘inadequate’ (using the parish’s recent housing needs survey as a point of reference). But
when asked whether this meant that they would accept new development, the response
was to backtrack and to claim that the supply of affordable housing was adequate,
perhaps ‘not in the parish’, but certainly in the ‘nearby towns that are local to the parish’.
25
Final Report
4.3.4 Still, was the topic of discussion ‘local housing’ or ‘affordable housing’? It was accepted
that there could be a case for local housing for named individuals and that there might be
a need in Handcross, Slaugham, Pease Pottage or Warninglid for this. But affordable
housing was seen as a more general term and affordability could be addressed across a
wider geographical area.
4.3.5 This view was echoed in Hope Bowdler and Riccall, where it was expected that future
development would be directed to brownfield sites in Church Stretton and the towns of
Selby/York: ‘expansion should occur in the larger centres’. Even where housing is
needed for older residents, this should be provided in the market towns where the elderly
are more likely to have access to the things they need. Interestingly, a countryside that is
often dominated by retired people is not always seen as a suitable place in which to grow
old, or rather it is viewed as sensible for the frail elderly to move up the urban hierarchy.
4.3.6 Again, there was a sense that a mobile group of consultees had the expectation that
others would share their level of mobility. Furthermore, they were clearly averse to
development within their rural ‘oases’. The view at Happisburgh was rather different. The
village is one of only five coastal service villages in Norfolk and there is an expectation
that it will experience some additional housing growth in the years ahead. There was, in
July 2009, a proposal for 15 houses in the village, of which half would be affordable. This
was considered to be insufficient (in the face of market pressures, especially from second
home buyers).
4.3.7 Unlike the situation in Slaugham, there was a belief that Happisburgh should take more
growth, even though it was only 12 miles from Cromer. However, it was highlighted that a
lack of affordable housing was a problem for the whole of North Norfolk, not just in the
smaller settlements. The village is more of a centre than Handcross in relation to its
neighbouring villages (mainly due to the area being more rural) and therefore an
acceptance that Happisburgh is a likely candidate for development.
4.3.8 There is some willingness amongst the retired consultees to countenance more housing,
but coupled with more efficient use of the existing stock. For example, by discouraging
second home ownership (through amendments to the national tax regime), bringing
empty properties back into use, allowing the re-use of commercial buildings (e.g. barns)
as housing and/or extracting contributions from those converting buildings into
holiday/second home use.
Figure 4.2: Local need, Cawood

Cawood is situated a few miles west of Riccall in the district of Selby and which,
like its neighbour, had experienced an influx of commuters over many years. In
contrast to Riccall it had not seen any major additional housing development and
any new development which had appeared in the village was usually too small to
require the developer to include affordable housing. The consultee group which
was mainly made up of an established core of active residents and those in
positions of responsibility (e.g. headteacher, doctor) generally took the view that
this situation meant that young people wanting to remain in the village and those
now with families who had grown up in the village and with a desire to return to
Cawood were unable to, with many living in nearby Selby. It was felt that the
relatively small number of social and other supported housing such as
agriculturally tied homes, Alms houses, those owned by charities and council
housing could be directed towards this group. However, over time most of these
had been sold onto the open market which only exacerbated the problem.
4.3.9 It is generally true that consultations in near-urban areas concluded that additional
housing should be directed to a nearby town, whereas those held in slightly bigger
centres and in deeper rural areas concluded that more land for housing should be
26
Final Report
allocated within the village or parish. This was clearly the case in Bishop’s Castle (Deep
Rural): a ‘poor town’ in which affordable homes for rent are ‘massively over-subscribed’
and ‘starter homes are not particularly affordable’. Here, the dominant view was that there
has already been a considerable amount of new build, but usually of the wrong type.
There is a ‘within’ affordability problem that cannot be addressed by building elsewhere or
by prevailing models of affordable provision. These do not deliver homes that are
affordable to people on local wages.
4.3.10 In many respects, Bishop’s Castle fitted the mould as a village willing to address its own
housing difficulties through development that could be locally controlled and that would
be ‘truly affordable’. Conventional policies were seen to have failed the community: there
was not enough social rented provision, intermediate tenures were unaffordable and
exception policies were unable to overcome the desire of landowners, who held onto land
in the hope of achieving full development value. Local control was seen as the answer,
channelling development through a Community Land Trust (CLT). There was even an
expectation that landowners would be more willing to deal with a CLT, which could offer
iron-clad guarantees that local housing would benefit local people.
4.3.11 In Blakeney similar actions have been taken to address housing problems through the
creation of a housing association supported by the Parish Council. Settlements across
the coastal area were too small to support affordable housing and the district wide
allocation of affordable housing in larger centres too often ignored the needs of the
smaller villages particularly in recognising the needs of those who also worked locally.
The problem of ‘within affordability’ was therefore felt across all settlements. Whilst some
analyses, therefore, point to the inherent difficulties of dealing with discrete markets, in
Bishop’s Castle and Blakeney a very local focus was seen to offer clear opportunities, by
virtue of its capacity to muster support for affordable housing development.
4.3.12 The consultations with parishes revealed the trade-off between accepting the ‘affordability
problem’ and local need and the resistance to affordable housing development within
residents’ immediate community. The household surveys conducted in these areas
looked to shed more light on the availability of housing and who should get housing
priority.
4.3.13 The survey results also highlighted differences between districts in terms of the
acceptability or otherwise of residents having to move out of the village to obtain housing.
The results varied across the districts; as shown in 5.4.
Table 4.3: If housing for local people is not available in the village, it is
acceptable to expect them to move..

to a village within the parish 92% 74% 66% 80%
to surrounding villages 86% 58% 67% 66%
to the closest town 73% 49% 61% 53%
within the district 66% 30% 60% 47%
4.3.14 In Mid Sussex and Selby over 60% of respondents believed it was acceptable for local
people to have to move to the closest town or elsewhere within the district to obtain
housing. While in South Shropshire and Norfolk the proportion fell as low as 30%. A
sizeable minority, from a third to a fifth of respondents felt it was not appropriate for
people to move away from their own village, in the villages outside Mid Sussex. .
4.3.15 If respondents do not feel it is appropriate that people should have to move away from
their village where should new housing be provided? The vast majority of respondents
(between 61 to 79% depending on district) felt that housing should be provided within or
27
Final Report
on the outskirts of the village to meet the needs of local people. There was also little
contradiction in peoples’ views. So, for example, North Norfolk residents believed it was
least acceptable for people to have to move elsewhere in the district for their housing
needs and the most accepting of having new housing built locally. Whilst the residents of
Mid Sussex were more accepting of people having to move to neighbouring towns and
the most likely to prefer new housing to meet local needs being built in the closest town.
4.3.16 Overall the surveys found a greater acceptance to new housing in their village than in the
consultation events although this acceptance is related to the housing being provided for
local people.
Table 4.4: If additional housing is built for local people, where should it go?

on the outskirts of the 41% 40% 23% 38%
villages
in the village itself 20% 39% 53% 30%
in the closest town 21% 13% 9% 18%
in the surrounding villages 18% 9% 14% 14%
4.3.17 When asked to explain the reasoning behind their answers there were a number of
common themes. Those who did not want more homes built in their village itself stressed
the view that the village should be kept as it is, that more housing would change its
character, there was no room for more housing, that greenfield land should not be used
and that housing should be built in locations where there were a greater number of
facilities. The contrary view was that local people should be able to obtain housing in their
own village and that there was plenty of space available both brownfield and greenfield.
4.4 Mobility, employment and affordable housing

4.4.1 The literature review highlighted the gap between local wages and local affordability. The
speculation in the consultations was that these additional travel costs accentuated the
economic disadvantage of local workers who had already been priced out of village
networks. But the evidence supporting such a view was very limited. It was perhaps only
in the North Norfolk case studies that a clear concern for the ‘pricing out of village
workers’ was aired.
4.4.2 In Happisburgh this was linked to providing services particularly in meeting the needs of
the retired population, whereas in Blakeney it was the implications for the wider economy,
such as the loss of skills. The difficulties faced in this part of Norfolk were characterised in
the following way: on the whole, there is a high proportion of retired or near-retired
households, who have arrived from outside of the county to buy their homes outright; they
tend to stay in the area and do not move again, resulting in low market turnover; over
time, the services they need tend to cease as the young people needed to operate them
is reduced. The picture in Happisburgh was not one of displaced workers commuting
back to villages to run local shops, but of workers leaving the area entirely, often heading
to Norwich and taking up higher quality jobs there.
4.4.3 This pattern of change was common across most of the case study parishes: the lack of
quality jobs in the villages was a recurring theme, as was the view that employment is as
big a driver of out-migration amongst the young as the cost of housing and in fact bigger
in many instances. It is a common thesis in studies of rural housing to link migration
pressure to the relative employment opportunities in urban and rural areas and to explain
movement early in the life-cycle in terms of economic push and pull factors. Rural
depopulation has been explained in these terms for a hundred years, but it is only the last
28
Final Report
40 years that depopulation has been balanced by counter-urbanisation.
4.4.4 However, the prevailing view today is that these life-cycle movements, rural to urban
movement of younger households and urban to rural movements of older households,
are no longer in balance: more people want to move to rural areas than want to leave,
resulting in ‘aggressive displacement’. An important question is whether younger people
would stay if there were jobs or whether there are jobs but the lack of local housing is the
real ‘push’ factor.
4.4.5 Two different pictures emerged and were again linked to area type. In Slaugham
(Dynamic Commuter), jobs and homes were thought to be readily available in nearby
centres contesting the suggestion that younger people would wish to stay in the parish:
these people are rational and the rational action is to move to areas of better
employment. In Riccall and Cawood (Transient Rural), however, it was suggested that
lifestyle incentives, family-ties and the availability of some local employment meant that
young people had a reason to stay, though were being prevented from doing so because
of a lack of affordable housing for purchase and rent. Their problems had several
underlying causes. Firstly, there was a local resistance to social housing, which, in the
case of Riccall, was believed would bring in ‘the wrong sort of people’. Secondly, the
market had delivered a glut of larger family homes (and planning had not prevented this
from happening) unsuited to the needs of young singles and clearly far out of their price
range. And thirdly, housing associations had failed to provide homes for young people
and were perceived to show a lack of consideration to their needs in their allocation
policies.
4.4.6 These factors had conspired to produce a perverse situation in which family homes
remained empty and unsold, social housing went to people from outside the village and
young people were finding it increasingly difficult to stay. The view in the consultation was
that some young people at least had decent jobs and wanted to stay, but on a ‘minimum
wage’, there was ‘no chance’ for this to happen.
4.4.7 But even in Riccall, where there was strong support for more housing for young people, it
was more broadly accepted that rural areas cannot be expected to retain all of their
population. It is in the nature of some areas to be attractive to younger people and in the
nature of others to attract the retired or those who are highly mobile and have no
employment need in the area in which they reside. The banner ‘local homes for local
workers’ was held up as an aspiration, but it was also accepted that there is an economic
reality that needs to be faced. If that reality is not faced then villages will be forced to
grow in pursuit of an unachievable fit between access to homes and low-paid jobs. How
much housing will be needed to achieve this fit and will the village still be sustainable in
terms of its land take and its service profile? Despite an acceptance of local housing, one
conclusion from the consultation in Riccall was that there are ‘plenty of derelict sites in
Leeds’ as well as empty homes, all of which should be brought back into effective use.
4.4.8 Generally, there was little evidence that local workers ‘back-commute’ from more urban
locations. When they are gone, they are gone (as in the case of Happisburgh). Local
wages simply do not support this additional cost and the idea of ‘back commuting’
suggests that housing is a bigger push factor than employment, which is simply not the
case. Some displaced households may move in order to access a more plentiful supply of
social housing (indeed, their move may well have been due to the allocation of a home
elsewhere), but they also take advantage of employment opportunities. In fact, the move
may well bring them closer to the job they already had.
29
Final Report
4.5 Local housing and the sustainability of rural communities

4.5.1 Explicit reference to what might constitute a ‘sustainable (rural) community’ was made in
only one consultation: in Riccall (Transient Rural), it was thought that excessive growth
would cause an imbalance between population and service provision, diminishing the
sustainability of the village. There was no faith that either new employment or new
services would accompany that growth. A recurring view across rural England is that
planning often turns communities into dormitories, without due regard to their future
economic or social viability.
4.5.2 This view was shared in nearby Cawood (Transient Rural). Tightly drawn settlement
boundaries mean that the Cawood is a ‘village without growth’, being designated as such
in the Local Development Framework. The lack of large housing developments in or
adjoining the village has perhaps contributed to a dearth of affordable homes, but at the
same time it has meant the retention of the village’s identity. New housing is viewed here
as a potential threat to local character and something that would further undermine the
sustainability of the community. It would do this not because of the consumption of
farming land, but because new housing is rarely accompanied by an investment in
services.
4.5.3 Participants at the Cawood consultation based this belief on ‘observations’ made in the
wider area. This would mean that new housing would not ‘generate’ new services and the
people moving in would be unlikely to frequent existing village shops. Rather, commuting
households tend to do their shopping on the way home from work, or use the internet and
have groceries delivered to their doorsteps. It was felt that such shopping habits have
become ‘ingrained’ and, when combined with service-free development, mean that rural
communities are becoming dormitories.
4.5.4 Such patterns of development, combined with these consumption habits, reinforce car-
dependency and in this respect additional housing does not provide a means of making
villages more sustainable: it merely amplifies existing problems. On paper, new housing
might provide local bus services with a critical mass of potential customers, but in
practice the new residents moving into this housing are unlikely to use the bus: and the
service will only begin to improve once people start to make use of it. The lack of belief in
the propensity of housing to solve basic community challenges, centred upon services
but also linking to social capacity and vibrancy, fuels a reluctance to countenance
‘substantial’ development and a preference for more affordable housing on small plots.
4.5.5 Local housing can contribute to a community’s sustainability if it is ‘controlled and

targeted’. In Cawood, the preference was for development targeted at helping those
‘starting out, youngsters etc’. Critically, it is important that affordable housing ‘will benefit
the community’: the view was that the village is ‘growing old’ and that the ‘life-cycle’ of the
community was broken and needed fixing. Development polices in neighbouring villages
had not remedied similar problems. Nearby Thorpe Willoughby, for example, had become
a dead dormitory for Leeds and York. General development did not understand or meet
the needs of the communities: homes were quickly filled either by commuters or by
‘people out in the sticks with no cars, where they can’t function’. Thorpe Willoughby was a
particular settlement highlighted in the interviews with estate agents in Selby, as a
typically bad example of inappropriate development and growth that has detracted away
from the village’s original character and has made it less popular with new buyers as a
result. Agents confirmed this has been the case across a number of villages situated just
outside of Selby town centre.
4.5.6 Appropriate, sustainable development, happens when the needs of a village are fully
understood: villages have a life-cycle and development must acknowledge and support
this. Interestingly, it is across this life-cycle that social networks were thought to operate:
of particular importance are the intergenerational ties between older residents and their
30
Final Report
children. The lack of housing for younger households obviously breaks or weakens these
ties and has an impact on the community as a whole.
4.5.7 The life-cycles of social networks were explored further in the household surveys. Village
residents were asked to state how long they had lived in their village, the results of which
presented a stark contrast between the districts. Our results suggest that the life-cycle of
most districts is very similar irrespective of their rural typology, with the exception being
‘dynamic commuter’ areas. In Selby, North Norfolk and South Shropshire, the majority of
residents had resided in their village for at least 20 years. In Mid Sussex however,
residents tended to have only lived in their village for 1 to 5 years. This is further
emphasised by looking at the combined proportion of residents that have lived in their
village all their lives or for at least 20 years: on average accounting for 40% of responses
in Selby, North Norfolk and South Shropshire. In Mid Sussex the opposite is true, where
in fact 40% of residents have lived in their village for less than 5 years, Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Time lived in the village
100%
90%
80%
70% All my life

60% 20+ years
10 to 20 years
50%
6 to 10 years
40% 1 to 5 years
30% Less than a year
20%
10%
0%
Mid Sussex North Norfolk Selby South
Shropshire
District
4.5.8 The surveys also looked to reveal the strength of familial ties within rural villages and
networks generally across all four districts and how this could vary by life-cycle.
Residents were asked whether they had any other family members (aside from those
living at home) living in their immediate village. The proportion who answered yes varied
from 12% in Mid Sussex to 35% in South Shropshire reflecting the different
characteristics of each district. When assessing responses by life-cycle, a notable finding
was that the strongest family-ties within a village were for those residents who had lived
there more than 20 years. For this group a third had other family members living in the
same village, a figure that falls to a sixth for those who have lived for less than five years
in the village. So as mobility increases over time local family-ties are likely to reduce.
4.5.9 The figures are even more pronounced in terms of respondents’ future expectations.
When asked how long they expect to remain in the village the respondents in Mid Sussex
were far more likely to anticipate a move. Almost a third of respondents expected to move
within ten years compared to less than a tenth in North Norfolk, table 4.5.
31
Final Report
Table 4.5: How long do you expect to stay in this village?

less than a year 6% 3% 2% 5%
up to 5 years 14% 5% 8% 7%
5 to 10 years plus 12% 2% 6% 5%
I am not thinking of moving 68% 91% 84% 83%
4.5.10 Across all the districts housing issues (e.g. a desire to move to a bigger or smaller
property or wanting to buy) were the main reason for people considering a move (making
up a third of reasons). This would suggest that they did not expect their future housing
needs could be met locally. The next biggest reason, in a fifth of cases, was employment
followed by a desire to move closer to family members.
4.6 Housing access and social networks

4.6.1 To be sustainable, communities need to be balanced. Specifically, this means that a
village needs a ‘life-cycle’: a balance between younger residents, families and older
people. Across this life-cycle, family-ties are important, sometimes focused around caring
for elderly relatives and providing childcare. In Cawood, ensuring ‘community balance’
was viewed as crucially important and ‘open policies’ of allocating homes were said not to
work as they often fail to understand the way communities function. Even a mix of homes,
leading to a mix of people, will not necessarily lead to a balanced community. Policies
need to build on what is already there, recognising the imbalances that exist and seeking
to address them. It was felt in Cawood that ‘local youngsters’ were drawn back to the
community once they had children of their own and that, ideally, these were the sorts of
household that should be assigned priority access to new housing.
4.6.2 But the perceived practices of housing associations were claimed to impact negatively on
communities. In Riccall, they were said to lack concern for creating a working community.
As well as paying insufficient attention to how ‘new residents will get around’ and it was
felt that they display scant concern for ‘interaction’ between residents. It was felt that by
giving some thought to allocation procedures it would be possible to engineer more
harmonious communities. It was clearly felt in Riccall that the needs of an ‘active
community’ would be best served by assisting young local people. This would be possible
if the power to grant access to affordable housing were transferred from housing
associations to the local community: a view shared widely across the consultations.
4.6.3 Indeed, in order to make a community ‘work’ it is necessary to understand its existing
dynamics. Where there are imbalances, the vibrancy of a community may be
undermined. However, what constitutes balance is highly contested. In Bishop’s Castle
(Deep Rural), there was considered to be an imbalance caused by holiday homes that at
least brought a spending stream to the village and second homes that it was felt did not.
This view was shared in nearby Hope Bowdler, though no obvious remedy emerged. In
Slaugham, population dynamics created what was generally thought to be a working
community built on ‘enlightened self-help’ with strong support networks, perhaps not built
on ‘social balance’ but on the energy of people whose interest lay in being part of village
life.
4.6.4 This was also reflected in Cuckfield, where the range of voluntary and sporting/leisure
activities as well as the presence of schools had enabled strong social connections to be
built up over time between established families and more recent incomers. Interestingly in
Slaugham, there was a desire to assist ‘truly local people’ by allowing the Parish Council
32
Final Report
to set priorities.
4.6.5 Evidence for the importance of social networks in sustaining communities emerged more
strongly from the village surveys, in terms of the extent to which newcomers were
considered active in village life and how this was maintained throughout the life-cycle.
The surveys provided a useful comparison of this concept from the perspective of
residents who have lived in the village all their lives with the perspective of recent arrivals.
4.6.6 The first question asked whether people who had lived in the village for more than five
years whether they socialised with more or fewer people than five years ago, table 4.6.
Those residents who had lived in a village between 5-20 years on balance now socialised
with more people than five years ago. This suggests that as people become more settled
in the village their circle of acquaintances increases within a fairly stable population as
one might expect. The main way people had expanded their acquaintances in the village
was through their children going to the village school or to baby and toddler groups.
4.6.7 However, amongst the longer standing residents, those who had lived in the villages
more than 20 years, over a fifth reported that they socialised with fewer people and by a
small proportion more reported socialising with fewer rather than more people. Older
residents reported friends moving away or dying and finding few opportunities to meet
newcomers, with the loss of local facilities such as pubs and lower church going among
younger residents. In some villages it was clear that the school gate was the main place
where people met and once children left school the opportunity to meet new people even
within a small community was limited. In some villages newcomers were seen as being
very different with little in common with existing (longer-term) residents (wealthier, second
home owners, younger). Other long-standing residents though looked forward to new
people moving in as they felt their village was too cliquey.
Table 4.6: Compared to 5 years ago, do you feel you socialise with:
Length of time living in village

Up to 5 5 to 20 Over 20
years years years
Less people 3.4% 11.9% 21.1%
in the village
About the 47.1% 48.1% 60.0%
same
More people 49.4% 40.0% 18.9%
in the village
4.6.8 Villagers were then asked if people who they knew well had left the village in the last five
years. Not surprising in Mid Sussex where there was a far higher turnover of people a
higher proportion answered yes than in the other districts, table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Over the past 5 years, have people you know well moved out of the
village?
Mid Sussex North Selby South

Norfolk Shropshire
Yes 41% 21% 26% 32%
No 59% 79% 74% 68%
4.6.9 In the cases of Mid Sussex and Selby the main reason reported why people moved was
33
Final Report
for employment reflecting the nature of these districts as commuter locations while in
North Norfolk and South Shropshire the reason was more because of housing issues
such as a desire to move to a bigger property or to buy. Other reasons for moving were
related to health and a desire to live closer to members of their family as residents grew
older.
4.6.10 When asked what impact that people they knew moving out of the village had had, there
was a mixed view. Around half said it had no impact while the other half reported a
negative impact in terms of losing friends who they had less contact with or with whom
they had lost contact. The latter seems to apply mostly to older people who also see a
much higher proportion of their friends dying. This was a factor commented upon in the
consultation where there was a concern raised about a number of older residents living in
near isolation.
4.6.11 When residents who had lived in the villages for more than five years were asked about
how well they had got to know newcomers the answers were perhaps surprising, table
4.8.
Table 4.8: In the past 5 years, have people moved into the village who you have
come to know well?
Length of time living in village

Up to 5 years 5 to 20 years Over 20 years
No 69.6% 50.4% 55.5%
Yes 30.4% 49.6% 44.5%
4.6.12 Less than half of residents felt that they had got to know new residents well and where
they had it was because the incomers were immediate neighbours. A lack of facilities in
some villages meant that people did not get the chance to meet fellow villagers. However,
there were plenty of examples of residents making friendships with newcomers and
friendliness within villages was still seen as a strong positive attribute.
4.6.13 Why do people stay in their villages? This was one of the questions in the household
survey addressed to those who had been living in the village for more than five years and
is later compared to what attracted people to the village in the first place. It is clear from
table 4.9 that it is attributes of rurality that makes the villages attractive places to live
rather than the facilities available or their accessibility. Many of the “rurality” measures
were rated as very or fairly important by over 90% respondents across all the villages.
34
Final Report
Table 4.9: Proportion stating the following factors are very or fairly important in
influencing their decision to stay in the village
Factor Mid North Selby South

quality of the surrounding 98% 97% 95% 99%
environment
safety and security 97% 96% 95% 94%
peace and tranquillity 96% 95% 95% 97%
sense of neighbourliness and 95% 88% 93% 92%
atmosphere in the village
the personal appeal of my own 91% 92% 97% 90%
house e.g. physical/ aesthetic
attributes
the physical attributes of the 90% 79% 89% 87%
village (nice high street,
buildings etc)
good road links to neighbouring 90% 70% 86% 81%
towns
being close to family and friends 82% 74% 63% 80%
proximity to nature and 82% 85% 92% 87%
recreational activities
facilities available in the village 78% 61% 84% 70%
local bus service provision 64% 50% 70% 56%
proximity to a rail station 56% 13% 19% 35%
convenient commute to work 55% 41% 53% 47%
quality of local schools 46% 31% 35% 39%
4.6.14 The differing typologies of the villages show through in terms of the importance of
different aspects. Accessibility to transport and work were clearly more important in Mid
Sussex and Selby, with their higher proportion of people commuting out of the district for
work, than in North Norfolk and South Shropshire.
35
Final Report
5 Influences on house prices
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 House prices and the factors that influence them provided this study with a more
quantitative focus. We approached the issue of influence from several angles:
investigations in parish meetings (attempting to understand why migrants were drawn to
particular locations), insights from the village surveys (with a focus on the motivations of
residents drawn to or choosing to remain in a certain location), a focused telephone
survey of estate agents (highlighting patterns of apparent purchaser preference) and a
statistical analysis of the VOA residential property sales data.
5.1.2 The initial literature review highlighted some of the obvious influences on house prices,
linked to location, to property characteristics and to the value placed on living in a rural
area (for example, the utility value derived from recreational advantages, the perception
of peace and quiet and the belief that a greater community spirit can be found in the
countryside). These issues were investigated in the meetings and surveys, with the aim
being to tie generic attributes to the case studies and to particular locations. This enabled
the team to establish an expectation of what might be influencing prices. The VOA data
allowed the study to test whether expectation conformed to reality. But more generally
and in the light of the critical questions emerging from the literature, the study was
concerned with:
The extent to which ‘functional characteristics’ explain prices: for example,
proximity to the services that local communities need (schools, shops, health care
and so on), proximity to jobs and to the transport infrastructure that makes some
areas more accessible than others and the quality of housing within particular
areas, whether it is the housing that buyers want and are willing to pay for; and
The extent to which ‘preconceptions’ drive migration and influence prices. For
example, are migrants to the areas being examined motivated by belief in a ‘rural
premium’: lower levels of crime, better schools, peace and quiet, community spirit
and a generally ‘green and pleasant’ land?
5.1.3 The expectation from the outset was that it would be difficult to gauge the effect of
preconception. Methods for modelling price influences draw on measurable data:
preconceptions that may have proven false are clearly going to be difficult to measure, let
alone factor into a model that arrives at judgements on the relative importance of different
drivers. However, the strategy adopted was to analyse the quantifiable but then qualify
this with observations made during village meetings and the surveys: to at least highlight
the uncertain influence of taste and perception.
5.2 Where do people come from

5.2.1 Before getting into the detail of particular drivers it is worth exploring where people have
come from who have moved recently into the various study villages. From the village
surveys there were clear differences between districts. The dynamic commuter and to a
lesser extent the rural transient districts (Mid Sussex and Selby) attracted far more urban
residents, while in North Norfolk and South Shropshire, although still attracting a sizeable
40% of new residents from urban areas, were more popular with people moving from
other villages.
5.2.2 This is shown in table 5.1.
36
Final Report
Table 5.1: Where have you moved from?

another village 31% 57% 52% 60%
or a town/city 69% 43% 48% 40%
5.2.3 When asked how far they had moved it was notable that those moving to Mid Sussex and
Selby, despite being more likely to be moving from urban areas, came from relatively
close by. While North Norfolk and South Shropshire attracted around a third of new
residents from more than 50 miles away. This suggests that in the former cases people
still want to be within a reasonable distance of other commitments such as work while the
latter districts were attracting retirees or those seeking deeper rural areas. Again this
matches the typologies of all four districts.
Table 5.2: How far have you moved?

Less than 10 miles 61% 51% 51% 33%
10 to 50 miles 25% 15% 30% 38%
More than 50 miles 14% 34% 19% 29%
5.3 Functional characteristics

5.3.1 The parish consultations provide a useful starting point for understanding how area
characteristics and attributes might affect home-buyer preferences and residential
choices, regenerating local market pressure-points or reducing the popularity of some
areas. Several attributes, making areas more or less attractive, were discussed at length
during the parish consultations before being picked up again in village surveys.
5.3.2 The first was accessibility, which may affect the attractiveness of areas in different
ways. In general rural residents wish to live in areas in which shops and essential
services are accessible. But views as to how ‘accessibility’ should be achieved vary. In
areas of greater resident mobility, where many people are commuters (e.g. in the Mid
Sussex and Selby case study villages), the consensus appeared to be that proximity to
‘good main roads’ made an area attractive. In Slaugham and Cuckfield, this meant that
demand for housing in the parish was consistently high, with the area attracting
households working in Gatwick, nearby Haywards Heath, Crawley and London. But for
these ‘dynamic commuters’, accessibility was also seen as a ‘double-edged sword’. It
presented a risk, making the area more attractive to the local authority and to developers.
Seeing that more people want to live in the area and that it is well connected, could
induce the authority to allocate more land for housing; and this was the last thing that the
participants wanted to see happen.
5.3.3 This was reiterated by the interviews with estate agents across Mid Sussex. Agents
revealed that the most sought after villages were those in close proximity to employment
centres such as Haywards Heath. However, of these highly accessible villages, it was
those that had maintained a status, appearance and size of a traditional village that were
most desirable. Agents in Selby further emphasised the appeal to buyers of a location
that had an optimal level of service and accessibility, revealing villages that straddled the
hubs of either Leeds or York as highly desirable.
5.3.4 But whilst good roads make an area and its services, accessible to highly mobile
37
Final Report
residents, a lack of buses can reduce accessibility for non-car users. This was recognised
in Slaugham, but highlighted as a particular challenge in South Shropshire. In Bishop’s
Castle and Cawood, for example, residents aired concerns over the state of local bus
services and impending cuts. This was felt to be a real challenge for the young and for
elderly households. That said, it was not felt the public transport provision was a
particular draw for those moving into the countryside (and, by inference, not a driver of
house prices). General accessibility, on the other hand, can be attractive to people
moving into the countryside from urban areas where they have been accustomed to good
service access. This makes places like Hope Bowdler attractive to home purchasers, as it
affords easy access to the larger Church Stretton settlement. In Riccall and Cawood,
being ‘within commutable distances‘ that is ‘within an hour’ of Leeds, York and other
major towns was seen as important to those relocating to the area.
5.3.5 There was, however, a belief in Riccall that it was possible to ‘survive’ without a car: it
was suggested that ‘Tesco home deliveries’ benefit mothers and the elderly though the
respondents all conceded that their own lifestyles were car-dependent: bus services were
thought to be good (mainly because of the proximity of the A49) and there was a view
that others probably used them and reaped their benefits.
5.3.6 Very similar views were aired at Happisburgh and in Cawood. Poor public transport
services cause difficulties for a section of the local community, but it is not public
transport that lures people to these areas. Cars are seen to make areas accessible:
commuting to work over relatively long distances is viewed as part of rural life and having
good roads enhances rural liveability. So good roads stand out as a potential price driver,
as does accessibility to a good range of nearby services: homebuyers want the
convenience of a nearby trunk road plus the handiness of some ‘nice’ shops. But at the
same time, those moving into rural areas (or existing residents for that matter), do not
want to be exposed to traffic and pollution. This undermines the ‘calm of villages’,
preventing ‘peaceful walks’ and generally undermining liveability. For the residents of
Slaugham, the perfect location is perhaps a stone’s throw from an A road, but shielded
from noise and the risk of further development. It will also have some decent shops and a
pub.
5.3.7 The surveys highlighted considerable differences between the villages in terms of the
importance of transport accessibility in the choice of village of those who had recently
moved in, shown in Table 5.3 which presents the proportion stating that particular factor
was ‘fairly’ or ‘very’ important in their choice of village. Mid Sussex, which attracted out-
commuters, the ability to commute conveniently to work scored highly especially in
relation to the other districts. This was especially true in relation to rail access highlighting
the importance of being able to access the central London job market.
Table 5.3: Importance of transport accessibility in choice of village
Mid Selby North South

Convenient commute to work 88% 67% 53% 68%
Good road links to neighbouring towns 86% 84% 67% 69%
Proximity to a railway station 60% 20% 8% 34%
Local bus service provision 49% 57% 43% 53%
5.3.8 Shops and other services also stand out on their own as a potential draw for home
purchasers. Current residents in the consultations consistently cited ‘range of services’ as
an attractive aspect of their community, though these services did not necessarily need to
be within their village. In Slaugham, it was the case that services were spread across four
38
Final Report
villages (though concentrated in Handcross) though all were felt to be accessible by

community bus if a private car were not available. Because many new residents in rural
locations are highly mobile, it is difficult to tie service locations to residential preferences.
This appeared to be true in all the case study parishes. Bishops Castle was said to have
a critical mass of services in the immediate area. Hope Bowdler relied on nearby Church
Stretton for its shops: ‘new incoming families’ would doubtless have to do a lot of ‘running
around’ (by car) though this was not thought to be a disincentive for living in the village.
5.3.9 After all, wealthy incomers, with their particular habits and lifestyles, had transformed the
villages. Within their lifestyles, there was no need for village services: therefore such
services could hardly be held up as a draw to similar households. But that is not to say
that decent services do not play a part in retaining population. In tiny hamlets, the lack of
services is unlikely to be a disincentive to ex-urban households looking to live in a ‘rural
backwater’.
5.3.10 This was further highlighted in the estate agent interviews, particularly in the most rural of
districts such as South Shropshire. It was suggested that certain newcomers were
particularly drawn to distinctly small villages and hamlets that often necessitate a degree
of isolation. Interestingly newcomers of this sort were also identified by agents in Mid
Sussex. It appeared that new buyers who were less concerned with accessibility to
nearby employment centres were instead motivated by remote, picturesque villages that
often did not provide even the most basic local amenities.
5.3.11 However, across all four districts, these remote villages were still required to have some
form of adequate access to nearby shops and other services by car. Agents noted that as
the isolation of a location increased, this would begin to outweigh the desirability of
properties in a remote rural setting. It was in fact properties in these extremely remote
areas, with no amenities or activity within the village or nearby, that were consistently
lower in price relative to properties in other villages.
5.3.12 However, in larger villages and small market towns, services play a key part in the social
life of communities. In Riccall, for instance, there is a scale and scope of active groups
and sports clubs for youngsters and older residents. This and other social facilities
including the Regen Centre makes Riccall an attractive location for families. But echoing
sentiments elsewhere, there is an admission that Riccall does not have everything it
needs: and why should it? There is an acceptance that smaller settlements need to look
to bigger ones to fill their service gaps. Villages are never ‘fully functional’ and some, like
Cawood, have become less functional in recent years as a result of the arrival of more
commuters with a different needs profile. To some extent, this has meant that Cawood
has taken on a dormitory feel, though it retains an ‘adequate base of services and
facilities’: exactly what new rural residents seek. Table 5.4 shows the importance of
facilities in the choice of village for those who had recently moved in, revealed by the
household surveys. Respondents in the more rural areas did not regard the availability of
good facilities than in the more “commuter” areas.
Table 5.4: How important is the availability of facilities in your choice of

village?
Respondents answering ‘fairly’

or ‘very’ important
Mid Sussex 77%
Selby 67%
North Norfolk 60%
South Shropshire 59%
39
Final Report
5.3.13 Do villages need schools to make them attractive? Are incomers attracted to villages
with schools and will they pay a premium to be near them? This perception of schools
affecting property prices is perhaps inspired by well-publicised experiences in urban
areas and the controversies that surround school catchments and parental choice. In
some rural areas, primary schools are over-subscribed: in others, they have experienced
a long term trend of falling rolls (a cited problem in Cawood).
5.3.14 The view in Slaugham and Cuckfield was that primary schools (there are two in the
parish) are critically important, drawing people to the area and helping retain families. But
these schools have large catchments and parents seem more than happy to drive their
children to school in the morning, sometimes from quite distant villages (without schools
of their own).
5.3.15 Reinforcing this notion, the interviews with agents revealed the importance and
availability of quality primary schools was an issue that was only raised in Mid Sussex.
However, this issue was not entirely village specific; the lifestyles of potential buyers in
the district resulted in a willingness to travel to nearby villages for reputable schools when
presented with the trade-off between good schools and other attributes that make a
location desirable.
5.3.16 A key issue in Slaugham parish is the relative shortage of 4-5 bedroom homes for
families. Asked whether more family housing might increase the viability of the parish’s
schools, the response was that the schools have catchments and that families do not
necessarily choose to live nearby. They live elsewhere for other reasons: other factors
make villages attractive. But again, this seems to underscore the difficulty in identifying
locational price drivers. The types of households buying rural property tend to be highly
mobile and it is in the nature of rural living that new residents, in particular, do not expect
everything they need to be close by. Some established, less mobile, residents might well
prefer key services to be within walking distance, but are the choices made by these
residents driving property prices?
Figure 5.1: Schools as house price drivers, Cuckfield

