Skip to additional navigation Skip to content

Screveton

Screveton, Kneeton and Car Colston Housing Needs Survey

Midlands Rural Housing in partnership with Rushcliffe Borough Council and Parish Councils July 2020.

 

Contents

 

1. Summary

A housing needs survey was carried out in Screveton, Kneeton, and Car Colston (including Little Green), Nottinghamshire in June 2020. Questionnaires were delivered to 177 households in the three parishes and an electronic survey was available as an alternative method of response.

1.1 Results showed that there is a requirement for 3 new homes, in order to enable local people to be suitably housed within their community.

 

Summary of housing need

Type of Unit

 Required Affordable Rented Required Rent to Buy Shared Ownership (25%)

Required Open

Market Housing

 Totals
1 bed home - - - - 0
2 bed house - - - - 0
3 bed house - - - - 0
4 bed house - - - - 0
5 bed house - - - - 0
1 bed bungalow - - - - 0
2 bed bungalow 2 - - - 2
Sheltered housing 1 - - - 1
Total 3 0 - - 3

 Table 1: Summary of housing requirements in Screveton, Kneeton, and Car Colston

1.2 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.

1.3 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 village of Rempstone. 

3. Issues Facing Rural Communities

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 June 2020, a Housing Needs Survey questionnaire was delivered to every household in Screveton, Kneeton & Car Colston. The deadline for responses was the 6 July. 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 177 surveys distributed, a total of 48 completed responses were received. This resulted in an overall response rate of 27%. In our experience this is an average level of response for a survey of this type, in villages of this size.

4.3 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

4.4 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.

4.5 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.

4.6 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 Screveton, Kneeton & Car Colston which will be valid until July 2025. This study has investigated the affordable housing need and the open market housing preferences of the parish, the resident’s views about living in the parish, and the level of support for local homes to help sustain local communities.

5.2 The survey has identified a need for 2 affordable homes, 1 requirement for sheltered housing and an aspirational preference for 4 open market homes.

5.3 Of the 4 respondents who indicated a preference for open market housing in the next 5 years, all 4 respondents have been discounted from the analysis because they did not provide enough information for an accurate assessment to be completed.

The 2 respondents claiming a need for affordable housing were cross referenced against Rushcliffe Borough Council’s housing register to ensure double counting has not taken place. Neither person was found to be on the register.

5.4 In total, from the survey, and the housing register a need was found in the village for 3 affordable homes for local people:

  • 2 were assessed as needing affordable rented housing - 2 x 2 bedroom bungalows
  • 1 was assessed as needing sheltered housing

5.5 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.’

 

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 assessed as having an affordable housing need

Respondents assessed as having an affordable housing need

Reference

 Local Connection On Housing Register Household Details Reasons for Need Preferred Home and Tenure Likely Allocation
3 Over 10 years residency. No Couple with health concerns, living in privately rented 3 bed house.

Cannot manage stairs. Current home too expensive.

2 or 3-bedroom bungalow. Renting from the Council or H. A.

2-bedroom bungalow. H. A. affordable rent.
5 Over 10 years residency. No Couple living in privately rented 2 bed house. Landlord considering selling. Current home too expensive. 1 or 2-bedroom bungalow. Affordable rent or shared ownership. 2-bedroom bungalow. H. A. affordable rent.

 

Residents currently on Rushcliffe Borough Council Housing Register

Residents currently on Rushcliffe Borough Council Housing Register

Reference

 Local Connection On Housing Register Household Details Likely Allocation
HR86 Private rented tenant Yes, band 3 – Since 11/03/2019 Elderly couple

Sheltered Housing only

 

Respondents who have been assessed for an open market housing preference

Respondents who have been assessed for an open market housing preference

Reference

 Local Connection On Housing Register Household Details Reasons for Preference Preferred Home and Tenure Likely Purchase
1 Close family here. Lived here for 3 out of previous 5 years. No Single parent family living with relatives in 3-bedroom H.A. rented house. Couple setting up home together. 2-bedroom house. Open market purchase. 2-bedroom house. Open market purchase.
2

Close family live here. Moved away but wish to return.

