The Impact of the RTB in East Lothian
Research update - May 2003
Research on the Impact of the Right to Buy in East Lothian was completed in 2001
and covered the period 1980-2000. It included a detailed study of
(a) the cumulative uptake of RTB over the twenty year period
(b) the development and current status of the resale market
The purpose of these two reports is to update the findings of the previous research by
analysing more recent data. The information on RTB uptake (Part 1) was collected
and analysed in-house, while the report on the resale market (Part 2) was completed
by Lou Rosenburg, the author of the original research.
The reports should be read in conjunction with the original report which can be found
at http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/socialworkandhousing/housing.htm
(hard copy available on request from Tessa Brown, Housing Development Services)
Contents
Page
Summary
3
Part 1 – uptake of the Right to Buy - April 2000 to March 2003
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Introduction
Methodology
Overview
Broad geographic pattern
Variations by administrative division
Variations by size of settlement
Variations by size of stock
Conclusions
6
6
6
7
8
9
13
15
Part 2 – the Right to Buy re-sale market – 2001 to 2002
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
Introduction
Annual rate of change in re-sale prices
Annual volume of transactions
Annual rate of turnover
Average resale prices – 2001 and 2002
Changing distribution of re-sale prices
Range of re-sale prices
Settlement level variation in re-sale prices
Previous location of re-sale purchasers
Locational choices of Edinburgh-based purchasers
RTB re-sale market in context
Appendix – 2001 Census information (population and tenure by settlement)
1
17
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
29
30
33
List of tables and figures
Page
Part 1 – uptake of the Right to Buy - April 2000 to March 3003
Figure 1 – cumulative percentage of 1980 stock sold by 31/3/03
Figure 2 – cumulative percentage of 1980 stock sold by 31 March 2003-05-08
Figure 3 – cumulative percentage of RTB sales to 31/3/03 by size of
Settlement
Figure 4 - percentage of 1980 stock sold between 1/4/00 and 31/3/03
Figure 5 – percentage of sales by size of stock 31/3/00-31/3/03
Figure 6 – percentage of sales by size of stock 31/3/00-31/3/03
By settlement group
Table 1 – Variations by administrative division
Table 2 – Sales by size of settlement – main towns with population 6000+
Table 3 – Sales by size of settlement – intermediate towns with population
1,000-5,999
Table 4 – Sales by size of settlement – villages with population <1,000
Table 5 - Sales by administrative division and apartment size - 1/4/00-31/3/03
as a percentage of stock on the HRA at 31/3/2000
7
8
12
12
13
14
8
9
10
11
15
Part 2 – the Right to Buy re-sale market – 2001 to 2002
Table 1 – Percentage change in mean re-sale price – ex-ELC properties
1998 to 2002
Table 2 – estimated annual number of re-sales – ex-ELC properties
1998 to 2002
Table 3 – annual turnover in RTB re-sale market – 1998 to 2002
Table 4 – mean re-sale price for ex-ELC properties – 2001 and 2002
Table 5 – percentage distribution of RTB re-sales by price group
1998 to 2002
Table 6 – mean/minimum/maximum re-sale prices – ex-ELC properties
1998 to 2002
Table 7 – mean re-sale prices for ex-ELC properties by settlement
2001-2002
Table 8 - mean re-sale prices for ex-ELC cottage stock – main towns,
Intermediate and small settlements – 2001-2 and 1998-2000
Table 9 – percentage distribution of RTB re-sales, by previous location
Of purchaser – 1998 to 2002
Table 10 – percentage distribution of RTB re-sales, by previous location
Of purchaser – 2001-2002
Table 11 – percentage distribution of Edinburgh-based purchase, by
Settlement of purchase in East Lothian – 2001-2 and 1998-2000
Table 12 – comparision of average re-sale prices – ex-ELC properties and
East Lothian second-hand market
2
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
Summary
Uptake of the Right to Buy - April 2000 to March 3003

Between April 2000 and the end of March 2002 the Council lost 1,145 houses
to the RTB, bringing the cumulative sales total to 48.5% of the 1980 stock.
This represents a 7 per cent increase on the cumulative total at the end of
March 2000 (or 7 per cent of the 1980 base stock of 16,332 houses).

More than half the sales were 3-apartment properties while a third were fourapartments. Sales of 2 and 5-apartments made up only a small proportion of
sales. However the rate of uptake as a percentage of HRA stock was highest
for 5-apartment properties, with 4-apartments having the second highest
uptake rate.

There was very little difference in cumulative uptake between the east and
west sectors of East Lothian or between the coastal and inland sectors.

In terms of administrative divisions (based on the housing management areas)
the North Berwick and Musselburgh areas had the highest rates of cumulative
uptake (both more than half their original stock), while the Dunbar Tranent,
and Prestonpans areas had rates below the ELC average. The cumulative
figure for Haddington is now (just) above than the ELC average whereas in
2000 it was below average

Musselburgh town still had the highest rate of uptake at 51.4 percent of 1980
stock with North Berwick town a very close second. The remaining four
main towns had below average cumulative sales levels.

Among the intermediate settlements the overall position was similar to 2000
with six of the nine settlements in this group having rates well above the East
Lothian average. All six have now lost more than half their stock and in the
case of Longniddry the figure is approaching two thirds of the 1980 stock.

The original RTB research found that the rate of uptake in the small
settlements was more diverse than either main or intermediate settlements.
This remains the case with fourteen settlements having rates above the EL
average and the remaining thirteen below the average. The group of small
settlements included both the highest and the lowest rates of uptake for East
Lothian.

As in 2000 the intermediate settlements, taken as a group, have the highest
level of cumulative uptake – by some margin. However, although the small
settlements still have the lowest cumulative uptake of the three settlement
groups over the 23 year period, they had the highest rate of uptake during the
three years 2000-2003.
3
The Right to Buy re-sale market – 2001 to 2002

The pattern of price change over the period has been highly uneven, although
the general trend has been upwards. Over the last five years, on average,
prices for ex-ELC properties have increased by approximately 40%.

For the local authority area as a whole, there was a steady increase in the
annual number of RTB re-sales from 1998 to 2001. The volume of re-sale
transactions reached an all-time peak of 358 in 2001

For the local authority area as a whole, the annual rate of turnover varied
between 4 and 5 percent during this period. A particularly important feature
of the broad pattern of results was the geographic variation in turnover rates.
Throughout the period, the annual turnover rates for the East sector were
consistently lower than the corresponding figures for the West sector.

The mean price for the East sector re-sales was 13.6% above the
corresponding result for West sector (£73,700 versus £64,900).