The role of schools as a factor in shaping the community came up frequently in
villages which hosted schools. This was particularly the case in Cuckfield, a large
village hosting both a primary and secondary school. The schools served families
living beyond the district including those living in the nearby town of Haywards
Heath. However, their role as an attraction to incoming families from a large part
of the south east was consistently cited during the consultation. Many incomers
were seen as wealthy professionals commuting to jobs in London and content
with the character and ambience of the village, which combined with good
transport links made it complete as a place to settle. Importantly, the school was
crucial in acting as a gateway to existing residents, many of which were previous
incomers of a similar status. This encouraged involvement in activities and
informal mixing within the village and often the formation of social networks
amongst incomers.
5.3.17 Equally, there was much discussion in Riccall regarding the locations of secondary
schools and colleges in the area. Whilst there was no suggestion that such higher-tier
services should be closer to hand, it was noted that distance to such education provision
might influence the residential choices of families with older children or of independent
younger people. But the absence of such provision in smaller rural locations is not a
factor determining patterns of property demand, as it might be in an urban area, but a
potential reason for choosing an urban over a rural location. It will not have an ‘intra-rural’
impact on prices, causing one location to be favoured over another, though access to
main roads may become a factor for households requiring this provision.
40
Final Report
5.3.18 The importance of the quality of local schools in the choice of village for those who had
recently moved in to a village was revealed by the household surveys and again as can
be seen from table 5.5 reflects the districts’ typologies. In Mid Sussex which is attracting
families from urban areas the quality of schools was a key factor in choice of village.
Selby which was attracting younger professionals commuting to Leeds and York it was
less of an issue and the same is true in North Norfolk where a higher proportion of older
people and retirees were moving in.
Table 5.5: How important is the quality of local schools in your choice of
village?
Respondents Answering ‘Fairly’

or ‘Very’ Important
Mid Sussex 82%
Selby 52%
North Norfolk 67%
South Shropshire 75%
5.3.19 Environmental characteristics, together with the character of villages, certainly add to
the attractiveness of a location. Particularly in the interviews with estate agents, there
was continual reference made to locations that could only be described as ‘your typical
traditional village’. It appeared that many agents could not attribute this status to exact
characteristics but simply to being ‘quaint’ or ‘beautiful in character’. When prompted to
discuss these issues further agents often referred to the stock of period properties and
the natural landscape. But when consulting with residents in some areas, the
‘environment’ was not held up immediately as a factor explaining this attractiveness:
rather, it was only when discussions moved to possible future development that
respondents highlighted the need to preserve local character and to keep ‘villages as
villages’ and avoid the ‘urbanising effect of more housing’. In Slaugham, for instance, the
four villages in the parish are seen as distinct ‘oases’ (from the urban character of the
wider area beyond the parish). The green space between the villages was viewed as
essential, helping preserve their identity and character. On each occasion that the
discussion moved towards ‘housing need’ or development, the importance of limiting
development for ‘environmental reasons’ was re-emphasised.
5.3.20 In Cuckfield this was expressed in terms of the imbalance, both physically and socially
that it was feared would come from large scale development. The village had grown
gradually and organically over time which had ensured that it retained a ‘central heart’
and a distinct identity from its surroundings leading to a desire ‘to keep things as they
are’.
5.3.21 It was those villages that had not grown organically that were revealed to be much less
desirable to buyers in the estate agent interviews. This was a strong theme consistent
across all four districts, although to a lesser extent in South Shropshire which has
experienced much less development relative to the other districts. In Selby agents stated
that villages which had experienced significant development 1960s and 1970s had
detracted away from their original character and had placed strong downward pressure
on the price of properties across these villages.
5.3.22 Agents in Mid Sussex indicated this was also the case. An example of the highly
desirable ‘twin villages’ of HurstpierPoint and Hassocks was provided, in which the
villages are similar in location and accessibility to amenities and transport, however,
HurstpierPoint was consistently regarded as both more popular and more expensive.
Agents suggested that the higher stock of modern housing in Hassocks meant it did not
41
Final Report
enjoy the same traditional village status as HurstpierPoint.
5.3.23 The issues surrounding the nature of the housing stock along the coast of North Norfolk,
however, were quite different. The sought after villages stretching west of Cromer and
along to Sheringham, Blakeney and Wells-Next-the-Sea appear to have welcomed a
considerable amount of modern, high quality housing development. Largely to cater for
second home buyers, agents suggested this housing has complemented the west coast
area. However, there was some debate over the perceived impact of this development on
the local landscape and character of coastal villages among long-standing residents and
those that had settled more recently.
5.3.24 Elsewhere, the ‘beauty’ of the surroundings was highlighted immediately as a factor
drawing people to the area and keeping them there. In Bishop’s Castle, the ‘unspoilt and
very beautiful surroundings’ had attracted a great many second home buyers to the
village, with a consequent loss of family housing and smaller ‘starter homes’. It was
claimed that in some streets, virtually all properties are now second homes. It was noted
that there is sometimes a social downside to having a high quality environment: those
from outside the area will want to buy into that environment, investing in property, firstly
for second homes and then for permanent retirement.
5.3.25 The contribution of second home owners to the local economy and to village life was
questioned: their limited residence means that they ‘cannot put their heart and soul here
because they have somewhere else to live’. Their ‘financial and social capital’ is tied up
elsewhere. Their effect on the housing market, however, is significant, not only because
prices rise (especially in village centres and for smaller ex-agricultural workers’ cottages),
but because turnover in the local market grinds to a halt. These properties rarely return to
that local market. In North Norfolk and South Shropshire this is an increasing concern.
Figure 5.2: ‘Access to solitude’ - Blakeney

In Blakeney, incomers were identified as a mix of second home buyers as well as
late career professionals and younger suburbanites. This had occurred over a
number of decades from people seeking ‘access to tranquillity and solitude’ as
the primary reason and aided by the relatively easy reach from major
conurbations. However, in the case of these latter groups, it was observed that, in
many cases, their family and friends would also look to move to the area, with the
environmental factors being less important as an attraction factor. Demand for
housing therefore arose from connected waves of incomers seeking to re-
establish original familial and friend networks, while the environmental attributes
prevailed as an ongoing driver of demand from new incomers.
5.3.26 Some areas, however, are too close to conurbations to attract second home seekers.
This was clearly the case in Slaugham. Similarly, at Hope Bowdler, the fact that the
village is a ‘very nice place to live’ does not mean that it attracts a great number of
holiday or second home buyers: it is too close to Church Stretton; with seasonal residents
often looking for locations that are a little more off the beaten track. Happisburgh perhaps
fits this particular bill. The area is generally attractive to tourists and has a significant
proportion of second homes in its housing stock. This is a ‘picture postcard village’,
‘surrounded by sea and green fields’. It also has a nice beach and listed buildings, which
add to the character of the village. Given the profile of consultation participants, including
those with local businesses, it was not surprising that there was broad acknowledgment
of the positive contribution that holiday homes (over second homes) make to the local
economy, caveated with a concern over empty properties (and second homes that are
less regularly used) and their economic and social impacts. Similarly estate agents in
North Norfolk were equally positive about the contribution of tourism and the associated
development to cater for holiday homes. However, it was clear in Happisburgh that the
surrounding environment and village character play key roles in influencing home-buyer
42
Final Report
preferences.
5.3.27 The same was true in Riccall where easy access to this countryside was viewed as a
significant factor attracting people to the village: country walks and cycle paths wind
around the village and local allotments, adding to the ‘sense of countryside’. Even the
presence of large roads, the A19 in this case, do not detract from this sense. The road
runs just to the east of the village rather than through it making a key difference to the
environmental quality. Indeed, the combination of good access (noted above) and
retained environmental quality makes Riccall attractive to home purchasers.
5.3.28 The household surveys highlighted that the key issue in attracting people to the villages
were their rurality in terms of peace and tranquillity, quality of the surrounding
environment, safety and security and proximity to nature. These were the top three/four
factors in every district.
Table 5.6: Importance of rurality issues in choice of village

Sussex Norfol Shropshir
k e
Peace and tranquillity 94% 93% 93% 90%
Proximity to nature and recreational 80% 90% 81% 88%
activities
Quality of the surrounding environment 97% 93% 97% 96%
Safety and security 98% 85% 96% 94%
5.3.29 Finally, in Cawood (and also in Slaugham) it was noted that the positive qualities of the
village are matched by the qualities of its inhabitants: it’s a ‘nice place to live in with nice
people’. This sentiment was repeated across the case studies and there appeared to be
general satisfaction with the ‘community spirit’ that was said to be found within these
rural communities. This spirit was reflected in two main ways: the willingness for people
to get involved in local projects and to have a ‘visible presence’ in the village; and the lack
of ‘anti-social behaviour’ highlighted by respondents in all of the consultations. An
important point is that it is difficult to link the ‘spirit’ highlighted by consultees, including
the voluntary actions supporting local bus services and active church scene, with a
willingness to pay a premium to buy into such villages.
5.3.30 Interestingly interviews with estate agents in South Shropshire highlighted this issue.
Agents insisted that whilst a large number of villages have lacked, or have recently lost,
local amenities (typical of many ‘deeply rural’ areas); a direct substitute for buyers is often
the presence of a local village hall or church. Such facilities often play a pivotal role in
village life; replacing the activity that would normally be generated by local shops and
services, enabling residents to come together and reinforce a sense of ‘community spirit’.
5.3.31 It is a persistent question in the study of rural communities: are home-buyer decisions
affected by the belief that a particular village’s outward characteristics suggest a
‘community’ to buy into, or do households moving from urban areas perceive that rural
communities, in general, are more ‘close-knit’ and that this will increase liveability, making
them better places to raise children and so on. Table 5.7 shows the results of the surveys
in terms of the importance of community spirit in the choice of village of those who had
recently moved in, showing respondents who answered ‘fairly’ or ‘very’ important.
43
Final Report
Table 5.7: Importance of community spirit in choice of village

Sense of neighbourliness and atmosphere in 83% 79% 76% 72%
the village
5.4 Social characteristics and identity

5.4.1 Much has been written on the ‘softer’ attributes of ‘rurality’ and how these draw people to
particular locations. The belief that greater ‘neighbourliness’ makes areas safer, that
there will be opportunities to be part of a ‘real community’, or a view that children will
benefit from village life and a cleaner environment are all perceptions of the benefits of
rural living. The village consultations were unable to test such perceptions: rather, they
dealt with the experiences of a small number of current residents. These consultations,
however, were able to confirm a belief that the ‘spirit’ attributed to small communities is
alive and well: in Slaugham, in Bishop’s Castle and in Happisburgh and Riccall,
responses suggested thriving community scenes. This picture, however, was not
universal. In Hope Bowdler, it was felt that ‘people do not mix easily’ and that disinterest
in local matters results in a diminished community spirit. And this spirit is not always a
welcoming one.
5.4.2 It should also be noted that the parishes included in this survey were not randomly
chosen but were picked on the basis of an active Parish Council that would act as gate
keeper to the consultation process. One might expect, therefore, a high degree of
‘community spirit’ which might not be replicated in other locations.
5.5 Differences between what attract new residents and keeps

existing residents
5.5.1 Previous sections have set out what makes the surveyed villages attractive to those
people who recently moved into the village and those who have been living there some
time. Table 5.8 shows the differences, if any between, these two groups and their views
on the attractiveness of their village. A high positive number shows the attribute was
regarded as more important (by the shown number of percentage points) in the choice of
village to those who had recently moved in than it is to those living there, while a negative
number shows the opposite.
5.5.2 So being close to family and friends becomes far more important to people who have
lived in the village for some time than those who have recently moved in, while the
importance of being able to commute to work and the quality of schools was more
important in attracting people than retaining them.
5.5.3 Most telling it is the rurality issues that are equally important in attracting people to the
village in the first place and keeping them there over the long term.
44
Final Report
Table 5.8: Difference between what attracts and retains residents (positive
number greater importance in retaining rather than attracting,
negative number greater importance in attracting than retaining)

being close to family and 17 21 20 22
friends
local bus service provision 14 7 13 3
sense of neighbourliness and 12 12 14 20
atmosphere in the village
good road links to 4 3 3 12
neighbouring towns
proximity to nature and 2 4 3 -2
recreational activities
peace and tranquillity 2 2 3 7
facilities available in the 1 1 17 11
village
quality of the surrounding 1 0 3 4
environment
the physical attributes of the 0 7 4 6
village (nice high street,
buildings etc)
safety and security -1 0 11 -1
proximity to a rail station -4 5 -2 1
convenient commute to work -33 -12 -14 -21
quality of local schools -35 -35 -16 -36
5.6 Quantifying house price influences
Introduction
5.6.2 In order to assess whether much of the findings from the preceding qualitative research
conformed to reality, we performed an analysis of house prices for each district using the
hedonic pricing method (HPM). Essentially this stage of analysis looked to more
conclusively reveal to what extent a rural location drives residential property prices and
ultimately evaluate the quantifiable ‘power of rurality’.
5.6.3 The HPM is a statistical technique used to compare prices of a product when there is
observable quality differences in a product sold: in the case of this research a rural
property or dwelling.
5.6.4 A dwelling can be described generally by the characteristics of its structure, surroundings
and location and a dwelling’s price can therefore be said to reflect the value of these
attributes to the buyer. Essentially, hedonic pricing allows us to describe house prices as
a function of a number of different attributes.
5.6.5 Specifying a hedonic price function is possible by undertaking a series of multiple

regression analyses. Regression analysis looks to identify how much of the variation in a
dependent variable, which in our case is property price, can be explained by variation in a
number of explanatory variables, which in our analysis is a property’s different attributes.
45
Final Report
This hedonic price function in statistical terms is represented below:

Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3…biXi
5.6.6 Where the price (Y) of a property is a function of its attributes X1 to Xi. This can be
interpreted more simply as:
House Price = constant + structural attributes + location attributes…
5.6.7 In this research we have incorporated the rural typology of a property into its hedonic
price function, which allows us to isolate its impact on house prices and essentially
through this impact determine the power of rurality.
5.6.8 Whilst many hedonic pricing studies have looked to value the amenity of farm or
agricultural land in rural housing markets, to our knowledge there has not been an
attempt to estimate the value of a rural location in such a holistic sense. Using Defra’s
classifications of rural and urban areas3 we have piloted the HPM in order to test our
central hypothesis; houses in a rural location will attract a premium over houses that are
located in urban areas. However, findings from the previous stages of this research also
lead us to hypothesise that extremely isolated rural properties will not attract such a
premium.
Method
5.6.9 The HPM is an approximation of the housing market observed in reality and therefore, as
with any statistical model, is underpinned by a number of key assumptions. However,
above all, homogeneity of the housing product is assumed. It was therefore essential
when collecting price data and developing data for quality attributes that only one market
was being assessed. For an individual market, it is assumed that house prices follow the
same price schedule and thus variation in price can be estimated through a unique
hedonic function for that market.
5.6.10 The assumption of a single market is particularly important for this research given that our
analysis is focused on four districts each representing different rural typologies. As a
result, based on the findings from previous research stages, we assumed that house
prices across the four districts were unlikely to move in the same way. For example,
access to the rail network in Mid Sussex which is of a ‘dynamic commuter’ typology is
likely to have upward pressure on the price of a house, yet this is unlikely to be the case
in ‘deep rural’ South Shropshire.
5.6.11 In our assumption of four housing markets each with its own price schedule, it was
therefore necessary to estimate separate hedonic price functions for each case study
district. Nevertheless, whilst we assumed that house prices in the four districts would be
driven differently by a set of quality attributes, this did not compromise our central
hypothesis that in any district, a rural location will attract a premium over properties that
are located in urban areas.
5.6.12 The scarcity of available property in rural areas relative to urban areas also helps to
explain divergences in average house prices between urban and rural areas. While this is
no doubt a prevailing factor, the analysis did not attempt to estimate the explanatory
power of supply constraints, assuming that this was an external influence having equal
weight across the four areas.
5.6.13 One of our first concerns in estimating a hedonic price function is the measurement of
property price, known as the dependent variable, given that a property’s value is
3
Rural Evidence Research Centre (RERC), Birkbeck College, 2004
46
Final Report
dependent on the quantities or qualities of its characteristics.
5.6.14 In order to measure house prices across each district, sales data was sourced from the
VOA for one year4. The VOA records the structural characteristics of properties sold
including the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in each property and whether the
property is detached, semi-detached, or terraced, for sales corresponding to postcode
level (minus one digit). Collecting sales data at this spatial scale allows us to analyse
house prices at a localised level whilst maintaining a large enough dataset of property
transactions required to perform regression analysis.
5.6.15 It was accepted that the size and type of property will be a large determinant of its price.
In order to control for this as much as possible, house price data was obtained as an
average price per room, by property type, for all sales recorded in 2007. This unit price
has been used to represent the dependent variable throughout our application of the
HPM for each district.
5.6.16 It was therefore necessary to test that there was enough variation in this average price
data. The HPM consists of a process of regression analysis, looking at how variation in
house price is dependent on the variation in its characteristics. Therefore for the
regression analysis to assess this relationship, it was necessary to ensure that there was
significant variation in the sales transactions recorded (represented as unit price of an
average price per room). In addition it was also necessary to ensure that the 2007 sales
recorded by the VOA extended across each district and was therefore a good
representation of each rural housing market. In determining this, the average price per
room of a property for each district was mapped. This mapping was performed separately
for each district and differentiated between property types. In Figure 5.3 to Figure 5.6 we
present the mapping results of detached property sales for each district, based on our
unit measure of the average price per bedroom.
5.6.17 These figures show that typically prices are higher in rural compared to urban areas.
However, there are other factors impacting on prices within the rural area. So in North
Norfolk, for example, prices are higher in the north than the south of the district and
highest along the coast compared into inland. While in Selby properties in villages nearer
to York and Leeds achieve higher prices than those in the east and south of the district.
Finally, in South Shropshire process in more remote rural areas are lower than in those
villages which are closer to the larger market towns.
4
The entire number of sales recorded by the VOA in 2007 was taken for each district
47
Final Report
Figure 5.3: Mid Sussex detached property price per room (2007)
48
Final Report
Figure 5.4: North Norfolk detached property price per room (2007)
49
Final Report
Figure 5.5: Selby detached property price per room (2007)
50
Final Report
Figure 5.6: South Shropshire detached property price per room (2007)
51
Final Report
5.6.18 Having defined a measure of property price, our next concern in estimating a hedonic
price function was the measurement of the many attributes, known as the explanatory
variables, which are used to explain the selling price of a house.
5.6.19 There are of course a vast number of explanatory variables that could be incorporated
into a hedonic price function as the value of a property to a buyer is likely to be
dependent on so many attributes. However, it is possible to categorise the attributes of a
dwelling as follows:
Structural (number of rooms, plot size, garage, garden, age etc);
Neighbourhood (e.g. crime rates, employment rate, private home ownership etc);
Accessibility (e.g. distance to schools, shops, transport etc); and
Surrounding environment (e.g. quality of open space, natural and built
environment, noise level etc).
5.6.20 A full list of potential explanatory variables was developed based on an a priori
expectation, informed by other hedonic studies and our previous qualitative research, that
each variable represents an attribute of a property that will in part determine its sale price.
5.6.21 However, central to our application of the HPM was the need to determine the extent to
which a rural location adds value to residential property. We therefore looked to identify
data that could accurately capture and quantify the rural locality of a property, allowing us
to isolate the impact different rural typologies have on price. The RSS (rural services data
series) was identified as an ideal source for measurement of locational variables.
5.6.22 The RSS draws on Defra’s definition of rural and urban locations, breaking them down
into four settlement types; urban, rural town and fringe, rural village and rural dwelling
and assigning them to either a 'sparse' or 'less sparse' regional setting reaching eight final
typologies5. These settlement types are defined through bands of population density. It
was felt that this definition in particular, would provide further insight into the desirability of
villages that are more developed and whether an optimal size that afforded ‘traditional’
village status did in fact exist. Figure 5.7 sets out how these rural and urban typologies
are defined and aggregated:
Figure 5.7: Rural/Urban aggregated definitions
Source: National Statistics
5
The Rural/Urban Definition was introduced in 2004 and defines the rurality of very small census based
geographies, based on population densities
52
Final Report
5.6.23 Having collected all necessary data, each property transaction was assigned its
corresponding structural, neighbourhood, accessibility and environmental attributes.
Through a series of correlation and multiple regression analyses (described in detail in
the technical report presented in Appendix E), an optimal hedonic price function for each
district was determined. The results of these analyses are presented in the next section.
Results
5.6.24 The relationship between property price and its corresponding structural, neighbourhood,
accessibility and environmental attributes was tested through correlation analysis.
Correlation analysis identifies the direction and strength of co-movement between two
variables (which in our case is the price of property and an individual attribute) and
therefore informed us as to whether or not it was relevant to include different attributes in
our hedonic function. In addition, the relationships between property attributes were
tested, since some attributes are likely to be highly correlated as they share a very similar
relationship with price.
5.6.25 From this analysis, we were able to reduce the full list of property attributes that was
initially developed to a set of attributes (or explanatory variables) that could be
considered for inclusion in each district’s hedonic price function. This reduced set of
attributes went beyond an a priori expectation that each would in part determine a
property’s sale price, to being selected on the basis of a proven statistical relationship.
The drivers of property price identified for each district are presented in Table 5.9 below.
Table 5.9: Results of correlation analysis: drivers of property price
Mid Sussex North Norfolk South Shropshire Selby

T_DETACH T_DETACH T_DETACH T_DETACH
YNG_FAML YNG_FAML YNG_FAML YNG_FAML

TWO_CAR UNEMPL TWO_CAR UNEMPL
HEALTH_SCORE OWN_HME HEALTH_SCORE TWO_CAR
EDU_SCORE EDU_SCORE HEALTH_SCORE
CRIME_SCORE EDU_SCORE
CRIME_SCORE
RAILWAY TOWN A_ROADS A_ROADS

TOWN DIST_POST RAILWAY RAILWAY
DIST_POST DIST_GPall TOWN TOWN
DIST_GPall DIST_SCHOOL DIST_POST DIST_POST
DIST_SCHOOL DIST_BANK DIST_GPall DIST_SCHOOL
DIST_BANK DIST_SCHOOL DIST_BANK
DIST_BANK
AONB AONB AONB
U_LS RTF_S RTF_S U_LS

RTF_LS RV_S RV_S RTF_LS
RV_LS RD_S RD_S RV_LS
RD_LS U_LS RTF_LS RD_LS
RURAL RTF_LS RV_LS RURAL
RV_LS RD_LS
53
Final Report
RD_LS SPARSE
SPARSE
RURAL
5.6.26 These variables were then modelled through a series of multiple regression analyses,
finally determining an optimal price function for each district housing market6. This
function denotes the price schedule for each rural market, in other words, from each
function we can determine the extent to which different property attributes, including rural
typology, impact on price.
5.6.27 The hedonic price function(s) for Mid Sussex was as follows:
Model IV (i)
YMid_Sus_Price = aconstant + bT_DETACH + bYNG_FAML + bTWO_CAR + bDIST_SCHOOL + bDIST_BANK +

bDIST_POST + bDIST_GPall + bRV_LS + bRD_LS
Model IV (ii)
YMid_Sus_Price = aconstant + bT_DETACH + bYNG_FAML + bTWO_CAR + bDIST_SCHOOL + bDIST_BANK

+ bDIST_POST + bDIST_GPall + bRURAL
Table 5.10: Hedonic model results for Mid Sussex
Model IV(I) Model IV(Ii)

(Constant) 95,872 98,485
T_DETACH 23,927 23,854
YNG_FAML -1 -1
TWO_CAR 0 0
DIST_SCHOOL 5,961 3,423
DIST_BANK 2,301 2,490
DIST_POST 4,054
DIST_GPall -1,799
RV_LS 5,929
RD_LS 10,368
RURAL 7,847
Observations 608 608

Adjusted R Square 0.479 0.482
5.6.28 The hedonic price function(s) for North Norfolk was as follows:
Model IV (i)
YNorth_Nflk_Price = aconstant + bT_DETACH + bYNG_FAML + bOWN_HOME + bUNEMPL + bDIST_SCHOOL

6
With the exception of South Shropshire, two models have been determined for each district in order to test the
different classifications of a rural area. That is, to determine the impact of a rural location of property price,
Defra’s definition of rural was tested in its simplest form and by detailed settlement typology. For some districts
not all rural typologies were able to be tested within the model. This was because either no such areas existed
or there was not a significant number of a settlement type to produce variation that could be tested statistically.
South Shropshire was the only district in which all property transactions fell under a ‘rural’ typology.
54
Final Report
+ bDIST_GPall + bAONB + bRTF_S + bRV_S + bRD_S

Model IV (ii)
YNorth_Nflk_Price = aconstant + bT_DETACH + bYNG_FAML + bOWN_HOME + bUNEMPL + bDIST_SCHOOL

+ bDIST_GPall + bAONB + bSPARSE
Table 5.11: Hedonic model results for North Norfolk

(Constant) 83,888 81,741
T_DETACH 19,800 19,806
YNG_FAML -1 -1
OWN_HME 0 0
UNEMPL -1 -1
DIST_GPall 956 1,086
AONB 12,303 12,310
RTF_S 5,724
RV_S 9,199
RD_S 6,654
SPARSE 7,151

5.6.29 The hedonic price function for South Shropshire was as follows:
Model IV (i)
YSouth_Shrop_Price = aconstant + bT_DETACH + bYNG_FAML + bDIST_SCHOOL + bA_ROADS + bRV_S +

bRD_S
Table 5.12: Hedonic model results for South Shropshire
Model IV
(Constant) 65,110
T_DETACH 28,915
YNG_FAML -1
DIST_SCHOOL 4,291
A_ROADS 642
RV_S 4,636
RD_S -3,643
Observations 323
Adjusted R Square 0.668
5.6.30 The hedonic price function(s) for Selby was as follows:
Model IV (i)
55
Final Report
YSelby_Price = aconstant + bT_DETACH + bYNG_FAML + bTWO_CAR + bDIST_SCHOOL + bDIST_BANK +

bRAILWAY + bDIST_GPall + bU_LS + bRV_LS
Model IV (ii)
YSelby_Price = aconstant + bT_DETACH + bYNG_FAML + bTWO_CAR + bDIST_SCHOOL + bDIST_BANK +

bRAILWAY + bDIST_GPall + bRURAL
Table 5.13: Hedonic model results for Selby

(Constant) 48,748 53,751
T_DETACH 15,688 15,618
YNG_FAML -1 -1
TWO_CAR 0 0
DIST_BANK -1,165 -1,153
RAILWAY 1,594 1,714
U_LS 4,785
RV_LS 2,908
RURAL -4,609

5.6.31 Generally across all four districts the type of property was found to be the most significant
and largest driver of property price. As one would expect, our results show that all else
being equal, detached properties will command a higher price relative to other property
types (i.e. semi-detached and terraced). On average across all four districts, a detached
property increased the average price per bedroom by around 28%. In addition, a property
that is detached was found to have a greater impact on price in the more rural districts,
namely South Shropshire followed by North Norfolk.
5.6.32 In terms of neighbourhood attributes, our results were fairly consistent across all four
housing markets and generally conform to a prior expectation that a lower socio-
economic standing in an area will reduce the relative price of property.
5.6.33 One variable that was tested within the hedonic model was the proportion of households
owning two cars or more, which had a varying impact on price across the districts. One
would generally expect a higher percentage of households owning two or more cars to
imply a higher socio-economic standing in that area. The results for Mid Sussex implies a
negative relationship between car ownership and property price, although the relative net
impact on price was found to be zero. A possible explanation is that car ownership in
rural areas could be classed as a proxy for the level of isolation of a property, with an
exceptionally high level of car ownership indicating that a property is particularly remote.
This conforms to previous findings, in particular the interviews with estate agents, that
suggested extremely isolated villages or hamlets without basic amenities are far less
desirable.
5.6.34 The impact of a property’s access to local amenities and transport links provided
interesting results. Generally across all four districts, the relative price of property rises as
56
Final Report
the distance to these services increases.
5.6.35 For access to the transport network, a 1km increase in the distance to the local railway
station in Selby increased the average price per room by 2%, whilst in South Shropshire
a 1km increase in the distance to road network increased the average price per room by
1%. This result suggests that within rural housing markets, there is a value placed on
properties that are distanced from services that bring about disbenefits such as
congestion, pollution and noise.
5.6.36 For access to local amenities however, there are exceptions to this trend. For Mid
Sussex, price falls as the distance to health services increases, with a 1km increase in
the distance to a GP surgery reducing the average price per room by 2%. For Selby,
price falls as distance to banking services increases, with a 1km increase reducing the
average price per room by 2%. As both of these districts contain a greater mix of urban
and rural settlements, this result could reinforce the notion that increased distance to
services will have a more positive impact in rural areas/districts and a negative impact on
property prices in urban areas.
5.6.37 Whilst the direction of the relationship between access to services and price was fairly
consistent across the four housing markets, the extent or size of this impact tended to
range according to the district and type of service assessed. It is possible that further
testing of the relationship between these variables and price in future research would
indicate that there is in fact an optimal distance from services and transport that positively
impacts on price. Previous stages of our research have in fact found that both residents
and potential buyers favour villages with a certain level of access to local amenities that
does not compromise their ‘traditional’ village status.
5.6.38 For example, the price of a property may be driven by access to the road network.
However, as proximity to a main road increases, the price of a property is likely to
increase at a slower rate, as the benefits of increased accessibility are outweighed by the
associated noise, pollution and so on. In reverse, as properties are located further from a
main road, price is likely to fall as the disbenefit of travelling long distances to access the
road network becomes relatively more important. Strong evidence of this ‘inverted U’
relationship has emerged throughout the previous consultations and surveys.
5.6.39 Variables that relate to the quality of the environment are generally much more difficult to
define and measure than other property attributes. This is an aspect of hedonic pricing
that is receiving growing attention in more recent studies. Environment variables need to
reflect peoples’ perceptions of the environmental amenity, such as landscaping and
views, as well as the disbenefit such as noise and pollution. However, few straightforward
methods exist for quantifying these variables. A further difficulty is that environmental
attributes of an area are often embodied in other attributes that will have already been
measured within a hedonic price function, such as noise associated with proximity to a
road.
5.6.40 When testing the impact of the quality of the surrounding environment on price, it was
only possible to include this variable in the model for North Norfolk. The quality of the
surrounding landscape and natural environment was tested according to whether a
property was located in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). A strong and
significant positive relationship with price was found with properties located in an AONB
commanding a considerably higher relative price, of around 17%, compared with those
that were not. Within our model, the location of a property in an AONB was in fact the
second largest driver of property price in North Norfolk.
5.6.41 This result is significant in both a statistical sense and in attempting to capture some
element of qualitative rurality. The previous stages of consultation confirmed that often
the most desirable villages were those afforded with picturesque landscapes. It is not
57
Final Report
surprising therefore, that quantifying house price influences found the quality of the
natural environment to be a key driver of price. However, the shortage of methods
available to this research for measuring environmental quality have limited our analysis at
this stage, prompting recommendations for extending this understanding in future
research.
5.6.42 Finally we come to analyse the extent to which a rural location adds value to residential
property, hypothesising that, all else being equal, rural properties will achieve a premium
over properties in urban areas.
5.6.43 For Mid Sussex, all property transactions analysed fell into the ‘less sparse’ regional
setting. For less sparse settlements, the typologies for ‘rural village’ and ‘rural dwelling’
were able to be included in the model and tested, with analysis of these results being
compared to the alternate typologies of ‘urban’ and ‘rural town and fringe’. The results of
the model indicated that all else being equal, properties classed as a rural dwelling
command a relatively higher average price per room of around 10% and was in fact the
second largest driver of price within the model. Properties located in rural villages
increase the average price per room by around 6% relative to those that are not. Testing
the rural classification of a property in its simplest form again indicated that a rural
location will achieve a premium over urban locations in the district, increasing the
average price per room by around 8%.
5.6.44 The analysis of Selby’s housing market presented a very different result. Once again due
to its typology, all property transactions analysed for the district fell into the ‘less sparse’
regional setting. In Selby it would appear that a rural location will in fact reduce the
average unit price of a property by around 7%. Selby was the only district in which our
analysis found that properties in an urban location will command a higher price than
properties located in rural villages.
5.6.45 For South Shropshire, all property transactions analysed for the district were classified as
rural under Defra’s classifications, therefore our analysis here compared the value of the
extent of ‘rurality’. Interestingly our results indicated that properties located in a village
command a higher relative price whereas properties that are particularly isolated (classed
as a dwelling and located in a ‘sparse’ regional setting) will have a negative impact on
price. Properties located in villages increase the average price per room by around 6%
and were found to be the second largest driver of price, rural dwellings however, reduced
the unit price by 4%. This reinforces our hypothesis in both senses: properties in a rural
location will attract a premium over those that are located in urban areas, yet extremely
isolated rural properties will not.
5.6.46 Finally in the analysis of North Norfolk’s housing market, the majority of property
transactions analysed for the district fell into Defra’s ‘rural’ classification and thus did not
produce enough variation to test this classification in its simplest form. However, we were
able to test the breakdown of settlement types by ‘sparse’ and ‘less sparse’, finding that
properties in a sparse regional setting increase the average price per room by around
10%.
5.6.47 The results for Selby also showed that, whilst properties in a rural setting command a
higher relative price than properties in urban areas, properties located in villages achieve
a premium over those properties in towns or isolated hamlets. Village properties
increased the average price per room by around 13%, rural dwellings increase price by
9% and properties in rural town/fringes increase price by 8%.
5.6.48 Table 5.14 presents a summary of the extent to which a rural location adds value to
residential property in each district. Full tabulated results are presented in the hedonic
analysis technical report presented in the appendix.
58
Final Report
Table 5.14: Quantifying the power of rurality
Rural typology tested within each district model Impact on average price per
room in the district
Mid Sussex
RV_LS 6%
RD_LS 10%
RURAL 8%
Selby
U_LS 7%
RV_LS 5%
RURAL -7%
South Shropshire
RV_S 6%
RD_S -4%
North Norfolk
RTF_S 8%
RV_S 13%
RD_S 9%
SPARSE 10%
Limitations to hedonic pricing of rural house prices

