Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton
Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton Housing Needs Survey 2020
Midlands Rural Housing in partnership with Rushcliffe Borough Council and Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton Parish Councils November 2020.
Contents
- Summary
- Introduction
- Issues Facing Rural Communities
- Survey Methodology and Purpose
- Conclusion
- Appendix 1
- Appendix 2
- Life in the Villages
1. Summary
1.1 A housing needs survey was carried out in the villages of Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton, Nottinghamshire in October 2020. Questionnaires were delivered to 174 households in the villages of Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton and an electronic survey was available as an alternative method of response.
1.2 Results showed that there is a requirement for 3 new homes, in order to enable local people to be suitably housed within their communities.
|
Type of |
Required Affordable Rented |
Required Rent to Buy |
Shared Ownership 25% |
Preferred Open Market Homes |
Totals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 bed house | 1 | - | - | - | 1 |
| 2 bed house | - | - | 1 | - | 1 |
| 3 bed house | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| 4 bed house | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| 5 bed house | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| 1 bed bungalow | 1 | - | - | - | 1 |
| 2 bed bungalow | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| 3 bed bungalow | - | - | - | - | 0 |
| Total | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
1.3 These new homes could be developed on an ‘infill site’ or alternatively on a rural exception site, should one become available. Subject to local authority planning policy, some open market homes could be used to cross-subsidise the costs of building homes for affordable tenures.
1.4 Alternatively, the affordable homes could be provided as part of a larger scale development through s106 provision subject to local authority planning policy. Open market housing tenures on a proposed s106 development could be informed by the open market preferences found in this report again subject to local authority planning policies.
2. Introduction
2.1 Midlands Rural Housing (MRH) is a non-asset holding, profit for purpose organisation that works to promote and enable the provision of homes in rural settlements. We do this by working closely with local authorities, town and parish councils, registered providers, private developers and local communities in order to investigate the need for affordable housing.
2.2 MRH is a well-respected organisation, recognised for its expertise in this field. In addition to the work we do locally within communities across rural England, we are also a key lobbyist and influencer both nationally and regionally.
2.3 This report presents the requirement for housing in the villages of Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton.
3. Housing Costs
3.1 According to the latest annual Halifax Rural Housing Review (Halifax, 2017), homes in rural areas across Great Britain are 20% more expensive on average than in urban areas. In financial terms, this percentage equates to £44,454.
3.2 However, regionally, these figures increase or decrease dramatically depending on the locality. For example, in the West Midlands, the average house price in rural areas is 47%, or £89,272 higher than the region’s urban areas, and in contrast, the East of England has an average rural housing premium of 9% or £27,765.
3.3 Data from the review shows that first time buyers have found themselves priced out of rural areas. They account for 41% of all mortgaged products in rural areas, compared with 53% in urban areas. Affordability is the main reason for this.
3.4 In a local context, figures for the East Midlands show a 38% increase in rural average house prices since 2012. This equates to a rural housing premium of £55,426, compared to urban locations. The local authority districts of Derbyshire Dales and South Northamptonshire have the lowest number of first-time buyers in rural areas, with 29% and 30% respectively.
3.5 Areas which are predominantly rural typically have higher house prices than urban locations, thus making them less affordable. In 2016, the average lower quartile house price was 8.3 times the average lower quartile earnings in rural areas, in comparison with 7 times in urban areas.
3.6 In 2018, the National Housing Federation stated that ‘the housing crisis in rural England is acute, with the most affordable rural homes costing 8.3 times wages in rural areas’ (National Housing Federation, 2018).
4. Survey Methodology and Purpose
4.1 In September 2020, a Housing Needs Survey questionnaire was delivered to every household in the villages of Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton. The deadline for responses was the 23rd October. Pre-paid envelopes were provided for the return of survey forms directly to MRH and an alternative method of response was provided online.
4.2 Of the 176 surveys distributed 2 were returned by Royal Mail as undeliverable. It can be concluded that a total of 174 surveys were successfully distributed.
4.3 A total of 37 paper responses and 5 electronic responses were received. A total of 42. This resulted in an overall response rate of 24%. In our experience this is an average level of response for a survey of this type, in villages of this size.
4.4 The survey questionnaire is divided into 3 parts:
- Part 1 – General information
- Part 2 – Life in your village
- Part 3 – Housing requirements and housing need
4.5 Parts 1 and 2 seek to discover general information about household members, their current housing situation and their connection to the parish or village. Questions were asked to assess people’s perceptions of what it is like to live in the locality and gave an opportunity for them to make general comments. Part 3 is about identifying the future housing requirements of all household members, and the reasons why they think they are in housing need either now, or in the future.