The pattern of results for 2002 indicated that the average re-sale price for
cottage properties was 24% greater than the corresponding figure for flatted
properties (£72, 600 versus £58, 500).

With regard to age of property, it was apparent that inter-war properties were
continuing to sell at a premium.

In 2002, nearly two-thirds (64%) of the ex-ELC properties were re-sold for at
least £60,000 and one-quarter were re-sold for at least £80,000.

The previous maximum price of £114,600 has been exceeded by a substantial
margin. The current maximum now stands at £180,000, the amount paid for a
5-apartment, inter-war, semi-detached house in Pencaitland

At the cheaper end of the RTB re-sale market, it has become much more
difficult to acquire an ex-ELC property for less than £40,000. During the past
two years, the under £40,000 segment accounted for only 3% of all RTB resales

The pattern of results generally indicated an inverse relationship between
mean re-sale price and size of settlement. Over the period 2001-2002, the
average re-sale price for the six main towns (£63,700) was 3% below the
corresponding figure for East Lothian as a whole (£65,400). In contrast, the
average price for the eight intermediate-size settlements (£69,000) was 6%
above the East Lothian average. For the six small settlements, the average
price (£78,600) was as much as 20% above the general average for cottage
properties.
4

In overall terms, the demand pattern in the RTB re-sale market has remained
predominantly local. During 2001-2002, a majority (60%) of the buyers were
already living in East Lothian at the time of purchase and around one-third
(35%) were based in the same settlement. Over the past two years, however,
there has been a definite upward shift in the proportion of Edinburgh-based
buyers

The strong orientation of the Edinburgh-based buyers toward the West sector
has continued in recent years. During 2001-2002, 39% of the buyers in the
West sector had a previous address within Edinburgh, as against only 7% in
the East sector.

In recent years, prices in the RTB re-sale market in East Lothian have been
lagging behind the general trend for the wider second-hand market. It is
therefore reasonable to expect that prices for ex-ELC properties will remain
robust over the next year or two as the RTB re-sale market “catches up” with
the recent escalation of prices in the wider housing market.
5
Part 1
Uptake of the RTB in East Lothian 1 April 2000-31 March 2002
1.1 Introduction
The aim of this report is to update the findings of the report by Lou Rosenburg (2001)
on the Impact of the RTB in East Lothian in terms of cumulative impact of RTB
sales on the Council’s stock. Together with updated research on the RTB resale
market this information is part of the requirement to support an application for
suspension of the RTB in pressured areas. It will also feed into the Local Housing
Strategy, Local Investment Framework and other related research.
1.2 Methodology
The analysis was carried out by collecting numerical data from the records kept by
Community Housing and Legal Services for their returns to the Scottish Executive
(the Sales 3 forms). From these it was possible to identify total numbers of sales by
settlement, apartment size and date of sale. The new sales figures and data collected
for the previous research were transferred to an excel spreadsheet designed to track
the number and cumulative percentage of sales since 1980 for each settlement.
Cumulative uptake was measured in the same way as in the original research – the
total number of properties sold expressed as a percentage of the 1980 stock. It was
then possible to analyse the sales at a number of different levels, ie





Overall rate of uptake for East Lothian
Variations by size of stock
Broad geographical variations
Variations between administrative divisions
Variations between settlements
Using groupings similar to those used in the original research made it possible to chart
any significant changes as well as the overall level of uptake since 2000. The analysis
also considers uptake rates during the three-year period 2000-2003.
Although the original research analysed sales up to the end of September 2000 the
data was recorded by financial year. This analysis therefore takes the position in April
2000 as the starting point and covers the three financial years to March 2003 . This
avoided the need to disaggregate data for part of a year and will also help to simplify
the task of updating the information in future.
1.3 Overview
Between April 2000 and the end of March 2003 the Council lost 1,145 houses to the
RTB, bringing the cumulative sales total to 48.5% of the 1980 stock. This represents
a 7 per cent increase on the cumulative total at the end of March 2000 (or 7 per cent
of the 1980 base stock of 16,332 houses). In 2002-3 alone there were 504 sales – the
highest number recorded since sales peaked in the late 1980s. In each of the two
preceding years sales were significantly higher than annual rates for most of the 1990s
(320 in 2000-1 and 321 2001-2).
6
1.4 Broad geographic pattern
Figure 1 shows cumulative sales for East Lothian as a whole and for ‘east’ and ‘west’
sectors. The east sector includes Haddington, Dunbar and North Berwick areas while
the west encompasses the Musselburgh, Prestonpans and Tranent areas.
In 2000 cumulative sales in the west sector were marginally (1.5%) higher than those
in the west. By the end of March 2003 the gap had narrowed to 1.1 per cent (figure 1)
Figure 1 - cumulative percentage of 1980 stock sold by 31/3/03
48.7%
West sector
48.5%
ELC average
47.6%
East sector
40.0%
42.0%
44.0%
46.0%
48.0%
Figure 2 compares rates of uptake for coastal and inland settlements. Both groups
include a mix of east and west sector settlements. The coastal settlements are
Musselburgh, Prestonpans, Cockenzie and Port Seton, Longniddry, Aberlady,
Gullane, Dirleton, North Berwick and Dunbar. In 2000 the uptake for coastal
settlements was 1.6 per cent higher than for inland settlements. Again the gap had
narrowed to just 1.1 per cent by the end of March 2003.
7
Figure 2 – Cumulative percentage of 1980 stock sold by 31 March 2003
(coastal and inland settlements)
49.0%
Coastal
settlements
48.5%
ELC average
47.9%
Inland
settlements
40%
42%
44%
46%
48%
50%
1.5 Variations by administrative division
Table 1 shows both cumulative uptake and the rate of uptake over the last three years
by administrative division.
Table 1 - Sales by administrative division - 1/4/00-31/3/03
Division
North Berwick
Musselburgh
Haddington
ELC – average
Tranent
Prestonpans
Dunbar
Cum % sold
to 31/3/2000
43.5
43.4
41.3
41.5
41.6
40.0
37.0
New sales
1/4/200031/3/03
96
347
130
1,145
236
245
91
Cum % sold
to 31/3/2003
51.2
50.5
48.6
48.5
48.4
47.1
42.9
% change
since March
2000
7.7
7.1
7.3
7.0
6.8
7.1
5.9
As in the previous research the North Berwick area had the highest rate of cumulative
uptake since 1980 and Dunbar the lowest. The cumulative figure for Haddington is
now slightly higher than the ELC average whereas in 2000 it was below average.
Tranent area is very slightly below the average. Although Prestonpans has below
average cumulative sales its uptake over the last three years is slightly above average.
8
1.6 Variations by size of settlement
The classification used in the previous research has been retained, grouping
settlements in terms of size:



Main towns
Intermediate-sized settlements
Smaller settlements
We have however taken account of 2001 census figures and main towns are now
classed as those with a population over 6,000 rather than 5,000, and intermediate
settlements are those with population between 1,000 and 5,999. Small settlements
have a population below 1,000. This does not affect the configuration of settlements.
Key census figures by settlement are included in the appendix.
Table 2 shows variations in uptake between the six main towns.
Table 2 - Sales by size of settlement – main towns with population 6000+
(2001 Census)
Settlement
Musselburgh
North Berwick
ELC – average
Haddington
Tranent
Dunbar
Prestonpans
Cum % sold
to 31/3/2000
44.7
42.5
41.5
41.6
38.3
37.0
36.0
New sales
1/4/200031/3/03
256
53
1,145
88
146
69
165
Cum % sold
to 31/3/2003
51.4
50.7
48.5
47.6
45.3
43.9
42.8
% change
since March
2000
6.7
8.2
7.0
6.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
The broad pattern is similar to 2000. Musselburgh town still has the highest
cumulative rate of uptake with North Berwick town second. Both towns have now
lost more than half their 1980 stock. Haddington was just above the ELC average in
2000 but is now just below the average, reflecting a lower rate of sales over the last
three years. North Berwick had the highest rate of uptake for this group over the three
years.
The next table shows variations between the intermediate-sized settlements.
Again the overall position is similar to 2000 with six of the nine settlements in this
group having rates well above the East Lothian average. All six have now lost more
than half their stock and in the case of Longniddry the figure is approaching two
thirds of the 1980 stock. The rate of sales during the last two years varies somewhat
from the cumulative pattern – for example Ormiston has the second highest
cumulative uptake for this group but the lowest rate of sales for 2000-03. Whitecraig
had a particularly high uptake rate over the last three years (Table 3).
9
Table 3 - Sales by size of settlement –intermediate towns with population
1,000-5,999 (2001 Census)
Settlement
Longniddry
Ormiston
Gullane
Pencaitland
Cockenzie/Port Seton
Whitecraig
ELC – average
Macmerry
East Linton
Wallyford
Cum % sold
to 31/3/2000
56.8
54.3
48.4
50.0
47.8
45.4
41.5
40.8
38.4
35.6
New sales
1/4/200031/3/03
14
30
20
14
66
40
1,145
23
14
48
Cum % sold
to 31/3/2003
64.2
59.6
55.6
57.8
55.7
55.6
48.5
46.7
44.0
43.1
% change
since March
2000
7.4
5.3
7.2
7.8
7.9
10.2
7.0
5.9
5.6
7.5
The original RTB research found that the rate of uptake in the small settlements was
more diverse than either main or intermediate settlements.
Table 4 shows the position at the end of March 2003. In 2000 ten settlements had
uptake rates above the ELC average. By 2003 four more settlements (Kingston,
Whitekirk, Garvald and Humbie) had sales levels that took them above the East
Lothian average. The remaining thirteen settlements still had below-average
cumulative sales.
As in 2000, this group includes both the highest and the lowest rates of uptake. At
one end of the scale Glenkinchie still has no sales recorded to date while at the other
New Winton and Stenton have the highest overall levels of uptake for East Lothian,
apart from East Barns and Millknowe which had already lost all of their stock by
2000. This diversity is partly a reflection of the very small numbers involved in
several cases (the base 1980 stock is shown for ease of reference in column 2).
10
Table 4 - Sales by size of settlement –villages with population <1,0001
Settlement
East Barns
Millknowe
New Winton
Stenton
Athelstaneford
Whitekirk
Garvald
Aberlady
Kingston
Drem
Gilchriston
Morham
Whittinghame
Humbie
ELC - average
Gifford
Gladsmuir
West Barns
East Saltoun
Dirleton
Elphinstone
East Fortune
Spott
Upperkeith
Old Craighall
Innerwick
Bolton
Glenkinchie
Base stock
at 1/10/80
(no.)
Cum % sold
to 31/3/2000
4
2
16
16
52
12
14
216
6
6
2
6
4
10
16,332
137
17
189
49
89
184
8
8
8
31
48
6
4
100
100
62.5
62.5
53.9
33.3
35.7
44.9
33.3
50.0
50.0
50.0
25.0
30.0
41.5
39.4
29.4
34.9
36.7
32.6
36.4
37.5
25.0
12.5
25.8
25.0
16.7
0
No. of new
sales
1/4/200031/3/03
Cum % sold
to 31/3/2003
% change
since March
2000
100
100
68.8
68.8
61.5
58.3
57.1
50.9
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
48.5
47.5
47.1
46.6
44.9
43.8
42.4
37.5
37.5
37.5
35.5
31.3
16.7
0
0
0
6.3
6.3
7.6
25.0
21.4
6.0
16.7
0
0
0
25
20.0
7.0
8.1
17.7
11.7
8.2
11.2
6.0
0
12.5
25.0
9.7
6.3
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
3
3
13
1
0
0
0
1
2
1,145
11
3
22
4
10
11
0
1
2
3
3
0
0
Figure 3 shows the aggregate results for the three settlement groups.
As in 2000 the intermediate settlements have the highest level of uptake – by some
margin. Main towns come in just below the average while the small settlements have
the lowest aggregate level of uptake.
1
2001 Census figures are not available for most of these settlements therefore based on 1997 Lothian
Area Population Model Group estimate
11
Figure 3 – cumulative percentage of RTB sales to 31/3/03 by size of settlement
52.9%
Intermediate
48.5%
ELC
47.3%
Main towns
46.2%
Small
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
However, looking at sales over the last three years a different pattern emerges with
the small settlements having the highest rate of uptake overall (Figure 4).
Intermediate settlements had, overall, a rate equal to the ELC average while the main
towns had slightly below the average uptake.
Figure 4 – percentage of 1980 stock sold between 1/4/00 and 31/3/03
by size of settlement
8.7%
Small
Intermediate
7.1%
ELC average
7.1%
6.8%
Main towns
0%
2%
4%
12
6%
8%
10%
1.7 Variations by size of stock
Although data was not available to carry out a detailed analysis of cumulative uptake
by size of stock some basic analysis of the last three years’ sales was done. The
original research found that the cumulative uptake figures for 4 and 5-apartment units
were significantly higher than the average of all stock, while the uptake of 3apartment units was virtually the same as the average. The rate for 2-apartment units
was well below the ELC average at only 16.5 per cent.
Figure 5 below gives a breakdown of stock sold between April 2000 and March 2003.