5.6.49 In interpreting our results in the previous section and in drawing conclusions in the final
chapter of this report, the limitations of our application of the HPM should be considered.
The technical report in Appendix E sets out a detailed discussion of the weaknesses of
the HPM, many of which concern data and statistical technique. However, here we
address the qualitative factors that may restrict our application of the HPM specifically to
rural housing markets.
Non-quantifiable drivers of house prices
5.6.50 There are a number of qualitative factors that are likely to cause variation in price within
rural housing markets that simply cannot be captured within the hedonic pricing model.
Though we cannot measure factors such as the feeling of community or quality of life
associated with rural living as explanatory variables, or statistically prove a relationship
with price, other areas of the research project have covered this in great detail.
5.6.51 In addition to the ‘qualitative rurality’ of an area, there lacks established primary research
methods or secondary sources that can measure many of the attributes that describe
both the natural and built environment. This is an area of research that is receiving
growing attention in more recent hedonic pricing studies.
Rural housing markets are unique
5.6.52 Throughout the other stages of the research project it has become clear that the rural
housing market is relatively inactive. Often residents in rural areas have lived there for
long periods of time, regardless of the different attributes of the housing stock but instead
59
Final Report
due to the attraction of rural life. More specifically, the rural housing market has specific
supply and demand parameters, namely limited supply and heightened demand driven by
external buyers. The number of transactions, therefore, is limited.
5.6.53 This analysis is a complex exercise; whilst we can infer some form of qualitative value of
rurality here, we cannot capture this within a hedonic price function. Furthermore, if such
market conditions exist, this will have implications for our application of the HPM to rural
housing markets in this research. This could compromise the assumption that house
prices adjust instantaneously to changes in supply and demand, as house prices could in
fact be driven by a shortage in the supply of rural housing stock, rather than being a
reflection of people’s willingness to pay for the different attributes of a property. It should
be noted that over-arching supply constraints in influencing the distinction between
average rural property values and average urban property values were treated as a given
and excluded from the analysis in all of the case study areas.
Representativeness and transferability of the analysis

5.6.54 Finally our application of the HPM has estimated the impact of a rural location on property
prices, with the aim of this research to produce estimates that essentially conclude some
kind of ‘power of rurality’ that can be transferred to other rural areas across the country.
5.6.55 This can only be achieved if our sample of properties was diverse in terms of the property
types; socio-economic areas; accessibility; environmental and rural typologies covered.
As previously explained in the report, the diversity of our sales data and
representativeness of our sample was, to some extent, determined through mapping
exercises. However, it is important to note that in reality the results of this analysis are
only representative of the range of data given in the sample and that care should be
taken in extrapolating well beyond that range.
5.6.56 This is particularly relevant to our application of the HPM to rural housing markets, which
are often inactive and characterised by a low turnover of the housing stock. Our sample
of sales data is thus somewhat biased in the types of properties and the types of buyers it
represents. Sales data is of course focused on the willingness to pay of more mobile
buyers, who may have very different preferences for (and thus place very different values
on) the attributes of a property compared to people that have lived in a village all their life.
5.6.57 In addition, our analysis has been formed on house price data from one year only and
therefore cannot determine whether the value of rurality is constant or changes over time.
60
Final Report
6 Local priority
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 The third focus of the study, investigated mainly through parish meetings and village
surveys, was the potential policy response: the case for interventions that support ‘local’
needs, whether existing interventions have local support or how communities would like
to see them adjusted to better reflect local realities. The literature review identified four
areas of critical concern surrounding local needs and the case for assigning priority to
local households, whether priority to new social or market housing:
Persistent debates and uncertainties surrounding the definition of ‘localness’ and of
what constitutes need, creating a ‘rocky foundation’ for local policies and
interventions;
The extent to which ‘local priority’ is a means of winning support for development
which does not then subsequently tackle the needs of household who local
residents would deem local;
The extent to which the local need for new homes should be tied to economic
necessity: whether ‘local’ housing should only be supported where there is a clear
economic case, i.e. where new development would support established or new
economic activity. This might be supporting additional housing in some areas and
less development in others. But in contradiction to this, another important debate
concerns;
The extent to which local priority policies might be viewed as a means of
addressing social polarisation, of creating more socially balanced communities and
be seen as a stand-alone objective, separate from labour market concerns. This
might involve building more retirement homes in some rural areas, for example.
Taking a cue from existing debate concerning housing rights, the suggestion is that
local priority is a means of ‘engineering’ more balanced communities with a view to
retaining or restoring social networks and cohesion by creating opportunities for
rural families to remain living in close proximity.
6.1.2 Because this study is primarily concerned with the understanding and attitudes of local
populations, our analysis here draws entirely on interview and survey material,
supplemented and framed by the original review.
6.2 Localness from a local perspective

6.2.1 Normative definitions of what it means to be ‘local’ rely on characteristics that are easily
measurable: length of residence, or whether someone was born or now works in an area
for example. These are used as proxies for judging a resident’s claim on local resources.
Views as to whether these are the right kinds of criteria vary between different types of
rural area. In some areas, such judgements are seen to work in favour of the settled,
long-standing population and so enjoy broad support.
6.2.2 Elsewhere, especially where there are concentrations of commuting households whose
direct employment connection to an area is weaker and length of residence is shorter,
there is a tendency to make more qualitative judgements on an individual’s claim to be
‘local’. This difference is revealed in the contrasting consultation responses in the Deep
Rural case study area (South Shropshire) and areas which had experienced greater
commuter influences (Mid Sussex and Selby). Views in Bishop’s Castle might be
characterised as more ‘traditional’. Here, ‘family-ties’ were seen as critically important:
having grandparents who lived in the area bestowed an ancestral right on those claiming
to be local. There was also a sense that such ties generated local loyalties. Whilst having
a grandparent who had lived within a 6 or 7 mile radius of Bishop’s Castle might be
61
Final Report
enough for someone to claim to be local, they might not wish to do so: due to local rivalry
between villages. There was a strong sense from the discussion that people were
obviously local or obviously newcomers. There was broad approval of the criteria
employed by South Shropshire District Council: minimum length of residence, attended
school in the area, employed locally, born and raised in the area, or with parents in the
area that now need caring for.
6.2.3 This perspective was shared in nearby Hope Bowdler where there was consensus
around the need to be born in the area or to have lived there for a substantial period to be
considered local. But in both Happisburgh (Rural Retreat) and Riccall (Transient Rural),
there was greater uncertainty surrounding the notion of localness, though an insistence
that residence and birth set local people apart from newcomers and especially from those
who are seasonal residents.
6.2.4 Such criteria support a traditional view of localness in ‘settled areas’ where the amount of
in-migration is more limited and where the newcomers who do enter the community, for
example, to buy a second home, are obviously non-local. However, in areas of more
dynamic population change, these clear boundaries become blurred. In Slaugham, for
instance, the discussion group, comprising mainly older residents who had spent their
working lives commuting to London or other centres, concluded that being local means
being ‘involved in village life’. In small villages, in particular, it is inevitable that people get
involved with local activities: this adds to the ‘sense of place’ and breaks down any
potential division between recently arriving and more established residents. In Blakeney,
while there were similar sentiments expressed about location and birth as in more
transient and dynamic rural areas, it was accepted that a person could ‘become local’,
even within a few years. This depends on how they interact with the community, whether
they get involved and ‘willing to muck in’ and not be presumptuous. The barriers of time
and distance become more irrelevant and are broken down more quickly when incomers
get involved.
Figure 6.1: ‘Getting involved’, Handcross

Handcross in the parish of Slaugham is home to many settled commuters:
residents who have spent some considerable time in the four villages of the
parish but who work either in nearby Gatwick or in London. Settled commuters
were well-represented in the consultation events, so it is perhaps unsurprising
that the preferred measure of localness in the parish is not ‘being born and bred’
in the area, but making a contribution to the community: as one resident put it
‘showing some community spirit’. There are lots of different ways that people can
partake in this spirit. The parish comprises four small villages, each performing a
different service function. One has the local schools, one the pubs and one a
concentration of shops and a doctor’s surgery. A community bus is run by
volunteers and takes older residents shopping once a week. Some of these
volunteers are newer residents, but have already shown their ‘local credentials’.
This, claimed the consultees, is a more meaningful measure of localness than
working in the parish of having been born in the area. Few people these days can
claim to be born locally and there are few truly local jobs. Getting involved,
therefore, is the one way to measure localness that is useful. It could, for
example, be used to set determine local priority. The people who really should be
living locally are those people who help make this community.
6.2.5 Whilst there are ‘emotional ties’ associated with family history or childhood experience in
villages, these are a distinct issue and do not detract from the fact that normative
measures of localness are losing relevance in modern society. For example, increased
mobility is making nonsense of geographical localness. Good roads mean that Brighton is
only 15 minutes from Slaugham, leading one respondent to comment that his daughter,
living on the coast, still considered herself local to the village. Similarly, being ‘employed
62
Final Report
locally’ was not seen as being a measure of localness: there are few jobs in the villages
though the area is ‘encircled by employment’. It is also the case there are a great many
retired people in the area, does their lack of direct employment link render them less
local? In both Slaugham and nearby Cuckfield at least, the community is made by
‘enlightened self-help’ which builds on the networks that make the place worth living in. It
is within the community that people are accepted and the community that sees someone
as local.
6.2.6 Similar sentiments were unearthed in both Riccall and Happisburgh. In the former, ‘being
involved’ is a means of ‘feeling like a local’ and those people who support local services
(and particularly schools) will inevitably be seen as more rooted in the village. In contrast,
the commuters who use the village as a ‘base’ and do not get involved in the community
can hardly consider themselves a part of the community. Though, in fairness, there are
some long-standing residents who remain ‘invisible’ for much of the time. As in the
majority of the consultations, the process of getting involved was seen as a means of
breaking down any possible divisions between groups, reducing the importance of time
and employment as measures of localness. Almost identical views were aired in
Cuckfield, Slaugham, Blakeney, Riccall, Cawood and Happisburgh: contribution to village
life is critical to becoming local.
6.2.7 This is not to say that more traditional perspectives on localness are absent from areas of
greater resident mobility and population change. In Slaugham, a difference was noted
between the ‘old fashioned local’ who has lived in the village for ‘50 or 60 years’ and the
‘different sort of local’ who has arrived far more recently but now lays claim to localness.
The view survives, in all sorts of rural community, that it is the people who were born and
bred in the area who have the strongest emotional ties and the greatest claim on
resources.
6.2.8 Of course, the local perspective varies depending on ‘who’s calling it’. This was the clear
view in Cawood (Transient Rural). A community’s long-standing residents may place a
premium on the traditional perspective as it serves their claim to localness. Incomers, on
the other hand, may feel a need to legitimise their presence. Those who sit on parish
councils may favour participatory measures. Whilst newer perspectives on localness may
purport to brush away a dichotomy, they remain contested and provide evidence of
continued conflict in some communities.
6.3 Local need as a flag of convenience

6.3.1 Because of these differences in understanding and accepting who is ‘local’, it was
considered difficult for planning authorities to use the phrase ‘local housing’ as a rallying
call for more development. It was more common for authorities to be led by normative
measures of affordability, to claim that additional housing would widen access and then to
release that housing to people who were often considered (by consultation participants)
to have a limited claim on local resources. In many instances, local authorities were
thought to be guilty of misleading communities: facilitating the production of affordable
homes (that did not necessarily enjoy local support), suggesting it would be for ‘local
need’ and then employing allocation policies (sometimes indirectly, through a housing
association) that resulted in either the ‘wrong people’ moving into the village, or failed to
provide the sorts of homes for the types of people who could make a real contribution to
the community. In nearly all the consultations, it was felt that parishes and local groups
needed greater say in what was built locally and who was housed. This issue is returned
to below.
6.3.2 The household surveys looked to investigate this in much greater detail in an attempt to
conclusively reveal exactly who village residents consider to be ‘local’. So how is a local
defined? The first question asks whether a person is local based on their link with the
63
Final Report
village. Someone who lives in the village is generally regarded as local, usually followed
by someone who used to live in the village and still has family relatives there. After that
there are some marked differences between districts. In Mid Sussex people who are
active or who work in the village but who do not live there are much more likely to be
regarded as local than is the case in the other districts. While second home owners are
generally not regarded as local by the majority of respondents except in Mid Sussex.
Table 6.1: Would you define the following as a “local person”

someone who lives in the 98% 78% 92% 93%
village
someone who participates 72% 47% 49% 47%
actively in the life of the village
but does not live in it
someone who has left the 71% 72% 57% 69%
village but still has
family/relatives living in the
village
someone who lives the village 58% 23% 53% 32%
but not on a permanent basis
someone who works locally but 52% 46% 36% 40%
does not necessary live in the
village
6.3.3 The second point is how long do you have to live in the village before you are considered
a local. Again Mid Sussex stands out as being more accepting, the majority of
respondents regard someone a local who has loved a year in the village, while in Selby
48% believe you have to be in the village for more than 10 years before you can be
regarded as local.
64
Final Report
Table 6.2: How long do you have to live in the village to be regarded as local

Proportion of respondents saying yes
People are considered local 17% 11% 28% 15%

as soon as they move into
the village
At least 1 year in the village 40% 19% 15% 22%
At least 5 years in the village 23% 18% 14% 23%
At least 10 years in the 12% 12% 14% 10%

village
Over 20 years in the village 7% 30% 20% 18%
Over 50 years in the village 0% 1% 0% 0%
Born in the village / lifetime 1% 5% 5% 2%

Other/do not know 1% 4% 5% 12%
6.3.4 Across all the villages it is the case that the longer a person has lived in the village the
longer they believe someone should have lived in the village before they are regarded as
local. In terms of distance from the village people are regarded as local who live in the
closest village but not in the nearest town or the wider county.
Table 6.3: Are people who live in the vicinity local if…
Mid Sussex Selby North Norfolk South

Shropshire
Proportion of respondents saying yes
they live in the next 83% 80% 67% 89%
closest village
they live in the closest 30% 34% 27% 33%
town
they live in the county 6% 9% 4% 13%
6.4 Local need and economic necessity

6.4.1 The extent to which working locally heightens a resident’s claim on housing is an issue
closely linked to debates on the nature of localness. Two clear views emerged from the
consultations. Firstly and especially in areas characterised by commuting, working locally
is not viewed as a measure of someone’s local connection. Secondly, there is broad
consensus around the need to support those people who need to work in the local area:
not because this need makes them ‘more local’, but because having people providing
essential services is crucial to the wellbeing of rural communities.
6.4.2 With one exception the need for extra housing to support key workers within the case
study villages was not seen as a significant issue. In Slaugham, the consultation group
was quick to welcome help for key workers where it was necessary, but questioned this
65
Final Report
necessity in the same breath: if there were essential workers in need of village housing,
development would be supported (in theory), but as there is not such a need, then the
question was dismissed as academic. Such views might be explained in terms of the
profile of this ‘dynamic commuter’ parish, but elsewhere, responses were remarkably
similar. In Bishop’s Castle, the economic power of the area was seen to be in the hands
of ex-commuters who now commute less and work remotely from home. There are
perceived to be too few jobs of the quality that would entice young people to stay in the
village. As in Slaugham, the dominant view is that building more homes for those working
locally is a fair aim, but working locally is not the objective of the majority of younger
residents.
6.4.3 It is in the nature of deeper rural areas that jobs are increasingly scarce and found mostly
in the farming sector. This view expressed in Hope Bowdler prompted a debate
surrounding rural development and enterprise: development is the product of better
transport and will not necessarily mean more jobs within rural areas, but will mean better
access to jobs located elsewhere. This could of course take many rural areas on a
development trajectory akin to those of the ‘dynamic commuter’ areas of southern
England. In both of the South Shropshire parishes, the dislike of ‘non-contributing’ second
home and ‘bolt-hole’ owners was balanced by a degree of acceptance that better
transport infrastructure is a life-line to many rural communities. Their economic future is
dependent on easier commuting. Indeed, accessibility of the type that speeds journeys to
major centres is a major selling point for some rural areas. In Riccall, although a
concentration of commuters might negatively impact on community life during the working
day, it has also meant renewed support for local schools. Indeed, proximity to the A49
has a huge impact on housing demand and property prices in the wider area, with a great
many young families drawn to the villages in this transport corridor.
6.4.4 These views might seem to fly in the face of analyses which emphasise the need for rural
enterprise coupled with a better supply of affordable rural housing for local workers. It is
of course likely that the consultation panels comprised residents who were not part of the
‘low wage economy’ that a few flagged up. But it is the case that urban centres now
provide the lion’s share of jobs for rural residents. That said, it was recognised that some
‘young working people’ are not only unable to buy homes, but also have considerable
difficulty in meeting local rent demands. In Happisburgh, second homes were viewed as a
direct challenge to maintaining a supply of affordable homes for local workers, eating up
resources that were already scarce and forcing younger people in low-paid jobs to live
with parents.
6.4.5 This returns the discussion to the two clear views set out at the beginning of this section.
Commuting is viewed as a reality of rural life, with decent roads providing access to the
jobs that rural populations need. It is anachronistic to think that communities can thrive on
in-situ employment. Therefore commuting is not seen as a threat to communities, but as
a part of modern rural life. Many of the consultees were themselves newer residents and
former if not current commuters. Few people would dispute the desirability of local
workers being adequately housed, but firstly this is viewed as a minor concern in most
communities and secondly, it is an intractably difficult challenge: the case for residence in
a particular place is not always clear and it is often the view of mobile households that
local workers should (and probably prefer to) look for housing in nearby towns.
6.5 Assigning local priority, delivering sustainable communities

6.5.1 In the light of the observations made in the above sections, it is difficult to draw any link
between policies that assign local priority and the desire to deliver sustainable
communities. There was no strong sense that communities are currently unsustainable
(though some are unbalanced: see Section 2a), though they are not without their
problems: concentrations of second homes in some instances, low wages and a loss of
66
Final Report
young people. But local priority is not generally viewed as a means of tackling these
challenges or ‘restoring balance’. Other actions might have a greater remedial effect.
6.5.2 One good example of a lack of faith in local priority and a preference for other strategies
is found at Slaugham. A key challenge across the parish was judged to be the shortage
of larger family homes. The possibility of ‘decanting’ the elderly into retirement units was
viewed as one possible response. This would lead to more efficient use of the existing
housing stock without resulting in a level of development that would ‘change the dynamic
of the area’. In contrast, building new homes for general need and assigning priority was
viewed as a fundamentally flawed strategy. The allocation policies employed by RSLs
(registered social landlord) and particularly the ‘cascade’ approach, means that ‘non-
locals’ end up being housed in villages that accept the need for more ‘local needs
housing’: the lesson being not to accept it.
6.5.3 But this view seems to be at odds with what constitutes localness. In a general sense,
localness can be earned, but for housing allocation, a normative measure that the
residents of the village support is called for. In the case of Slaugham and Blakeney in
particular, the critical point was that ‘local priority’ is not in fact ‘local’ but rather the priority
of an RSL or an LA Housing Department: there is a lack of faith in the ability of the parish
to control access, to set priority and to help local people. This is another critical point:
priority is a contested concept with parishes questioning the right to set and impose
priority. In Slaugham, arrival at this point led to a focusing on a broader issue of local
politics, centring on power and responsibility. The discussion group, including three
members of the Parish Council and two village association representatives, argued that
devolving power and funding to the parishes, including the power to define local priority,
is a prerequisite to real progress on rural housing issues: ‘the issue surrounding ‘priority’
is ‘whose priority’, of an external body or the community: the latter is the real priority’.
6.5.4 The discussion at Slaugham was perhaps the most enlightening on this issue, though the
sentiments were not unique. At Bishop’s Castle, it was felt that the CLT needed the
power to set its own priorities, which might deviate from those of the District Council..
Hope Bowdler offered two very contrasting views. The first view was that the village is a
hopeless case: it is best to ‘leave it alone’ and concentrate development in Church
Stretton where there is a concentration of the things that people need. Deeply rural areas
are not suited to families, so why implement priority policies in areas that offer so little?
The same participant did not want his children to stay in the community: ‘why should they,
when there is nothing here for them’. Perhaps it is an inconvenient truth that many rural
areas experience an exodus of the young and an inflow of the retired, for exactly this
reason: many rural areas have an attractiveness that is life-cycle specific. It is difficult to
challenge this and perhaps not always necessary to do so.
6.5.5 The second view was that the village of Hope Bowdler is indeed ‘dying’ and in desperate
need of rejuvenation. In contrast to the ‘do nothing’ perspective, the need for significant
service investment was called for, specifically to make the village more attractive to
young people. Clearly, it is difficult to see how such investment would be supported or
justified. And even within this call to arms there is no obvious place for priority policies, to
give greater access to a village where there is so little on offer and so little prospect of
this changing. Of course, Hope Bowdler is a very specific case and one can envisage
instances where support for certain types of household could help ensure a greater social
balance, help support local services, maintain social networks and so on. The
Happisburgh case certainly brings us closest to this perspective, where such policies
might help offset the impacts of second home buying, though they would inevitable be
coupled with additions to the housing stock that might not find favour with the retired
population of the village.
67
Final Report
7 Conclusions
7.1 The study

7.1.1 This study examined three inter-related questions:
local affordability as it impacts on change in communities, stability and social
networks;
the expectation of priority for housing amongst local populations, its rationale, its
benefits and drawbacks and its achievability.
7.1.2 Primarily, this study has focused on the recent experiences of eight communities (or
clusters of communities) in four English districts, selected for their representativeness of
current rural economic and social conditions. The districts were judged to be ‘deep rural’
(and more cut off from urban influence), performing the role of a ‘retirement retreat’ (and
characterised by an influx of migrants of retirement or near-retirement age), ‘transient’
(within the sphere of nearby urban areas subject to economic restructuring) and ‘dynamic
commuter’ (where it is incomers who now seem to define communities and set local
political priorities). Within these districts, communities which appeared to typify the socio-
economic characteristics of their wider area were selected for detailed analysis.
7.1.3 This analysis had three parts: first, a desk-based, contextual evaluation of the housing
markets in which the communities were situated, using HPM; second, consultations with
community representatives at village meetings; and third, door-to-door surveys of local
households. The latter two parts explored the wider implications of affordability and
access barriers for rural households and attitudes to local priority policies. The hedonic
analysis was concerned with increasing current understanding of the drivers of rural
house prices.
7.1.4 All of this analysis followed on from a review of existing work in the area (see appendix
A), which formed the backdrop for the local analysis. The key messages that have
emerged from this study are drawn primarily from the consultations, surveys and price
analysis, though we begin each of the sections below with opening insights from the
review conducted of prior literature.
7.2 Affordability
7.2.1 The review of literature dealing with this topic highlighted a number of critical concerns,
which were used to frame community consultations and surveys. Past and recent studies
highlight:
Differences in the way that that affordability is understood (by those who would
seek to measure it and those who experience it), its geographical characteristics,
issues of who benefits and issues of who is adversely affected by low levels of
affordable housing: just individual residents or communities as a whole;
Local differences concerning ‘within’ and ‘without’ affordability: whether measures
of affordability could, or should, deal with immediate village or parish needs or
whether policies should focus on wider areas. Essentially, whether there is an
expectation that the housing resources of a village or parish will meet all local
need, or whether increasing access to affordable homes in nearby settlements is
an acceptable response to dealing with local need;
But related to this, local debates over mobility and employment: whether it is
reasonable to expect people working in a village to move away but commute back
for work reasons;
68
Final Report
How affordability contributes to the sustainability of rural areas and communities:

whether the addition of more affordable housing contributes to (by facilitating more
balanced communities) or detracts from (by consuming rural land resources)
sustainable development; and linking to this;
How access to housing affects social networks and social capital – whether
networks have evolved, in some instances, as a result of gentrification, or whether
they have been eroded and severed because of displacement attendant on in-
migration;
7.2.2 The consultations and surveys added the following insights to this debate:
7.2.3 The general consensus from the household surveys is that local housing is not affordable
to local people on local wages. However, for many rural residents, ‘housing affordability’
is too general a concept. Conceding an affordability problem presents the risk of inviting
additional development. For this reason, residents often prefer to talk about the particular
needs of named individuals and have a preference for highly targeted, locally
administered assistance. There is a concern for the needs of ‘local people on local
wages’. Further analysis identified sub-market housing pressures in many areas, of a
varying degree, though there was considerable disagreement between areas as to the
appropriate response to such pressures.
7.2.4 In communities dominated by highly mobile residents, the desire of young people to stay
in a community was constantly questioned. Commuters tend to project the value of
mobility on others, arguing that car-based-travel is a simple reality of rural living. More
generally, it was argued across the communities that talk of ‘unaffordable housing’ is
meaningless unless it is linked to need. Low levels of affordability do not present a
problem unless affordability is preventing someone who needs to live in a community
from doing so.
7.2.5 In these cases, there is a clear preference for ‘innovating’ housing solutions rather than
simply building more homes. Attitudes to affordable housing, which were often negative,
were shaped by two fears: firstly, that all forms of development present the risk of
changing the fundamental character of a settlement and secondly, that a lack of
community control over affordable housing and its future management, means that it is
likely to be offered to occupants not considered to have a sufficient claim on local
resources.
7.2.6 Affordability should not be a ‘trigger’ for development. Rather, there needs to be
compelling evidence of named local people, with a pressing need to live locally, requiring
homes in the community. Such attitudes, common across the case study communities,
belie a suspicion of top-down solutions and a preference for home-grown, locally
controlled, intervention. This was a critical theme running especially through the village
consultations.
7.2.7 Added to this, consultation and many household respondents had little belief in the
geographical immediacy of local housing need, suggesting that needs could often be met
in nearby market towns where those requiring a new home would also have easier
access to jobs and services. The general view was that affordability should be addressed
across the wider area and should not mean additional building in villages where issues of
‘rural character’ were paramount.
7.2.8 Yet views varied on the case for in situ development. In those communities less
dominated by commuters, there was less insistence that households in ‘need’ should be
obliged to move to a nearby town. Many residents felt that additional development within
the village would be acceptable, but only if this development could be controlled, perhaps
through the establishment of a CLT, within the village itself.
69
Final Report
7.2.9 The need for local control was often justified on the grounds that intervening agencies,
local authorities and housing associations, too often got in wrong, building homes of the
wrong type for ‘the wrong sort of people’. These factors had conspired to produce a
perverse situation in which family homes remained empty and unsold, social housing
went to people from outside the villages and young people were finding it increasingly
difficult to stay.
7.2.10 There was little evidence of displaced villagers ‘back commuting’ to jobs in the villages
they had left. Given the lack of quality jobs in small village locations, it was believed that
moving to a nearby market town meant that younger households were closer to work.
However, it needs to be conceded that this research focused on remaining residents and
not on those who had potentially been forced to move away. The survey, however,
reinforced the view that movers had been motivated by employment factors primarily and
that housing was an ancillary consideration.
7.2.11 To be sustainable, communities need to be balanced. Specifically, this means that a

village needs a ‘life-cycle’: a balance between younger residents, families and older
people. Across this life-cycle, family-ties are important, sometimes focused around caring
for elderly relatives. Ensuring ‘community balance’ was viewed in some communities as
crucially important and ‘open policies’ of allocating homes were said not to work as they
often fail to understand the way communities function. Even a mix of homes, leading to a
mix of people, will not necessarily lead to a balanced community. Policies need to build
on what is already there, recognising the imbalances that exist and seeking the address
them. General development did not understand or meet the needs of the communities:
homes were quickly filled either by commuters or by ‘people out in the sticks with no cars,
where they can’t function’.
7.2.12 Some communities have stronger ‘familial ties’ than others. In the dynamic commuter
area, only 12% of residents had other family members in the village compared with 35%
in the deep rural area. These figures are consistent with their classification and are
underpinned by issues of mobility and transience. However, it is interesting to note that
such differences did not dilute the preference for local control and responsibility over
future development, which stood out as a key finding of this study.
7.2.13 The reasons why people move out of the villages surveyed related both to housing
(desire to move to larger/smaller properties or to buy a property) and employment
matters. The former would suggest that the range of properties that people want is not
available at the price they can afford. However, by their very nature villages are not going
to be able to provide the range of properties that urban areas can do.
7.2.14 Whether it is a function of affordability or generally the experience of older people more
generally one consequence of people moving out of villages was to some extent to lead
to a greater degree of isolation for this age group.
7.3 Influence on houses prices

7.3.1 Key issues emerging from the literature were the extent to which price influences can be
quantified and qualified: how they are affected by measurable factors and how they are
also driven by the value that individuals place on the rural environment and their own
access to a rural ‘lifestyle’. The survey set the scene for the local analyses, revealing that
in the commuter areas, more people had moved into the villages from nearby or more
distant towns and cities. In the deeper rural areas, few people had previously lived in an
urban area, though many had moved in from another village in the same district.
70
Final Report
7.3.2 The parish consultations also provided essential context for understanding price drivers.
They revealed that ‘accessibility’ is often crucial for people moving into a rural area:
accessibility by road and rail and accessibility to jobs and social networks.
7.3.3 However, accessibility is a ‘double-edged sword’. It can make an area convenient (and
therefore push up prices), but good infrastructure can mean that an area shows up on the
radar of local planning authorities looking for prime locations for new housing
development. Being too accessible poses the risk of further development, reducing
exclusiveness and potentially driving down prices.
7.3.4 It is difficult to arrive at definitive statements regarding the price impact of shops, services
and local schools. It is the most mobile new residents who often have the greatest
spending power and arrive in rural areas with the perception that they will need to do a lot
of ‘running around’. Hence, they may not necessarily be drawn to the most convenient
locations, but may rather place a premium on seclusion.
7.3.5 Primary schools are a draw only in those areas attracting families which tend to be the
commuter areas. The location of secondary school in nearby towns does not appear to
have any localised affect on prices, as its catchment is likely to cover a number of villages
whose property markets will be driven by other factors.
7.3.6 The consultations highlighted the combined effect of environmental quality and village
character in determining property values. This affects prices in two ways. First, it has a
honey pot effect on migrants. And second, migrants and other local households will seek
to preserve this environment and character, opposing additional development and so
reinforcing scarcity in the housing market.
7.3.7 Other intangibles affect prices including a perceived sense of ‘community spirit’. Survey
respondents felt that neighbourliness was an important attribute of their villages, but
many placed a higher premium on perceived safety and security and on the
environmental qualities noted above. Perceptions of a community spirit do not appear to
play a principal role in drawing people to rural areas, at least not above other
‘perceptions’.
7.3.8 Using HPM, it was possible to quantify some of the factors that explain house price
variations across the case study districts. The following attributes had particular
exploratory power:
Property type is of course an important determinant of prices, with larger homes
commanding higher prices. Buyers place a premium on detached homes, possibly
equating this with the relative privacy that they seek in rural areas;
Extreme isolation appears to depress prices: they is an optimum level of exclusion,
somewhere between ‘too accessible’ and ‘too isolated’, at which prices tend to be
higher;
This search for optimum location means that prices rise away from major roads
and rail stations (for about a kilometre or so) and then begin to fall off;
Because key services are sometime located in larger centres, there is often an
inverse relationship with rural prices. Buyers are choosing to be further away from
these services if the area is taken as a whole. Within the built up area, buyers are
choosing to be nearer the services and so prices are affected in an entirely
different way;
The level of service provision in a village must not ‘compromise’ the character of
that village. There is an optimum service level linking to higher prices, in the same
way as there is an optimum distance to transport infrastructure;
The HMP approach can provide only limited insights into the price effects of
environmental amenity including, for example, the measurable disbenefits of noise
and pollution. Gathering data on such potential drivers is difficult, though
71
Final Report
inferences can be drawn from the apparent effects on prices of properties close to
road and rail;
However, in one of the case study areas (North Norfolk), location within an AONB
was found to have a significant effect on prices, pushing them up on average by
17%;
This may be a straightforward environmental quality effect, though it is also likely
that people moving into the AONB are aware of tighter planning restriction and
place a premium on moving to a location where the likelihood of future
development is less, thus helping to sustain their amenity and the value of their
property. Planning restriction can be seen as a plus, helping to preserve house
prices;
Rural location, judged in terms of ‘sparsity’ in general, appeared to have a direct
effect on property prices though this effect varied between districts. In Mid Sussex,
it drove up prices. But in Selby, it had the opposite effect. In South Shropshire,
extreme rurality had a negative effect on prices, with higher house prices observed
in slightly more accessible locations. The pattern in North Norfolk was less clear;
Rurality has an uncertain effect on prices overall. Whether buyers will pay more or
less for a more or less accessible location depends on their characteristics. The
effects of rurality in the four case study districts were shown to be consistent with
the apparent socio-economic profiles of these areas. Commuters in southern
England were looking for seclusion. In Selby, less affluent buyers wanted to be
closer to jobs and services. In South Shropshire and North Norfolk, a mix of buyers
– and a great many retired households in the latter location – seemed to want to
strike a balance between seclusion and accessibility. Areas have different demand
and need profiles and these are reflected in price drivers.
7.4 Local people

