Rural Upper Don Valley Housing Market Profile

This profile contains information about the population, housing stock, market performance and demand for housing in the Rural Upper Don Valley (RUDV) HMA. The Housing Market Area Profiles have been developed as a guide for future housing delivery on sites located across the city. The profiles offer recommendations on the housing that would be suitable to meet the current need in the area and to diversify the stock that is available in order to attract households to the area. The profile also provides useful evidence and data on the population and housing levels across Sheffield which can be utilised in other reports and publications. This HMA data is compared with the Sheffield average to put the area in the wider context of the city. The data used in this profile is from a number of sources, including the 2011 Census, 2013 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), Council data, Experian and Land Registry sales. The SHMA data is based on a household survey of a statistically representative sample of 3,363 households living in Sheffield and accords well with the spatial, tenure & demographic profile of the city. Prior to the analysis the data was weighted by household type to ensure that it is representative as possible thus compensating for non-response bias. More information on the data can be found in the sources section of the profiles. The profile includes the following sections: Section 1 - Area description: A description of the neighbourhoods within the HMA Section 2 - Household profile: Demographics of the population and the households in the HMA Section 3 - Economic profile: Employment and incomes Section 4 - Housing profile: Current housing available, including the type, size, tenure and adequacy of the housing Section 5 - Neighbourhood profile: Neighbourhood satisfaction, crime and educational attainment Section 6 - Recently moved to HMA: People who have moved to the HMA and the reasons for this Section 7 - Existing supply becoming available from moving households Section 8 - Existing households that could not move in the last 5 years and the reasons why Section 9 - Newly forming households: Demand for housing from new households who may form in the next 5 years Section 10 - Social rented market: Details of the social housing stock and turnover Section 11 - Home ownership market: Average house prices, property sales, completions and the income required to afford to buy a property Section 12 - Private rented market: Average private rents and the income required to afford to rent a home Section 13 - Housing affordability - Level of income spent on housing costs, difficulties affording housing costs and housing benefit claimants Section 14 - Older people's accommodation: Supply of older people's accommodation and the demand for this in the HMA Section 15 - Care and support needs: Disabled households and the demand for adaptations, and care and support from the SHMA Section 16 - Conclusions: Brief conclusions drawing out the key points from the sections. Section 17 – Housing recommendations: Recommendations on the types of housing that is needed in the area to meet demand and attract households to the area. Section 18 - Sources of data and information Note - The supply and demand balance sections that are in the other profiles is not included in here because the response rate of potential movers from and to Rural Upper Don Valley is too small to yield a representative sample. The demand from newly forming and the turnover of stock from sales and lets in the private and social sectors has therefore been considered to identify possible shortfalls across the different tenures and types of properties.

1

Section 1: Area description

The Rural Upper Don Valley Housing Market Area lies to the north-west of Sheffield city centre on the border with the Peak District National Park. This area is a small HMA comprising of relatively sought after villages with semi-rural character. The RUDV HMA contains a variety of household types including professional families with children living in mid -range suburbs and modern detached housing, retired homeowner couples in standard suburban homes, older single households of more limited means living in social rented homes, ma ture couples in comfortable detached houses and other mature singles and pre-retirement couples. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) identified sites with the capacity for about 570 dwellings, most o f these with the capacity to deliver less than 10 dwellings with the exception of one larger site, which has the capacity for 114 dwellings. The area contains the neighbourhoods of: Oughtibridge - is in the Parish of Bradfield and is located in the bottom of the Upper Don Valley about 5½ miles north -west of the city centre. Oughtibridge has become a commuter village with many of the residents working in nearby Sheffield and much of the local industry having given way to private housing development. The A6102 road, one of the main transport exits from the northwest of Sheffield towards Stocksbridge and eventually Mancheste r, goes through Oughtibridge splitting into a one way system in its passage through the village. There are good public transport links to Sheffield by bus including a link to the Sheffield Supertram network at Middlewood but there is heavy traffic and congestion at peak times. Residents enjoy access to public green space including the Coronation Park and to the open countryside. Oughtibridge primary school is situated on Naylor Road but secondary school pupils have to travel to Bradfield School in the nearby village of Worrall. Wharncliffe Side - is a small village surrounded by countryside, about 7 miles north-west of the city centre, on the main road between Oughtibridge and Deepcar. The village is located on the west bank of the River Don and the A6102 road passes through. Wharncliffe Side grew with local farming communities and continued to grow with demand for homes for workers in the various industries located in the Upper Don Valley since the 1800s. There is a mix of private and social housing and the village also has a school and community centre. Worrall - Worrall is a small rural village in the civil parish of Bradfield on the slopes of the Upper Don Valley, about 4½ miles north -west of the city centre. Although a distinct village, Worrall borders the Sheffield suburbs of Wadsley, Middlewood and Loxley to the south and east and with the adjoining village of Oughtibridge to the north, to the west is a rural area extending out towards the village of High Bradfield. It is surrounded by open countryside offering residents ready access to green open space. There is a post office, pubs and Bradfield Secondary School in the village, but generally access to services is b elow the city average. This is due in part to its remoteness from the City Centre and a lack of a major bus route.