More than half the sales were 3-apartment properties while a just over a third were 4apartments. Sales of 2 and 5-apartments made up only a small proportion of the total.
Figure 5 – percentage of sales by size of stock 31/3/00-31/3/03 (all sales = 1,145)
5 apt
4.6
35.4
4 apt
55.5
3 apt
2 apt
0.0
4.8
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Analysis by settlement group revealed no significant differences between the groups.
(Figure 6). The small settlements had a lower percentage of 5 apartment sales and a
slightly higher proportion of 2 apartment sales. Intermediate settlements had the
lowest proportion of 2 apartment sales (under 2 percent). The differences were fairly
minor however.
13
Figure 6 – percentage of sales by size of stock 31/3/00-31/3/03
(by settlement group)
Main towns (777 sales)
5 apt
4.5%
36.2%
4 apt
53.8%
3 apt
2 apt
0.0%
5.5%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Intermediate settlements (269 sales)
5 apt
5.2%
34.5%
4 apt
58.4%
3 apt
2 apt 1.9%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Small settlements (99 sales)
5 apt 2.4%
31.0%
4 apt
59.5%
3 apt
2 apt
0%
7.1%
20%
40%
14
60%
Table 5 gives a breakdown of sales by apartment size for each administrative division
and shows them as a percentage of the Council’s stock at 31st March 2000.
Table 5 - Sales by administrative division and apartment size - 1/4/00-31/3/03
As a percentage of stock on the HRA at 31/3/2000
2 apt
3 apt
4 apt
5 apt
Dunbar
Sales 1/4/00-31/3/03
% of March 2000 stock
2
2.8
48
11.2
34
13.9
7
23.3
Haddington
Sales 1/4/00-31/3/03
% of March 2000 stock
7
2.4
71
12.3
47
13.1
5
12.2
Musselburgh
Sales 1/4/00-31/3/03
% of March 2000 stock
23
4.3
189
12.0
118
15.8
17
21.3
North Berwick
Sales 1/4/00-31/3/03
% of March 2000 stock
8
5.3
59
14.8
25
17.4
4
19.0
Prestonpans
Sales 1/4/00-31/3/03
% of March 2000 stock
6
1.6
133
11.2
100
16
6
8.8
Tranent
Sales 1/4/00-31/3/03
% of March 2000 stock
9
2.5
134
10.8
80
13.4
13
26
East Lothian
Sales 1/4/00-31/3/03
% of March 2000 stock
55
3.1
634
11.7
404
14.9
52
17.9
Although 3-apartment properties made up the greatest number of sales in every area
sales of 4 and 5-apartments were generally more significant in terms of percentages of
March 2000 HRA stock. If sales continued at a similar rate over the coming years the
Council would have lost virtually all its family-sized accommodation in the
Musselburgh and North Berwick areas by 2018. It will certainly have lost all familysized accommodation in a number of individual settlements well before that date.
8
Conclusions
The rapid increase in sales during the last three years means that in overall terms
nearly half the Council’s original 1980 stock has now been lost to the Right to Buy.
In a number of settlements more than half the 1980 stock has gone and in four cases,
more than two thirds.
The rate of uptake varies significantly for different property sizes, 4 and 5-apartment
houses having the highest rates of uptake and 2-apartments the lowest. This
15
obviously has implications for the future profile of Council stock and our ability to
meet housing need.
At the broad geographic level there was little variation in uptake either between east
and west sectors or coastal/inland settlements, while the pattern for administrative
divisions was broadly similar to the position two years ago.
More variation was found at settlement level. Although the broad pattern of
cumulative uptake was consistent with the previous research the rate of sales over the
last three years was more varied. The greatest diversity was among the group of small
settlements. These had both the highest and lowest levels of cumulative uptake and
the highest and lowest rates of sale over the last three years. This was partly a
reflection of the very small numbers of stock involved in some cases – for some
settlements a single sale represents 25 per cent of stock so it is perhaps important not
to make too much of percentage figures at this level.
Nevertheless it was surprising was that while, as a group, the small settlements still
have the lowest cumulative uptake they had the highest rate of uptake over the last
three years. This was the case in spite of the fact that a number of the small
settlements had no sales at all during the three years. Again this probably reflects the
fact that because of the small numbers of stock involved in individual settlements
relatively few sales are needed for a settlement to move into the ‘super league’ in
terms of cumulative uptake. It is also notable that Lou Rosenburg’s research found
that small settlements had the highest resale prices in East Lothian (see part 2). This
only serves to emphasise that when looking at what constitutes a ‘pressured area’ a
number of factors need to be weighed up alongside the stock numbers and cumulative
sales rates. The appendix containing information from the 2001 Census suggests
some possible areas for further work, eg population and tenure patterns and change.
Tessa Brown
Housing Development Services
May 2003
16
Part 2
The Right to Buy re-sale market - 2001 to 2002
2.1
Introduction
This report presents the key results of a follow-up study of the re-sale market for exELC properties during 2001 and 2002. The statistical results are intended to update
the long-term analysis of the RTB re-sale market that formed part of the report
entitled The Impact of the Right to Buy in East Lothian (November 2001).
The earlier investigation was based upon a weighted quota sample drawn from
selected streets within 19 settlements. Approximately 2,600 ex-ELC properties were
included in the original sample. The methodology for updating the earlier research
involved a systematic search of information in the Register of Sasines/Land Register
to identify which of the 2,600 properties in the original sample had been re-sold
during calendar years 2001 and 2002. In addition, a re-check of the Register of
Sasines/Land Register data for the second half of 2000 was undertaken to identify any
re-sale cases that had previously been missed out due to delays in the preparation of
computerised records.
An updated picture of the recent performance of the RTB re-sale market is presented
below. The results are generally summarised under the various headings that were