 No Single adult living away from home.

To be close to family.

 2-bedroom house or flat. Open market purchase or rent to buy.

2-bedroom house.

Open market purchase
4 5-10 years residency No Single adult living in family home. Requires independent home. 2-bedroom bungalow. Open market purchase 2-bedroom house. Open market purchase
6 Over 10 years residency No Family of 4 living in tied 3-bedroom house. Leaving tied housing. Requires independent home.

3-bedroom house.

Open market purchase.

3-bedroom house.

Open market purchase.

6.1.2 Respondents in the table above, have not given details of income or savings, or any contact details, so we are unable to accurately assess whether they have a genuine ability to purchase housing in their village. Their preference for open market housing is therefore considered to be aspirational.

6.2 House Price Data

6.2.1 Overall, property prices in Screveton, Kneeton & Car Colston have increased over the past 5 years. During that period, prices have increased by an average of 10.30% across the three villages. (Zoopla 2020). Figures for each individual village are shown below:

Housing Market Activity - Screveton

  • Average price paid - £461,286
  • Sales - 7
  • Current average value - £528,482
  • Value change - £47,632

Housing Market Activity - Kneeton

  • Average price paid - £191,286
  • Sales - 2
  • Current average value - £109,747
  • Value change - £10,444

Housing Market Activity - Car Colston

  • Average price paid - £529,875
  • Sales - 8
  • Current average value - £560,123
  • Value change - £53,184

6.2.2 Individual value trends over the last 5 years, for the three villages show values of all property types have increased steadily between 2015 and 2019 but have dipped sharply since late 2019 to the present. This is due, in part, to the lockdown caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and it remains to be seen whether this is a temporary fluctuation or whether it becomes an ongoing trend.

Local Context – Properties for Sale

6.2.3 By way of local context, the figure below shows the average prices of properties that were for sale in July 2020. There were no properties for sale in car Colston and no properties for rent in any of the villages at the time the survey report was written.

Current asking prices in Screveton

  • Houses
    • 2 beds - £360,000 (1 property)
    • 3 beds - £525,000 (2 properties)
    • 4 beds - £600,000 (1 property)

Current asking prices in Kneeton

  • Houses
    • 4 beds - £765,000 (1 property)

6.3 Local Context – Properties Sold

6.3.1 The information below indicates that there have been just 4 property sales in Screveton in the last 12 months, and none in Kneeton or Car Colston. They also show that average values reduced by 6.45% over the period. . 

 Market activity in Screveton

  • Average price paid - £437,250
  • Sales - 4
  • Current average value - £528,482
  • Value change - minus £38,461

 Market activity in Kneeton

  • Average price paid - not applicable
  • Sales - 0
  • Current average value - £109,747
  • Value change - minus £7,358

 Market activity in Car Colston

  • Average price paid - not applicable
  • Sales - 0
  • Current average value - £560,123
  • Value change - minus £37,581

7. Appendix 2

7.1 Respondents - a total of 177 surveys were distributed, and 48 were returned. 

7.2 Household Type

7.2.1 Question 1 of the questionnaire asked residents to indicate their household type. The information is shown below.

  • Couple - 26
  • Two parent family - 7
  • One person household - 10
  • Lone parent family - 2
  • Other - 2
  • Two person household (unrelated) - 0

7.2.2 The largest number of responses was from couples; 55% of total responses were from this group.

7.2.3 21% of responses came from one person households and 15% were from two parent families. 

7.2.4 Lone parent families and Others each accounted for 4%.

7.3 Tenure of Respondents

7.3.1 As shown below, most respondents were homeowners. 51% owned their home outright and 30% of respondents owned their own home with a mortgage.

  • Own home outright - 24
  • Own home with mortgage - 14
  • Renting from private landlord - 5
  • Renting from housing association - 1
  • Not given - 1
  • Housing tied to job - 2
  • Living with parents or family - 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 below.

7.4.2 52% of total households are residing in a property with 3-bedrooms. 26% of respondents are residing in 4-bedroom properties, 11% are living in 5- bedroom properties and 9% are living in a 2-bedroom property.