7.4.1 Again, the review of literature dealing with this topic highlighted a number of critical
concerns, which were used to frame community consultations and surveys. The literature
revealed:
Persistent debates and uncertainties surrounding the definition of ‘localness’ and of
what constitutes need, creating a ‘rocky foundation’ for local policies and
interventions; it also underscored;
The extent to which ‘local priority’ is a means of winning support for development
which does not then subsequently tackle the needs of households whom local
residents would deem ‘local’;
The extent to which the local need for new homes should be tied to economic
necessity: whether ‘local’ housing should only be supported where there is a clear
economic case, i.e. where new development would support established or new
industries. This might be supporting additional housing in some areas and less
development in others. But in contradiction to this, another important debate
concerns;
The extent to which local priority policies might be viewed a means of addressing
social polarisation, of creating more socially balanced communities and be seen as
a stand-alone objective, separate from labour market concerns. This might involve
building more retirement homes in some rural areas, for example. Taking a cue
from existing debate concerning housing rights, the suggestion is that local priority
is a means of ‘engineering’ more balanced communities with a view to retaining or
restoring social networks and cohesion by creating opportunities for rural families
to remain living in close proximity.
7.4.2 The research itself provided a number of important insights, building on this literature
base.
72
Final Report
7.4.3 Normative definitions of ‘localness’ rely on measurable characteristics: length of

residence, or whether someone was born or now works in an area, for example. These
are used as proxies for judging a resident’s claim on local resources.
7.4.4 In more ‘settled’ or deeper rural areas, residents tend to support the use of such criteria
to differentiate between ‘local’ and ‘newer’ residents. This was the more ‘traditional view
of localness’ and tended to see family-ties as critical to having a claim on housing.
7.4.5 But elsewhere, especially in areas where there was a concentration of commuting
households whose employment or family connection was weaker, or length of residence
shorter, localness was a more qualitative judgement, concerned with ‘getting involved’
and partaking in the community spirit. For many commuters or retiring households,
localness is something that is actively earned and not just passively gained over time.
7.4.6 Where there is an acceptance of the traditional, normative measures of localness it is

easier for local authorities to muster support for new housing under the banner of ‘local
need’. However, where this had happened, residents recorded their dissatisfaction with
actual outcomes, suggesting that ‘strategic’ allocation policies had commonly resulted in
the ‘wrong people’ being allocated housing. This was viewed as evidence supporting the
need for local control over local housing.
7.4.7 In commuter areas, introducing housebuilding under the guise of ‘local housing’ was seen
as a non-starter. Because localness was earned though active residence, there was no
such thing as a non-resident local person needing local housing. These were people who
were unable to afford housing in the wider area and would be better off in one of the
nearby towns. This argument was not, however, applied to people with a legitimate need
to live in a specific village who, it was thought, should be provided with housing tailored to
their situation.
7.4.8 Regarding local need and economic necessity (to live in a named location) two clear
views emerged: firstly and especially in areas characterised by commuting, working
locally is not viewed as a measure of someone’s local connection. Rather, being able to
do so was seen as a luxury, albeit a luxury that rarely delivered a decent wage. Secondly,
there was broad consensus around the need to support those people who need to work
in the local area: not because this need makes them ‘more local’, but because having
people providing essential services is crucial to the wellbeing of rural communities.
7.4.9 The need for extra housing to support key workers within the case study villages was
rarely seen as a critical issue. The economic power of many areas was seen to be in the
hands of ex-commuters who now commute less and work from home.
7.4.10 There was generally felt to be too few jobs of the right quality to entice young people to
remain in small village locations. Local housing for young people was considered a
laudable aim, but many consultees questioned the strength of this ‘market’.
7.4.11 The economic fortunes of many rural areas depend on their accessibility to commuting
households. In all case study areas, better communication infrastructure was seen as a
life-line to villages, though there was general concern, especially in South Shropshire,
over the proliferation of second home and ‘bolt-hole’ owners whose contribution to local
economies was questioned.
7.4.12 Commuting is seen very much as a reality of rural life, with decent roads providing access
to the jobs that the rural population needs. That said, it needs to be recognised that a
great many consultees were themselves newer residents and former if not current
communities. However, these views do express the social reality of modern rural
communities.
73
Final Report
7.4.13 Because of this context, many residents question the need to assign local priority,
probably because many question the underlying need for additional housing. Yet, where
additional housing is needed, communities seem to have little faith that new homes will
go to those who are ‘truly local’.
7.4.14 ‘Local priority’ is not in fact ‘local’ but rather the priority of an RSL or a local authority
housing department: there is a lack of faith in the ability of the parish to control access, to
set priority and to help local people.
7.4.15 Priority is a contested concept with parishes questioning the right to set and impose
priority. Priority is fundamentally a matter of power and responsibility. It was suggested
that devolving power, responsibility and funding to the parishes, including the power to
define local priority, is a prerequisite to real progress on rural housing issues: the ‘issue
surrounding priority’ is ‘whose priority’: of an external body or the community? The latter
is ‘really priority’.
7.4.16 ‘Community priority’ needs to work with the economic reality and the ‘life-cycle’ of
villages, accepting the ‘inconvenient truth’ that rural areas experience a natural exodus of
the young and an inflow of the retired. However, it was clear in some areas that support
for this life-cycle, through interventions aimed at creating new housing opportunities,
might offset the impacts of second home buying, by restoring social balance and
increasing the viability of services for those who depend on them.
74
Final Report
Appendix
Appendix A: Literature Review
Part 1 - Local Affordability and its Impact on Communities
Part 2 - Housing Markets and Market Determinants
Part 3 - Communities, Networks and Local Priority
Appendix B: Shortlisting Case Study Areas
Appendix C: Household Survey
Appendix D: Estate Agent Survey
Appendix E: Hedonic Analysis of House Price Data in each case

study area
75
Final Report
Part 1: Local Affordability and its Impact on

Communities
Gentrification and displacement
Gentrification: equally applicable to rural areas

The term ‘gentrification’ is used to describe the process whereby the influx of wealthier individuals into
residential area progressively replaces the working or lower-classes already living there. There are
two principal explanations for the gentrification process. The first, the production or supply side theory,
sees the gentrification process as the movement of financial capital back to the inner-city stimulated
by the opportunity for profit. The second, the demand or consumption-side theory, regards the process
as a movement of people back to the inner-city motivated primarily by residential preference.
Gentrification is widely perceived as exclusively urban phenomenon, as bulk of research and literature
focuses on urban settings, however rural researchers (Phillips: 1993, 1998; Darling 2005) have
demonstrated the process occurs in rural areas.
Rural gentrification: supply vs. demand side theories

Within rural studies is the demand and consumption-side explanation of gentrification that has
generally been adopted. The gentrification process has been depicted as the product of demand for
rural residential locations by ex-urban or suburban middle class households driven primarily by
lifestyle preferences and quality of life considerations – the lure of a scenic location and low density
living, with a gentler pace of life and a strong sense of local ‘community’. An ideal space in which to
retire or raise a family. The process is also fuelled by ‘push’ factors, the strong anti-urban motivations,
such as the desire to escape crime, congestion and pollution (Mitchell, 2004).
However supply side theories are equally relevant in a rural context. Wealth in ‘escalator’ areas such
as the south east in particular, due to rising disposable incomes and growing housing assets, have
enabled the ‘export’ of urban wealth to lower cost housing markets in ‘importing’ regions. This has
manifested itself primarily in the form of increasing numbers second homes/holiday cottages in rural
areas which are owned by affluent households from outside the area. Phillips (1993; 2002) and
Darling (2005) identify that there are significant returns to be made on refurbishing and extending rural
dwellings and the re-valorisation of defunct agricultural and other rural non-residential buildings when
converted to residential accommodation. This same process was observed by Buller and Hoggart
(1994) in their study of the motivations and experiences of British home buyers moving to rural France
in the 1990s.
Historically protected rural settlements: more susceptible to gentrification?

Phillips (2000) identified that the development histories of particular rural settlements influenced their
susceptibility to the gentrification process. Those with a history of domination by a sole estate owner
were often ‘closed’ to new residential development, unless it was to meet the needs of the estate.
After the modern planning system was introduced in 1947, these settlements, due to their size and
‘traditional’ character, often continued to be protected from development. It is this perpetuating
protected status has resulted in them becoming progressively exclusive and predisposed to
gentrification.
In contrast, in open parishes, where the estate owner exerted less control, or perhaps there were
numerous landowners, the villages were allowed to expand. The planning system often permits
incremental in-fill development in these types of rural settlement, or, in some cases, even extensions
76
Final Report
to them. The lack of certain protection from future development makes these less exclusive than the
historically ‘closed’ settlements.
Rural gentrifiers: The defence of the rural idyll

Phillips (2002) also identifies that once ex-urban in-migrants have moved into a rural settlement, they
seek to defend it against perceived threats from physical and social change. Their desire is not only to
preserve the rural identity of the wider locality, but also to protect the value of their property. There is a
rich literature on the NIMBY tendency to ‘raise the drawbridge’ against further development or in-
migration, by taking control of local political structures and actively campaigning against further
change.
In their study of second homes in rural England, Gallent et al (2002) found evidence of seasonal
residents in the South Cotswolds mobilising against social housing schemes, arguing that the villages
they had bought into should be protected from development that was more suited to an urban setting.
This is a common argument: that the countryside is an inappropriate place for all forms of
development and should be maintained – frozen in aspic – for the benefit of those who make the
appropriate financial investment (Woods, 2005).
In areas where there has been significant migration / gentrification, an ‘environmental’ representation
of the countryside frequently prevails. In areas where working communities are still strong, the
tendency is to promote further development that will support the future development of social capacity.
The ‘rural idyll’ is often a preconception of what the countryside should be, introduced by gentrifiers,
rather than an accurate description of what it actually is.
Adverse effects of gentrification: residential displacement

One of the principal negative consequences of the process of gentrification is community change,
socio-economic and demographic, caused by in-migration of professional middle class groups and the
subsequent exiting of indigenous groups with fewer resources. The way in which these indigenous
groups exit the community is commonly cited, in both academic (Hartman, 1979); (Atkinson, 2000)
and media circles, as being as a result of being directly displaced by in-migrants.
Displacement can be instigated in a number of different ways. From an economic perspective, it is due
to a state of disequilibrium between property supply and demand (Sumka, 1979; Lee & Hodge, 1984).
Displacement reflects the ability of professional middle class groups to acquire properties within the
sought after neighbourhoods at the expense of indigenous residents. From a social perspective, it is
due to the contrasting priorities, perspectives and lifestyles of the in-migrants (Atkinson, 2000);
Newman & Wyly (2006). These contrive to alter the social composition of an area so that existing
community networks become distended. This, combined with a (perceived) higher turnover of
residents, becomes a significant push factor.
Types of residential displacement

Lyons (1996) identifies three ways in which residential displacement is deemed to occur:
Where rents are increased to a level where the occupant is forced to vacate the property
(often aided by financial incentives) or where individuals have insufficient financial means to
enter a specific residential property market
Where the existing social network is distended by the incursion of different higher income
groups to the extent the area becomes alien and unrelated to their own lifestyle
When the cost of living in an area is increased beyond the means of the locals, reflecting the
increased disposable income and spending power of higher income groups.
77
Final Report
Reduced/adjusted service provision which becomes more orientated towards higher income
groups.
Economic and environmental changes are to some extent interlinked; as the economic status of the
area grows, environmental change begins to manifest. As the social class and wealth within the
neighbourhood rises, the level and type of service provision, both private and public sector, adjusts to
accommodate new consumption preferences (Atkinson, 2000); Newman & Wyly, 2006).
The displacement of sections of rural society may act to conceal pockets of surviving deprivation
(masking poverty with introduced wealth), introduce resistance to specific (if not all) types of
development, and create a social structure with an entirely different set of service needs. Existing
studies suggest that gentrifiers:
Bring wealth to the countryside which may conceal remaining poverty and make the
countryside as a whole, or at least some villages, seem capable of meeting its own needs
(Gallent et al, 2008); community change can also
Introduce a resistance to some forms of development – especially new housing – which may
shape political reaction (at the level of parish or district councils) to new development and
cause opposition to development by a majority who ignore the needs of a minority; and
Create a social structure with different needs, especially where retired households, commuters
or second home owners come to dominate a community: a concentration of retired people or
seasonal residents will reduce demand for school places and other services; commuters may
have less need for public transport or local services including shops. In some communities
the balance between permanent and temporary residents has been altered and ‘changes in
the number of people living permanently in the countryside or making use of its resources on a
temporary basis’ (Clout, 1972: 8) may have a major impact on services.
Gentrification-induced displacement: a successive process?

Processes of gentrification can create a continued upward movement in the status of those being
displaced. Lyons (1996) states that gentrified areas experience outflows by successively higher status
households. Such processes have been confirmed by the research conducted by Dangschat (1991)
in Hamburg where he identified continuum of gentrification waves from ‘pioneer’ to ‘ultra’ gentrifiers.
Gentrification-induced displacement – myth or reality?

On the whole, there no conclusive evidence that gentrification-induced displacement is the engine of
neighbourhood change. Atkinson (2000a; 2000b) documented substantial residential displacement
and community change in certain areas of London, which he attributed to the gentrification process
sweeping through central areas of the city. However contradictory evidence exists as the research
undertaken by Bridge (1993), also within London but focussing on other neighbourhoods, indicated
that the impact on community composition and cohesion was minimal. Neither conclusion can be
viewed as definitive and perhaps indicates that gentrification does not have a generic end result. It
would be reasonable to assume that the extent of the impact of gentrification will depend on its totality,
penetration and extensiveness, as well as the degree of community cohesion beforehand.
Displacement: a problematic research topic

There a number of problems that renders research into the process and effects of gentrification-
induced displacement problematic. The first problem lies with the conceptualisation of displacement.
No unanimous definition has been agreed besides the fundamental notion of displacement as mobility
that is not a voluntary outcome of household decision-making. The difficulty with this basic definition is
that it fails to specify which uncontrollable circumstances constitute grounds for displacement
78
Final Report
(Atkinson, 2000a). If strictly defined, only acts of harassment and eviction are deemed to result in
forced displacement. But broader, more liberal, interpretations take account of the pricing out of
residents from property markets, loss of social networks and the transformation of shops and services.
The second problem with displacement research stems methodological problems. With regards to
quantitative research, the suitability and availability of statistical data often presents a number of
difficulties. The way in which socio-economic data and information on migration patterns is collected
and collated is not always conducive to displacement research. Often concessions must be made and
proxy variables utilised. From a qualitative perspective, it is difficult to identify people who have been
displaces as, by definition, displaced residents have disappeared from the very places where
researchers go to look for them (Newman & Wyly, 2006) and consequently the trajectory and exits
routes of displaces is unknown.
The third problem with displacement research is that it can only be at best a ‘snap shot’ - a static point
on a continuum of change. How far a community is along this continuum can be determinative.
Reflections on change may be provided by residents who, clearly, have not been displaced but are
potential gentrifiers. For this reason, community reaction to displacement may appear muted. In a
rural context, Bollom (1978) has observed that communities which seem unconcerned about second
homes, retirement and other forms of migration are often those subject to greatest degree of change:
local voices have been displaced and silenced. On the other hand, the vociferous communities are
those witnessing the tide of change lapping over their neighbours but which have, as yet, been largely
unaffected.
Affordability
Defining housing affordability

Affordability is a measure of whether housing can be afforded by certain groups of households. It links
the cost of housing with the amount of money that households are able to spend on a home.
Analysing affordability provides information about the accessibility of particular types and locations of
housing to local people. Areas with poor affordability can experience unsustainable travel patterns
together with high dependence on social housing, overcrowding and homelessness.
Understanding housing affordability

The Government’s central objective for housing policy is to ensure that everyone can live in a decent
home, at a price they can afford and in a community where they want to live (ODPM, PPS3, 2005).
Unbalanced housing markets and affordability problems are preventing this objective from being
achieved in high demand areas, where the supply of new homes falls short of demand.
However, balancing housing markets is not simply a case of ensuring that the total stock of housing
(supply) meets the estimated the number of households (demand). Only a proportion of dwellings are
actually available for sale or for rent at any given time, and it is this plus newly built dwellings coming
on stream that constitutes effective supply. Similarly only a proportion of households plus newly
forming households are actively seeking a home at any one point in time and it is these households
constitute effective demand.
In addition there may be ‘pent-up’ (also described as ‘latent’ or ‘hidden’) housing demand, from people
who would like to rent or buy a home but are unable to do so. The main reason for this is usually
affordability, although there can also be housing on the market that is affordable to a range of
households but is not desirable or suitable. There can be a number of reasons for this, such as
unfitness, poor location, or simply the wrong size e.g. one bedroom flats when demand is for larger
units.
79
Final Report
Measuring affordability
There are two main approaches to measuring affordability: a general indication of whether house
prices are affordable in relation to incomes and a more specific measure of whether particular housing
is affordable to certain groups. In addition, there are a couple of more detailed ways of measuring
affordability such as establishing the income required to purchase a home, looking at a household’s
‘residual income’ or the income that remains once housing costs have been met and whether an
individual or household has access to finance in order to purchase a house (Whitehead et al, 2008)
House prices to income ratios

This approach to measuring affordability gives a general indication of whether house prices are
affordable in relation to incomes. This indicator is often termed the house price to income ratio, and
the government’s preferred version is the ratio of the lower quartile house price to annual lower
quartile earnings. This simple indicator can be used at national, regional, sub-regional and local spatial
scales and is particularly useful in making comparisons over time or between areas.
Ability to afford home ownership/ private renting

The second approach to affordability is measuring whether housing is affordable to different
household groups. This measure is used when determining the proportion of new homes that need to
be affordable. Assuming that the local authority has details of the income distribution (e.g. From a
household survey), then the proportion who cannot afford local market housing can be estimated.
Annual income necessary to purchase a house

This measure is a general indicator of affordability in a district or region and is useful for making
comparisons. It is commonly used by Homebuy agents and housing associations in setting the
affordable price and rent levels for shared ownership products and assessing eligibility. Clearly
housing associations do not wish to encourage home ownership for households on the very borders of
affordability, because they will be vulnerable if interest rates rise. This measure helps to avoid such
situations.
Residual incomes
The residual income is the income a household has left over after they have paid housing costs. It
gives what is in some ways a more accurate picture of affordability than price income ratios since it
recognises that lower income households are only able to afford smaller proportions of their income on
housing without facing difficulties.
Access to finance
When an individual or a household is making a decision to purchase a property one constraint may be
their access to the mortgage they require. Mortgage lenders will factor in many individual
characteristics when deciding whether or not to lend, but a key factor will be the size of the borrower’s
deposit and the associated loan to value ratio.
What has caused an affordability problem in rural areas?

Several factors have conspired to reduce the apparent affordability of housing in some areas and to
some groups in rural areas. These include:
80
Final Report
Increased demand for rural housing

The general demand for housing is growing underpinned a changing age structure of the population,
increased longevity, inward migration and smaller households. However this demand has been
amplified in the most desirable residential locations and because of the value placed on rural lifestyle,
rural areas generally constitute such locations. A rural settlement location is consistently found in
surveys to be the preference of the majority of English people. In accessible rural areas, demand from
higher income commuters has resulted in sustained rises in house prices, taking owner occupation
beyond the reach of many people. In other attractive, but remoter, areas prices have risen due to
retirement migration and/or demand from holiday and second homes. The consequence of this
buoyant demand has been a rise in house prices well above the rate of inflation (Halfacree, 1994)
Constrained supply of rural housing

The principal focus of rural planning has been, arguably, concerned with the protection of the visual
quality of the countryside rather than facilitating development to meet rural housing needs (Taylor,
2008). The economic and social consequences of restricting the supply of rural land for housing, in
conjunction with the increased demand for it, has had a profound effect. The supply factors have been
identified as general absence of speculative building, high construction costs and tight planning
restrictions on new development (Shucksmith 1990), who suggests that these supply factors are inter-
related. The difficulty in obtaining large sites, due to planning restrictions limit new building to in-fill
sites within existing village boundaries, has had two effects on supply. Firstly, there is less speculative
building as the sites are too small to interest the volume builders. Secondly, rural housing
developments do not enjoy the economies of scale associated with larger urban developments
resulting in unit costs being higher. Construction costs are often increased further because of planning
condition requiring the use of traditional and expensive construction materials. These factors have led
builders in many rural areas to cater for the most affluent, by building expensive luxury houses which
justify the higher land costs and construction costs. Consequently, low income groups often find
themselves priced out of the rural property market.
One of the consequences for rural England of high demand, coupled with a lack of housing supply,
has been worsening affordability. Houses are, on average, much less affordable in areas of villages,
hamlets and isolated dwellings compared to small towns and larger urban areas. There is a worsening
imbalance in supply and demand for rural housing, especially in the smaller rural settlements.
There are also reasons why housing has become less accessible: reasons which link to falling levels
of affordability but also to reductions in the availability of different forms of housing. These include the
loss of public housing through the right to buy since 1980 (and the inadequacy of mechanisms
designed to reduce sales in designated rural areas), the reduction in the supply of housing association
homes resultant on reduced grant funding from the late 1980s, and the loss of private renting
opportunities tied to rural employment. It is this reduction in tenure choice that has meant home
ownership has become the principal point of housing access for many rural households. The lack of
alternatives means that there is huge pressure for the market to deliver enough homes to meet the
needs of a wider range of households with hugely different incomes. This lack of choice has forced
many households into an increasingly competitive private market, when arguably their needs could
have been more easily met had there been a sustained supply of alternatives. The rural housing
debate is not only about increasing the affordability of private ownership, but also increasing
accessibility to alternatives.
The spatial scale of affordability – an analytical problem

One of the barriers to analysis and understanding of rural affordability is the problem of geographical
scale and at which scale the issue should be both measured and addressed. Strategic housing
markets, which are defined at regional level and used by local authorities, can vary considerably in
terms of geographical scale. In rural districts these sub-regions can cover large geographical areas
81
Final Report
incorporating rural areas of relatively low and high demand. Therefore an affordability problem in one
area may be offset by a low demand in the rest of the sub-region.
The question of how far a household is expected to look outside of their local area is a pertinent one.
Research and experience suggests that people willing to consider a range of settlements within the
market area, providing the property meets their needs. On this basis it would therefore make sense to
look at the dynamics of the wider housing market rather than focus on the individual settlement level.
However in practice, local planning authorities are tasked with making land available either within or
adjoining existing rural communities in order to meet identified local needs. This is indicative of the
standpoint that affordability should be addressed at the local level. There is a need to be able to
appraise affordability at a more localised level. But if we are to measure affordability at smaller scales,
there is a need to relate these smaller areas to their wider market context. Bramley (2009) forwards
the concepts of inward and outward affordability as a mechanism to achieve this:
‘Within area’ affordability: the percentage of households in a neighbourhood who can afford to enter
the housing market in that neighbourhood and highlights discrepancies between neighbourhood
incomes and house prices
‘Outward’ affordability: the percentage of households in a neighbourhood who can afford to enter the
housing market in the wider HMA/LA and highlights those neighbourhoods which have the highest
incidence of the social problem
‘Inward’ affordability: the percentage of households in the wider HMA/LA who could afford to enter the
housing market in this particular neighbourhood and highlights those neighbourhoods that offer the
greater or lesser opportunity to overcome the problem.
Research by Bramley (2009) indicates that ‘outward’ affordability is greater than ‘inward’ affordability
at ward level in rural areas. This means that the people living in rural areas are less likely to be poor,
whilst the housing located there is less likely to be affordable. This tends to suggest that poorer
people will have a tendency to drift towards more urban areas, so tending to reinforce this pattern.
The spatial scale of affordability – a sustainable development issue?

The spatial scale of affordability is also raised when considering the ‘ease of access’ to housing. The
viability of affordable housing schemes on the fringes of market towns may be undermined if residents
have to travel significant distances to get to work or visit friends/relatives. In this sense, the overall
cost of housing, transportation and access to services may mitigate against affordability. Affordable
homes built in smaller rural settlements allows households to remain close to places of work, sustain
social networks ties and access local services, both formal and informal. This links the notion of
affordability with environmental sustainability and argues that true housing affordability must take into
account a wider range of costs than just rent or mortgage costs (Australian Conservation Foundation
and the Victorian Council of Social Service, 2008)
Adverse effects of the affordability problem in rural areas – unbalanced and

unsustainable communities
The terms ‘social mix’ and ‘social balance’ cover numerous overlapping characteristics of a population
such as age, tenure, class, income and ethnicity. ‘Social mix’ suggests that the community in question
has a blend of all of these factors. ‘Balance’, on the other hand, represents an external reference point
with which comparisons can be made. A neighbourhood may be more or less ‘balanced’ when certain
characteristics are compared with those of a wider district or of equivalent neighbourhoods (Cole &
Goodchild, 2001)
82
Final Report
Balance, however, has another connotation: sustainability. To date the categorisation of rural
settlements, by Local Planning Authorities, into those regarded as sustainable and therefore suitable
for new housing and investment, or unsustainable and unsuitable, was conducted on the basis of
service availability criteria (shop, post office, regular public transport service). In reality this approach
has served to further undermine the sustainability of rural settlements (Cole & Goodchild, 2001).
Taylor (2008) makes this same point: he argues that the ‘restrictive nature of many planning practices’
(Taylor, 2008: 8) contributes to the pressures faced by many rural communities. Smaller villages and
hamlets are caught in a ‘sustainability trap’ and only more flexible planning with a ‘real sense of vision
that is based on recognising how our rural communities can be rather than writing them off as
unsustainable’ (ibid, 8) will allow them to escape. Taylor’s major finding was that many rural
communities are written off by the planning system as inherently unsustainable (the same point made
earlier by Cole and Goodchild, and that has been made by previous generations of researchers).
Reworking sustainable communities: the integration of societal dimensions

The narrow criteria used by planners are not reflective of the step change in opinion as to what
constitutes a sustainable community. The UK Sustainable Development Strategy (2005) indicates that
sustainable communities are those which are well balanced in economic, environmental and social
factors. Traditional economic and environmental factors are carried forward such as local employment
and services, affordable housing, green space, biodiversity and reducing CO2 emissions. However,
the Sustainable Development Strategy introduced social dimensions of sustainable communities
referring to factors such as social capital, community cohesion and support networks.
Reflecting national priority, communities are denied the chance to grow because of the desire to limit
car-based travel (ibid, 45). Inflexibility fails to safeguard jobs or provide the homes that are needed by
these communities (ibid, 16). For this reason, Taylor’s primary recommendation was that there should
be a new accommodation between the different strands of sustainability in rural areas (essentially, that
a rebalance is needed between environmental and social perspectives / rationales). The first two
recommendations of the Review dealt with planning. The first called on government to provide greater
coherency in planning policy, creating this balance and, by inference, placing greater weight on
community need. The second suggested a new requirement that local authorities take into account
‘all three strands of sustainability [again] in a balanced way’ and achieve this through a long term
vision that splices together these strands. Many of the Review’s recommendations touched on the
need to reform planning practice. The central message was that planning practice (and policy) is
getting it wrong, creating many of the problems that rural communities currently face. It is certainly not
delivering government’s goal of building sustainable communities.
Definition and components of sustainable communities: UK sustainable development strategy (2005)
The UK Sustainable Development Strategy identified eight components which collectively contribute to
the creation of a sustainable community
Active, inclusive and safe: fair, tolerant and cohesive with a strong local culture and other
shared community activities - It suggests a diverse, vibrant and creative local culture
encouraging pride in the community and cohesion within it. It also suggests an active
voluntary and community sector.
Well run, with effective and inclusive participation, representation and leadership - Essential if
a community is to respond positively to change. Effective engagement and participation by
local people, groups and businesses is vital especially in the planning, design and long term
stewardship of their community.
Environmentally sensitive providing places for people to live that are considerate of the
environment - It requires a safe and healthy local environment with well designed public and
green space.
83
Final Report
Well designed and built – featuring a quality built and natural environment - A community must
be of sufficient size, scale and density and have an effective layout to support basic amenities
in the neighbourhood and minimise use of resources (including land). Buildings both
individually and collectively must meet different needs over time, and minimise the use of
resources. A sustainable community requires a well-integrated mix of decent homes of
different types and tenures to support a range of household sizes, ages and incomes. The
community should have a 'sense of place'.
Well connected, with good transport services and communication linking people to jobs,
schools, health and other services - Good public transport and other transport infrastructure is
needed both within the community and linking it to urban, rural and regional centres.
Thriving with a flourishing and diverse local economy – To generate a wide range of jobs and
training opportunities.
Well served, with public, private, community and voluntary services that are appropriate to
people’s needs and accessible to all - Good quality, local public services should be available
including education and training opportunities, health care, community and leisure facilities.
Fair for everyone now and in the future - All our individual and communal choices may impact
adversely on others especially in terms of the overall need for sustainable development.
The impact of affordability on the components of the sustainable development

strategy
The affordability of housing in rural areas and the supply of affordable housing have long been
identified as essential to the vitality and sustainability of rural communities. A plethora of studies since
the 1970s have drawn a link between access to housing, the retention of a stable and permanent
population base, and the social and economic viability of rural communities. Noteworthy amongst
these studies are the works of Cloke (1979) on key settlements, Moseley (1979; 2000) on service
access and community change, Shucksmith (1981; 1990) and Capstick (1987) on local access to
affordable housing, and Clark (1984) on strategies for securing this access. These various works,
together with more recent studies, pinpoint the impacts of a lack of affordable housing, which can now
be linked to achieving the goals of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy.
Impact on local services

The consumption behaviour of the in-migrants to rural areas has negative impact on the provision of
local services. Although this can be partially attributed to the rationalisation of both public and private
sector service-providers and retailing, the high mobility of in-migrants and their connection with nearby
urban employment centres means they are less dependent on local services and public transport,
thereby reducing the demand for these services to be delivered locally and justifying the argument for
centralised services.
Impact on community cohesion

There is a trend of general ‘delocalisation’ of rural life (McCarthy, 2008). Delocalisation occurs when
people obtain goods and services and conduct social and leisure activities at various extra-local
places (e.g. Nearby market town or urban centre) but living in a preferred locality (i.e. Village). In-
migrants of rural villages have typically been leap-frogging the locality, travelling to acquire services:
work, shopping, and leisure. This trend has caused the gradual decline of community-based activities
and has undermined social cohesion.
84
Final Report
Impact on social networks

The subsequent closure of local shops, post offices, schools and other community facilities not only
causes problems for the less mobile residents, but also removes the locations for regular interaction
between community members. The loss of these locations for community interaction assists the
fragmentation of communities as residents interact only with their immediate neighbours and personal
social networks (Liepins, 2000).
Impact on ‘fairness’
Clearly affordability impacts on low income individual/households who reside in high demand areas.
When affordability creates ‘exclusionary’ displacement, whereby local people are ‘locked out’ of the
local property market and are forced to look further afield to meet their housing needs, it could be
argued that such a situation is unfair. There are also connotations for the future viability and vitality of
rural communities if low income locals are unable to access their local housing market in perpetuity.
85
Final Report
Part 2: Housing Markets and Market Determinants
Understanding rural housing markets
Defining the rural: official definitions

The primary definition of ‘rural’ is that provided by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). It defines
settlements with over 10,000 residents as ‘urban’. Smaller settlements fall into one of the additional
four categories shown in Figure 1.1. In addition to morphology, settlements are defined in context as
to whether they are in ‘sparse’ or ‘less sparse’ areas.
The ONS Definition cannot be applied to large geographical areas such as Local Authorities. Defra
has produced a supplementary classification of Local Authority Districts and Unitary Authorities. This
classification specifies six categories:
• Major Urban: districts with either 100,000 people or 50 percent of their population in
urban areas with a population of more than 750,000.
• Large Urban: districts with either 50,000 people or 50 percent of their population in
one of 17 urban areas with a population between 250,000 and 750,000.
• Other Urban: districts with fewer than 37,000 people or less than 26 percent of their
population in rural settlements and larger market towns.
• Significant Rural: districts with more than 37,000 people or more than 26 percent of
their population in rural settlements and larger market towns.
• Rural-50: districts with at least 50 percent but less than 80 percent of their population
in rural settlements and larger market towns.
• Rural-80: districts with at least 80 percent of their population in rural settlements and
larger market towns.
86
Final Report
Figure 1.1: England’s Rural Areas
Defining the rural: concepts of rurality

Cloke et al (2006) argue that social constructions of the rural are critically important (reflecting
understanding of rural spaces, attitudes towards them and driving local political priorities as well as
priorities for the planning process). But these ‘social constructions’ sit alongside two other ways of
87
Final Report
understanding, and thinking about, the countryside. In all, ‘Rurality’ is often conceptualised through
one of three ‘theoretical frames’:
Functional concepts of rurality
The delimitation of rural areas based on land use mix (notably farming and
forestry), settlement structure (small settlements of low order and an ‘extensive
landscape’), a way of life characterised by cohesive identity linked to an extensive
landscape;
Political economy concepts

Expressions of broader political-economic process creating an observable ‘rural
dimension’ leading to a ‘spatial debate’ surrounding population change,
employment patterns and so forth. The rural political economy is seen to be
characterised by a particular political ideology (favouring private and voluntary
action over public intervention), by different patterns of production, by dispersion
and difficulty in providing public services, and by low consumption and economic
inactivity (especially retirement);
Social constructions of rurality

Drawing on post-modern and post-structural thinking, and concerned with ‘socio-
spatial distinctiveness’, rurality may be defined by the ‘interconnections between
socio-cultural constructs of rurality and nature […] and the actual lived experiences
and practices of lives in these spaces’ (Cloke et al, 2006: 21). This frame sees
conceptions of rural areas as being social-constructed, with many different
perspectives on and meanings attached to ‘rurality’.
Rural areas are understood to have functional characteristics, as having particular ways of getting
things done (a ‘community spirit’ manifest in voluntary action, sometimes understood as greater
freedom from public influence) and also through a personal lens. That latter may mean that many
aspiring rural dwellings have a ‘chocolate box’ image of the countryside, which as MacGregor (1976:
524) points out, is ‘[…] much nearer to the jolly village green on the pantomime stage than reality’.
However, the popular appeal of and belief in this image has a propensity to trigger migration, and to
impact on rural property prices.
Defining the rural: notions of community

Tonnies (1957) considered that rural communities were characterised by social relationships founded
on locality, community and kinship – which he termed ‘Gemeinschaft’. Conversely, urban communities
were typified by an absence of these characteristics and relationships were described as transitory,
superficial and impersonal – termed ‘Gessellschaft’. Tonnies’ notion of rural and urban communities
being poles apart facilitated the development of the concept of the rural-urban continuum.
Pahl’s (1970) study of rural communities redefined the continuum concept and introduced a greater
complexity. He identified that Gemeinschaft and Gessellschaft characteristics can be found in both
urban and rural spaces. Pahl used the term ‘urban villages’ to describe the districts of cities where
Gemeinschaft qualities were clearly evident and ‘metropolitan villages’ for rural settlements
Gessellschaft qualities were clearly evident. He reasoned that urban values had begun to permeate
the countryside (and vice versa) and therefore it was unrealistic to ascribe homogenous
characteristics to any particular spatial area. As such, the rural-urban continuum must be perceived as
a transitional social process, rather than a spatial typological definition.
88
Final Report
Defining the rural: social constructions

Pahl’s conclusion that community characteristics cannot be linked to spatial areas has endured and
has not been significantly developed until recently by Soja (1996). Soja argues that there are two
‘spaces’ that are perceived, which, together, create a notion of community. The first, ‘firstspace’ is the
perceived space derived solely from sensory perception. The second, ‘secondspace’ is the
interpretation of the environment. These real and imagined spaces which when brought together form
a combined ‘thirdspace’ that helps to imagine a community’ into being, based on physical
surroundings, individual experiences, cultural bindings and real and imagined awareness. Soja’s
theory is similar, in some regards, to those of ‘habitus’ advocated by Bourdieu (1985). Habitus is best
described as patterns of thought, behaviour, and taste acquired through social positioning, personal
history and upbringing. The notion of habitus can explain the different ways in which spaces and
places are constructed and interpreted by different people and therefore neatly dovetails with Soja’s
concept of secondspace.
Perceptions that create housing market demand in rural areas

The majority of recent urban–rural migrants have been drawn to the countryside by real and perceived
‘characteristics of the surroundings’ (reference). The ‘pleasant and green character’ of an area,
especially ‘living close to nature’, ‘living outdoors’, having access to ‘a beautiful landscape’ and ‘the
fresh air’ appear to be key motivating factors. This predominant appeal of the characteristics of rural
areas matches the findings of Halfacree (1994) and reflects the idyllic, chocolate box image, of the
English countryside derided by MacGregor in the 1970s. This ‘romanticised’ construct / image fuels
the desire for a pure and simple style of living, close to green and natural amenities. In the early 19th
century, a myth of the countryside built up around the Romantic Movement, with rural England seen
as a refuge from the grime and noise of the Industrial Revolution. Perceptions (and understanding) of
the countryside became increasingly one-dimensional: the poverty was forgotten, and so too was the
reality of a working countryside with an economic life of its own. This misperception and
misunderstanding has survived to the present day. The countryside has become a refuge from
modernity, where one can (apparently) escape the hectic ‘urban life’ (with all its negative connotations)
of big towns and cities, but continue (because of better communication links) to reap the benefits of an
urban salary.
People in the UK have an extremely positive image of the countryside and Halfacree (1994) point to
the influence of this conceived ‘rural idyll’ in decisions to move to the countryside. Individuals may not
always act on the basis of a rounded understanding of rural life (comparable crime rates,
inaccessibility to jobs, declining service standards, social deprivation and so on), but sometimes on
the basis of their preconception, interpretation or mental construct. This is significant for
understanding the drivers of some rural housing markets. To some extent, the mass media has
peddled and reinforced this image of the idyllic countryside. It is virtually impossible to recall the
number of films or television serials aired since the late 1960s that have promoted rural over urban
living, especially for families.
Understanding rural housing markets

In the UK there has been a growing national interest in rural housing markets. For the majority of the
public, and particularly the media, it is due to the rapid rise in house prices over the last few years. For
policy-makers, it has been this factor coupled with the divergent performance of the English housing
market. The characteristics of regional and sub-regional markets within the country vary substantially.
Localised forces often result in great variations within these sub-regional markets themselves. These
variations have made it especially difficult to analyse residential mobility and housing market demand.
The characteristics of rural housing markets are determined by a combination of their demographics,
strength of local economy and employment market, quality of local schools and educational facilities,
accessibility, quality and composition of the housing stock and residential amenity (Champion et al.
89
Final Report
1998). Perception (above) also has a powerful role to play, with rural housing – in what is viewed as
an idyllic rural setting – seen as a ‘positional good’ (Schmied, 2002).
Demographic factors: The impact of the life-cycle on residential location
Migration varies in a regular way with age in most developed countries at all scales.
Rates peak at around the age of16-34 and then decline to a minimum in the 60s
(apart from a modest rise around retirement age). These differences in migration
rates by age have implications for the overall level of migration in a population as
its age structure changes. Age, by itself, has no direct influence on the ability of a
person to migrate and is a combination of a set of conditions which has been
termed the ‘life course’.
Migration is often triggered by changes to household size and circumstances (e.g.