identified in the research brief. Some additional analyses were undertaken in order to
clarify certain aspects of the current situation. These investigations related to the rate
of turnover in the RTB re-sale market, the moving pattern of Edinburgh-based
purchasers, and the position of the RTB re-sale market relative to the performance of
the general second hand housing market in East Lothian.
This report is comprised of a set of statistical tables together with a brief written text
summarising the key findings of the research. The statistical information in the text
has been rounded in order to enhance readability; more precise figures are given in the
tables.
2.2
Annual Rate of Change in Re-sale Prices
Table 1 shows the pattern of annual percentage change in mean re-sale prices over the
period 1998 to 2002 for the local authority area as a whole and the West/East sectors.
The results are based on the full set of re-sale transactions for all house types.
The pattern of price change over the period has been highly uneven. The general
trend shows a slight decline of -1% for 1998/1999, followed by a sharp upturn of
+15% for 1999/2000, then a modest increase of +5% for 2000/2001, followed by
another dramatic upsurge of +15% for 2001/2002. The patterns for the West and East
sectors are broadly similar in shape.
17
Table 1
Percentage Change in Mean Re-sale Price
Ex-ELC Properties
1998 to 2002
East Lothian
West Sector
East Sector
2001/2002
+14.9
+16.5
+20.1
2000/2001
+4.5
+5.2
+3.2
1999/2000
+15.3
+14.0
+17.3
1998/1999
-1.1
-0.6
-0.4
+39.7
+39.0
+44.9
1998 - 2002
Over the five-year period, on average, prices for ex-ELC properties have increased by
approximately 40%. The results in Table 1 suggest that re-sale prices may have been
increasing at a somewhat faster rate within the East sector. However, this apparent
difference is largely due to variation in the house type mix across the sectors (the
proportion of cottage property is greater for the East sector). The higher price levels
within the East sector are a relatively long-term phenomenon, rather than the product
of a faster growth rate in recent years.
2.3
Annual Volume of Transactions
Table 2 shows the estimated annual volumes of RTB re-sale transactions for the
period 1998 to 2002. The results are based upon the full set of transactions for all
house types.
For the local authority area as a whole, there was a steady increase in the annual
number of RTB re-sales from 1998 to 2001. The volume of re-sale transactions
reached an all-time peak of 358 in 2001. This was followed in 2002 by a 15%
reduction in transactions to an annual figure of 303. In relative terms, the downturns
in 2002 were of similar magnitude within the West and East sectors.
18
Table 2
Estimated Annual Number of Re-sales*
Ex-ELC Properties
1998 to 2002
East Lothian
Year
Number
West Sector
Index
2001
=100
Number
East Sector
Index
2001 =
100
Number
Index
2001 =
100
2002
303
84.6
240
84.8
63
84.0
2001
358
100.0
283
100.0
75
100.0
2000
320
89.4
245
86.6
75
100.0
1999
292
81.6
237
83.7
55
73.3
1998
282
78.8
210
74.2
72
96.0
* Note: Estimates based on weighted tabulation of sample.
2.4
Annual Rate of Turnover
Table 3 shows the annual rates of turnover in the RTB re-sale market during the
period 1998 to 2002. The turnover rates were arrived at by taking the estimated
volume of RTB re-sales in a given year as a percentage of the cumulative number of
ELC properties that had been purchased by sitting tenants at 31st March of that year.
For the local authority area as a whole, the annual rate of turnover varied between 4
and 5 percent during this period. A particularly important feature of the broad pattern
of results was the geographic variation in turnover rates. Throughout the period, the
annual turnover rates for the East sector were consistently lower than the
corresponding figures for the West sector. In four of the five years, the margin of
difference was substantial. The lower rates of turnover in the East sector imply a
more constrained supply of properties in this segment of the RTB re-sale market.
Over the longer term, this was likely to provide a partial explanation for the higher
level of re-sale prices within the East Sector.
19
Table 3
Annual Turnover in RTB Re-sale Market
1998 to 2002
East Lothian
West Sector
East Sector
Year
Re-sales
Cumulati
ve RTB
Sales
Re-sales
Cumulati
ve RTB
Sales
Re-sales
Cumulati
ve RTB
Sales
2002
Turnover
303
7389
240
5353
63
2036
2001
Turnover
358
2000
Turnover
320
1999
Turnover
292
1998
Turnover
282
4.1%
4.5%
7086
283
5.1%
3.%
5146
75
5.5%
6774
245
4.7%
3.9%
4927
75
5.0%
6544
237
4.5%
4770
210
4.4%
55
1774
3.1%
4645
4.5%
1847
4.1%
5.0%
6389
1940
72
1744
4.1%
Note: Cumulative figures are the total number of properties sold by ELC under the
right to buy from 1980 to 31st March of the given year.
2.5
Average Re-sale Prices – 2001 & 2002
Table 4 shows the variation in mean re-sale prices for ex-ELC properties during 2001
and 2002, with respect to house type, apartment size, period of construction and
geographic sector.
In 2002, the average price for all RTB re-sale transactions was £66,700. As expected,
there was a marked difference in the broad geographic pattern of results. The mean
price for the East sector re-sales was 13.6% above the corresponding result for West
sector (£73,700 versus £64,900).
With regard to house type, the pattern of results for 2002 indicated that the average resale price for cottage properties was 24% greater than the corresponding figure for
flatted properties (£72, 600 versus £58, 500). Amongst the cottage re-sales during
that year, on average, 4-apartment units sold for 13% more than 3-apartment units
(£77,100 versus £68,000).
With regard to age of property, it was apparent that inter-war properties were
continuing to sell at a premium. Amongst the 3-apartment cottage stock, in 2002, the
20
average re-sale price for 1919-1945 properties was 9% above the corresponding
figure for 1946-1959 properties and 12% above the figure for post-1960 units (the
respective averages were £72,700. £66,600 and £64,700).
Table 4
Mean Re-sale Price (£) for Ex-ELC Properties
2001 and 2002
2001
2002
% Change
East Lothian Ave.
56,879
66,732
+14.9
Cottage Type