4.6 The survey was conducted in order to obtain clear evidence of any local housing requirements across a range of tenures for residents in the locality. The information obtained from a housing needs survey is invaluable at a local level for local authority, parish council and neighbourhood planning activities. Such information can be acted on locally and taken on board in decision making processes around housing issues.
4.7 Survey data showing a local demand for market housing is considered a ‘preference’. Whether it is appropriate for this to be satisfied in the relevant settlement will be dependent on the consistency of doing so with the Development Plan.
5. Conclusion
5.1 Midlands Rural Housing has conducted a detailed study into the current housing requirements of the villages of Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton which will be valid until October 2025. This study has investigated the affordable housing need and the open market housing preferences of the villages, the resident’s views about living in the villages, and the level of support for local homes to help sustain local communities.
5.2 The survey has identified a need for 3 affordable homes in Barton in Fabis and no requirement for homes in Thrumpton.
5.3 Of the 4 respondents to the survey who indicated a housing need in the next 5 years, 1 respondent was assessed as being suitably housed at the present time and 1 respondent had ticked the ‘in need’ tick box on the survey but not completed part 3. This left 2 respondents identified as being in need.
5.4 The survey results were cross referenced against Rushcliffe Borough Council’s housing register to avoid double counting and an additional need was identified for one home from the housing register in Barton in Fabis. No one from Thrumpton was currently on the housing register.
5.5 In total, from the survey and the housing register, a need was found in Barton in Fabis for 3 affordable homes for local people:
- 2 were assessed as needing affordable rented housing
- 1 x 1-bedroom bungalow
- 1 x 1-bedroom home
- 1 was assessed as needing a shared ownership home
- 1 x 2-bedroom house (25%)
5.6 Demographic support for the type of homes required can be found in the statistics below.
5.7 Current demographic evidence sourced from citypopulation.info shown by the tables below indicates that 19% of Barton in Fabis’s population are under 18 years of age; 7% are aged between 20-29; 43% are in the 30–59 age range and 29% are aged over 60.
Age Groups
- 0-17 years - 50
- 18-64 years - 174
- 65+ years - 59
Age Distribution
- 0-9 years - 21
- 10-19 years - 34
- 20-29 years - 24
- 30-39 years - 19
- 40-49 years - 39
- 50-59 years - 65
- 60-69 years - 37
- 70-79 years - 31
- 80+ years - 13
5.8 In the ‘Nottinghamshire County Joint Strategic Needs Assessment – Evidence Summary 2017’ from the Nottinghamshire Health and wellbeing Board, it states that ‘Overall the age structure of Nottinghamshire is slightly older than the national average, with 20% of the population aged 65+ in 2015 compared with 18% in England.’ Nottinghamshire’s ‘population is predicted to continue to age over the next 15 years with the number of 65-84-year olds increasing by over 30% and 85+ year olds by over 76%. Older people are more likely to experience disability and limiting long term illnesses.’
There is an identified need for 3 affordable homes in Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton, Nottinghamshire.
6. Appendix 1
6.1 Housing Requirements Analysis
6.1.1 Respondents were asked to clarify their need in terms of property type and size, together with a preferred tenure type. In assessing the stated need, income levels and likely property prices are considered to ensure that any proposed future housing development will indeed meet the needs of those to be housed. Therefore, a ‘likely allocation/purchase’ is suggested to outline what any housing provision could realistically look like.
Respondents to survey assessed as having affordable housing need
|
Reference |
Local Connection |
On Housing Register |
Household Details |
Reasons for Need |
Preferred Home and Tenure |
Likely Allocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRH 2 | Yes (Barton in Fabis) | No | Single person living in affordable rented home |
Present home too large (downsizing) To be closer to parent or other family member |
1 Bed bungalow Affordable rented | 1 Bed bungalow Affordable rented |
| MRH 4 | Yes (Barton in Fabis) | No | Single person living in privately rented home | Require independent home |
2 Bed bungalow Shared ownership / Open market purchase |
2 Bed house Shared ownership (25%) |
Residents Currently on Rushcliffe Borough Council Housing Register
|
Reference |
Local Connection |
On Housing Register |
Household Details |
Likely Allocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR1 | Yes (Barton in Fabis) | Yes | Single person not living in own home |
1 Bedroom home Affordable rented |
6.2 House Price Data
6.2.1 Overall, property prices in Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton have increased over the past 5 years. During that period, prices have increased by an average of 27.08% in both villages which means an average increase in house values of £83,967 in Barton in Fabis and of £87,342 in Thrumpton (Zoopla October 2020).