Birth/raising of children and retirement). In the child-rearing years households seek
locations with secure jobs, spacious housing, good play groups, nurseries and
schools and so select suburban/rural neighbourhoods where there are other
families like themselves. The relationship is very different for the age group 16-29,
there is a large outflow of late adolescents to areas of high population density
(typically underpinned by further education studies). This age group also includes
some childless households who often prefer urban areas, underpinned by socio-
cultural motivations.
Philips (1993) demonstrates a relationship between household employment

structure and relative rates of mobility and residential preference. Households with
more than one breadwinner show a propensity to be less mobile than do traditional
male-breadwinner households because of the need to consolidate at a fixed
residential location in order to sustain two incomes or careers. Dual income
household may also prefer an urban residential location due to the
convenient/support services and amenities available.
Economic factors: Increase in rural-based industry and increased mobility

There has been a transformation in the geography of employment, which has
become increasingly biased towards rural areas. Fielding (1982) linked urban-rural
migration trends with economic restructuring and the changing spatial division of
labour. The late 1970s and early 1980s was a period of de-concentration. The
increase in the number of retirees to rural areas and the overall trend of the
countryside becoming a space of consumption has lead to the significant
expansion of service sector employment. Champion (1989) suggested that rural in-
migration was potentially a cyclical phenomenon closely bound up with the health
of the economy and that urban-rural flows would slow down in times of economic
boom as urban centres became revitalised and rural areas less secure. Although
there is evidence of the renewed migration, particularly amongst young people, into
city centres, rural population expansion has continued during the 1990s even within
the more remoter areas (Champion et al., 1998).
Research suggests that long-distance migration flows are more likely to be driven
by employment factors. There are clear spatial and regional patterns to job related
moves with the rural areas surrounding urban conurbations being most prone to
commuting flows and more remoter rural areas more characterised by in-migrants
being employed locally. In many examples, families 'trade-off" housing and lifestyle
advantages against employment accessibility (Halfacree, 1994). The level and type
of employment available in an area determine the levels of wages that will be paid
and will influence the tenure, size and location of housing. Studies suggest that as
incomes rise, demand for neighbourhood quality increases together with house
90
Final Report
size. Ultimately demand for market housing is driven by how much housing people
can afford, rather than how much they might be considered to ‘need’.
Macroeconomic factors such as interest rates, inflation and national economic

growth affect new house building and investment on the supply side and household
finances on the demand side. For example, higher interest rates increase the cost
of borrowing, thereby reducing demand for housing and affecting employment
levels by increasing the cost of investment. Mortgage rationing by lenders (as
during the current credit crunch) affects new house building and investment as
potential buyers are unable to access funds.
Second homes and vacant dwellings: inverse drivers of demand
Second homes and vacant dwellings can both be drivers of demand (Hickman et
al., 2007). While second homes are quite a small proportion of the total stock at
national level, in some areas the proportion is very high (Gallent et al, 2005). Six
Wards in Cumbria record a percentage of second/holiday homes higher than 20%
with the highest, Grasmere, recorded at 45.8% (State of the Countryside Report,
2005). The demand for second homes in desirable holiday areas fuels demand,
pushing up house prices and creating affordability problems for local households.
Although high vacancy rates are usually an indication of low demand, vacancies
can be high in high demand areas as a result of absentee landlords and ‘buy to
leave empty’ on the part of investors. In the case of the latter scenario this can
displace demand elsewhere – the ripple effect - as any remaining potential demand
will seek out the next ‘available’ location.
Accessibility and school catchment areas: A locational determinant

Accessibility, to employment, services, shops and schools, is an important driver of
demand (Hickman et al., 2007). Proximity to railway stations adds to house prices
while a lack of access to public transport reduces values. School catchment areas
can also influence demand. Families are known to move home so that their
children can attend popular schools. This puts additional pressure on house prices
within the catchment area of the school. Again, poorly achieving schools can have
the opposite effect, as people try to ensure that their children do not have to attend
an unpopular school.
Residential amenity: Counter-urbanisation and the penchant for rural locations

For over thirty years migration research confirmed and (re-confirmed) the overall
demographic growth of rural England both in terms of extent and incursion into the
more remote rural areas of the country. Studies by Champion (1989) and
Champion et al (1998) identify that rural Britain overall benefited from substantial
in-migration, largely from urban areas during the 1970 to 1990 period.
Boyle et al (1998) identify that the perceived quality of the physical and social
quality of the environment are principle reasons for moving into the countryside.
Buying into the 'rural idyll' has become a major element in the residential and
lifestyle trajectories of the British middle classes, as a rural location is usually
equated with improved quality of life and enhanced social status (Phillips, 1998):
rural housing, in some instances and locations, becomes a positional good. The
quality of the residential environment is also a dominant factor in migration
decision-making. The most scenic and/or accessible rural locations are those which
experience the greatest demand.
91
Final Report
The urban exodus is generally continuing but is increasingly differentiated.

Migration continues to be the dominant force in the changing demography of rural
areas but recent analyses suggest that principal sources for that in-migration are
changing; no longer the metropolitan centres and the industrial cities but
increasingly the high density non-metropolitan counties (Champion et al, 1998), a
different pattern from the previous decade when metropolitan counties recorded the
highest rate.
The greatest net losses and gains are recorded by the two ends of the settlement
hierarchy, there is a clear temptation to link the two and conclude that the main
element in counter-urbanisation comprises migrants moving directly from large
cities into rural areas. However, rather than moving from central cities to remote
rural areas in a single displacement, migration patterns associated with urban-rural
shifts are often, in reality, more ‘progressive’ - the reinforcing the notion of a
counter-urbanisation 'cascade' (Champion 1989). This cascade is depicted in the
diagram overleaf.
Although overall the population of rural Britain is expanding, largely due to in-
migration down the urban hierarchy, rural out-migration remains a persistent issue
in some locations. Overall rural population loss is concentrated in the northern
regions, in the north west and north east. Rural districts characterised by high rates
of in-migration such as the south west are also characterised by high rates of out-
migration amongst the younger age groups. In many rural areas affected by the in-
migration of the professional and managerial classes, a net out-migration of skilled
and unskilled workers is also identified (State of the Countryside, 2007).
Figure 1.2: The Counter-urbanisation Cascade (Champion, 2000: 14)
City
Suburb
Fringe
Town
Rural Area
Traditional assessment of housing markets: The mono-centric model
Economic approaches have traditionally been used to analyse residential mobility and housing market
demand. There has been a long-standing assumption that residential preference is related principally
to employment and financial opportunity (e.g. Barker, 2004). This is referred to as the mono-centric
model and is based on the notion that the stronger the regional economy and labour market, the
greater the housing market demand within that region. However this economic approach has
92
Final Report
limitations, as it does not have appreciation for the complex geographies of supply and demand of
local markets with regional and sub-regional areas.
This simplistic distinction denies the fact that low demand and affordability problems can co-exist at
different spatial scales (district, sub-region and region). For this reason, talk of a ‘north-south divide’ in
the national housing market – with low demand in the northern regions and an overheating market in
the south (before the current economic downturn) – is often disputed. Regional markets are complex
with many diverse and contrasting patterns.
Critics of the mono-centric model (Janssen et al. 2001) argue that housing market analysis should
take account of lifestyle and aspirational factors, which also drive demand. Changes in household
structure and the different life-cycle stages are can be determinants of residential preference. Equally
residential preference can be influenced by the ability of an area to provide the assets (social, cultural,
environmental) deemed to be important. The latter suggests that residential mobility is more than a
matter of rational choice and can be equally informed by the nature, character and outlook of
individuals.
Alternative methods of housing market assessment: Hedonic price theory

Hedonic price models provide a framework for the analysis of market value of differentiated goods
possessing features that, in themselves, do not have a clearly definable market price. In other words,
their impact on the overall price of a good is uncertain or at least not easily quantifiable. The
traditional use of hedonic estimation in housing analysis has been for the purpose of drawing
‘inferences’ about the price effects of different attributes such as air quality, airport noise, commuter
access (railway, subway or highway) and neighbourhood amenities (Janssen et al. 2001) which are
not directly linked to the utility of a property or affect prices in uncertain ways.
Four types of price-determining attributes are frequently considered in hedonic analyses (and also in
property valuation): locational, structural, and neighbourhood attributes (relatively ‘hard’ drivers) are
set against externalities that can lift or lower prices. These can be described as ‘soft’ drivers.
Locational attributes
Accessibility is measured in terms of ease of commuting to and from amenities,

and is measured by travelling time, cost of travel, convenience, and availability of
different transport modes as buyers tend to trade-off housing costs against
transport costs, and are willing to pay more for properties with easy accessibility to
work (Janssen et al. 2001). View is sometimes considered a residential amenity
usually associated with the location of a dwelling site. With regards to green
amenities Garrod and Willis (1992) determined that proximity to a river, canal or
woodland has a strong, positive influence on house value. The presence of a canal
or river would raise the value of the average house by 4.9% while the proximity of
at least 20% woodland cover would raise it by 7.1%. Location in or near a rural
settlement, such as a village or country town, also has a positive effect.
Structural attributes
Prices of properties are frequently related to their structural attributes. Numerous
studies reveal that the number of rooms and bedrooms, the number of bathrooms
and the floor area are positively related to the sale price of houses. This is because
buyers are willing to pay more for more space, especially functional space.
Residential properties with bigger floor areas are desired by big families and buyers
who can afford a better standard of living. (Jansen et al., 2001)
Neighbourhood attributes
93
Final Report
The ‘social class’ of a neighbourhood or area has an impact on property values.

The quality of public schools has also been found to have a significant impact on
real house prices. School quality is more important to local residents than either
crime or environmental quality, with higher test scores and better exam results
having a positive impact on property prices. Proximity to council housing has been
shown to lower prices. Proximity to hospitals and health centres is not desirable
due to the commotion that ensues including the nuisance effect of ambulance siren
and the general congestion in the vicinity of hospitals (Garrod and Willis, 1992).
Proximity to other types of land use will also impact on prices. In rural areas, these
can include main roads or motorways, airports (or being close to a flight path),
proximity to neighbourly uses such as power plants, incinerators, kennels,
catteries, piggeries, or other noise / smell generating uses. There is a documented
tendency of buyers to shy away from such uses or to object to planning
applications that might, for instance, cause an intensification of nearby smell,
perhaps emanating from a pig farm.
Externalities such as crime rates and traffic noise,

Obviously, home buyers do not favour areas associated with high rates of crime or
vandalism. Reaction towards noise, or quiet, is dissimilar among different groups
of people. Affluent groups give noise much greater weight when considering
residential locations. External benefits, including pleasant landscape, unpolluted
air, serenity, quiet atmosphere, and the presence of urban forests has a significant
positive effect on property values (Garrod and Willis, 1992). There is a clear
potential for rural areas to have a range of (perceived) externalities that would
attract potential buyers - landscape and environmental quality, peacefulness,
greenery: these are all aspects of the ‘rural idyll’. Therefore, how close an area is
seen to fit with this (urban middle class) representation of the countryside will
impact on prices. Schmied (2002) has provided some evidence of this impact in
the Cotswolds, an area that might be seen to represent archetypal English
countryside. Other areas of low-land England – Cornwall, the Chiltern hills, the
south downs, and the Norfolk broads – may be seen to share these characteristics,
with the opportunity to buy into the rural idyll (the repository of English values,
according to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s) lifting property prices. This uplift may
partly be explained in terms of strong demand pressure, but also in terms of the
subsequent planning constraint associated with and amplified by the arrival of
conservative and articulate middle class incomers. Upland areas, including the
peaks of Derbyshire and the Lake District, offer something slightly different –
majestic landscapes. This ‘majesty’ joins the list of externalities driving demand.
Shortcomings of the Hedonic Price Model

However, this approach is subject to criticisms arising from potential problems relating to fundamental
model assumptions and estimation such as the selection of independent variables and market
segmentation.
In theory, hedonic price studies do not require the segmentation of housing markets and consequently
housing markets are often pooled together. However, in practice, submarkets are likely to exist. This
is because housing markets are not uniform. Hence, it is unrealistic to treat the housing market in any
geographical location as a single entity (Jansen et al., 2001) making it difficult, for example, to
undertake analysis on the basis of administrative boundaries merely because this is the level at which
data is available. There may be factors affecting prices beyond the boundary which may lift or lower
prices. Any hedonic analysis needs to be alive to this possibility.
94
Final Report
Another issue frequently associated with the hedonic price model is the ‘misspecification’ of variables.
Misspecification is the situation where an irrelevant independent variable is included (over-
specification), or where a relevant independent variable (attribute of a product) is omitted (under-
specification). The latter problem is perhaps more common. As hedonic price models deal with the
implicit prices of quantities of attributes of a product, the problem of misspecification of variables is
inevitable. Over-specification gives estimated independent variables that are both unbiased and
consistent, but inefficient because of the inclusion of the irrelevant variable, whereas under-
specification results in estimated coefficients that are both biased and inconsistent (Jansen et al.
2001).
It is also the case that soft drivers may, by their very nature, be difficult to quantify. How does one, for
example, factor ‘perception’ into a hedonic model? Most past studies of the determinants of rural
house prices have merely drawn inferences from local surveys. Housing surveys, for example, may
ask residents why they chose to live in a particular village or move to the area. Responses are
interpreted as determinants of migration (see earlier discussion) with migration seen as a factor in
pushing up property prices. But a hedonic model has to make judgements about landscape and
environmental quality and infer a link between this quality and the effect it might have on the desire of
people to purchase property in an area. It cannot measure the impact of preconception on relocation
decisions. For example, ex-urban migrants to rural areas may expect to find a community spirit, a
greener lifestyle, greater tranquillity and so on. But their may be a wide gap between expectation and
reality. The reality may not explain prices to the same degree as the preconception, but the
preconception can only be understood through face-to-face contact with movers, not through proxies
that try to connect with lived reality. Similarly, tastes and values may drive migration and prices: how
are these to be factored into a hedonic analysis.
The best we can hope for is that such an analysis tells part of the stories, with any gaps filled by
existing local studies or future surveys.
Dealing with shortcomings of the Hedonic Price Model

In the US, analysts have taken different approaches to overcoming the potential problems of pooling
housing markets by identifying sub-market boundaries within housing areas. Post code districts and
census tracts (wards) have frequently been used to identify submarkets (Goodman, 1981). Goodman
and Thibodeau (1998) identified housing sub-market boundaries by developing and estimating the
parameters of a hierarchical mode, based on the notion that all homes within a spatially concentrated
area share amenities associated with the property’s location (i.e. the housing characteristics that
determine a property’s market value are nested in a hierarchy — properties within neighbourhoods,
neighbourhoods within school catchment areas, school catchment areas within boroughs/towns etc).
With regards to the problems relating to the misspecification of variables, Butler (1982) states that
since all estimates of hedonic price models are mis-specified to some extent, those which use a
smaller number of key variables are to be preferred. Butler suggested that only those attributes that
are costly to produce and yield utility be considered in the regression equation. Mok et al. (1995)
concluded that biases due to missing variables are small and would not necessarily compromise
results. A practical solution to the problem of missing variables, which may cause bias, is to ensure
that the data set used is homogeneous. When there is homogeneity, the use of the hedonic price
approach is justified.
95
Final Report
Part 3: Communities, Networks and Local Priority
Networks and community cohesion
Defining Community
Delanty (2003) identifies four broad ways in which the term ‘community’ can be applied: The first,
socio-spatial, is the territorial notion of community such as urban neighbourhood or rural village.
Classic community studies focussed explicitly on the territorial notion deducing that strength of
community cohesion was dependent on settlement size and geographical proximity, which influenced
levels of face-to-face interaction (Bridge, 2002). Studies by Bell and Newby (1976) have rejected the
territorial notion citing that geographical proximity does not necessarily create community cohesion
and localness does not necessarily generate close association.
Bell and Newby concluded that communities can exist without close-knit and interacting social
networks, and that such social networks can transcend spatial geography. This reflects the clear
distinction between Delanty’s first group and the remaining three: identity-driven, politically mobilised
and technological. The socio-spatial notion of community implies a ‘static’ territorially based static
community, whilst the others: identity-driven (formed along sexuality, cultural beliefs or lifestyle
choices), politically mobilised (formed around the need to collectively address social injustice) and
technological (formed around new technologies and the internet such as chat rooms and social
network websites) are more ‘fluid’ and free from spatial fixity.
Community lost – the decline of territorial communities?

Notwithstanding evidence of the existence of non-territorial communities, successive community
studies have been biased towards spatially defined communities and the factors which have led to
less face-to-face social interaction within them. The ‘loss of community’ thesis is a well developed
theme in community studies literature. Putnam (1995; 2000) suggests that levels of social capital are
deteriorating, to the detriment of individual lives and community cohesion. Putnam shows how
Americans have increasingly detached themselves from one another and how social organisations
have been disintegrating. He attributes this process to a number of factors:
The movement of women into the labour force.
Over the last two or three decades, many women have moved out of the home and
into paid employment. Putnam attributes more women in the labour market to
reduced time and energy available for voluntary activities and interacting with
family and friends. Therefore the emergence of two-career families might be the
most important single factor in the erosion of social capital.
Mobility
Numerous studies have shown that residential stability affects levels of social
capital. Mobility tends to disrupt opportunities to develop strong, personal ties to
one another and to participate in community organisations. This theory is based on
the notion that when the population of an area is constantly changing: a process
which undermines cohesion and social capital, with communities eventually
becoming fragmented and social disorganised.
Other demographic transformations.
There has been a decline in the prevalence of the ‘traditional’ family unit over the
last 30 years, with the growth in number single parent families, fewer children,
growth in single-person households. Evidence of the loosening of bonds within the
96
Final Report
family, both extended and nuclear, is well documented. These changes might
account for some of the progressive loss of social capital.
Economic change
The changes in scale that have swept over the economy, illustrated by the
replacement of the corner shop by the supermarket has undermined and now
Internet shopping at home, or the replacement of community-based enterprises by
outposts of distant multinational firms, may perhaps have undermined the material
and even physical basis for civic engagement.
The technological transformation of leisure.

There is reason to believe that deep-seated technological trends are radically
‘privatizing’ or ‘individualizing’ our use of leisure time and thus disrupting many
opportunities for social capital formation. The most obvious and probably the most
powerful instrument of this revolution is television. Electronic technology enables
individual tastes to be satisfied more fully, but at the cost of the positive social
externalities associated with more ‘primitive forms’ of entertainment.
Community found – the rise of networked communities?

Wellman (2001) argues that contemporary community is to be found in networks, and are no longer
confined to a particular place but stretched out geographically and socially. People are tied into
multiple networks essentially having a ‘personal community’ - consisting of interpersonal ties of
sociality, support, information and identity. Therefore he argues that commentators who proclaim the
loss of community (such as Putnam) have looked for them in the wrong places.
Wellman captures this shift as a transformation from door-to-door to place-to-place to person-to-

person communities. First, people walking to visit each other typify door-to-door communities that
were spatially compact and densely knit; ‘little boxes’ based upon geographical propinquity (Wellman,
2002). Significant others were encountered through walking about such neighbourhoods and there
was overlap of family life, work and friendships. According to Wellman, door-to-door communities
expired with increased speed in transportation and especially communications which facilitated a
transition to ‘place-to-place’ communities.
‘Place-to-place’ community, interactions moved inside the private home. The household is visited,
telephoned or emailed (Wellman, 2002). Yet this is not seen as destroying networks and social capital,
because phone calls and emails connect individuals in different geographical locations and enable
interaction with those not living close by. Contrary to the argument that the Internet makes social
networks disembodied and virtual, Wellman’s studies suggest that new technology supplements in-
person and telephone communication rather than replacing them. Frequent contact on the Internet, in
this regard, is seen to complement to frequent face-to-face contact, not a substitute.
‘Person-to-person’ community highlights how it is the person rather than place that increasingly
matters. The transition from place-to-place to person-to-person communities results from innovations
in communications - the technological development of portable telecommunications have enabled the
rise of ‘networked individualism’. Whereas the symbolic technology of place-to-place connectivity was
the fixed landline telephone, the mobile phone is the technology of person-to-person communities.
The mobile phone frees people from ‘spatial fixity’ (Wellman, 2001)
Social networks and rural community change

There are the two sets of fundamental changes that have affected our villages. There are the organic
changes seen in all rural areas: smaller nuclear families with fewer ties to support networks, fewer
people actually living and working within any village or town, and the attrition of groups that historically
97
Final Report
formed the ‘glue’ that kept a community together – such as women’s institutes, parish and church
groups, and farming networks. More recent changes affect the dynamics of an area: the introduction of
technologies that change the traditional ways of doing things, an influx of people from other countries,
and the migration of younger people due to higher education and employment opportunities outside
the local area (Woods, 2005).
Changing views of the rural have invoked a process of repopulation of many rural areas from the city.
This process of repopulation often masks the continuing out-migration of young people from rural
areas. The combination of in-and out-migration leaves many remote rural areas with an ageing
population, while accessible rural areas become urban dormitories where during working hours almost
all inhabitants move to towns and cities nearby. This will have an impact on all aspects of life –
economic activity‚ community‚ and services
Implications for rural residents current and future

Traditionally rural communities provided social support because of their 'close-knit' informal networks
and family/friend networks. These informal mechanisms of support are gradually being eroded: the
out-migration of younger groups has implications for vulnerable older people in rural areas as the
opportunity to receive support from family members is removed (Stockdale, 2004). Many older people
rely on others for assistance with day-to-day tasks bringing them vital social contact as well as
support, enabling them to continue to live independently. Historically, those who have aged in rural
communities will find this easier as they have social networks to support them. However rapid social
change in the countryside has diffused their social networks.
Enabling and facilitating social networks: creating social capital and sustainability?
The physical and social structures of rural communities traditionally create a close-knit climate wherein
community members share a strong sense of community. However, these communities, where
everyone know else and neighbours are always there to lend a hand are rapidly disappearing with the
loss of the elder generation (Falk and Kirkpatrick, 2000). Social contact between family, friends and
neighbours, and also with community groups, is important and has been proven to protect against the
effects of loneliness and isolation, especially within the older sections of the community (Wenger,
2001).
Localness and local rights
Addressing the social balance problem: local needs housing

There is a concern that local people cannot access their local property market due to demand/supply
factors and this is adversely affecting the social balance, composition, and vitality of rural communities
(Hoggart and Henderson, 2005). Even if a need for additional growth/housing in a rural village is
identified and then delivered, experience shows that it is unlikely that all the units will go to local
people if sold on the open market. The ability to pay (more) typically results in some of the units being
occupied by households from outside the locality meaning the local need is not fully addressed as
intended. Therefore concern for local housing needs is widespread among local authorities,
particularly from a political perspective. The majority of local authorities operate some form/variant of
local needs policies, yet it is not clear what is meant by ‘local need’. There is a lack consistency in the
definitions of ‘local’ and ‘need’ from local authority to local authority.
What constitutes local?

The first question is who is local? It is generally accepted that in the context of local needs policies,
the term ‘local’ relates to people, who have a long term or ancestral/generational link to the village or
98
Final Report
immediate hinterlands. However, is it equitable to ring-fence the definition of local and positively
discriminate in this way - are the middle class incomers not locals once they become settled in the
community? The second question is what is need? It is difficult to define and measure as there is a
difference between whether an individual/household needs to live in a particular locality or whether it
would simply prefer to do so. This is a valid argument, however it does raise the issue of social justice
– does the inability to pay mean that households should accept second, third or even fourth choice
residential locations?
Burnett (1998) considers the social categories of ‘local’ vs. ‘incomer’ to be fuzzy and doubts whether
they are meaningful or accurate. Local can have two definitions: firstly, reference to a spatially defined
locality and those residents within it and secondly, reference to a sense of things indigenous. The
latter is the most problematic definition and the one that commonly underpins contemporary local
needs policies. What constitutes local in this regard is not easily defined as it becomes a subjective
exercise – how long must an individual reside in an area before they are construed as local, what ties
to the area justify being regarded as local? On the other hand, incomers are overwhelmingly
constructed as a potential threat to ‘existing’ rural cultures and communities. However, there are
incomers who operate as part of a ‘local community’ and who may engage with local culture, traditions
and resources either for work and leisure. Therefore the complexity of incomer–local relations and
what actually constitutes the local populace, place and social structures is not straightforward.
Mechanisms to widen social mix and create sustainable communities: local needs
housing
The concern for the housing needs of local rural people is reflected at both local and national level
(Taylor, 2008). One of the most widely-employed tactics used to address housing affordability
problems in rural areas is the use of local needs policies, which seek to positively discriminate in
favour of local people. These policies entail giving priority access to local people (e.g. households with
a ‘local connection’ or those working locally) to new homes, whether these are for rent, for shared
ownership or for outright purchase (Gallent, forthcoming 2009).
Local needs policies are an attempt by local planning authorities to resolve the conflict of objectives
between restraining development in the interests of the landscape and farmland protection and
encouraging housing provision for the benefit of rural communities (Shucksmith, 1990). Prevailing
planning policy/legislation renders the option of increasing supply to meet both normative need and
demand unviable to local authorities.
Advocating local needs policies

Therefore ‘local need’ seems to relate less to the social concept of need and more to the balancing of
demand with a politically acceptable rate is housing supply in rural areas. But even if the concept of
‘local need’ is elaborated to allow a more precise and operational definition of need and then
combined with some geographical boundary to arrive at a workable concept, the question that
eventually arises is whether local claims to rural housing should have any special priority?
Rogers (1985) forwards five reasons for support for such an approach:
1. Local residence acts as a proxy for welfare objectives in housing policy since local
people in rural areas are taken to be generally poorer and more deprived. However
this is an over simplification, as rural areas contain many wealthy people.
Therefore a policy which uses locals as a proxy variable for the rural poor will not
necessarily benefit those actually in need.
2. Outsiders have no serious grounds for being housed in the countryside. This
reason can be quickly dismissed on social justice and human rights grounds.
99
Final Report
3. Housing for local people contributes directly to local employment generation and
support and maintenance of services. This argument contains a contradiction
insofar as localness can therefore be justified in the case of those who move from
outside of the area to work within it. This type of claim is in direct conflict with those
arguments which appeal to the idea of the locally born person beleaguered in the
housing market by the influx of outsiders.
4. Local people have the moral right to priority over outsiders. This is often popular
with local councillors, since local authorities are elected to reflect the interests of
existing residents / voters. It makes no sense, on equity, welfare or economic
grounds, to preferentially assist local people in areas where there is no labour
demand. It would make more sense to direct assistance to locations where there
are jobs and other opportunities. In most instances, planning policy does the latter
but there is a weight of feeling in rural areas in favour of ‘ancestral rights’ – that
‘local homes’ should go to local people and that where the open market inhibits this
‘natural justice’ the planning system should intervene to sort things out
5. Pragmatic acknowledgement that the label of ‘local needs’ is politically very
powerful in that it has genuine popular appeal and demands media attention for
rural housing issues. The amalgam of rural deprivation, grass roots politics and
practical compromise between development and control, represented by the label
‘local need’, provides a way of getting rural housing issues onto the political
agenda and mustering support around the need for some development.
Three decades ago, Mark Shucksmith catalogued some of this debate, looking at the different
interpretations of the term ‘local’ for policy purposes. He argued that attaching acceptable meanings
to the terms ‘local’ and ‘need’ is a critical challenge for planning policy (Shucksmith, 1981: 17), adding
that doubts and uncertainties surrounding definitions of local (from a specific village, from a cluster of
villages, from a district, and then, of course, what does ‘being from’ entail: being born somewhere,
having a family connection, working in a village or area?) and of the nature and ‘ethics’ (Rogers, 1985)
of need make the idea of ‘local needs’ a ‘[…] very rocky foundation on which to build policy’
(Shucksmith, 1990: 66). This practical and moral uncertainty (should the hand of planning be making
such ‘personal’ judgements?) is frequently sidestepped the use if the term ‘local need’ as a sweetener,
with the label often taken to denote a ‘[…] politically acceptable rate of housing development, rather
than a social concept of need’ (Shucksmith, 1990: 64)
The impact of first-wave local needs policies

The Lake District Special Planning Board (the predecessor to the current National Park Authority)
sought to use Section 52 of the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act to control the occupancy of all
new housing built in the Lake District, restricting ‘all new development to that which can be shown to
satisfy a local need’ (LDSPB, 1977). Its aim was to combat the rise in house prices attributed to in-
migration and second home buying by requiring all new housing to be built for ‘local need’. However,
the policy was in fact counter-productive: the amount of speculative building declined and second
home buyers continued to compete for existing property in much the same way as they had done prior
to the ‘locals only’ policy. The concentration of competition in the market for existing homes combined
with the reduction in house building pushed up house prices, further disadvantaging local buyers.
Impact of contemporary local needs policies

Attempts have been made recently to use the planning system in a positive way to secure the
provision of affordable local needs housing, in rural areas and elsewhere.
Exception sites to provide affordable housing in small rural settlements
100
Final Report
Most local planning authorities now have policies which enable them to grant planning permission for
small sites within and on the periphery of villages, which would not usually be supported under the
provisions of the local planning document. These dwellings provide affordable housing to meet an
identified local need and would remain affordable to the local community in perpetuity.
Quotas of cross-subsidised affordable housing being required in larger developments through
Section 106 planning agreements
Most local planning authorities use 106 agreements to secure quotas of affordable housing in larger
private developments. Subject to financial viability constraints, developers normally offset the cost of
providing the affordable units via cross-subsidy. Again, a demonstrated need for affordable housing is
necessary to justify the Local Planning Authorities request for the affordable units.
The effectiveness of the two methods of affordable housing provision have been examined. In reality
very unit are delivered via exceptions sites. This is partly due to a lack of finance and poor information
on local need, but the main factors limiting the contribution of this approach are “the limited supply of
land, and the potential tension” between environmental and social objectives of policy. The majority of
affordable dwellings are provided via section 106 agreements as quotas of large private developments
on the edges of market towns as urban extensions. Therefore section 106 agreements are effective in
delivering affordable rural housing, but only in larger settlements, while the exceptions policy is
invaluable in the smaller settlements but delivers relatively few houses. The overall level of affordable
housing provision falls far short of estimates of need (Gallent, 2009).
Different perspectives on local needs housing

Beyond this, landowners’ motives for holding land or selling land, and thus contributing to the
residential development process, may be affected by personal and non-pecuniary considerations as
much as by financial or investment criteria (Goodchild & Munton, 1985). Among the factors influencing
his decision to release land will be the landowner’s material interests and social relations, covering
kinship, social status and class. Rural exception sites have proven problematic as landowners are
often reticent about releasing land either because they hope land will one day command full
development value, which is the most common, or because they have no direct control over who will
benefit from their ‘good will’ (Gallent, 2009)
Planning consents often imposed 'local need' conditions, so that only those with a local connection
would be considered when the housing was allocated. This had mixed implications for rural RSLs. It
was sometimes seen in a positive light, involving more sensitivity to local opinion and a move away
from purely needs-based allocations (a 'community housing' approach which puts rural RSLs in the
forefront of national trends in allocations policies). On the other hand, the imposition of occupancy
restrictions creates inflexibility for RSLs in finding tenants. It may make it more difficult to attract
private finance for development, as lenders' ability to recover loans through future rents or sale may
be inhibited by occupancy restrictions.
Meeting the need: the case for releasing more land