2-Storey Flatted
3/4-Storey Flatted
60,329
47,317
51,071
72,643
58,548
58,508
+20.4
+23.7
+14.6
3-Apt, All Types
4-Apt, All Types
55,296
58,401
62,766
72,365
+13.5
+23.9
3 Apt, Cottage
4-Apt, Cottage
58,594
60,643
67,964
77,060
+16.0
+27.1
1919-1945, 3-Apt,
Cottage
1946-1959, 3-Apt,
Cottage
1960-, 3-Apt,
Cottage
65,983
72,660
+10.1
53,124
66,601
+25.4
58,681
64,667
+10.2
West Sector
East Sector
55,685
61,386
64,891
73,742
+16.5
+20.1
The results of a comparative analysis of recent price changes within selected segments
of the RTB re-sale market are also given in Table 4. The year-on-year rate of price
appreciation for 4-apartment cottages was found to be particularly robust at 27%.
2.6
Changing Distribution of Re-sale Prices
Table 5 shows the pattern of RTB re-sales during the period 1998 to 2002 with
respect to five broad price bands - under £40,000, £40,000-59,999, £60,000-79,999,
£80,000-99,999 and £100,000 or more.
21
In 1998, nearly 90% of the ex-ELC properties were re-sold for less than £60,000 and
more than two-thirds (69%) were re-sold for between £40,000 and £59,999.
Subsequently, the distribution of re-sale prices has changed dramatically as a
consequence of the sharp price rises between 1999/2000 and 2001/2002. In 2002,
nearly two-thirds (64%) of the ex-ELC properties were re-sold for at least £60,000
and one-quarter were re-sold for at least £80,000.
Table 5
Percentage Distribution of RTB Re-Sales by Price Group
1998 to 2002
2.7
Year
Under
£40,000
£40,000 £59,999
£60,000 £79,999
£80,000 £99,999
£100,000 or
more
2002
3.3
32.3
39.6
21.5
3.3
2001
3.3
61.2
32.7
1.4
1.4
2000
10.3
61.1
24.5
2.8
1.3
1999
20.5
70.6
8.9
0.0
0.0
1998
19.1
68.8
11.7
0.4
0.0
Range of Re-sale Prices
Table 6 shows the annual results in respect of minimum and maximum re-sale prices
over the period 1998 to 2002. Figures in the table are given for the local authority
area as a whole and the West and East sectors.
The findings of the previous study indicated that a 4-apartment, inter-war, semidetached house in Gullane had been re-sold in 2000 for £114,600. This was the
highest re-sale price identified for any of the 2,600 properties in the sample.
The follow-up research revealed that the previous maximum price of £114,600 has
been exceeded by a substantial margin. The current maximum now stands at
£180,000, the amount paid for a 5-apartment, inter-war, semi-detached house in
Pencaitland. This re-sale transaction occurred at the tail end of 2000, but was not
identified in the earlier study due to a delay in preparation of the computerised record.
At the cheaper end of the RTB re-sale market, it has become much more difficult to
acquire an ex-ELC property for less than £40,000. During the past two years, the
under £40,000 segment accounted for only 3% of all RTB re-sales. In 2002, there
was a sizeable difference in the minimum prices that applied to the West and East
sectors. In the West, the lowest price paid for an ex-ELC property was £31,000, as
against the higher figure of £48,500 in the East.
22
Table 6
Mean/ Minimum/ Maximum Re-sale Prices (£) Ex-ELC Properties
1998 to 2002
East Lothian
Mean
66,732
56,879
54,433
47,208
47,757
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
West Sector
Mean
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
2.8
31,000
34,000
31,000
21,950
29,000
Minimum
64,891
55,685
52,911
46,394
46,687
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
East Sector
Minimum
Mean
31,000
34,000
31,000
21,950
29,000
Minimum
73,742
61,386
59,470
50,715
50,904
48,500
38,500
34,500
32,000
32,000
Maximum
120,059
129,631
180,000
75,000
83,057
Maximum
110,080
129,631
180,000
71,557
76,000
Maximum
120,059
106,650
114,650
75,000
83,057
Settlement-Level Variation in Re-sale Prices
Tables 7 and 8 highlight the settlement-level variation in mean re-sale prices from
several different perspectives. In both tables, the average prices were calculated over
the two-year period 2001-2002. This timeframe was necessary to ensure that there
was at least one re-sale case for each of the 19 settlements. Generally speaking, the
results shown for the smaller settlements with less than five cases should be
interpreted with caution. The unweighted number of cases for each settlement is
shown in brackets.
23
Table 7 lists the settlements in descending order with respect to price (based on the
results for all re-sales). The mean re-sale price is given for all re-sales and cottage
properties only. For seven of the nineteen settlements, the two results were identical
since none of the transactions involved flatted properties.
Table 7
Mean Re-sale Prices for Ex-ELC Properties By Settlement
2001 - 2002 (2-Year Period)
Settlement
All Re-sales
£ No. of Cases unweighted
Cottage Only
£ No. of Cases unweighted
Stenton
101,000
1
101,000
1
Dirleton
Gifford
97,913
91,116
4
5
97,913
91,116
4
5
Pencaitland
82,693
3
82,693
3
Longniddry
North Berwick
Gullane
79,376
78,970
78,798
4
14
6
79,376
80,542
79,798
4
11
6
Athelstaneford
Ormiston
Haddington
Macmerry
East Linton
Aberlady
Cockenzie &
Port Seton
EL Average
Musselburgh
Prestonpans
67,167
66,572
64,778
63,910
62,750
62,368
61,982
3
7
29
10
2
6
13
67,167
66,572
65,717
63,910
62,750
62,368
67,251
3
7
28
10
2
6
9
61,396
61,349
61,340
45
32
65,381
65,216
62,481
18
29
Dunbar
Tranent
Whitecraig
57,384
53,449
51,854
18
29
19
63,659
57,823
72,950
12
20
3
The pattern of results based on all re-sales indicated that seven settlements had mean
re-sale prices for the period that were more than 20% above the general average for
the local authority area as a whole (£61,400). This group of settlements at the upper
end of the price spectrum included Stenton (£101,000), Dirleton (£97,900), Gifford
(£91,100), Pencaitland (£82,700), Longniddry (£79,400), North Berwick £79,000)
and Gullane (£78,800). At the lower end of the spectrum, three settlements had mean
24
Table 8
Mean Re-sale Prices for Ex-ELC Cottage Stock
Main Towns, Intermediate and Small Settlements
2001 - 2002 and 1998 - 2000
2001 - 2002
1998 - 2000
£
No. of Cases unweighted
£
No. of Cases unweighted
80,542
65,717
65,381
11
28
54,656
54,021
53,291
27
41
65,216
63,659
62,481
57,823
18
12
29
20
53,343
53,188
51,364
46,357
24
11
45
29
82,693
79,376
78,798
72,950
67,251
3
4
6
3