Barton in Fabis
Market Activity (last 5 years)
- Average price paid - £509,500
- Sales - 5
- Current average value - £394,001
- Value change - £83,957 (increase 27.08%)
Thrumpton
Market Activity (last 5 years)
- Average price paid - £321,900
- Sales - 10
- Current average value - £409,836
- Value change - £87,342 (increase 27.08%)
Local Context - Properties for Sale
6.2.2 By way of local context, the information below shows the average prices of properties that were for sale in Barton in Fabis in October 2020.
- Houses - one, £625,000
- Flats - none
- All - one, £625,000
6.2.3 There are no properties for sale in Thrumpton. There were also no properties to rent in either village at the time the survey report was completed.
6.3 Local Context - Properties Sold
6.3.1 The information below indicates that there have been no property sales in the last 12 months in Barton in Fabis and just one in Thrumpton. In both villages average values have increased by 9.75% in the last 12 months. The current average property value in Barton in Fabis is £394,001 and in Thrumpton it is £409,836.
Barton in Fabis
- Average price paid - not applicable
- Sales - 0
- Current average value - £394,001
- Value change - £35,017 (increase 9.75%)
Thrumpton
- Average price paid - £315,000
- Sales - 1
- Current average value - £409,836
- Value change - £36,424 (increase 9.75%)
7. Appendix 2
7.1 A total of 174 surveys were distributed and 42 were returned.
7.2 Household Type
7.2.1 Question 1 of the questionnaire asked residents to indicate their household type.
7.2.2 The information below shows the breakdown of households that responded to the survey.
- Couple - 23
- Two parent family - 10
- One person household - 2
- Other - 2
- Lone parent family - 2
- Two person household unrelated - 2
7.2.3 The largest number of responses was from couples; 55% of total responses were from this group.
7.2.4 24% of responses came from two parent families and 7% were from one person households.
7.2.5 24% of responses came from two parent families and 7% were from one person households.
7.3 Tenure of Respondents
7.3.1 The information below shows the equally dominant tenure held by respondents was ‘own home outright’ and ‘own home with a mortgage’ with 38% of households a piece falling into these categories. 19% of respondents were privately renting. Only 5% of respondents were renting from the council or a housing association.
- Own home outright - 16
- Own home with mortgage - 16
- Renting from Housing Association - 1
- Renting from private landlord - 8
- Not given - 1
7.4 Property Types
7.4.1 The survey asked about size and type of home. The types of property in which people live are shown in the information in 7.4.3.
7.4.2 52% of total households are residing in a property with 3-bedrooms. 19% of respondents are residing in 4-bedroom properties. 10% of respondents are living in 2-bedroom properties and 17% are living in 5-bedroom properties.
7.4.3 71% of respondents are living in a house, 21.5% are living in a bungalow and 7.5% of respondents Identify their home as ‘other’.
7.5 Village Living In
7.5.1 Question 5 in the survey asked respondents to confirm which village they lived in.
7.5.2 The information below indicates the numbers of respondents to the survey from each village. The response rate was virtually equal from both villages.
- Barton in Fabis - 22
- Thrumpton - 20
7.6 Length of Residence
7.6.1 Respondents were asked to indicate the length of time they have been resident in their village. These results are not broken down by individual village and so the responses shown in Figure 8 represent the villages as a whole.
7.6.2 62% of respondents have lived in Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton for 10 years or more; 19% for between 5-10 years; 7% for between 2-5 years and 10% for less than 2 years.
- Less than 2 years - 4
- 2-5 years - 3
- 5-10 years - 8
- 10+ years - 26
- Not given - 1
7.7 Type of Housing Needed in the Villages
7.7.1 When asked what type of housing they thought was needed in the villages most respondents, 30%, felt that the greatest need across the villages were for homes for young and single people. 28% of respondents felt there was a need for family homes and 21% that there was requirement for homes for the elderly.
7.7.2 43% of residents did not see a need for any additional homes.
7.7.3 Some respondents specified ‘other’ types of housing. Their comments are given on the following page.
- No further homes needed - 18
- 1-2 bed homes for young and single people - 13
- 3-4 bed family homes - 11
- 4+ bed family homes - 1
- Homes for elderly people - 9
- Homes for people with disabilities - 7
- Other - 4
Comments:
- Even if we did get more houses people from the village wouldn't get them. When I got married in 1989 5 houses (council) came available, two people that had always lived in the village couldn't get one.