The National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) states that the release of land for housing,
and target building rates set by Regional Planning Bodies, should take account of the growth in
second home demand in England (as a component of overall migration and rural population growth).
This headline was read by some as an acknowledgement that second homes impact on house prices.
The view of the NHPAU is that they have a potential to impact on prices and housing supply, but they
should not be allowed to do so. Rather, the planning system should be releasing sufficient land for
housing so as to meet the need for development implied by demography, plus this form of ‘additional
requirement’. Second homes will only be a problem if enough land is not allocated for all types of
housing demand. This is a hugely controversial assertion, particularly as the new homes being
planned are unlikely to become second homes, but are more likely to be built in market towns and
bigger centres and occupied by rural households ‘displaced’ from villages.
101
Final Report
An estimated 15,000 homes will need to be built each year (probably in larger towns and cities) just to
‘replace’ those rural properties in villages that will, in the future, be second homes. Although second
homes may not be a primary driver of the rural housing problem (although they are a component of
the migration driver and as such, may have a local impact on prices – see earlier discussion), they
often compound the difficulties faced by some rural households who have a need to live in a particular
location but are unable to do so at a reasonable cost. As Taylor (2008) has recently argued, there is a
strong case for allocating more land for housing, through the planning system, in locations where
overall demand is high. And in order to address the issue of social balance and sustainability some of
this housing will need to be allocated in locations – including small villages – previously redlined as
inherently unsustainable locations for growth.
This seems to be the nub of the rural housing debate as it currently exists. Taylor (2008) has followed
in the footsteps of countless previous researchers and commentators who have called for a different
approach to development planning in the countryside. But this different approach will require a vastly
improved evidence base. There will need to be a better understanding of the link between housing
affordability / access and the nature of sustainable rural communities, built on retained social capacity
flowing through strong community networks. There will also need to be a clearer appreciation of the
factors driving rural housing demand and increasing property prices: a better understanding of market
process will help ensure that planning is ahead of the game, making appropriate development
decisions. And finally, the debate over local priority needs to be resolved. If this priority is to be more
firmly linked to the economic wellbeing of rural areas and communities, then this needs to be clearly
stated in planning policy (for example), with a new emphasis on supporting the jobs-homes link
necessary to nurture new economic activities in the countryside. On the other hand, it may be that
planning wants to distance itself from the idea of an automatic ‘ancestral’ right to live a particular
location. This may provide local politicians with an easy route to electoral support, but it may not be
justifiable on wider social equity grounds. That said, such ancestral rights seem anchored in Tonnies’
(1957) understanding of rural social relationships, with tightly-knit communities wanting exclusionary
protection from external influence. The fact that local rights debate is either non-existent or far more
diluted in urban areas (even in Pahl’s ‘urban villages’) is perhaps evidence of sustained contrasts
between rural and urban society, despite the considerable convergence between, and mixing of, the
two since World War II. Sections of rural society continue to express a desire for a more restrictive
planning approach that extends beyond land-use decisions into a personal arena. Should planning be
prioritising personal or family interests as a means of achieving broader social goals (i.e. sustainable
rural communities)? This is perhaps an interesting question for future debate.
References
Part 1:
Atkinson, R. (2000) Hidden costs of gentrification: Displacement in central London, Journal of housing
and the built environment, 15, pp. 307-326.
Atkinson, R. (2000) Measuring gentrification and displacement in greater London, Urban Studies,
37(1), pp. 149-165.
Australian Conservation Foundation and the Victorian Council of Social Service (2008) Housing
Affordability: More than rent and mortgages [www.acfonline.org.au]
Bridge, G. (1993) People places and networks. SAUS Publications, University of Bristol.
Buller, H. and Hoggart, K. (1994) International Counterurbanisation, Ash gate: Aldershot.
Butler, T. (1997) Gentrification and the Middle Classes. Ashford: Ashgate.
Butler, T. and Hamnett, C. (1994) Gentrification, class and gender, Environment and Planning D, 12,
pp. 477–493.
102
Final Report
Capstick, M. (1987) Housing Dilemmas in the Lake District, Centre for North West Regional Studies:
University of Lancaster.
Clark, D. (1984) Rural housing and countryside planning, in Blacksell, M. and Bowler, I., (Editors)
Contemporary Issues in Rural Planning, in SW Papers in Geography, pp. 93-104
Cloke, P and Little, J (1990) The rural state? The limits to planning in rural society. Clarendon: London
Cloke, P. (1979) Key Settlements in Rural Areas, Methuen: London
Cloke, P., Mooney, P.H. and Marsden, T. (Editors) (2006) The Handbook of Rural Studies, Sage
Publications Ltd: London
Clout, H. (1972) Rural Geography: An Introductory Survey, Pergammon Press: Oxford
Cole, I & Goodchild, B (2001) Social Mix and the ‘Balanced Community’ in British housing policy – a
tale of two epochs, GeoJournal 51 pp 351–360.
Commission for Rural Communities (2007) State of the Countryside 2007 Cheltenham: CRC
(Commission for Rural Communities)
Darling, E (2005) The city in the country: wilderness gentrification and the rent gap, Environment and
Planning A, 37, PP1015-1032
Day, G. (1998) A community of communities? Similarities and differences in Welsh rural community
studies, The Economic and Social Review, 29, pp. 233-257.
Day, G. et al (1989) Social change, Rural Localities and the State: the Restructuring of Rural Wales,
Journal of Rural Studies, 5, pp. 227-244.
England, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22, pp. 210-230.
Gallent, N., Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Mace, A. (2002) Second Homes in England’s Rural Areas,
Countryside Agency: Cheltenham.
Harper, S. (1987) The urban-rural interface in England: a framework of analysis, Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, 12, pp. 284-302.
HM Government (2005) Securing the future delivering UK sustainable development strategy [TSO:
London]
Hoggart, K. (2007) The diluted working classes of rural England and Wales, Journal of Rural Studies,
23, pp. 305-317.
Ilbery, B & Bowler, I (1998) From agricultural productivism to agricultural post-productivism, in B. Ilbery
(ed.), The Geography of Rural Change. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman pp. 57-84
Lewis, G & Maund, D (1976) The urbanisation of the countryside: A framework for analysis, Human
Geography, 58(1), pp. 17-27
Liepins, R. (2000) Exploring rurality through community: discourses, practices and spaces shaping
Australian and New Zealand rural communities, Journal of Rural Studies 16, pp.325-341.
Lowe, P. et al (1993) Regulating the New Rural Space: the Uneven Development of Land, Journal of
Rural Studies, 9, pp 205-222
Macgregor, B (1976) Village life: facts and Myths, in Town and Country Planning 44, 11, pp. 524-27
Mitchell, C. (2004) Making sense of counterurbanisation, Journal of Rural Studies, 20, pp. 15-34.
103
Final Report
Moseley, M. (1979) Accessibility: the Rural Challenge, Methuen: London
Moseley, M. (2000) England’s village services in the 1990s: entrepreneurialism, community

involvement and the state, in Town Planning Review, 74, 1, pp. 415-433
Newby, H. (1979) Urbanisation and the rural class structure, The British Journal of Sociology, 30(4),
pp. 475-499.
Pahl, R (1970) Whose city? And other essays on sociology and planning. Longman: London
Phillips, M. (1998) Investigations into the British rural middle classes – Part 2: Fragmentation, identity,
morality and contestation, Journal of Rural Studies, 14(4), pp. 427–433.
Phillips, M. (2007) Changing class complexions on and in the British Countryside, Journal of Rural
Studies, 23, pp. 283-304.
Schmied, D. (2002) What Price Peace and Quiet? Rural Gentrification and Affordable Housing,
Bayreuther Geowissenschaftliche Arbeiten: Bayreuth.
Shucksmith, M (1990) House building in Britain’s countryside. Routledge: London
Shucksmith, M. (1981) No Homes for Locals? Farnborough: Gower Publishing
Smith, D and Phillips, D (2001) Socio-cultural representations of greenfield Pennine rurality, Journal of
rural studies, 17, pp. 457-469
Soja, E (1996) Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real and Imagined Places,
Cambridge: Blackbell
Spencer, D. (1997) Counterurbanisation and rural depopulation revisited: Landowners, planners and
the rural development process, Journal of Rural Studies, 13(1), pp. 75-92.
Whitehead, C et al. (2008) Measuring Housing Affordability: A Review of Data Sources [Cambridge
Centre for Housing and Planning Research]
Woods, M. (1998) Advocating rurality? The repositioning of rural local government, Journal of Rural
Studies, 14, pp. 13-26
Woods, M. (2005) Rural geography: Processes, responses and experience in rural restructuring.
Sage: London
Part 2:
Bourdieu, P (1985) The social space and the genesis of groups. Social Science Information 24 (2), pp.
195-220.
Champion et al. (1998) The determinants of migration flows in England: a review of existing data and
evidence [DOE: London]
Cloke, P, Milbourne, P and Thomas, C. (1997) Living lives in different ways? Deprivation,
marginalization and changing lifestyles in rural England, Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 22, pp. 210-230.
Commission for Rural Communities (2007) State of the Countryside 2007 Cheltenham CRC
Day, G. et al (1989) Social change, Rural Localities and the State: the Restructuring of Rural Wales,
Journal of Rural Studies, 5, pp. 227-244.
Fielding, A. (1982) Counterurbanisation in western Europe, Progress in Planning 17, pp. 1–52
104
Final Report
Garrod, G. & Willis, K. (1992). Valuing the goods characteristics – an application of the hedonic price
method to environmental attributes, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 59-76.
Halfacree, K (1994) The importance of "the rural" in the constitution of counterurbanisation: evidence
from England in the 1980s, Sociolgica Rurali. 34 pp164-89
Harper, S. (1987) The urban-rural interface in England: a framework of analysis, Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, 12, pp. 284-302.
Hickman et al. (2007) Understanding housing demand: Learning from rising markets in Yorkshire and
the Humber [Joseph Rountree Foundation]
Hoggart, K. (2007) The diluted working classes of rural England and Wales, Journal of Rural Studies,
23, pp. 305-317.
Janssen, C. B. & Soderberg, J. Z. (2001). Robust estimation of hedonic models of price and income
for investment property. Journal of Property Investment & Finance. Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 342-360.
Lewis, G & Maund, D (1976) The urbanisation of the countryside: A framework for analysis, Human
Geography, 58(1), pp. 17-27
Liepins, R. (2000) Exploring rurality through community: discourses, practices and spaces shaping
Australian and New Zealand rural communities, Journal of Rural Studies 16, pp.325-341.
Lowe, P. et al (1993) Regulating the New Rural Space: the Uneven Development of Land, Journal of
Rural Studies, 9, pp 205-222
Mitchell, C. (2004) Making sense of counterurbanisation, Journal of Rural Studies, 20, pp. 15-34.
Newby, H. (1979) Urbanisation and the rural class structure, The British Journal of Sociology, 30(4),
pp. 475-499.
Pahl, R (1970) Whose city? And other essays on sociology and planning. Longman: London
Phillips, M. (1998) Investigations into the British rural middle classes – Part 2: Fragmentation, identity,
morality and contestation, Journal of Rural Studies, 14(4), pp. 427–433.
Phillips, M. (2007) Changing class complexions on and in the British Countryside, Journal of Rural
Studies, 23, pp. 283-304.
Soja, E (1996) Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real and Imagined Places,
Cambridge: Blackbell
Spencer, D. (1997) Counterurbanisation and rural depopulation revisited: Landowners, planners and
the rural development process, Journal of Rural Studies, 13(1), pp. 75-92.
Tonnies, F (1957) Community and Society Harper & Row: New York
Sage: London
Part 3:
Albrow, M., Eade, J., Durschmidt, J. and N. Washbourne, eds. (1997) The Impact of Globalization on
Sociological Concepts: Community, Culture and Milieu, in J. Eade (ed) Living the Global City:
Globalization as Local Process [London: Routledge]
105
Final Report
Bell, C & Newby H (1976) Community studies: An introduction to the sociology of local community
[Allen and Unwin: London]
Bridge, G (2002) The neighbourhood and social networks [CRN Paper 4: ESRC]
Burnett, KA (2008) Local Heroics: Reflecting on Incomers and Local Rural Development Discourses in
Scotland, Sociologia Ruralis 38
Champion, A.G. (2000), ‘Flight from the Cities?’ in Bate, R., Best, R. & Holmans, A. (Editors) On the
Move: The Housing Consequences of Migration, York: York Publishing Services, pp.10-19
Delanty, G (2003) Community [Routledge: London]
Falk, I & Kirkpatrick, S (2000) What is social capital: A study of interaction in a rural community,
Sociologia Ruralis 40(1) pp 87-110
Fukuyama (1995) Trust: The Social Values and the Creation of Prosperity. [New York: Free Press]
Gallent et al. (2008) Introduction to rural planning [Routledge, London]
Hoggart, K. and Henderson, S. (2005) Excluding exceptions: housing non-affordability and the
oppression of environmental sustainability? In the Journal of Rural Studies, 21, pp. 181-196
Pretty J, Ward H (2001) Social Capital and the Environment World Development 29 (2), 209-227
Putnam R. (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6(1), 65-78
Putnam, R (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community [Simon and
Shuster: New York]
Stockdale, A (2002) Out-migration from rural Scotland: The importance of family and social networks,
Sociologia Ruralis 42(1) pp 41-64
Wellman B (2001) Physical place and cyberspace: the rise of personalised networking, International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 p227-252
Wellman B (2002) Little boxes, glocalisation and networked individualism, in Tanabe, M Van den
Basselaar, P and Ishina, T (eds.): Digital Cities II: Computational and Sociological Approaches [Berlin:
Springer]
Wenger, CG (2001) Intergenerational relationships in rural areas, Age and Society 21 pp 537-545
Sage: London
106
Final Report
Appendix B: Shortlisting areas for consultation
Introduction
In this appendix, we set out the methodology and analysis undertaken to produce a shortlist of villages
for consultation for the following rural districts previously agreed with the client:
South Shropshire: Deep rural
North Norfolk: Retirement retreat
Mid Sussex: Dynamic commuter
Selby: Transient rural
For each of these four districts, a shortlist of three to four parish areas which best reflects the
respective rural classification is proposed.
Methodology
A range of population, household and economic indicators were determined that would best reveal the
particular characteristics of villages relevant to their rural classification. The 2001 population census
was then selected as the most comprehensive source to provide data for this profiling.
In addition, migration data and travel to work patterns from the census were also collected for
analysis. However, whilst travel to work by mode was available at parish level, migration data and the
origin and destination of resident workers were only available at ward level. Therefore a certain
proportion of this analysis was observed according to a parish’s respective ward.
Finally, average house prices by property type were compiled for each of the four districts based on
2007 sales data from rightmove.co.uk. Average house prices for each rural village/parish area are
again based on prices at ward level given the availability of data from our source.
A ‘village’ was estimated to be a settlement that has between 500 and 2,500 households and thus a
population ranging between 1,000 and 5,000 residents.
Our assessment of rural villages has therefore been based on parish council boundaries; this is due to
the following factors:
1. Parish Council data is the lowest geographic level available in the 2001 population
census (with the exception of lower-layer Super Output Areas) allowing a full
comparison between districts as well as villages/parishes themselves;
2. Parish Councils tend to have a clerk or administrator as a central point of contact
for the local community, as well as active local groups and societies, many with
their own websites - ideal for arranging consultation events;
3. Parishes tend to comprise settlements of population size required for our study.
For each district, a list of all parish councils by their population size and the number of households
was compiled. This list was then reduced down to include only those parishes which had between
1,000 and 5,000 residents and then furthermore according to whether the parish council was currently
active.
From this sample, three to four active parishes representing various settlement sizes within our range
were then selected to be profiled.
Finally the data collected for each village profile was assessed to ensure that it accurately reflected
the rural classification of its respective district, producing a shortlist of three to four possible
consultation areas for each of the four districts.
107
Final Report
Whilst the 2001 population census is a comprehensive data source for profiling areas, particularly at a
low geographic level, this information is of course somewhat outdated. It should therefore be kept in
mind that the census data and thus our final profiles, cannot fully reflect changes in economic and
housing trends that districts may have experienced in recent years, such as a shift towards affordable
housing or changing demography.
Proposed consultation areas

The proposed consultation areas for each of the four districts are shown in the table below:
Table A 1: Shortlist of proposed consultation areas (parishes) for each district
South Shropshire North Norfolk Mid Sussex Selby

Bishop's Castle Happisburgh Horsted Keynes Riccall
Craven Arms Mundesley Turners Hill Escrick
Church Stretton Holt Slaugham Wistow
Cuckfield
Table A 2 provides an overview of the main indicators included in our compilation and analysis of
villages’ socio-economic profiles for all four districts. This table is by no means exhaustive, but these
specific indicators help to reveal the key rural characteristics of the villages in our shortlist, allowing us
to benchmark these against the respective district and regional levels, as well as highlight the key
differences between districts themselves.
In the remainder of this section a brief description of the short-listed consultation areas is provided for
each district in a summary table, followed by a brief summary analysis indicating which of the villages
most strongly reflects the respective rural classification. This analysis builds on the key indicators
presented in the previous table, as well as others which help to specifically highlight the type of rural
district being discussed.
108
Final Report
Table A 2: Socio-economic profile for each case study district
Mid Sussex
Indicator Horsted Turners Slaugham Cuckfield Mid Sussex West Sussex South East England
Keynes Hill
People of Retirement Age 19% 20% 19% 17% 17% 20% 16% 16%
(65+)
Total pensioner households 27% 33% 22% 25% 24% 29% 24% 15%
Social rented housing 12% 9% 13% 12% 10% 13% 14% 19%
Economically active 66% 61% 70% 68% 73% 69% 70% 67%
Economically inactive 32% 37% 28% 31% 27% 31% 30% 33%
Inflow of Residents (% of total 7% 7% 9% 9% - - - -

households lived elsewhere 1
year ago)
Average House Prices:

Detached £541,024 £462,577 £485,158 £529,507 £437,469 - - -
% difference from district 24% 6% 11% 21%
average
Semi-Detached £331,514 £256,286 £279,958 £324,055 £278,660 - - -
% difference from district 19% -8% 0% 16%
average
Terraced £234,592 £274,203 £233,117 £263,979 £231,129 - - -
% difference from district 1% 19% 1% 14%
average
Flat £206,816 £194,255 £199,515 £176,842 £184,072 - - -
% difference from district 12% 6% 8% -4%
average
109
Final Report
South Shropshire
Indicator Bishop's Craven Church South Shropshire West Midlands England
Castle Arms Stretton Shropshire
People of Retirement Age 22% 21% 36% 22% 18% 16% 16%
(65+)
Total pensioner households 29% 30% 46% 17% 15% 15% 15%
Second residence/holiday 3% 1% 2% 3% 1% 0% 1%
accommodation
Social rented housing 19% 23% 9% 12% 14% 21% 19%
Economically active 63% 65% 58% 65% 69% 66% 67%

Economically inactive 37% 35% 42% 35% 31% 34% 33%
Inflow of Residents (% of total 6% 6% 7% - - - -

year ago)

Detached £306,140 £295,048 £321,006 £317,264 - - -
% difference from district -4% -7% 1%
average
Semi-Detached £193,800 £178,814 £193,355 £186,103 - - -
% difference from district 4% -4% 4%
average
Terraced £176,923 £140,395 £166,950 £182,076 - - -
% difference from district -3% -23% -8%
average
Flat - £100,650 £135,500 £154,928 - - -
110
Final Report
% difference from district - -35% -13%

average
North Norfolk
Indicator Happisburgh Mundesley Holt North Norfolk Norfolk East of England England
(65+)


year ago)

Detached £217,006 £237,239 £299,637 £266,224 - - -
average
Semi-Detached £167,821 £179,806 £203,311 £186,023 - - -
average
Terraced £157,832 £139,485 £167,187 £158,665 - - -
average
Flat £150,500 £81,338 £230,428 £145,260 - - -
% difference from district 4% -44% 59%
average
111
Final Report
Selby
Indicator Riccall Escrick Wistow Selby North Yorkshire & Humber England
Yorkshire
(65+)


year ago)
Inflow & Outflow of Residents 7% 7% 6% - - - -

(% of total households lived
elsewhere or moved out of
area 1 year ago)

Detached £320,916 £320,916 £320,916 £280,752 - - -
% difference from district 14% 14% 14%
average
Semi-Detached £183,685 £183,685 £187,990 £158,364 - - -
average
Terraced £153,546 £153,546 £181,924 £149,009 - - -
average
112
Final Report
Flat £148,700 £148,700 £132,268 £125,345 - - -

average
‘-‘ Indicates that this data was missing/unavailable from the relevant data source
113
Final Report
Table A 3: South Shropshire Shortlist of Villages for Consultation
Parish Population H/Holds Description Website(s)

Bishop's Castle 1,630 704 One of the smaller market http://www.bishop
towns, the town has two scastle.co.uk/cou
banks, a post office and 3 ncil/index.htm
grocery stores, cafes, 6 pubs,
2 breweries. The parish
council’s website is run from
Enterprise House, an
important centre for the town,
which provides a drop-in IT
Centre, the Village Outreach
Project and a number of local
regeneration projects, library,
outpost of South Shropshire
Housing Association, Dial-a-
Ride and several private
offices.
Craven Arms 2,289 940 Most recent addition to the http://www.craven
District's market towns, area armstowncouncil.
is famous for the home of org.uk/
Stokesay Castle and the new
visitor attraction Shropshire
Hills Discovery Centre.
Church Stretton 4,186 1934 The parish area includes the http://www.stretto
market town of Church nparish.org.uk/
Stretton and the villages of All http://www.mayfai
Stretton, Little Stretton, rcentre.org.uk/
Minton and Hamperley and is http://www.church
set within the Shropshire Hills stretton.co.uk/
AONB and considered the
holidaying heart of the
Shropshire Hills. The area has
four public/village halls and a
large number of charitable/
organisations. The Mayfair
Community Centre is for the
communities of the Strettons
and the surrounding villages
and countryside.
For the assessment of South Shropshire villages, it was necessary to draw attention to indicators that
best reflected the second home and retirement pressures experienced by the district.
Our assessment of age structure for each village revealed that a high proportion of the resident
population in Church Stretton were aged 65 and over, at 36%, whilst the number of retirees in other
villages was fairly modest. This is reflected in the large number of pensioner households in Church
Stretton, which account for as much as 46% of total households in the parish area.
This trend is further supported by the proportion of economically inactive residents across all of the
villages assessed. Much like the district itself, the proportion of people aged 16-74 both inactive and
retired exceeds regional and national averages, particularly so in Church Stretton in which 42% of
residents are inactive and 2/3 of this figure is attributable to the number of retirees.
As deeply rural areas, all of the villages in our shortlist face second home pressures in the housing
market compared with regional and national levels. The village of Bishop’s Castle has the highest
proportion of dwellings registered as a second residence or holiday home, followed closely by Church
114
Final Report
Stretton.
Our analysis of commuting patterns revealed that neighbouring Telford and Wrekin and Herefordshire
were the most popular workplace destinations for residents of the villages assessed. The data showed
that workers from the villages of Bishop’s Castle and Church Stretton commute mostly to Telford and
Wrekin, whilst residents in Craven Arms tend to travel to workplaces in Herefordshire.
When assessing house price data for the parish areas, it emerged that average house prices tend to
be lower than or only marginally greater than the average for South Shropshire as a whole. Moreover
prices in the village of Craven Arms fall below the district average across all property types. Terraced
properties and flats across all parish areas tend to be much lower than the district average, particularly
in the case of Craven Arms village.
Table A 4: North Norfolk Shortlist of Villages for Consultation

Happisburgh 1,372 607 The area is based around two http://www.happisb
buildings; the Lighthouse and urgh.org/compone
land-mark of St Mary's Church. nt/option,com_front
The coastal village suffers from page/Itemid,1/
severe erosion and houses that
used to be over 20 feet from
the sea now sit at the edge of a
cliff and increasingly at risk.
Mundesley 2,695 1,266 One of the district's 3 largest http://www.mundes
villages (after the seven main ley.org/
towns) and is a traditional
seaside resort. The area is a
mixture of rich farming land and
a popular seaside resort, well
served by local shops in and
around its small high street.
The area has a medical centre,
library, post office, three pubs
and various B&Bs.
Holt 3550 1668 One of 7 main market http://www.holttow
towns/settlements of the ncouncil.org/
district. A small Georgian
market town with a range of
specialist gift shops and
galleries and a Country Park.
Home to Gresham’s
independent school and
provides a significant level of
employment opportunity in the
Central North Norfolk area. Holt
is considered to have a
complementary role to other
larger service centres in the
district providing retail,
employment and so on.
For villages within North Norfolk, indicators that conveyed retirement pressures typically experienced
by the region were observed. Of the three parishes, Holt has the highest proportion of people in
retirement age at 37%, as well as the highest mean and median age of population at 50 and 55
respectively. Mundesley also experiences a similar trend across each of these indicators.
115
Final Report
When assessing household characteristics, Holt has the highest proportion of pensioner households
accounting for over 50% of total households, in which 29% are lone pensioners and 22% are ‘all
pensioner’ households. There is a similar scenario in Mundesley, in which a fifth of households with
more than one person are pensioner households.
In terms of economic activity, 52% of all people aged 16-74 in Holt are economically inactive, again
reflecting the extremely high proportion of retired residents in the parish area. In Mundesley this level
of inactivity is also high at 48%.
A high proportion of residents were also recorded as having very low levels of formal education in all
three parish areas. In Happisburgh as much as 69% of the population aged 16-74 had either no
qualifications or at most held the basic 1-5 GCSEs of any grade (or equivalent). In Mundesley and Holt
a similar case exists, with 61% and 59% of people respectively.
With respect to the housing market, average house prices at district level are higher across all
property types compared with the villages of Mundesley and Happisburgh, whereas properties in Holt
are more expensive than homes in North Norfolk.
Table A 5: Mid Sussex Shortlist of Villages for Consultation

Horsted Keynes 1,507 594 Very small village relying on larger http://www.horsted
neighbouring villages and towns keynes.com/
for most services including health,
schools and so on, however, does
have a local village store and post
office.
Turners Hill 1,849 714 The parish is located in three
distinct areas, the Village, Worth
Abbey (run by the Benedictine
Order as a monastery and public
school) and Turners Hill Park, a
mobile home site which provides
over 200 homes. In the centre is
the village green which, together
with the shops and Crown Public
House forms the focal point. The
village has four pubs, a various
sports and recreational grounds
and a new community centre -
The Ark. The Ark provides for
various sporting activities,
numerous village clubs, health
services, village and social
events.
Slaugham 2,226 951 Parish area consists of four www.slaughampc.
villages, in order of size: org.uk
Handcross, Pease Pottage,
Warninglid and Slaugham each
with its own distinct character.
Handcross High Street classed as
the hub of the parish area with a
good mix of shops and some light
industrial units, two schools, two
churches and three pubs. Also
Handcross Parish Hall with a
social club - the largest
community facility in the parish
area. In contrast Slaugham village
116
Final Report
is the smallest of the four with just

one main street and has changed
little over time.
Cuckfield (not inc. 3,266 1,342 Area is well served by local www.cuckfield.gov.
Cuckfield rural-two facilities from High Street and uk
separate Parish Whitemans Green. Village centre http://www.cuckfiel
Councils) contains mixture of uses including d.org/
shops, small offices, restaurants,
pubs and residential units. Many
community and recreational
facilities, with the Queen's Hall at
the centre of village life and host
to many activities (also other halls
for hire, a library, museum,
meeting rooms and recreation
ground, allotments and playing
fields at Whitemans Green). Also
doctors' surgery and pharmacy,
two post offices and local bus
services. The small hamlet of
Brook Street lies close to the
northern edge of Cuckfield. Other
main facilities are linked
with/relied upon through
Haywards Heath.
For Mid Sussex villages, particular attention was paid to the economic activity of working age
residents and heir travel to work patterns in order to highlight the high levels of outward commuting
experienced by much of the district.
The proportion of residents of retirement age in all four parishes assessed is relatively low, measuring
on average at around 19% of the population and is lowest in Cuckfield with only 17% of people aged
65 and over. In contrast the proportion of people falling within the age category of 25 and 44 is fairly
high in the villages of Slaugham and Cuckfield, with 30% and 28% of total residents respectively.
Furthermore the mean and median age for all four parishes tends to be around 40 years of age, with
residents recorded to be younger on average in Cuckfield. Reinforcing this is the low proportion of
pensioner households, particularly so in the case of Slaugham with only 21%, followed by Cuckfield
with 25% of total households.
The number of people (aged 16-74) employed in each of the parish areas is generally equal to or in
most cases above the rate experienced by the south east as a whole. Employment is particularly high
in Slaugham and Cuckfield, measuring at 70% and 68% respectively compared with the south east
average of 65%.
In addition, a high proportion of working age people in these two villages have completed a form of
higher education, with as much as 44% of people in Cuckfield having attained qualifications at this
level.
117
Final Report
The occupational groups of people aged 16-74 across all four villages are also at a high professional
or managerial level. In Cuckfield 44% of people are in such jobs, whilst in Slaugham and Horsted
Keynes rates are similarly high with around 35% of people in each village.
The migration patterns of residents in Mid Sussex at the time of the census were also analysed based
on ward level data. Of the villages assessed, at the time of the 2001 population census Cuckfield and
Slaugham villages experienced some of the highest inflows of people compared with other areas of
the district, whilst Turners Hill and Horsted Keynes experienced moderate inward migration.
Our analysis of commuting patterns revealed that aside from trips within Mid Sussex itself, a
significant proportion of residents from all four villages travel to work in Crawley, but particularly so for
residents in Turners Hill and Slaugham. The data also revealed significant outward commuter flows to
workplaces in London, with the greatest proportion of trips made to the capital by residents from the
village of Cuckfield, followed by Horsted Keynes.
Average house prices in all four parish areas tend to far exceed the district average. This is
particularly the case for detached homes, where a property of this type in Horsted Keynes or Cuckfield
for example, is around £100,000 more expensive than the average in Mid Sussex.
Table A 6: Selby Shortlist of Villages for Consultation

Riccall 2,317 922 Well served by local services http://www.riccallpc.free-
and amenities including a online.co.uk/
school, doctors' surgery,
sports clubs and two village
halls, with one of them being
the very new/modern 'Regen
Centre' which caters for
business, education, sport,
leisure and community uses
Escrick 1,241 358 The village has a good range http://www.escrick.org/
of local services and
amenities, which include a
post office, Car Garage and
village store, as well as a
number of other local private
businesses, as well as a social
club, restaurant, B&Bs and so
on, in addition to recreational
facilities and social
groups/clubs. There is also a
recent project funded by a
lottery grant to redevelop the
village community building
which also serves nearby
village of Deighton
Wistow 1,135 438 An increasingly busy village. http://www.wistow-
The main B1223 receives a village.com/
significant amount of through
traffic. Over the last few years
Wistow has lost several
services, but does have
recreational/village facilities,
as well as a pub, however,
there are no
village stores/shops
118
Final Report
The assessment of villages in Selby was particularly focussed upon trends in migration and
commuting patterns to highlight the movement and change in its resident population and links with
neighbouring districts that are typical of the area’s rural classification.
The proportion of residents of retirement age is consistently low across the parishes assessed,
meaning that the proportion of pensioner households is small. In contrast, levels of employment are
particularly high in the villages of Riccall and Wistow and exceed regional and national averages
measuring at an average rate of 72%.
Of those employed, ward level data revealed that aside from working in the Selby district, workers in
the villages of Riccall and Escrick commute to workplaces in York, whilst residents in Wistow village
tend to travel to workplaces in Leeds.
Reflecting the transient nature of Selby, the 2001 population census recorded that the villages of
Riccall and Escrick both fell within wards that experienced some of the highest levels of inward and
outward migration of UK residents compared to other areas of the district. Wistow experienced one of
the highest inflows of residents compared with other areas in Selby; however, in all cases the actual
level of migration as a proportion of the total resident population was fairly modest.
Unlike the other district case studies, house prices in all of the villages assessed within Selby tend to
be much more expensive than the district average. Detached homes show the largest disparity, with
properties in the villages of Riccall, Escrick and Wistow around £40,000 higher than the average price
in Selby as a whole. A similar case exists for semi-detached properties, whilst the average price of a
terraced property or flat tends to fluctuate between villages and thus with the district average.
Recommendations
Based on our profiling and analysis of population, household and economic indicators we recommend
a first and second option village for each district, which we believe best reflects the relevant rural
typology and are most suitable for consultation.
From the short-listed villages in South Shropshire, we suggest that Church Stretton be considered the
primary area for consultation. From our analysis, this village emerged most frequently in
demonstrating typical ‘deep rural’ characteristics and boasts a very active community. Church Stretton
also encompasses four villages, meaning there is broad scope for considering the location and
participants for the consultation process. We would regard the village of Bishop’s Castle as a
secondary choice for selection. This area is one of the smaller market towns within South Shropshire
but displays similar characteristics to Church Stretton and has an active parish council closely tied to
the local community.
For North Norfolk, we recommend the village of Holt as the most suitable area for consultation,
followed by the village of Mundesley. Both villages are important settlements within the district and are
distinct in character; Holt as one of the key market towns in North Norfolk and Mundesley as a
traditional seaside resort. Holt in particular is considered to have a key role in complementing the
larger service centres in North Norfolk, mainly in terms of employment and retail and best reflects the
typical age structure associated with a ‘retirement retreat’. Holt has a high proportion of pensioner
households and an ageing population that is on the whole fairly inactive. The same scenario exists in
Mundesley across these indicators, but to a lesser extent.
In the case of Mid Sussex, we consider that the village of Cuckfield best reflects the ‘dynamic
commuter’ classification owed to the area, followed by the village of Slaugham. When assessing
characteristics of the working age population and economic activity, both villages represent areas with
an educated and relatively ‘young’ population. The villages also experience fairly high inward
migration and outward commuting of its residents to neighbouring employment centres. However,
Cuckfield in particular has a much higher proportion of its working age population in higher paid
119
Final Report
occupations and experiences higher outward commuting to London compared with Slaugham. Both
villages have active parish councils closely tied with their local communities.
From our shortlist of villages in Selby, we propose that Riccall is the most appropriate area for
consultation, followed by the village of Wistow. From our profiling and analysis, both villages represent
the transient nature typical of rural areas in Selby and both appear to have very active communities.
The main factors to separate these two villages are settlement size and commuting patterns. Riccall is
a much larger village and lying to the south of York, experiences a significant proportion of outward
commuting to this area. Wistow is similar in age structure and like Riccall, has a high proportion of
residents in employment, however, the parish area is fairly small and workers tend to commute to
Leeds.
Going forward
Following our recommendations of parishes for consultation detailed above, a finalised number of
parishes will need to be confirmed with the client team. Upon agreement of these parishes, the project
team will look to formally contact parish clerks to discuss stakeholder and resident involvement in the
study.
Whilst an initial criterion for profiling these was an active parish council, it is recognised that there is
still the risk that some parishes may not wish to participate or be available for the time of the study.
In the event of this situation, we suggest one of the following actions to be taken to identify alternative
consultation areas:
Return to an alternative parish originally profiled, as set out in table 3.1 previously.
(e.g. for North Norfolk, in the even that either Holt or Mundesley are deemed
unsuitable, we look to contact Happisburgh parish council instead).
Often within the settlement boundaries of parish councils, smaller villages exist that
will be similar in their socio-economic characteristics (but were not able to be
profiled given census data limitations). It is possible that parish clerks will know
alternative community representatives in these villages that can be contacted to
participate in the consultation.
The profiling process revealed that many neighbouring parishes share very similar
socio-economic characteristics. Where this is the case, a nearby parish will look to
be contacted to participate in the consultation.
120
Final Report
Appendix C: Household survey
Introduction
This appendix sets out the methodology and findings of the door-to-door household surveys that were
conducted for the four district case studies agreed for the research:
1. South Shropshire: Deep rural
2. North Norfolk: Retirement retreat
3. Mid Sussex: Dynamic commuter
4. Selby: Transient rural
Undertaking these surveys looked to validate the findings of previous stages of the research,
particularly in terms of the views expressed in the consultation meetings held with parishes.
Village survey locations