9
73,581
63,415
68,035
49,550
52,185
8
14
13
4
13
66,572
65,381
7
45,113
53,291
8
63,910
62,750
10
2
61,250
52,333
12
3
(E) Stenton
(E) Dirleton
(E) Gifford
(E) Athelstaneford
(EL av - Cottage
Only)
(E) Aberlady
101,000
97,913
91,116
67,167
65,381
1
4
5
3
105,000
88,500
67,745
62,539
53,291
1
2
5
4
62,368
6
62,496
7
Av -Main Towns
Av - Intermediate
Av - Small
Settlements
63,658
69,044
78,589
Main towns
(E) North Berwick
(E) Haddington
(EL av- Cottage
Only)
(W) Musselburgh
(E) Dunbar
(W) Prestonpans
(W) Tranent
Intermediate
(W) Pencaitland
(W) Longniddry
(E) Gullane
(W) Whitecraig
(W) Cockenzie &
Port S
(W) Ormiston
(EL av - Cottage
Only)
(W) Macmerry
(E) East Linton
Small settlements
51,932
55,927
68,001
25
re-sale prices below £60,000 - Whitecraig (£51,900), Tranent (£53,400) and Dunbar
(£57,400).
Table 8 lists the settlements in three groups with respect to population size (main
towns with a population of 6000+in 2001, intermediate settlements of 1,000 to 5,999,
and smaller settlements of <1,000). Within each group, the settlements appear in
descending order with respect to mean re-sale price. In this table, the results were
based upon cottage re-sales only. For reference purposes, the mean re-sale price is
given for two time periods, 2001-2002 and 1998-2000.
The pattern of results generally indicated an inverse relationship between mean resale price and size of settlement. Over the period 2001-2002, the average re-sale price
for the six main towns (£63,700) was 3% below the corresponding figure for East
Lothian as a whole (£65,400). In contrast, the average price for the eight
intermediate-size settlements (£69,000) was 6% above the East Lothian average. For
the six small settlements, the average price (£78,600) was as much as 20% above the
general average for cottage properties.
The results in Table 8 can also be used to identify settlements that had experienced
sharp price increases in recent years. A crude analysis of price change was
undertaken by comparing the mean re-sale prices for the two time periods. The
general level of increase for all cottage re-sales was of the order of 20%. For three of
the settlements – North Berwick, Ormiston and Whitecraig - the corresponding results
were more than double the general rate of increase.
In the case of North Berwick, the high rate of increase was associated with a marked
reduction in the supply of ex-ELC properties coming on to the market. The Ormiston
and Whitecraig situations were more likely to be due to the small number of
observations and the impact of one or two expensive cases upon the resultant
settlement average.
2.9
Previous Location of Re-sale Purchasers
Tables 9 and 10 highlight the recent pattern of demand for ex-ELC properties, with
particular regard to the general trend in internal versus external demand and the extent
of variation at settlement level. In preparing the database for analysis, the buyers
were classified into four groups depending upon whether the previous address was in
the same East Lothian settlement, a different East Lothian settlement, the City of
Edinburgh or any other location outwith East Lothian
Table 9 shows the broad movement pattern for the period from 1998 to 2002. In
order to clarify the extent of any recent pressure from the overheating of the
Edinburgh housing market, it was necessary to compare the results for 2001-2002
against the results for 1998-2000. The key findings of this comparative analysis are
conveyed in the body of the table.
In overall terms, the demand pattern in the RTB re-sale market has remained
predominantly local. During 2001-2002, a majority (60%) of the buyers were already
living in East Lothian at the time of purchase and around one-third (35%) were based
26
in the same settlement. Over the past two years, however, there has been a definite
upward shift in the proportion of Edinburgh-based buyers. This group which
accounted for 26% of all re-sale purchasers during 1998-2000, had increased to 32%
of the total number during 2001-2002.
Table 9
Percentage Distribution of RTB Re-sales,
By Previous Location of Purchaser
1998 to 2002
Same
Settlement
Other El
Settlement
City of
Edinburgh
Elsewhere
East Lothian
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
2001-2002
1998-2000
33.3
36.0
43.4
37.7
41.1
34.8
40.8
25.2
25.9
22.5
22.5
25.7
25.5
23.5
31.0
33.2
23.4
28.7
26.1
32.2
26.0
10.5
4.9
10.7
11.1
7.1
7.5
9.7
29.3
36.7
25.1
22.7
38.8
31.3
6.8
9.3
55.8
55.0
27.5
26.5
7.2
7.5
9.5
11.0
17.8
40.0
15.5
8.3
60.0
43.3
6.7
8.4
34.4
30.4
31.3
34.8
28.1
23.9
6.2
10.9
West Sector
2001-2002
1998-2000
East Sector
2001-2002
1998-2000
Musselburgh
2001-2002
1998-2000
Prestonpans
2001-2002
1998-2000
27
As anticipated, the strong orientation of the Edinburgh-based buyers toward the West
sector has continued in recent years. During 2001-2002, 39% of the buyers in the
West sector had a previous address within Edinburgh, as against only 7% in the East
sector.
In recent years, the most obvious effects of pressure from the Edinburgh market were
being felt in Musselburgh. During 1998-2000, 43% of those who purchased an exELC property in Musselburgh were previously based in Edinburgh; this proportion
increased dramatically to 60% during 2001-2002.
Table 10
Percentage Distribution of RTB Re-Sales,
By Previous Location of Purchaser
2001 - 2002 (2-Year Period)
Settlement
(W) Musselburgh (45)
(W) Whitecraig (19)
(W) Ormiston (7)
(W) Prestonpans (32)
(E) North Berwick
(14)
(E) Gullane (6)
(W) Cockenzie & PS
(13)
(W) Tranent (29)
(W) Macmerry (10)
(E) Haddington (29)
(E) Gifford (5)
(E) Aberlady (6)
Same EL
Settlement
Other EL
Edinburgh
Elsewhere
17.8
10.5
42.8
34.4
42.9
15.5
26.3
28.5
31.3
7.1
60.0
36.8
28.6
28.1
21.4
6.7
26.4
0.0
6.2
28.6
50.0
46.1
33.3
38.5
16.7
15.4
0.0
0.0
51.7
20.0
65.5
20.0
33.3
31.0
50.0
17.2
40.0
50.0
13.8
10.0
6.9
0.0
0.0
3.5
20.0
10.4
40.0
16.7
(Less Than 5 Cases Unweighted)
(E) Stenton (1)
(E) East Linton (2)
(W) Longniddry (4)
(E) Athelstaneford (3)
(E) Dirleton (4)
(W) Pencaitland (3)
0.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
25.0
33.3
0.0
50.0
25.0
100.0
75.0
66.7
100.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
EL Average
West Sector Average
East Sector Average
34.8
29.3
55.8
25.5
25.1
27.5