7.4.3 83% of respondents are living in a house, 10% are living in a bungalow and 4% in a flat.

7.5 Length of Residence

7.5.1 Respondents were asked to indicate which was their home village and the length of time they have been resident in the parish.

7.5.2 54% of responses were from people living in Screveton; 33% were from people living in Car Colston & Little Green; 13% of responses were from people living in Kneeton.

7.5.3 68% of respondents have lived in their village for 10 years or more; 6% for between 5-10 years; 15% for between 2-5 years; 11% for less than 2 years.

7.6 Type of Housing Needed in the Village

7.6.1 When asked what type of housing they thought was needed in the parish, 77% of respondents felt that no further homes are needed.

7.6.2 15% of respondents felt that small homes for young people are needed.

7.6.3 11% of respondents thought 3-4 bedroom family homes are needed.

7.6.4 9% of respondents thought homes for the elderly were needed.

7.6.5 2% of respondents thought homes for disabled people were needed.

7.6.6 15% stated a need for ‘other’ types of housing. Their comments are listed on the following page.

Comments

  • Very few houses needed in this conservation village.
  • Screveton has had relative to its size, a massive building programme for new builds and infill, 18 new houses including outstanding planning permissions.
  • All housing needed to combat shortages.
  • It is a conservation village and we wish to preserve the unique nature of it for future generations.
  • The small estate of 6 homes on Hawksworth Road is totally out of character for the village. Buyers recognise this with sales very slow.
  • None - with the 1000's of housing being built in Bingham there is no need to expand the villages.
  • Houses have been built in the village in the last few years.
  • No gypsy camps and get rid of the one that is here already.

7.7 Migration and Reasons for Leaving

7.7.1 Question 8 explored whether anybody knew someone from their household who had left the village during the last 5 years.

7.7.2 72% of people did not know anyone from their household who had left their village, whilst 28% did.

7.7.3 30% of people who had left the area, had left to take up employment elsewhere. Another 30% left to go to university.

7.7.4 10% had left due to marriage or separation and 10% left due to a lack of affordable housing.

7.8 Support for New Homes being Built in the Village

7.8.1 Question 9 asked whether people would support homes being developed for local people. 68% would not support new homes, although 30% said they would. Additional comments are given below:

  • The village has already had too many new houses built in the last few years. All of which are large and unaffordable to most people.
  • Most village residents are long term inhabitants and are local people.
  • Village perfect as is.
  • The local people are tenants on the Neale Estate. There are only 4 privately owned houses.
  • All the land surrounding apart from these is owned by the Neale Estate.
  • Too much housing development taking place and spoiling many rural areas.
  • Knights Close is affordable housing owned by a Housing Association. The village infrastructure, roads, broadband etc will not support further development.
  • Screveton simply does not have the space for any more houses, it is a small village.
  • I would prefer to keep the village as it is, i.e. no filling in of gaps between houses and no new developments.
  • Chronic shortage of all dwellings - more houses etc needed.
  • Small hamlet - with recent infills - no street lights.
  • No needed.
  • Three quarters of current housing stock is rented, as these rental properties are of various types they already meet local needs and their turnover allows for a mix of local people.
  • It’s a small village with limited infrastructure to support more homes.
  • We don't need estates of homes (like the abomination on Hawksworth Road) spoiling the character of the village. One off development, so the village retains its character of individual different homes built in different styles over different periods like those along Spring Lane over the years are acceptable. No more estate developments.
  • The village suits one off developments, a mix of styles and layouts. The ghastly new development on Hawksworth Road is a classic example of what is not needed and doesn't fit in.
  • Cannot sell what is already there.
  • New housing in Bingham fills the need.
  • Poor transport no facilities. School capacity.
  • No facilities in village.
  • We are a tiny hamlet with no infrastructure and single-track lanes, we have had house built and we don’t need and can’t take any more with huge investment in the village from the local authority.
  • So families can stay in the area they grew up in. Rural families can’t afford to stay where the love.
  • There has been quite intense house building in the village over the past few years and we need a pause to integrate the new houses with the existing ones.
  • Otherwise there are no options for lower income households to stay local, support networks for older people will dwindle and older people will be unable to downsize.
  • Small number, yes, but not any further large developments. There has been parking issues for a long time in Bingham to go shopping.
  • There are lots of new builds available in Bingham, Newton etc.
  • We have enough new builds here already for the size of the village.
  • 12 new homes built in last 5 years.
  • Provided they were in keeping with village and only if you can demonstrate they serve an unmet need vs building houses for money and impacting on village.
  • Not for gypsy not for non-residents i.e. must have at least 3 generations in the churchyard. If our daughter wanted to return and live full time after her degree she would like to be able to afford her own property locally.
  • Green belt and quite a bit of brown belt around not being used.
  • It would give the community a better balance of wealth and age population.
  • Only small homes so that people can stay close to the area they grew up in.
  • Plenty of land if setting right.