The 8 villages that were selected for each of the four case study districts are listed below. These
villages generally correspond with the locations selected for previous stages of consultation in order to
align the results of the surveys with findings from the remainder of the research and help to reveal key
underlying trends.
1. Selby: Riccall, Cawood and possibly Wistow
2. South Shropshire: Bishops Castle and Hope Bowdler/ Ticklerton/ Acton Scott/
Hatton
3. Mid Sussex: Cuckfield and Slaugham
4. North Norfolk: Happisburgh/ Mundesley and Wiveton/ Blakeney
Timescale and sampling approach

The surveys were conducted over a period of 2-3 days in each village. If there was no answer at the
first attempt the interviewer returned later in the day, most commonly in the early evening to gain a
response. If unsuccessful upon a second attempt, the survey was dropped through the household’s
letterbox with a prepaid envelope.
The surveys were required to be a random sample of a minimum 100 households in each parish,
consisting of either a single village or a group of small villages. Whilst it was hoped that the selected
villages would produce a sufficient level of responses, there were circumstances in which it was
necessary to look beyond the immediate village to be certain of attaining a good sample size.
A random sample of households in each street was taken, by approaching every third home. This
sample was then scaled to the demographic structure of the village as given in the 2001 population
census as detailed in the table below. It was important to ensure that a good response rate was
achieved in each age category, thus there were again circumstances in which an additional round of
‘door knocking’ was required.
121
Final Report
Table A 7: 2001 population census Age Profile by Village
Slaugham Cuckfield Hope Bishops Happisburgh Wiveton/ Riccall Cawood

Bowdler Castle Blakeney
Population 2,226 3,266 515 1,630 1,372 947 2,317 1,135
Households 951 1,342 204 704 607 481 922 602
Aged 0-4 5% 7% 5% 4% 4% 2% 6% 6%
Aged 5-15 12% 15% 14% 13% 11% 9% 14% 13%
Aged 16-24 8% 8% 5% 9% 7% 6% 10% 8%
Aged 25-44 30% 28% 25% 24% 22% 15% 32% 28%
Aged 45-64 26% 25% 33% 28% 33% 29% 26% 31%
Aged 65-74 10% 8% 13% 11% 14% 18% 7% 9%
Aged 75+ 9% 9% 6% 11% 9% 21% 6% 6%
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Survey questionnaire
The questionnaire comprised approximately 35 questions and took approximately 15 minutes to
complete. Aside from the ‘about you’ section the majority of questions required a closed-ended
response with the interviewee asked to select from a number of pre-prepared responses. A proportion
of these questions have a follow-up open-ended question which required further explanation of the
interviewee’s initial response.
Given the nature of the nature of the research project, the open-ended explanations were very
important to the findings of the survey, as they had the ability to uncover subtle viewpoints and
insights that could not be fully captured by the closed-ended questions.
122
Final Report
Appendix D: Estate agent survey
Introduction
This appendix sets out the findings from the consultation undertaken with estate agents in the four
rural case study districts:
1. South Shropshire: Deep rural
2. North Norfolk: Retirement retreat
3. Mid Sussex: Dynamic commuter
4. Selby: Transient rural
This qualitative analysis looks to inform the forthcoming HPM to be undertaken for this study. At this
stage our aim is to reveal the main drivers of rural house prices and how these factors may differ
between each of the case study districts. Through consultation with estate agents in the local area it is
possible to determine exactly what people value when purchasing a property and as a result the
premium they are willing to pay.
Interview approach
The interviews undertaken were based around the following key questions:
1. Which villages tend to be the most popular/sought after and why?
2. Do people pay a premium for these villages?
3. Can a buyer get more for their money if they look at areas closer to/in a town?
For the interview process it was also necessary to tailor more specific questions according to the rural
classification and nature of the district. For example, in Mid Sussex, estate agents were asked about
the influence of commuting and in North Norfolk were asked about how proximity to the coast
influenced buyers.
It was also ensured that a range of estate agents were consulted that were representative of the
different rural areas within a district. For example, in South Shropshire, agents based around each of
the main market towns were interviewed and in North Norfolk, estate agents both along the coast and
based inland were consulted.
Interview results
The findings from the interviews are presented separately for each district below.
North Norfolk
Conversations with agents in North Norfolk revealed that rural property prices vary significantly
according to:
Whether the property is in the coastal area of the district or situated inland; and
When the property is in a coastal location, whether it is along the west or east
coast.
There was a strong consensus that villages along the coastal stretch of North Norfolk were highly
sought after by potential buyers. This was true for areas up to approximately five miles inland from the
coast. As a result, villages in this coastal area were found to be significantly more expensive than
villages much further inland. It was also suggested that moving inland; properties become cheaper in
the villages nearer to the built up town centres of Fakenham, Norwich and King’s Lynn. On average,
agents suggested that properties in coastal villages were priced at least £25k higher than those inland.
However, it was also noted that villages further inland but within a short drive to the coast were also
123
Final Report
very popular and as a result more expensive.
Agents treated the coastal region of North Norfolk as a separate sub-market of its own, revealing that
the western coast is much more desirable than the eastern coast of the district and this is reflected in
house prices between the two areas. The western coast has become extremely popular with buyers of
second homes, particularly those moving in from areas outside the district, who have been attracted
by the picturesque and traditional character of villages on the west coast.
This stretches from villages west of Cromer and along to Sheringham, Blakeney and Wells-Next-the-
Sea. As a result a considerable amount of new, high quality development has taken place along the
west coast to cater for second home buyers and has reinforced the upward pressure on house prices
in these coastal villages. One agent commented on the quality of this development, a large portion of
which has been completed by Norfolk Homes Ltd; a reputable developer of high specification village
properties, which has been complementary to the west coast area.
Agents also noted that when looking for rural property in North Norfolk, buyers are attracted to villages
that have a high concentration of character properties which tend to contribute to the general feel of a
‘traditional’ village. Locations that had a good level of community activity and village amenities were
also considered particularly popular. The village of Great Massingham was revealed to be a clear
example of this, continuing to maintain higher property prices than other nearby villages. The village is
highly sought after given its stock of period properties, vibrant village community and picturesque rural
settings. Agents commented however, on the low availability of properties for sale in this type of area;
suggesting a low turnover of properties as people tend to move to the village and live there for many
years, often beyond retirement age.
There also appeared to be a village size threshold which had a further influence on rural property
prices. Agents noted that villages with almost no amenities or activity were cheaper relative to villages
that did have these facilities. Contrastingly, agents suggested villages that were very large and
possibly bordering market town status, were less desirable and as a result tended to be cheaper. For
example, the village of Mundesley, despite its coastal location, was frequently suggested as a less
expensive alternative to other coastal villages as it was larger in size, with a large number of shops
and amenities and as a result considered slightly less of a traditional, attractive village to buyers.
South Shropshire
Consultation with estate agents in South Shropshire revealed there was much less variation in rural
properties prices across the district compared with the other case studies. As much of the district is
deeply rural, the aesthetic quality of villages tends to be very consistent and the majority of villages
are characterised by an ample supply of period properties. One agent suggested that since villages
were visually very similar, variation in price tends to be on a property-by-property basis rather than
between entire villages.
The most significant variation between villages is the level of basic amenities available to local
residents, such as a village shop, post office and pub. Many villages have lost local services in recent
years and are reliant on the larger villages/market towns of Church Stretton, Bishops Castle, Craven
Arms and Ludlow, for such facilities.
Despite this factor, agents considered property prices across villages to be fairly similar which
suggests the availability of local amenities did not hugely impact on price. This was further reinforced
by one agent who highlighted the typical reliance on car use in rural villages and therefore the
willingness of people to travel a fair distance to access basic amenities.
In contrast agents did note that the majority of villages in the district benefit from a local village hall or
church which instead acts as a focal point of the village and is central to community activity. Agents
revealed this was a desirable factor for some buyers; although it was not clear whether access to a
local village hall/church caused property prices in such villages to be significantly higher than those
124
Final Report
that did not.
The consultation did reveal however, that property in the district’s rural villages was more expensive
than property located very close to or in the larger villages/market towns. Whilst the market towns
themselves are still fairly remote, agents suggested the villages dispersed around these centres are
more desirable and more expensive, once again suggesting a size threshold influencing rural property
prices.
A key consideration raised by agents was the low turnover of properties in many of the district’s
villages and that the availability of property in these areas was much lower relative to that in the
market towns.
Selby
Consultation with agents in Selby revealed a significant difference in the price of property located in
the district’s villages compared with the town centre. On average agents suggested properties in rural
villages were at least £15-25k more expensive than those in Selby town centre.
The most desirable villages were those that were characterised by period properties, such as those
built in typical Yorkshire stone and that remain ‘unspoilt’ in their appearance as a traditional village.
This type of village was considered to be much more expensive than those villages that were larger in
size and/or those that had undergone modern development.
Smaller villages such as Wistow, which were referred to as having a traditional Yorkshire character,
were considered more desirable than larger villages such as Thorpe Willoughby. Thorpe Willoughby,
although still possessing a traditional village centre, experienced a great deal of development on the
outskirts of the village in the 1960s and 1970s. This has been the case for a number of villages
situated just outside of Selby town centre. This development was considered to detract away from the
village’s original character making it less popular with potential buyers and therefore cheaper, than the
smaller and more desirable traditional villages.
Agents further emphasised the appeal to buyers of a small village centre offering basic amenities
rather than busier and larger villages that experience a much higher level of activity. This was
particularly the case for villages with closer access to commuter towns, in which buyers are attracted
to a rural village lifestyle whilst still being in close proximity to a town centre. As a result, agents
revealed villages become more and more expensive moving away from Selby town centre and
towards the areas of Leeds and York.
The issue of availability of was not raised by agents in the Selby area; there did not appear to be a
shortage of rural property even in the most sought after villages. Agents highlighted that the greatest
factor was variation in the price of property between villages given the differences in their perceived
quality, making some areas considerably less affordable than others.
Mid Sussex
Agents in Mid Sussex indicated that the majority of the district’s rural villages are highly sought after
as buyers are primarily attracted to having a typical village lifestyle, whilst still being in close proximity
to a busy town centre with greater amenities.
As a result, agents indicated that property in the district’s villages was more expensive than property
located very near to or in the town centres, such as Haywards Heath. All of the agents interviewed
suggested the most desirable villages to be Cuckfield, Lindfield, HurstpierPoint and Hassocks. Their
popularity was attributed in part to the visual appeal of the areas; reflecting a traditional village setting
with character properties and in part to the perceived status of these villages as ‘upmarket’ places to
live.
Agents considered the village of Lindfield to be most desirable and as a result the most expensive
125
Final Report
village of the four, which has consistently maintained higher property prices throughout the market
cycle. The village is in close proximity to Haywards Heath, but has maintained its status, appearance
and size as a traditional village, which has made it very popular to potential buyers wanting to live in a
rural location but with access to town centre amenities.
Agents indicated that the villages of HurstpierPoint and Hassocks act as ‘twin villages’ in the district,
similar in factors such as their location within Mid Sussex and their offer of good primary schools.
However, whilst both are highly sought after, HurstpierPoint was consistently regarded as more
popular and more expensive. HurstpierPoint is an older village, smaller in size and has retained a
typically quaint village character, with basic amenities such as a village shop, post office and pub.
Agents suggested that property in Hassocks, despite benefiting from good rail links, is slightly cheaper
given that it is larger in size and is characterised by a higher stock of modern housing. As a result it
was considered that Hassocks did not enjoy the same traditional village status as HurstpierPoint and
Lindfield.
It was noted that the more affordable rural villages were those which were much more dispersed
outside of central areas of the district. Although attractive and ‘traditional’ in their appearance and
quality, these very small villages were considered too remote and lacking a village centre, making
them much cheaper. One agent suggested Balcombe as an example of such villages.
A key issue also raised by agents was the generally low availability of properties in the most sought
after villages, but particularly a shortage in the number of smaller properties in these villages.
Conclusions
Whilst there are some obvious differences between the rural housing markets of the four district case
studies, there appears to be some key common factors influencing rural property prices:
1. Aesthetics – (i) availability of character properties (ii) how picturesque a village is -
crucially whether the village has maintained an original/traditional unspoilt
appearance or whether it has undergone modern development, as well as how
complementary this development is to the rural environment.
2. Size – there appears to be an optimum size for a rural village that falls between
one that is so small and remote that it is lacking any real local activity and one that
is so large that the level of amenities and activity detracts away from the village’s
rural setting.
3. Status – some villages appear to have maintained higher prices relative to others
as they are perceived to be a more desirable location than larger village
areas/towns, particularly for districts that possess a mix of rural and urban
settlements, it is perceived as ‘fashionable’ to live in a village rather than the town.
Another consideration to have emerged is the availability of rural property, particularly in the most
sought after villages, where turnover of housing stock is low. Often in the most rural villages people
have lived there the majority of their lives or those that move to desirable areas tend to reside there
permanently or for many years.
126
Final Report
Appendix E: Hedonic pricing analysis
Background
Our research is centred on three critical issues:
1. Local affordability and the part that social networks play in building and sustaining
rural communities;
2. The extent to which a rural location adds value to residential property (because of
perceived qualities or tangible market characteristics); and
3. How the expectation of local priority to a limited rural housing stock is justified and
could, in the future, be realised.
This technical appendix discusses the application of the HPM, outlining our methodology,
assumptions, findings and conclusions, in order to address to what extent a rural location drives
residential property prices and essentially evaluate the ‘power of rurality’ as part of the rural housing
research project.
Hedonic pricing analysis has been undertaken for the housing markets of the four case study districts
central to our research, each of which are of a different rural typology, in line with the Lowe and Ward
(2007) classification of different rural areas and economies.
The case studies are as follows:
South Shropshire: Deep rural
North Norfolk: Retirement retreat
Mid Sussex: Dynamic commuter
Selby: Transient rural
Our analysis at this stage is derived from statistical modelling and given that there will be certain
limitations to the extent to which the power of rurality can be determined from this, our findings will be
supported by the subsequent analysis of local property agent interviews.
The HPM
The HPM is a statistical technique used to compare prices of a product when there is observable
quality differences in a product sold: in the case of this research a rural house or dwelling.
A dwelling can be described generally by the characteristics of its structure, surroundings and location
and a dwelling’s price can therefore be said to reflect the value of these attributes to the buyer.
Essentially, hedonic pricing allows us to describe house prices as a function of a number of different
attributes.
Specifying a hedonic price function is possible by undertaking a series of multiple regression analysis.
Regression analysis looks to identify how much of the variation in a dependent variable, which in our
research is property price, can be explained by variation in a number of explanatory variables (in our
case a property’s different property attributes). This hedonic function is represented below:
Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3…biXi

House Price = constant + structural attributes + location attributes…
In this research we have incorporated the rural typology of a dwelling into its hedonic price function,
which allows us to isolate its impact on house prices and essentially through this impact determine the
power of rurality.
Whilst many hedonic pricing studies have looked to value the amenity of farm or agricultural land in
rural housing markets, to our knowledge there has not been an attempt to estimate the value of a rural
127
Final Report
location in such a holistic sense. Using Defra’s classifications of rural and urban areas7 we have
piloted the HPM in order to test our central hypothesis; houses in a rural location will attract a premium
over houses that are located in urban areas. However, findings from the previous stages of this
research also lead us to hypothesise that extremely isolated rural properties will not attract such a
premium.
In this research, we have applied the HPM to four districts of different rural typologies in order to
derive an implicit value of living in these areas.
Using data on the prices of properties in each district, we have estimated separate hedonic price
functions for each rural typology and in turn used these functions to calculate the change in the price
of a property that results from its rural location.
Our methodology discussed in this chapter is common practice of any hedonic pricing study of
housing markets. This chapter therefore looks only to provide a high level overview of our approach in
applying the HPM within the context of this research.
Key assumptions
The HPM is an approximation of the housing market observed in reality and therefore, as with any
statistical model, is underpinned by a number of key assumptions. This section sets out the
assumptions that support our application of the HPM to rural house prices.
Defining appropriate housing markets
The application of the HPM to the housing market rests on several key assumptions, but above all,
homogeneity of the housing product is assumed. It was therefore essential when collecting price data
and developing data for quality attributes that only one market was being assessed. For an individual
market, it is assumed that house prices follow the same price schedule and thus variation in price can
be estimated through a unique hedonic function for that market.
There is considerable variation in the geographical area that previous hedonic studies have
considered as one market, ranging from an entire country to analysing house price data for a single
census area. The assumption of a single market is particularly important for this research given that
analysis is focused on four districts each representing different rural typologies.
As a result, we have assumed that house prices across the four districts are unlikely to move in the
same way, for example, access to the road or rail network in Mid Sussex which is of a ‘dynamic
commuter’ typology is likely to have upward pressure on the price of a house, yet this is unlikely to be
the case in ‘deep rural’ South Shropshire.
In our assumption of four housing markets each with its own price schedule, it was therefore
necessary to estimate separate hedonic price functions for each case study district. Nevertheless,
whilst we are assuming that house prices in the four districts will be driven differently by a set of
quality attributes, this does not compromise our central hypothesis that in any district, a rural location
will attract a premium over properties that are located in urban areas.
Time and market equilibrium
A second assumption of any hedonic pricing model is that the housing market is in perfect equilibrium.
In order for the market to be in constant equilibrium, three key conditions must be fulfilled:
- Households have perfect information;
- Transaction costs are zero; and
- The hedonic price schedule adjusts instantaneously to changes in supply or
demand conditions in the housing market.
7
Rural Evidence Research Centre (RERC), Birkbeck College, 2004
128
Final Report
Given the assumption of perfect equilibrium, our analysis of house prices for all four districts has been
performed on cross-sectional data, rather than data from a series of years. A risk in using time-series
data that we have looked to avoid is that house prices are likely to follow different hedonic price
schedules at different periods in time. This would compromise our assumptions of both a single
housing market and perfect equilibrium. In using cross-sectional data, our results become much easier
to interpret and we avoid the risk of analysing house price data from markets that are temporally
distinct.
Defining the dependent and explanatory variables

In housing markets the characteristics or attributes of a dwelling are assumed to be capitalised into the
value of a house and its land. The HPM allows us to split out the value of a dwelling to its various
attributes and ‘explain’ house price variation when there are observable differences in the attributes of
properties being sold. In other words, we are using the HPM to demonstrate that the price of a house
is dependent on its different attributes and thus variation in such attributes will explain variation in
house prices.
In order to specify and estimate a hedonic price function for each district, the dependent and
explanatory variables for analysis needed to be identified. In selecting variables for analysis the ability
to quantify variables and the availability of data, as well as the scope of the research was considered.
The dependent variable

One of our first concerns in estimating a hedonic price function is the measurement of property price,
known as the dependent variable, given that a property’s value is dependent on the quantities or
qualities of its characteristics.
It is common place for hedonic studies to use house price data based on actual sales as it is a true
representation of a buyer’s willingness to pay for the attributes that characterise a property. In
addition, house prices determined through sales data is preferable to valuations from property agents
that other hedonic studies have employed. Whilst the benefit of agent valuations is that data can be
measured at a very local scale, much of the valuation will be opinion based and risks reflecting the
preferences of the individual agent rather than those of buyers in the open market.
In identifying a suitable source for property sales data, it was necessary to consider the geographic
level at which data was available. Ideally we would want to analyse data at a highly localised level, for
example, on a street-by-street basis.
It was equally important to ensure that, given our decision to analyse cross-sectional house price data,
a sufficiently large number of property transactions was available at such a concentrated level.
However, above all, it was crucial that our dataset of house prices provided a break down of the size
and structure of the properties sold. As this section will go on to explain in the discussion of
explanatory variables, the structural attributes of a property, particularly its size, will be a fundamental
driver of house prices. For example, it is highly plausible that a five bedroom detached property will
achieve a much higher selling price than a one bedroom flat.
It was accepted however, that given the scope of this research it would be unlikely for us to obtain
detailed sales data incorporating the many structural attributes of a property, such as the building’s
age, garden and plot size etc. Similarly, as with other hedonic studies, it would not be possible to
determine the internal quality of a property, which in the housing market will undoubtedly be a strong
driver of price.
In considering all of the above there would become unavoidable trade-offs in the completeness of the
data to be used. It was concluded that in selecting a suitable source for sales data the type of property
that is, whether detached, terraced etc and its size, in terms of the number of rooms, should be
129
Final Report
accounted for.
Sales data provided by the Land Registry was first considered. House price sales are provided for the
different types of property; namely detached, semi-detached, terraced and flats, at postcode level for
an entire year. However, the size of each property sold in terms of the number of rooms is not
provided.
A superior alternative for sales data was then identified through the VOA. The VOA records the
structural characteristics of properties sold including the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in each
property and whether the property is detached, semi-detached, or terraced, for sales corresponding to
postcode level (minus 1 digit). Collecting sales data at this spatial scale would allow us to analyse
house prices at a local enough level whilst maintaining a large enough dataset of property
transactions.
Other hedonic studies that have drawn upon VOA data have used council tax bands to represent the
value of properties in place of sales data. An advantage of this approach is that council tax bands
closely reflect both the structure of the property and the local neighbourhood. However, since we are
looking at areas confined to district settlement boundaries, assigning properties to a limited number of
council tax bands would significantly reduce the variation in our dependent variable data and
consequently reduce the capabilities of regression analysis.
As previously discussed it was acknowledged that much of the structural quality of a property would
not be captured in our analysis, but that the size and type of property will be a large determinant of its
price. In order to control for this as much as possible, house price data was obtained as an average
price per room, by property type, for all sales recorded in 2007. This unit price has been used to
represent the dependent variable throughout our application of the HPM for each district.
It was then necessary to test that there was enough variation in this average price data. The HPM
consists of a process of regression analysis, looking at how variation in house price is dependent on
the variation in its characteristics. Therefore for the regression analysis to assess this relationship, it
was necessary to ensure that there was significant variation in the sales transactions recorded
(represented as unit price of an average price per room).
Similarly it was also necessary to ensure that the 2007 sales recorded by the VOA extended across
each district and was therefore a good representation of each rural housing market. These tests
looked to ensure that our dataset for the dependent variable was as robust as possible. In addition, it
was particularly important to run such tests since we are applying the HPM to rural house price data.
Rural housing markets are typically inactive as turnover of the housing stock is low. This runs the risk
of limiting both the number and location of sales recorded for a given year.
The explanatory variables

Having defined a measure of property price, our next concern in estimating a hedonic price function
was the measurement of the many attributes, known as the explanatory variables, which are used to
explain the selling price of a house.
There are of course a vast number of explanatory variables that could be incorporated into a hedonic
price function as the value of a property to a buyer is likely to be dependent on so many attributes.
However, it is possible to categorise the attributes of a dwelling as follows:
1. Structural (number of rooms, plot size, garage, garden, age etc);
2. Neighbourhood (e.g. crime rates, employment rate, private home ownership etc);
3. Accessibility (e.g. distance to schools, shops, transport etc); and
4. Surrounding environment (e.g. quality of open space, natural and built
environment, noise level etc).
For the purposes of this research, we undertook a short desktop review of existing literature in order to
130
Final Report
develop a set of potential explanatory variables that represented attributes from each of the categories
above, whilst taking into account data that was readily available.
As with our selection of house price data, the spatial scale at which data was available was very
important. We looked to identify data sources for each explanatory variable that in line with our house
price data was available at postcode level, enabling us to closely assign specific attributes to each
property transaction.
A full list of potential explanatory variables was developed based on an a priori expectation that each
variable represents an attribute of a property that will in part determine its sale price. Table A 8 details
each potential variable identified from the literature review, along with the relevant data source and
spatial scale at which data is available.
As previously discussed, it was not possible to obtain the detailed structural attributes of each property
transaction. However, it has been possible to differentiate the type of property representing each sale
transaction and by calculating a unit price measure for our dependent variable, we have controlled for
the size of a property in terms of the number of rooms.
Neighbourhood variables describe the characteristics of the local area in which the property is located.
This data was largely obtained from the 2001 population census, available down to Lower Super
Output Area (LSOA) which encompasses on average around 400 households. Each property
transaction, using its corresponding postcode, was assigned to an LSOA allowing us to derive census
data for each neighbourhood variable. This data describes the neighbourhood in which a property is
located in terms of ethnic composition, age composition, employment status and so on, as set out in
Table A 8.
As an alternative description of the local neighbourhood, data from the Indices of Multiple Deprivation
(IMD), produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) at LSOA level for
2007, was considered. IMD data comes in the form of both a composite measure of the economic,
social and environmental deprivation of an area and broken down into domains such as education,
crime and health deprivation. Both forms were considered when compiling our explanatory data.
Deprivation scores at LSOA level were assigned to each property transaction, whereby a higher IMD
score indicated a greater level of deprivation.
Census data and IMD scores were compiled as mutually exclusive measures of the local
neighbourhood. The correlation analysis described in the ‘Specification of the Hedonic Model’ section
would determine which of these measures shared a greater relationship with property prices and thus
the more appropriate to include in our hedonic model.
Accessibility variables relate to a property’s proximity to amenities, public services and transport. An
important consideration in our analysis of rural housing markets was a property’s distance from
‘localised’ amenities such as a post office or local GP, as well as those services typical of many
hedonic studies such as access to the transport network and distance to nearest town or commercial
centre.
Data was sourced through the CRC, who hold the RSS distance-to-service data completed by Defra’s
Rural Statistics Unit. The RSS is compiled using GIS mapping software, which records the shortest
straight-line distances between all households in England and a set of specific services. The postcode
of each property transaction was matched with those held within the RSS, determining a straight-line
distance to each local service set out in Table A 8.
As the RSS does not consider access to transport services, our own GIS mapping team calculated the
straight-line distance between the postcodes of each property sale and the nearest railway station and
A-road. Using the same method we were also interested to determine the distance between each
property and the nearest town centre, which the RSS does not record. For the districts of Mid Sussex
and North Norfolk, straight-line distance to the coast was also identified and measured as a potential
131
Final Report
driver of property prices within these markets.
It was recognised however, that there was likely to be considerable overlap in the data sourced from
the CRC and our own GIS analysis. The RSS data focuses on the location of very small service
outlets, such as a post office, bank and independent shop. Our measure of distance to a local centre
can thus be seen as a composite measure of access to a number of these services
For more rural districts, it is possible that CRC data would be a superior measure of accessibility
variables, as local services are more randomly dispersed across villages. For the more urban districts
however, villages and towns are often served by amenities contained within a key centre, causing
distances to small service outlets recorded by the CRC to be very similar and thus highly correlated.
This notion was tested through the correlation analysis described in the ‘Specification of the Hedonic
Model’ section.
Variables that relate to the quality of the environment are much more difficult to define and measure.
This is an aspect of hedonic pricing that is receiving growing attention in more recent studies.
Environment variables need to reflect peoples’ perceptions of the environmental amenity, such as
landscaping and views, as well as disbenefits such as noise and pollution. However, few
straightforward methods exist for quantifying these variables. A further difficulty is that environmental
attributes of an area are often embodied in other attributes that will have already been measured
within a hedonic price function, such as noise associated with proximity to a road.
With the capacity of this stage of the research and availability of data in mind, proxies for measuring
the quality of the local environment were considered. GIS Digital Boundary Datasets held by Natural
England were used in order to determine whether properties fell within a designated environmental
area, such as an AONB. These designations are able to capture the natural environmental quality in a
holistic sense, but cannot account for local quality differences or the surrounding quality of the built
environment.
Finally, central to our application of the HPM has been the need to determine the extent to which a
rural location adds value to residential property. We therefore looked to identify data that could
accurately capture and quantify the rural locality of a property, allowing us to isolate the impact
different rural typologies have on price.
The RSS was identified as an ideal source for measurement of rural variables. The RSS draws on
Defra’s definition of rural and urban locations, breaking them down into four settlement types; urban,
rural town and fringe, rural village and rural dwelling and assigning them to either a 'sparse' or 'less
sparse' regional setting reaching eight final typologies8.
Figure A 1 sets out how these rural and urban typologies are defined and aggregated. The postcode
of each transaction was then able to be matched with those held within the RSS.
8
The Rural/Urban Definition was introduced in 2004 and defines the rurality of very small census based
geographies, based on population densities.
132
Final Report
Figure A 1: Rural/Urban Definition
Source: National Statistics
To conclude, any hedonic pricing study must account for a vast number of important explanatory
variables. Failure to do so may lead to serious bias in the estimation of the parameters for the
variables that are included. In many studies, the availability of GIS software enables the calculation of
large quantities of spatial data rapidly and accurately. However, in compilation of explanatory variable
data for this research, the resources for such measurement are restricted. It is particularly the spatial
scale at which data is available, as well as the very detailed explanatory data that we have been
unable to measure, that will principally limit our application of the HPM. As with any hedonic study,
there will also need to be significant caution taken when specifying a final hedonic function, as some
explanatory variable data is likely to be highly correlated.
In the following sections we describe how each variable was tested in order to determine whether a
relationship with price did in fact exist and identify potential inter-correlations between property
attributes. The results from this analysis consequently determine which explanatory variables should
be incorporated into the hedonic price function for each district.
133
Final Report
Table A 8: Potential Explanatory Variables
Variable Description Variable Code Indicator Source Geography

Structural Detached House T_DETACH Dummy variable, 1=true VOA Postcode (- 1digit)
Semi-Detached House T_SEMI Dummy variable, 1=true VOA Postcode (-1 digit)
Terraced House T_TERR Dummy variable, 1=true VOA Postcode (- 1 digit)
Neighbourhood Ethnic Composition WHITE_BRITISH % local population white British ONS LSOA
Age Composition YNG_FAML % local households young families (34 years and ONS LSOA
under with dependent children)
Age Composition OLD_FAML % local households old families (35 years and ONS LSOA
over with dependent children)
Age Composition ELD_ALONE % local households elderly living alone ONS LSOA
Socio-economic Composition OWN_HME % local households owning their properties ONS LSOA
Socio-economic Composition UNEMPL % local working age population unemployed ONS LSOA
Socio-economic Composition TWO_CAR % local households owning 2+ cars ONS LSOA
Socio-economic Composition IMD_SCORE Index of Multiple Deprivation score DCLG LSOA
Socio-economic Composition INC_SCORE Income Deprivation score DCLG LSOA

Socio-economic Composition EMPL_SCORE Employment Deprivation score DCLG LSOA
Socio-economic Composition HEALTH_SCORE Health Deprivation and Disability score DCLG LSOA
Socio-economic Composition EDU_SCORE Education, Skills and Training Deprivation score DCLG LSOA
Socio-economic Composition BARR_SCORE Barriers to Housing and Services score DCLG LSOA
Socio-economic Composition CRIME_SCORE Crime Deprivation score DCLG LSOA
Socio-economic Composition ENVIRON_SCORE Living Environment Deprivation score DCLG LSOA
Distance to Distance to Amenities BANK Absolute distance to bank/building society CRC LSOA
Services/ Distance to Amenities GP Absolute distance to GP surgery CRC LSOA
Accessibility
Distance to Amenities POST Absolute distance to post office CRC LSOA
Distance to Amenities SCHOOL Absolute distance to primary school CRC LSOA
Distance to Amenities TOWN Distance to town centre (1km buffers) Mapinfo Postcode (-1 digit)
134
Final Report
Distance to Transport ROAD Distance to A Road/Motorway Junction (1km Mapinfo Postcode (-1 digit)
buffers)
Distance to Transport RAIL Distance to railway station (1km buffers) Mapinfo Postcode (-1 digit)
Distance to Coast COAST Distance to coast (1km buffers) Mapinfo Postcode (-1 digit)
Environment Area of Outstanding Natural AONB Dummy variable, 1=falls within area boundary Mapinfo Postcode (-1 digit)
Beauty
Natural (national) Nature NAT_NATURE Dummy variable, 1=falls within area boundary Mapinfo Postcode (-1 digit)
Reserve
Local Nature Reserve LOCAL_NATU Dummy variable, 1=falls within area boundary Mapinfo Postcode (-1 digit)
National Park NATIONAL_P Dummy variable, 1=falls within area boundary Mapinfo Postcode (-1 digit)
Sites of Specific Scientific SSSI Dummy variable, 1=falls within area boundary Mapinfo Postcode (-1 digit)
Interest
Rural/Urban Urban Sparse U_S Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
Rural Town & Fringe Sparse RTF_S Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
Rural Village Sparse RV_S Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
Rural Dwellings Sparse RD_S Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
Urban Less Sparse U_LS Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
Rural Town & Fringe Less RTF_LS Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
Sparse
Rural Village Less Sparse RV_LS Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
Rural Dwellings Less Sparse RD_LS Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
Sparse SPARSE Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA

Less Sparse LESS_SPARSE Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
Rural RURAL Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
Urban URBAN Dummy variable, 1=true CRC LSOA
135
Final Report
Defining an appropriate functional form