32.2
38.8
7.2
7.5
6.8
9.5
28
2.10 Locational Choices of Edinburgh-Based Purchasers
Table 11 provides additional insight into the movement pattern for Edinburgh-based
households that have purchased former ELC properties. The results shown in Table
11 are percentage distributions of the Edinburgh-based buyers by settlement of
purchase for 2001-2002 and 1998-2001. The findings highlight the weak relationship
in the RTB re-sale market between Edinburgh-based demand and the East sector.
Table 11
Percentage Distribution of Edinburgh-Based Purchase,
By Settlement Of Purchase in East Lothian
2001-2002 and 1998-2000
Settlement
2001-2002
1998-2000
Musselburgh
Whitecraigs
63.4
6.5
56.3
4.3
Prestonpans
Cockenzie & Port Seton
Longniddry
12.7
2.8
0.9
14.3
2.6
2.6
Tranent
Macmerry
Ormiston
Pencaitland
5.6
0.5
2.8
0.0
7.8
1.3
2.6
1.7
Haddington
Athelstaneford
Gifford
1.9
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.9
0.0
North Berwick
Aberlady
Dirleton
Gullane
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.4
Dunbar
East Linton
Stenton
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
100.0
(213)
100.0
(231)
95.2
4.8
93.5
6.5
Total
(No. of cases - weighted)
West Sector
East Sector
29
The broad pattern of results was very similar for both periods. An overwhelming
majority of the Edinburgh-based buyers (95% during 2001-2002 and 94% during
1998-2000) had opted for properties in the West sector. The East sector therefore
absorbed only 5% of the Edinburgh-based demand at a time when many households
of moderate means were being priced out of the Edinburgh housing market.
The bulk of the Edinburgh-based buyers acquired a property in either Musselburgh or
Prestonpans, which emphasises the continuing importance of spatial proximity to
Edinburgh for this demand group. During 2001-2002, 63% of the Edinburgh-based
buyers chose a property in Musselburgh and another 13% opted for Prestonpans.
2.11 RTB Re-sale Market in Context
Table 12 shows the relative position of the RTB re-sale market within the wider East
Lothian context. The table compares the annual mean re-sale prices for ex-ELC
properties and all second-hand transactions in East Lothian over the period 1998 to
2002. The source of information for the wider second-hand market was the
Edinburgh Solicitors’ Property Centre.
Table 12
Comparison of Average Re-Sale Prices (£)
Ex-ELC Properties and East Lothian Second-Hand Market
Year
Ex-ElC Properties
Average Re-sale Prices
(£)
2nd East Lothian
Average Re-sale Prices
(£)
2002
% Change
2001
% Change
2000
% Change
1999
% Change
1998
66,732
+14.9%
56,879
+4.5%
54,433
+15.3%
47,208
-1.1%
47,757
123,015
+21.4%
101,291
+19.0%
85,116
+9.1%
78,037
+3.3%
75,562
Year
1998-2002
% Change
+39.7%
% Change
+62.8%
2000-2002
+22.6%
+44.5%
1998-2000
+14.0%
+12.6%
Source: Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre. Figures for 2001 and 2002 were reported in The
Scotsman 14th January 2003
30
In recent years, the rate of house price appreciation in the RTB re-sale sub-market has
been only one-half the rate of increase in the wider second hand market. Between
2000 and 2002, the mean re-sale price for ex-ELC properties increased by 23%, as
compared with a corresponding figure of 45% for all second-hand transactions in East
Lothian. The position between 1998 and 2000 was rather different. Over these years,
the average price for ex-ELC properties increased by 14% as compared with a slightly
lower figure of 13% for all second hand transactions.
These findings provide clear evidence that, in recent years, prices in the RTB re-sale
market in East Lothian have been lagging behind the general trend for the wider
second-hand market. It is therefore reasonable to expect that prices for ex-ELC
properties will remain robust over the next year or two as the RTB re-sale market
“catches up” with the recent escalation of prices in the wider housing market.
Louis Rosenburg
April 2003
31
32
Appendix
Population and tenure by settlement2 – 2001 Census
Settlement
Population
No.
Aberlady
Cockenzie
Dunbar
East Linton
Elphinstone
Gifford
Gullane
Haddington
Longniddry
Macmerry
Musselburgh
North Berwick
Ormiston
Pencaitland
Prestonpans
Tranent
West Barns
Whitecraig
873
5,499
6,354
1,744
514
688
2,172
8,851
2,613
1,113
22,112
6,223
2,079
1,566
7,153
8,892
555
1,278
Households
%
intercensal
change
3.1
26.9
4.9
48.9
-4.1
0
-2.6
0.1
-10.9
-5.1
9.1
12.0
0.1
21.7
2.0
7.0
20.9
5.7
No.
384
2,280 2
2,260
731
221
309
1,015
3,748
1,058
488
9,596
2,707
837
584
3,070
3,722
252
534
Owner-occupied %
SO3 Social rented %
Owns
With
outright mortgage All o/occ % LA /SH HA All SR
24.5
22.5
25.5
29.4
19.5
33.7
44.6
24.7
37.2
19.1
21.6
40.1
19.0
21.4
15.3
15.5
15.5
13.5
38.5
50.6
36.0
42.4
28.1
30.4
34.0
40.8
45.3
31.6
42.9
36.1
38.1
54.8
28.2
40.0
31.4
33.7
63.0
73.1
61.5
71.8
47.6
64.1
78.6
65.5
82.5
50.7
64.5
76.2
57.1
76.2
43.5
55.5
46.9
47.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.0
0
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.0
0.1
1.7
0.7
0.8
0.0
0.2
2
27.1
18.0
22.6
16.0
44.8
23.6
12.1
22.0
10.5
43.0
24.6
12.7
35.0
15.9
46.7
33.8
43.3
38.6
1.0
2.9
6.7
4.2
2.7
7.1
1.8
4.9
2.6
2.5
3.6
2.9
1.9
3.4
3.6
4.5
0.8
7.3
28.1
20.9
29.3
20.2
47.5
30.7
13.9
26.9
13.1
45.5
28.2
15.6
36.9
19.3
50.3
38.3
44.1
45.9
Privately rented % Other4
F
1.3
1.2
2.4
0.8
0.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.4
1.6
2.1
1.7
0.2
0.9
1.1
0.8
1.5
U/F All PRS
3.4
4.7
1.3
2.5
3.0
5.4
3.0
3.8
1.4
1.9
1.0
2.6
2.0
3.5
2.1
3.6
1.6
2.2
0.6
1.0
0.7
2.3
2.7
4.8
1.2
2.9
0.0
0.2
0.9
1.8
1.2
2.3
3.6
4.4
1.3
2.8
4.2
3.0
3.2
3.7
3.2
2.6
3.9
3.3
2.3
2.9
4.1
2.4
3.0
2.6
3.9
3.1
4.8
3.9
% intercensal change5
Owneroccupied
Rented
33.0
-20.7
45.7
-4.7
25.4
-6.5
103.1
-10.6
32.9
-11.5
22.2
12.5
-10.7
20.7
-10.4
-0.6
-6.6
47.0
-23.0
34.3
-15.7
21.9
-3.4
32.7
-20.6
46.8
-10.4
57.7
-14.3
44.0
-13.7
90.3
-12.4
73.3
-18.3
The table includes only those settlements for which Census information is currently available, therefore a number of small settlements are not included
Shared ownership
4
Landlord includes employer of a household member and relative/friend of a household member and living rent free
5
% change from the 1991 Census (the 2001 number minus the 1991 number expressed as a % of the 1991 no.)
3
33
34