- We have a shortage small houses to buy. The smaller houses/cottages are mainly owned by Thrumpton Hall or other landlords, so missing choice around starter homes.
- We already have a big housing development being built on green land. Green land is supposed to be just that, green!
7.8 Migration and Reasons for Leaving
7.8.1 Questions 8 and 9 explored whether anybody knew someone from their household who had left the village during the last 5 years.
7.8.2 34 respondents did not know anyone from their household who had left the village, whilst 8 did. In total the respondents knew of 9 people whom had left the villages on the last 5 years.
7.8.3 The most common reason for leaving the villages was to go to university.
7.8.4 1 person had left because of a lack of affordable housing.
7.9 Support for New Homes being Built in the Villages
7.9.1 Question 10 asked whether people would support homes being developed for local people. As shown in fig. 11 below, 57% would support new homes, although 43% said they would not.
7.9.2 Respondents were asked to give the reasons for their answer. Their comments can be seen below.
- A small number of homes could be built without spoiling the nature of the village.
- I think it would spoil the area.
- A small number of houses filling existing gaps, not backing onto existing properties.
- Not required in small hamlet.
- Housing needs, jobs, sustainable villages.
- There are plenty of areas locally to accommodate housing need. This is a conservation area which needs protecting.
- Farmland and area space needed, environmental issues.
- I would support a small number due to young people finding it difficult to stay in the village.
- Providing homes are in character with this small community and have off-road parking.
- Villages should reflect all ages and in this village young couples/people find it impossible to buy a home due to price.
- There is already houses going up at the moment, these should be available to local people or at least a percentage of them.
- We have c3,500 houses planned at the new Fairham Pastures development but we face very tight restrictions on adaptations to current properties because of greenbelt requirements. I can think of two rejected applications that feel restrictive given size/position/visibility - particularly unfair when you think of what is going to happen up the road.
- The community needs are met, it is a welcoming and small village where we have a strong sense of community. Green land is already being destroyed to create Fairham Pastures, it is a conservation area that should be protected. Studies show that a reduced morbidity and mortality if you live near green space. This should not be taken away.
- Housing of all types are needed.
- The village doesn't have room for anymore houses other than those already planned.
- Big development already being built! We are on a flood plain so we should not peoples houses at risk by building on them!! But councils don't care about peoples homes that already exist.
- This is a beautiful village. There are enough houses in this village. Villages are disappearing fast.
- Young village people unable to afford to live in their own community.
- Villages need to regenerate and expand to accommodate families growing up.
- Core families of long standing should have an opportunity to stay in the village.
- The village does not have room for anymore houses other than those already planned.
- The village is the right size. True, it doesn't have a dedicated pub or big shop or doctors surgery or a bank or a dentist etc. But if it did, it would no longer be a quaint little rural village. By definition a village neds to be small. A small number of extra houses may sound insignificant but what if a few more were added and then a few more. Soon, the village would need additional facilities (like those listed above) to serve the extra population and would quickly turn into a small town, then a larger town. I would argue that the whole reason most of the residents of the village chose to live here was because it is a small, quiet village with a friendly community spirit, away from the crowds. A rare jewel of a village that benefits from its peaceful rural location. If it loses these features, its very nature would be altered and it would lose its appeal to those who enjoy the lifestyle offered by its location and size. It is true that not everyone can afford to live here, the houses are, in general, expensive but again this is the nature of the make up of the village - it is aspirational. Just like not everyone has a huge diamond ring or a Ferrari sportscar, not everyone has a detached house in a quiet rural village. However, they may want those things and their rareness not only drives their high prices but also their desirability. If every village constantly expanded with the addition of 'just a few' houses, they would no longer be villages (as outlined above) and so they would no longer be desirable. Some things, like diamonds or Ferraris or small, quiet villages, are the rares and, in order to retain their desirability and their aspirational nature, they need to stay that way.
- To enable young people who have grown up in the area to stay in young adulthood. Homes need to be affordable.
- There are enough developments already in the pipeline none of which are not in keeping with the village.
- Do not need anymore houses or bungalows.
- Very small village with proportionally large number of rented properties which often stand empty. Nature of village only appeals to very small number of people, therefore no extra homes needed.