8. Life in the Village

8.1 Questions 10 and 11 of the survey asked for people’s views on what they think of their village as a place to live; what they like about the village and what they think the issues are, if any. Respondents were able to tick multiple answers.

8.2 The information below, shows that 73% of respondents think their village is a nice place to live. 56% of respondents thought it had a friendly atmosphere and community spirit and 38% viewed their village as a sought-after location. Finally, only 24% thought their village had a balanced and varied population.

  • Sought after location - 18
  • Nice place to live - 35
  • Balanced and varied population - 12
  • Friendly atmosphere/community spirit - 24

8.3 The information below, shows that 57% of people thought their village lacked facilities. 46% thought crime and 9% thought anti-social behaviour, were concerns.

  • Crime - 22
  • Antisocial - 4
  • Lack of facilities - 16

8.5 The information at 8.8 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. 

8.6 60% of respondents felt that public transport was the most important concern for the village. Another 60% felt that mobile phone signal was the most important factor. Broadband also scored highly at 50%.

8.7 Several other factors also registered as significant concerns, including services for the elderly (27%), balance of housing (18%), road network (16%).

8.8 The least important factors were shown to be parking (2%) and community buildings (5%).

8.9 Respondents were asked their views about the factors that may affect the future of the village and their comments can be seen below. 

  • Public transport - 29
  • Parking - 1
  • Road network - 8
  • Community buildings - 2
  • Balance of housing - 9
  • Primary school - 2
  • Broadband - 24
  • Mobile phone signal - 29
  • Employment opportunities -
  • Services for the elderly - 13
  • Services for the young - 5
  • Shop facilities - 6
  • Social facilities -5
  • Other - 10

Other (please specify)

  • 'Slow down!' beacon on roads.
  • "Mobile phone signal is poor.
  • Farmeco Community Care, Café Velo Verde Men in Sheds, the gym and volunteering opportunities are great village resources.
  • We can walk to the pub, cycle to Bingham, enjoy the Velo Verde café, walk to church, go to men in sheds, enjoy the footpaths and walks, go to the gym, volunteer at Farmeco. Life is very good. Nothing needs to change.
  • Crime prevention.
  • We don’t need any of the above, we have chosen to live in a quiet spot!
  • No further build of houses.
  • Preserving the status quo.
  • Ban cyclists.
  • The sewer system is already at capacity and the roads aren't suitable for the volume of traffic, but the bus service isn't fit for purpose and is overly expensive.

Works Cited

Joint Strategic Needs Assessment Evidence summary 2017 [online] cited Nov 2020.

https://www.nottinghamshireinsight.org.uk/research-areas/jsna/

Halifax, 2017. [Online] Available at: https://static.halifax.co.uk/assets/pdf/media-centre/press-releases/2017- 10-02-rural-housing-review-30-september-2017-housing-release.pdf

National Housing Federation, 2018. A Manifesto for Affordable Rural Homes, s.l.: s.n.

Zoopla Statistics (online) : https://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/browse/carcolston/?q=Car%20Colston%2C%20Nottingham&search_source=house-prices

Contact Information

Midlands Rural Housing
Whitwick Business Centre
Stenson Road
Coalville
Leicestershire
LE67 4JP
Tel: 0300 1234 009
Email: miles.king@midlandsrural.org.uk

 

Rural Sites Programme