An important task in the HPM is to establish the exact nature of the relationship between the
dependent variable and the explanatory variables. The relationship between the price of a property
and its different attributes may not be linear, in other words, these relationships are likely to follow
different functional forms. For example, the price of a property may be driven by access to the road
network. However, as proximity to a road increases, the price of a property is likely to increase at a
decreasing rate, as the benefits of increased accessibility are outweighed by the associated noise,
pollution and so on.
Other hedonic price studies generally adopt one the following simple functional forms to describe the
relationship between the price of a property and its attributes;
Linear; both the dependent and explanatory variables enter the regression in their
linear form
Semi-log; the log of the dependent variable is regressed against linear explanatory
variables
Log-linear; a linear dependent variable is regressed against the log of the
explanatory variables
Log-log; both the dependent and explanatory variables enter the regression in their
log form
However, given the scope of this research, independently testing for the functional form of each
variable was not within the capacity of this analysis. This does not jeopardise our application of the
HPM to rural house prices. In the literature there is no guidance in economic theory that would support
the best possible functional form, however, a linear relationship between house prices and its
characteristics is widely assumed in other hedonic studies. A principal advantage of assuming a linear
relationship between variables is that it is easy to interpret. For this reason we have assumed an
entirely linear hedonic function for all four districts.
Specification of the hedonic price model: Selection of variables
Testing for a relationship between dependent and explanatory variables

Having identified a full set of explanatory data, to better recognise the direction and relationship
between the dependent and explanatory variables, correlation analysis was carried out.
Firstly, it was necessary to individually test the correlation between our unit house price measure, the
dependent variable and each explanatory variable. The results of this correlation analysis show us the
direction and strength of co-movement of the two variables, in other words, whether there is any link
between house price and the individual attribute and therefore whether or not it is relevant to include
this attribute in our hedonic function.
In addition, this importantly informs which of those mutually exclusive variables were most suitable for
analysis, for example, selecting either IMD scores or census data to represent neighbourhood
attributes within our hedonic function.
The results of this analysis are set out in Table A 9. In statistics, the correlation between two variables
can fall between -1 and 1. The closer the correlation coefficient is to plus or minus 1, the stronger is
the linear relationship between the two variables. As a rule of thumb, a correlation coefficient between
0.30 and 0.70 denotes a reasonable relationship between two variables. However, it is also possible
that whilst a correlation between two variables may be weak, this relationship is still very significant.
This was therefore an additional consideration in our correlation testing. Explanatory variables that
revealed a significant relationship with price in our correlation analysis are highlighted in table A 9.
136
Final Report
Table A 9: Correlation between dependent and explanatory variables
Explanatory variable (xi) Correlation with unit house price (y)

Mid Sussex North South Selby
Norfolk Shropshire
Structural T_DETACH 0.54 0.57 0.72 0.53
T_SEMI -0.25 -0.37 -0.30 -0.24
T_TERR -0.30 -0.21 -0.45 -0.31
Neighbourhood BRITISH 0.01 -0.13 0.05 -0.25
ETHNIC -0.01 0.13 -0.05 0.25
YNG_FAML -0.27 -0.15 -0.26 -0.38
OLD_FAML -0.06 -0.16 0.02 0.21
ELD_ALONE 0.12 0.09 -0.07 -0.24
OWN_HME -0.04 -0.15 0.14 0.17
UNEMPL -0.04 -0.10 -0.06 -0.32
TWO_CAR 0.16 0.07 0.24 0.35
IMD_SCORE -0.03 0.06 -0.01 -0.34

INC_SCORE -0.11 -0.01 -0.18 -0.34
EMPL_SCORE -0.12 -0.12 -0.18 -0.43
HEALTH_SCORE -0.16 -0.07 -0.14 -0.42
EDU_SCORE -0.25 -0.04 -0.23 -0.43
BARR_SCORE 0.28 0.19 0.26 0.22
CRIME_SCORE -0.03 0.10 -0.23 -0.30
ENVIRON_SCORE 0.23 0.13 0.20 0.14
Distance to A_ROADS -0.07 -0.05 0.22 0.15
Services/ RAILWAY 0.26 -0.05 0.19 0.33
Accessibility
TOWN 0.32 0.13 0.15 0.10
COAST -0.04 -0.09 n/a n/a
DIST_POST 0.29 0.15 0.34 0.13

DIST_GPall 0.24 0.26 0.35 0.03
DIST_GPprinc 0.24 0.21 0.32 0.09
DIST_SCHOOL 0.30 0.17 0.37 0.23
DIST_BANK 0.31 0.14 0.25 0.15
Environment AONB 0.22 0.41 0.21 n/a
NAT_NATURE n/a n/a 0.01 n/a
LOCAL_NATU n/a n/a n/a n/a
NATIONAL_P n/a -0.01 n/a n/a
SSSI n/a -0.04 0.00 n/a
Rural/Urban U_S n/a n/a n/a n/a
RTF_S 0.13 0.13 -0.21 n/a
RV_S 0.26 0.26 0.16 n/a
RD_S 0.15 0.15 0.01 n/a
U_LS -0.16 -0.16 n/a -0.20
RTF_LS -0.19 -0.19 -0.01 -0.11
RV_LS -0.07 -0.07 0.09 0.31
RD_LS -0.07 -0.07 0.03 -0.08
137
Final Report
SPARSE n/a 0.36 -0.06 n/a

LESS_SPARSE n/a -0.36 0.06 n/a
RURAL 0.32 0.16 n/a 0.20

URBAN -0.32 -0.16 n/a -0.20
Treatment of multi-collinearity
In addition, some of the explanatory variables are likely to be highly correlated because they share a
very similar relationship with our dependent variable: unit house price. In statistics this is referred to as
multi-collinearity. This is a common scenario in the application of the HPM to house prices, as many
attributes of a property are interlinked or overlap. If a high degree of inter-correlation exists between
two attributes, this can lead to overestimating their significance in the hedonic price function, or in the
worst case, produce a wrongly signed relationship with property price.
Regression analysis that is used to estimate the hedonic price function can find it extremely difficult to
tease apart the separate influences that different, but closely related, variables have on property.
Correlation analysis prior to estimating a hedonic price function therefore looks to overcome some of
these risks presented with multi-collinearity.
It was necessary to test the correlation between each of the explanatory variables, e.g. between x1
and x2, x1 and x3 and x2 and x3 etc, in order to indicate which of the explanatory variables listed in
Table A 9 should be included in the hedonic function for each district.
In some cases however, there will a level of correlation that exists between explanatory variables that
is almost unavoidable, as characteristics will be ‘symptomatic’ of each other. This is particularly true
for explanatory variables representing neighbourhood attributes.
Furthermore, in our application of the HPM to rural house prices, it is highly probable that the rural
location of a property will in some way be correlated with access to local amenities, which are both
likely to have a similar relationship with price. An extremely rural dwelling for example, is likely to be
very isolated from local shops and services.
Similarly, the rural typology of an area will often determine the nature of the housing stock. Inner-city
areas and towns for example, are likely to have a high concentration of smaller properties, whereas a
rural village is likely to have a much greater supply of larger, for example, detached, properties.
That is not to say that these variables should be excluded from our hedonic analysis altogether; as
long as the strength of the inter-correlation is moderate such variables should be included. When we
come to run multiple regression analysis for each hedonic function, these correlation results will inform
us as to whether our results are plausible, or instead possibly the cause of high inter-correlation.
Treatment of spatial dependence
One final issue in the estimation of hedonic price functions is that of spatial dependence or correlation.
Spatial dependence results from the fact that properties in close proximity to each other often share
very similar neighbourhood, accessibility and environmental attributes. The traditional regression
analysis that is used to apply the HPM cannot account for this correlation. Whilst in general this does
not lead to biased results, it does lead to greater variance in our estimation of the hedonic price
function.
Specification of the hedonic price model
In analysing our final correlation results, a number of ‘selection criteria’ were considered in order to
specify a final hedonic price function for each district.
138
Final Report
Firstly it was important to only include explanatory variables whereby a reasonable correlation (equal
to or larger than +/-0.3) existed between the attribute and unit house price. However, in reviewing this
criterion, the significance of the relationship between two variables was also considered. The results of
this analysis were presented previously in Table A 9.
In addition, selection was based on a consistently signed relationship exists (i.e. negative or positive)
between the attribute and unit house price across all four districts, unless an a priori expectation would
lead us to believe the direction of such a relationship may vary across districts. For example, we would
expect the relationship between unit house price and the unemployment rate in the local
neighbourhood to be consistently negative, as higher unemployment implies a higher level of
economic deprivation. However, the relationship between house price and distance to transport
services may be positive in the more urbanised districts and negative in those deeply rural.
Finally consideration was given to the existence of any inter-correlation between the explanatory
variables selected for each district’s hedonic price function. It was considered that as long as the inter-
correlation between variables was no larger than each variable’s correlation with price, they could be
included in our hedonic price function. The results of this stage of the correlation analysis, performed
separately for each district, are presented in the tables overleaf.
139
Final Report
MID SUSSEX results for multi-collinearity Positive Negative

Structural T_DETACH
YNG_FAML
OLD_FAML
Neighbourhood Composition
UNEMPL
TWO_CAR OLD_FAML
TWO_CAR, DIST_Gpall, DIST_SCHOOL,
RAILWAY
DIST_BANK

TOWN
DIST_BANK, RAILWAY
Distance to Services/ Accessibility COAST
DIST_POST
DIST_Gpall
DIST_SCHOOL DIST_POST
DIST_BANK DIST_Gpall
Environment AONB DIST_Gpall, DIST_BANK, TOWN
TWO_CAR, DIST_Gpall, DIST_BANK,
U_LS RAILWAY, TOWN
RTF_LS U_LS
Rural/Urban
RV_LS DIST_BANK, RAILWAY, TOWN U_LS
RD_LS DIST_BANK, RAILWAY
140
Final Report
NORFOLK results for multicollinearity Positive Negative

Structural T_DETACH
YNG_FAML
OLD_FAML
UNEMPL
TWO_CAR OLD_FAML
TOWN DIST_Gpall, TWO_CAR, DIST_BANK
COAST
DIST_POST
Distance to Services/ Accessibility
DIST_GPall TWO_CAR
DIST_SCHOOL
DIST_BANK DIST_Gpall, TWO_CAR
Environment AONB
U_S
RTF_S
RV_S
RD_S
U_LS
RTF_LS
Rural/Urban
RV_LS
RD_LS
SPARSE
LESS_SPARSE
RURAL
URBAN
141
Final Report
SOUTH SHROPSHIRE results for

multicollinearity Positive Negative
Structural T_DETACH
YNG_FAML
OLD_FAML
UNEMPL
TWO_CAR OLD_FAML UNEMPL
RAILWAY TWO_CAR, A_ROADS
A_ROADS DIST_BANK
TOWN TWO_CAR, RAILWAY
Distance to Services/ Accessibility DIST_POST
DIST_GPall DIST_POST
DIST_SCHOOL DIST_POST, DIST_Gpall
DIST_BANK DIST_Gpall, DIST_SCHOOL
Environment AONB
RTF_S TWO_CAR, TOWN
RV_S
RD_S
RTF_LS
Rural/Urban
RV_LS
RD_LS TOWN
SPARSE
LESS_SPARSE
142
Final Report
SELBY results for multicollinearity Positive Negative

Structural T_DETACH
YNG_FAML
OLD_FAML
UNEMPL YNG_FAML OLD_FAML
TWO_CAR OLD_FAML YNG_FAML, UNEMPL
RAILWAY
A_ROADS
TOWN TWO_CAR, DIST_BANK
Distance to Services/ Accessibility DIST_POST
DIST_GPall
DIST_SCHOOL DIST_POST
DIST_BANK TWO_CAR, DIST_GPall
Environment AONB
U_LS YNG_FAML, UNEMPL TWO_CAR, TOWN
RTF_LS
RV_LS
Rural/Urban
RD_LS
RURAL TWO_CAR, TOWN YNG_FAML, UNEMPL
URBAN
143
Final Report
Estimating the hedonic price model

Based on the principles of the preceding analysis described in chapter 2, a reduced set of potential
explanatory variables was developed for each district for consideration in developing an optimal
hedonic price function. This revised set of explanatory variables for each district is presented in Table
A 10.
Table A 10: Results of correlation analysis: drivers of property price
Mid Sussex North Norfolk South Shropshire Selby

T_DETACH T_DETACH T_DETACH T_DETACH
YNG_FAML YNG_FAML YNG_FAML YNG_FAML

TWO_CAR UNEMPL TWO_CAR UNEMPL
HEALTH_SCORE OWN_HME HEALTH_SCORE TWO_CAR
EDU_SCORE EDU_SCORE HEALTH_SCORE
CRIME_SCORE EDU_SCORE
CRIME_SCORE
RAILWAY TOWN A_ROADS A_ROADS

TOWN DIST_POST RAILWAY RAILWAY
DIST_POST DIST_GPall TOWN TOWN
DIST_GPall DIST_SCHOOL DIST_POST DIST_POST
DIST_SCHOOL DIST_BANK DIST_GPall DIST_SCHOOL
DIST_BANK DIST_SCHOOL DIST_BANK
DIST_BANK
AONB AONB AONB
U_LS RTF_S RTF_S U_LS

RTF_LS RV_S RV_S RTF_LS
RV_LS RD_S RD_S RV_LS
RD_LS U_LS RTF_LS RD_LS
RURAL RTF_LS RV_LS RURAL
RV_LS RD_LS
RD_LS SPARSE
SPARSE
RURAL
A number of initial hedonic price models were investigated by performing stepped regression analysis
using the variables set out above in Table A 10. An optimal hedonic price function was then specified
for each district through a build up of regression analysis.
Central to this analysis was testing our central hypothesis; properties in a rural location will attract a
premium over those that are located in urban areas. In addition we also looked to test the hypothesis
that extremely isolated rural properties will not attract such a premium. In the HPM reaching an
optimal hedonic price function required us to run a series of four separate models using regression
analysis for each district.
In each of the models, the structural variables have been included as well as the variables
144
Final Report
representing a property’s rural typology. As each new model was tested, additional explanatory
variables concerning the neighbourhood, accessibility and surrounding environment were
incorporated. The aim of this ‘stepped’ analysis was to ensure that the impact of each rural typology
was relatively stable across all four models. Introducing variables into the hedonic function in a
progressive manner also informed us as to which variables improved the fit of the model and which of
those that did not.
The following summarises the four models that were tested for each district:
Model I: Structural and Rural variables;
Model II: Structural, Neighbourhood and Rural variables;
Model III: Structural, Neighbourhood, Accessibility and Rural variables; and
Model IV: Structural, Neighbourhood, Accessibility, Environment and Rural
variables.
The fourth and final model tested for each district is considered as the optimal hedonic price function
for each respective rural housing market, the results of which are discussed in the next section.
Hedonic Price Model Results And Interpretation

Table A 11 to Table A 14 present the results from our estimation of an optimal price function for each
district’s housing market.
Table A 11: Mid Sussex Results

(Constant) 95,872 98,485
29.4 28.8
*** ***
T_DETACH 23,927 23,854
(Dummy) 18.3 18.2
*** ***
YNG_FAML -1 -1
-6.5 -6.8
*** ***
TWO_CAR 0 0
-2.7 -3.3
*** ***
4.8 1.8
*** *
DIST_BANK 2,301 2,490
5.2 4.5
*** ***
DIST_POST 4,054
2.5
**
DIST_GPall -1,799
-2.1
**
RV_LS 5,929
(Dummy) 2.7
145
Final Report
***
RD_LS 10,368
(Dummy) 4.0
***
RURAL 7,847
(Dummy) 4.0
***

Table A 12: Selby Results

(Constant) 48,748 53,751
10.9 13.1
*** ***
T_DETACH 15,688 15,618
(Dummy) 13.3 13.2
*** ***
YNG_FAML -1 -1
-3.4 -3.8
*** ***
TWO_CAR 0 0
3.3 3.5
*** ***
2.5 3.1
** ***
DIST_BANK -1,165 -1,153
-3.3 -3.3
*** ***
RAILWAY 1,594 1,714
4.9 5.3
*** ***
U_LS 4,785
(Dummy) 2.3
**
RV_LS 2,908
(Dummy) 2.0
**
RURAL -4,609
(Dummy) -2.2
**

146
Final Report
Table A 13: South Shropshire Results
Model IV
(Constant) 65,110
32.2
***
T_DETACH 28,915
(Dummy) 21.6
***
YNG_FAML -1
-4.7
***
DIST_SCHOOL 4,291
6.6
***
A_ROADS 642
3.8
***
RV_S 4,636
(Dummy) 2.4
**
RD_S -3,643
(Dummy) -2.3
**
Observations 323
Adjusted R Square 0.668
Table A 14: North Norfolk Results

(Constant) 83,888 81,741
17.5 17.5
*** ***
T_DETACH 19,800 19,806
(Dummy) 23.8 23.7
*** ***
YNG_FAML -1 -1
-5.1 -5.0
*** ***
OWN_HME 0 0
-5.5 -5.3
*** ***
UNEMPL -1 -1
-3.3 -3.1
147
Final Report
*** ***
2.4 2.8
** ***
DIST_GPall 956 1,086
3.9 4.6
*** ***
AONB 12,303 12,310
11.5 11.5
*** ***
RTF_S 5,724
(Dummy) 4.6
***
RV_S 9,199
(Dummy) 6.8
***
RD_S 6,654
(Dummy) 4.0
***
SPARSE 7,151
(Dummy) 7.7
***

The first column gives the name of each explanatory variable. Those variables which indicate a
dummy variable suggests that the value of that variable can either take the value 1 when true or 0
when it is not. For example, the dummy variable for ‘T_DETACH’ takes a value of 1 for properties
which are detached and 0 for other properties (semi-detached and terraced) measured within our
house price data. Those variables not presented in brackets are continuous in that they can take any
value.
The remaining two columns in the tables present the optimal models reached through undertaking the
stepped analysis described previously. With the exception of South Shropshire, two models have been
determined for each district in order to test the different classifications of a rural area. That is, to
determine the impact of a rural location of property price, Defra’s definition of rural was tested in its
simplest form: rural/urban and by detailed settlement typology: urban, rural town and fringe, rural
village and rural dwelling each of which are assigned to either a sparse or less sparse regional setting.
For some districts not all rural typologies were able to be tested within the model. This was because
either no such areas existed or there was not a significant number of a settlement type to produce
variation that could be tested statistically. South Shropshire was the only district in which all property
transactions fell under a ‘rural’ typology.
In the tables, the upper number for each variable is the coefficient describing the effect of that variable
has on our dependent variable; the average unit price of a property. The lower number for each
variable is known as the t-statistic. This figure denotes whether our result can be considered
statistically significant, which as a rule of thumb, is when the value of ‘t’ is equal to or greater than 2.
148
Final Report
Finally, the degree of certainty we have regarding our estimates for each variable is indicated by the
number of asterisks. The asterisks refer to a certainty level, in which we can be confident that our
result is statistically significant and not a matter of chance. In statistics, it is generally accepted that a
95% certainty level is evidence of a significant relationship between the explanatory and dependent
variable (denoted by two asterisks). It is often accepted however, that we can be confident our result is
significant at a 90% certainty level (one asterisk). When three asterisks are presented this indicates a
very strong statistical result, as we can be 99% confident that our coefficient is significant in describing
variation in price.
In the tables, the number of observations refers to the number of property transactions that were
entered into the model for each district. The last row of the table presents the overall fit of the model
denoted by the adjusted R2 statistic, which describes the proportion of variation in the unit price of a
property that can be explained by the model.
An adjusted R2 value of around 0.7 or greater is considered a very robust model for predicting variation
in the dependent variable. In hedonic studies it is generally accepted that structural variables explain a
large majority of house price variation. When interpreting the results of our final hedonic model and the
‘degree of fit’, it should thus be kept in mind that a significant number of structural variables were not
possible to include in our application of the HPM in this research.
Noticeable across Table A 11 to Table A 14 is that the degree of fit of our hedonic model is better for
those districts that are generally more rural in typology. For South Shropshire approximately 67% of
the variation in the unit price of a property can be explained by the model, whilst for North Norfolk 62%
of the variation in price is accounted for. For Mid Sussex and Selby, the models have a lower degree
of fit with an adjusted R-squared value of 0.48 and thus are weaker representations of the true
housing markets for these districts.
This could be due in part to the unavoidable inter-correlation between accessibility variables in these
models as properties are often served by a key commercial centre containing most local amenities
and transport links. In an attempt to remove some of this inter-correlation from the models, we tested a
function that substituted access to small service outlets (e.g. bank, post office, GP etc) with access to
a town centre. However, doing this did not produce a statistically significant result for the ‘Town’
variable and did not improve the overall fit of the model.
The weakness of these models could also be attributed to the omission of structural characteristics
from much of our analysis, which will be important drivers in Mid Sussex and Selby due to the mixed
nature of the housing stock. In contrast for the South Shropshire housing market, there is more
consistency in the quality and type of properties supplied, allowing us to control for this when
estimating the model and is reflected by the ‘goodness of fit’.
Aside from this, the models estimated for each district can be considered statistically robust as all of
our results have met the ‘t-statistic’ criteria and in most cases, we can be 99% confident that our
estimated coefficients for each explanatory variable are significant.
Generally across all four districts the type of property is the most significant and largest driver of
property price. As one would expect, our results show that all else being equal, detached properties
will command a higher price relative to other property types (i.e. semi-detached and terraced). This
variable also accounts for on average, around half of the variation in price within the model.
In terms of neighbourhood attributes, our results are fairly consistent across all four districts and
generally conform to a prior expectation that a lower socio-economic standing in an area will reduce
the relative price of property. In all four districts, a higher proportion of young families has a small, but
very significant negative impact on price.
However, the proportion of households owning two cars or more has a varying impact across the
districts. One would generally expect a higher percentage of households owning two or more cars
149
Final Report
would imply a higher socio-economic standing in that area. The results for Mid Sussex implies a
negative relationship between car ownership and property price, although the relative net impact on
price is zero. The analysis of Selby’s housing market however, implies a positive relationship between
car ownership and property price, although the relative net impact on price is again zero. A possible
explanation is that car ownership in rural areas could be classed as a proxy for the level of isolation of
a property, with an exceptionally high level of car ownership indicating that a property is particularly
remote.
Variables measuring a property’s access to local amenities and transport links provide interesting
results. Generally across all four districts, the relative price of property rises as the distance to these
services increases. This result suggests that within rural housing markets, there is a value placed on
properties that are distanced from services that bring about disbenefits such as congestion, pollution
and noise. Notable exceptions here are the results for Mid Sussex, whereby price falls as the distance
to health services (GP) increases and for Selby, where price falls as distance to banking services
increases. As both of these districts contain a greater mix of urban as well as rural areas, this result
could reinforce the notion that increased distance to services will have a more positive impact in rural
areas/districts and a negative impact on property prices in urban areas.
However, the size of the coefficients of accessibility variables are relatively lower than other
explanatory variables, implying a smaller impact on property price and generally range by rural district
and according to the type of service assessed. It is possible that further testing of the relationship
between these variables and price, for example, in a non-linear regression, would indicate that there is
in fact an optimum distance from services and transport that positively impacts on price, above which
price will fall as the disbenefit of travelling long distances to local amenities becomes relatively more
important.
It was only possible to include the impact of the quality of the surrounding environment in the model
for North Norfolk (denoted by the dummy variable for AONB). As Table A 14 shows, a strong and
significant result was found. Properties located within an AONB command an average unit price that is
around £12,300 higher than those that are not. This result was consistent across both models
estimated for North Norfolk.
Finally we come to analyse the extent to which a rural location adds value to residential property,
hypothesising that all else being equal, rural properties will achieve a premium over properties in
urban areas. In order to assess whether our central hypothesis holds, we present a separate
discussion of the results for each district below.
The results for Mid Sussex are presented in Table A 11. In the district, all property transactions
analysed fell into the ‘less sparse’ regional setting. In Model IV (i), ‘rural village’ and ‘rural dwelling’
were tested, with analysis of these results being compared to the alternate typologies of ‘urban’ and
‘rural town and fringe’. The results of Model IV (i) thus indicate that all else being equal, properties
classed as a rural dwelling command a relatively higher average unit price, as do properties located in
rural villages. Model IV (ii) presents the results from testing the rural classification of a property in its
simplest form, indicating again that a rural property will achieve a premium over urban properties.
Table A 12 sets out the results for Selby, presenting a very different result. Once again due to its
typology, all property transactions analysed for the district fell into the ‘less sparse’ regional setting. In
Selby it would appear that a rural location will in fact reduce the average unit price of a property. The
results for Model IV (i) show that properties in an urban location will command a higher price than
properties located in rural villages. Similarly in Model IV (ii) our results indicate that a rural location will
have a negative impact on property prices.
In Table A 13 we present the results for South Shropshire. All property transactions analysed for the
district were classified as rural under Defra’s classifications, therefore our analysis here compares the
extent of ‘rurality’. Interestingly Model IV indicates that properties located in a rural village command a
higher relative price whereas properties that are particularly isolated (classed as a rural dwelling and
150
Final Report
located in a ‘sparse’ regional setting) will have a negative impact on price. This reinforces our
hypothesis in both senses: properties in a rural location will attract a premium over those that are
located in urban areas, yet extremely isolated rural properties will not.
Finally the results for North Norfolk are presented in Table A 14. The majority of property transactions
analysed for the district fell into Defra’s ‘rural’ classification and thus did not produce enough variation
to test this typology within the model. The results of Model IV (i) show that properties located in each
rural setting (rural town and fringe, rural village and rural dwelling) command a higher relative price
than properties in urban areas. In particular, properties located in rural villages achieve a premium
over and above other types of rural areas. Similarly in Model IV (ii), properties in a ‘sparse’ regional
setting command a higher price than properties in a ‘less sparse’ setting.
Strengths and weaknesses of our application of the HPM

In interpretation of our results in the previous section and in drawing conclusions in the final chapter of
this report, the key strengths and weaknesses of our application of the HPM to rural house prices
should be considered. The following provides a brief summary.
Strengths
Quality of secondary data sources
Our analysis of rural house price data has drawn entirely upon actual transactions from the rural
housing markets, rather than using estate agent or property owner’s estimates that other hedonic
studies employ. Using VOA data makes our hedonic model empirically defensible as a good
approximation of the true housing markets observed for in each rural district.
Similarly, in the absence of sophisticated GIS software used by other hedonic studies, we have taken
secondary data for our explanatory variables from comprehensive sources such as the CRC/Defra’s
Rural Services Series.
Weaknesses
Omission of detailed structural attributes and internal characteristics data
The structural attributes of a property will without question, be a large, if not the largest, driver of price.
Our analysis has omitted a large number of structural attributes that will in reality cause variation in
property prices within a housing market. In statistical terms, this is reflected in the low ‘degree of fit’ of
the hedonic model for some districts.
In our analysis of rural house prices, there are particular structural attributes of a property that will
influence price differently in the different districts. For example, in the more urbanised districts, a wider
variation in the type and quality of the housing stock exists due to waves of modern housing
development. In many areas of Selby, there exists a mixed supply of properties built in the last 30 to
40 years and period properties of a traditional Yorkshire stone build. The age of a property or possibly
the type of build is therefore likely to have a strong influence on the price of properties in the district.
Assumption of an entirely linear model
Whilst many other hedonic studies have made the same assumption and it is accepted that linear
models are simple to interpret, in reality not all explanatory variables will share a perfectly linear
relationship with house prices. As we have previously highlighted in the report, often the distance to
amenities and transport services will have a non-linear relationship with price. With greater scope, this
research could have investigated an optional distance for each accessibility variables and tested for
non-linear relationships with price.
Spatial scale of explanatory variable data
The HPM relies on a process of regression analysis to explain variations in house prices through
variation in the different attributes associated with each property transaction. Using detailed data that
151
Final Report
can accurately measure extremely local variation will therefore dramatically improve the fit of the
model and the robustness of its results.
In the most comprehensive hedonic studies, explanatory variable data analysed can be as detailed as
on a property-by-property basis. However, the smallest spatial scale of data available to us for
property attributes was at postcode level minus 1 digit. This ‘averaging’ of data will dilute much of the
variation in attributes that is observed in the true housing market and that ultimately accounts for
variation in price. This presents two risks, firstly in that the significance of an explanatory variable may
be underestimated and secondly, can magnify the problems associated with the presence of
multicollinearity and spatial correlation. This situation will be made worse for explanatory variable data
measured at LSOA level.
Non-quantifiable drivers of house prices
There are a number of qualitative factors that are likely to cause variation in price within rural housing
markets that simply cannot be captured within the hedonic pricing model. Though we cannot measure
factors such as the feeling of community or quality of life associated with rural living as explanatory
variables, or statistically prove a relationship with price, other areas of the research project have
covered this in great detail.
In addition to the ‘qualitative rurality’ of an area, there lacks established primary research methods or
secondary sources that can measure many of the attributes that describe both the natural and built
environment. This is an area of research that is receiving growing attention in more recent hedonic
pricing studies.
Rural housing markets are unique
Throughout the other stages of the research project it has become clear that the rural housing market
is relatively inactive. Often residents in rural areas have lived there for the for the most part of their
lives, regardless of the different attributes of the housing stock but instead due to the attraction of rural
life. More specifically, the rural housing market has specific supply and demand parameters, namely
limited supply and heightened demand driven by external buyers.
This analysis is a complex exercise; whilst we can infer some form of qualitative value of rurality here,
we cannot capture this within a hedonic price function. Furthermore, if such market conditions exist,
this will have implications for our application of the HPM to rural housing markets in this research. This
could compromise the assumption that house prices adjust instantaneously to changes in supply and
demand, as house prices could in fact be driven by a shortage in the supply of rural housing stock,
rather than being a reflection of people’s willingness to pay for the different attributes of a property.
Representativeness and transferability of the analysis
Finally our application of the HPM has estimated the impact of a rural location on property prices, with
the aim of this research to produce estimates that essentially conclude some kind of ‘power of rurality’
that can be transferred to other rural areas across the country.
This can only be achieved if our sample of properties was diverse in terms of the property types;
socio-economic areas; accessibility; environmental and rural typologies covered. As previously
explained in the report, the diversity of our sales data and representativeness of our sample was to
some extent, determined through mapping exercises. However, it is important to note that in reality the
results of this analysis are only representative of the range of data given in the sample and that care
should be taken in extrapolating well beyond that range.
This is particularly relevant to our application of the HPM to rural housing markets, which are often
inactive and characterised by a low turnover of the housing stock. Our sample of sales data is thus
somewhat biased in the types of properties and the types of buyers it represents. Sales data is of
course focused on the willingness to pay of more mobile buyers, who may have very different
preferences for (and thus place very different values on) the attributes of a property compared to
people that have lived in a village all their life.
152
Final Report
In addition, our analysis has been formed on house price data from one year only and therefore
cannot determine whether the value of rurality is constant or changes over time.
Recommendations for further research

In light of the limitations to our approach and analysis discussed previously, there are particular gaps
in the research that would support further areas of work. In addition, the results from the village
surveys and agent interviews have shed even more light on this. This section therefore proposes key
elements of research that should be addressed if this hedonic analysis of rural house prices was
extended in the future.
The spatial scale of analysis is a factor that could certainly be addressed in future work. Our analysis
has been largely based on data measured at postcode level minus 1 digit. This averaging of data
reduces the degree of variation in the hedonic model, increases the risk of multicollinearity and
reduces the explanatory power of our hedonic price function. Ideally further research would assess the
prices and attributes of properties at least on a street-by-street basis, but ideally on a property-by-
property basis. However, studies that have captured this localised data tend to rely on property agent
valuations rather than actual sales transactions, producing potentially bias and thus skewed results
when analysing rural house prices across different markets/districts.
It is clear from our application of the HPM that more information on the quality of a property’s structure
is needed. Whilst practical methods to determine the internal quality of a property may not currently
exist, other studies have successfully identified the external structural quality of a property. Particularly
relevant to the analysis of rural house prices is the age of a property and/or the building’s materials
such as type of stone. Accounting for these attributes within further research is likely to improve the
analysis and fit of the hedonic model when applied to locations that contain a mixture of rural and
urban settlements with a housing stock that is more diverse in age and quality. Interviews with estate
agents highlighted this issue and insisted that in districts such as Selby, house prices were particularly
driven by the type of property offered.
Equally important to improving subsequent research and the fit of the model will be a greater analysis
of both the natural and built environment. These attributes were almost entirely excluded from our
application of the HPM due to data availability, but were continually raised as important to both
residents and potential buyers in the surveys. Agents in particular emphasised the premium people
are willing to pay for locations with quality rural landscapes, whilst consultation with residents revealed
the importance of open space.
153

Rural Housing Affordability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Housing Affordability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Housing Affordability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defra

Research into Rural

Project No: 157701

Prepared by: Approved by:

Status: Final Issue no: 0 Date: 22 March 2010

(C) Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.

Part 3: Communities, Networks and Local Priority 96

Table 1.1: Summary approach 6

Table 5.7: Importance of community spirit in choice of village 44

Figure 3.1: Delimiting rural economies- key variables 11

 Dynamic commuter: (relatively high population densities with young to middle-age,

Housing affordability and its consequences

Influences on house prices

An informed discussion of the concept of ‘local affordability’.

Analysis of the power of rurality in various forms to predict rural house

An informed discussion of the reasons and consequences of including

Table 1.1: Summary approach

1.1.10 The report is structured as follows:

2 Context and study approach

2.2 Local affordability

2.3 Housing markets

2.4 Communities, networks and priority

2.5 Linking the three core issues

2.6 Critical questions

2. The determinants of rural house prices:

3. Attitudes towards local priority:

3 Selection of districts and parishes

3.2 Selection of districts

Figure 3.1: Delimiting Rural Economies- key variables

Figure 3.2: A typology of rural England and Wales

Table 3.1: Selected case study districts

District Regional Location Type

Figure 3.3: Selected case study districts

South Shropshire: deep rural

3.2.14 Key characteristics of the district of interest are:

North Norfolk: retirement retreat

 Concentrated second home pressures in the coastal zone, especially around

Selby: transient rural

 ‘Deep rural’ villages in the hinterland of a key provincial centre;

Mid Sussex: dynamic commuter

 Within the influence of London commuting area as well as Brighton;

3.3 Selection of villages/parishes

Figure 3.8: Overview of selected parishes

3.4 The evidence base & methods

Table 3.2: Evidence base

4 Housing affordability and its consequences

4.2 Defining affordability and understanding its outcomes

Mid North Selby South

Housing type Mid Sussex North Selby South

Figure 4.1: Perceptions of housing affordability, Bishops Castle

4.3 The geographical immediacy of local need

4.3.3 So do villages see needs as being ‘geographically’ immediate or as something to tackle

Figure 4.2: Local need, Cawood

Mid North Selby South

Mid North Selby South

4.4 Mobility, employment and affordable housing

40 years that depopulation has been balanced by counter-urbanisation.

4.5 Local housing and the sustainability of rural communities

4.5.5 Local housing can contribute to a community’s sustainability if it is ‘controlled and

Figure 4.3: Time lived in the village

Dynamic commuter: (relatively high population densities with young to middle-age,

Concentrated second home pressures in the coastal zone, especially around

‘Deep rural’ villages in the hinterland of a key provincial centre;

Within the influence of London commuting area as well as Brighton;