8. Life in the Villages
8.1 Questions 11, 12 and 13 of the survey asked for people’s views on what they think of Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton as places to live; what they like about them and what they think the issues are, if any. Respondents could tick more than one answer.
8.2 The information below, shows that 93% of respondents think that the villages are nice places to live. 79% of respondents think they have a friendly atmosphere and community spirit. 59% viewed the villages as sought-after locations and 50% thought they had balanced and varied populations.
- Sought after location - 25
- Nice place to live - 39
- Balanced and varied population - 21
- Friendly atmosphere / community spirit - 33
8.3 The information below in 8.4, shows that 50% of people thought that the villages lacked facilities. Only 7% however thought crime was a concern and
8.4 Respondents were asked what they would like to see happen to improve the situation regarding their concerns and their comments can be seen below.
- Crime - 3
- Anti-social behaviour - 2
- Lack of facilities - 21
What would improve the situation?
- No village shop, very poor transport links, no pub, no restaurant. Anti-social behaviour from nearby Clifton, as under 18-year olds regularly using roads, bridle paths and land for off-road bikes which are not road legal. Police are aware this is a weekly occurrence but do not have resources to deal with this. Fly-tipping is also a problem.
- I think the area is nice just as it is.
- Fly-tipping.
- Fly-tipping, bus service to tram station needed including frequency.
- Improved bus service.
- Children's facilities.
- Better transport links to East Midlands Parkway and tram terminals at Clifton south. Stronger support from City and County Councils to object to the prospect of quarrying for sand and gravel immediately adjacent to the village.
- Playground for young children. Much better bus service.
- Play area for children.
- We have had problems with some anti-social behaviour during lock-down, but generally its very lovely. There are a lack of facilities, but the community punches above its weight and was pretty active pre-Covid19.
- A local shop and better transport.
- Lack of bus services to Clifton and Nottingham. A little street lighting.
- Play are for children.
- Better public transport, mains sewerage.
- Nothing really, leave the village alone.
- More public transport, fitness and play area outdoors.
- Doesn't need improving.
- Defeat the plans for a quarry.
- No facilities for children or sport.
- Lack of buses to Clifton and Nottingham, a little street lighting.
- Pub or shop.
8.5 The information below shows the factors that people thought were most important for the future of the village. Without the right infrastructure, villages cannot thrive, and eventually can become unsustainable. For any new development to be successful, the right amenities need to be in place.
- Public transport - 26
- Parking - 2
- Road network -1
- Community buildings - 4
- Balance of housing - 11
- Primary school - 0
- Broadband -18
- Mobile phone signal -17
- Employment opportunities - 2
- Services for the elderly - 14
- Services for the young - 9
- Shop facilities - 9
- Social facilities - 4
- Other - 5
8.6 62% of respondents felt that public transport was the most important factor in the future of the villages followed by broadband connectivity at 43% and mobile phone signal at 40%.
8.7 33% of respondents also felt services for the elderly were an important factor required for the future of the villages.
8.8 The least important factors were shown to be Primary schools (0%), employment opportunities and parking (5%) and the road network (2%).
8.9 Respondents further comments are shown below:
- Green spaces / wildlife / nature conservation.
- We have to be realistic about what a village this size can support. But a bus connection is important as is good safe walking/cycling access/egress from/onto the village.
- As outlined in my response to question 10, I personally feel the village is just right the way it is. It will continue with it's current level of facilities and, indeed, may even be fatally altered if the list of above features were introduced. In fact, if all these were introduced, it would quickly become unrecognisable and no longer be a village.
- Rural location and county walks.
Works Cited
City Population info 2020
Joint Strategic Needs Assessment Evidence summary 2017
Halifax, 2017
National Housing Federation 2018
A Manifesto for Affordable Rural Homes.
Zoopla Statistics
Contact Information
Midlands Rural Housing
Whitwick Business Centre
Stenson Road
Coalville
Leicestershire
LE67 4JP
Telephone: 0300 1234 009
Email: emma.simkins@midlandsrural.org.uk
Rural Sites Programme
- Barton in Fabis and Thrumpton
- Bunny
- Costock
- Costock 2020
- Cropwell Bishop
- Cropwell Butler
- East Bridgford
- Flintham
- Flintham 2018
- Gotham
- Langar cum Barnstone
- Orston
- Plumtree
- Rempstone
- Screveton
- Shelford
- Stanton on the Wolds
- Whatton
- Whatton in the Vale 2020
- Willoughby on the Wolds
- Willoughby on the Wolds, Wysall and Widmerpool