2

3

2. Household profile

Table 1 - Households and population

RUDV Sheffield Figure 1 - Age Profile

Households 2,679 229928

Population 6,350 552698

Average household size 2.37 2.40

Table 2 - Age profile

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

0-14 1069 17% 17%

15-24 659 10% 18%

25-34 564 9% 14%

35-49 1533 24% 20%

50-64 1354 21% 16%

65-79 904 14% 11%

80+ 267 4% 4%

Total 6,350

Table 3 - Ethnic origin of household

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

BME 247 4% 19%

Non-BME 6,096 96% 81%

The Household Profile data is from the Census 2011.

The RUDV has the smallest population of all the HMAs with only 6,350 people and its area covers just 2.1 square miles. The age profile of the area tends to be adults aged 35-50 years with very few younger people under the age of 34 years. The percentage of children is the same as citywide, but there is a slightly higher proportion of older people aged 65-79 years. The BME population in the area is one of the smallest in Sheffield at 4%, with just 2% of people in the village of Worrall from a BME community.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0-14 15-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65-79 80+

RUDV Sheffield

4

Table 4 - Household type Figure 2 - Household type

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

One person household 704 29% 35%

Couple 582 24% 19%

Couple with dependent children 617 26% 20%

Couple with non dependant children 163 7% 6%

Lone parent with dependant

children156 7% 8%

Lone parent with non dependant

children 71 3% 3%

All full-time students 1 0% 3%Other 100 4% 7%

Total 2394

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

On

e p

erso

n h

ou

seh

old

Co

up

le

Co

up

le w

ith

dep

en

den

tch

ildre

n

Co

up

le w

ith

no

nd

ep

en

dan

t ch

ildre

n

Lon

e p

are

nt

wit

hd

ep

en

dan

t ch

ildre

n

Lon

e p

are

nt

wit

h n

on

de

pe

nd

ant

child

ren

All

full-

tim

e st

ud

en

ts

Oth

er

RUDV Sheffield

Just over a quarter of the households in RUDV are couples with dependent children, while 29% are single people which is lower than the Sheffield average. It is likely that the family households will tend to be small given the lower than average household size in the area. However, the area is popular with families due to the larger houses on offer and the high performing schools, as well as the good access to the countryside. The Mosaic profile reflects the higher average incomes in this area (table 8). The most numerous groups are 'professional' families and more mature households such as 'empty nest adventure' with comfortable incomes. However, the Mosaic profile also highlights groups of, often older, people who do not have the same income levels living in lower cost and social rented house types.

5

Rural Upper Don Valley's most numerous household types (Mosaic category)

CategoryNumber of

householdsDescription

Mid-Career Convention 284 Professional families with children in traditional mid-range suburbs where neighbours are often older

Modern Parents 173 Busy couples in modern detached homes balancing the demands of school-age children and careers

Classic Grandparents 173 Lifelong couples in standard suburban homes enjoying retirement through grandchildren and gardening

Pocket Pensions 173 Elderly singles of limited means renting in developments of compact social homes

Empty-Nest Adventure 166 Mature couples in comfortable detached houses who have the means to enjoy their empty-nest status

Dependable Me 142 Single mature owners settled in traditional suburban semis working in intermediate occupations

Boomerang Boarders 130 Long-term couples with mid-range incomes whose adult children have returned to the shelter of the family home

Outlying Seniors 121 Pensioners living in inexpensive housing in out of the way locations

Fledgling Free 118 Pre-retirement couples with respectable incomes enjoying greater space and spare cash since children left home

Thriving Independence 111 Well-qualified older singles with incomes from successful professional careers living in good quality housing

Mosaic' is Experian’s s consumer classification designed to help explain the demographics, lifestyles, preferences and behaviours of the UK adult population.

Section 2: Summary • The RUDV has the smallest population in all the HMA's and a smaller than average household size with 2.37 people per household compared to 2.40 in Sheffield.

• The area is popular with families with the same proportion of children as in Sheffield, but more adults aged 35-64 years.

• Proportionately there are more older people aged 65-74 years in this area than in Sheffield, but the same percentage of people aged 80 and over.

• The majority of households have higher incomes than citywide but there is also a minority of households with more limited means made up of owners of low value

homes and social renters.

6

3. Economic profile

Table 5 - Working status

Figure 3 - Working status

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

Full time employed 1816 39% 34%

Part time employed 728 16% 14%

Self employed 485 10% 7%

Unemployed 152 3% 5%

Full-time student (employed) 118 3% 6%

Retired 853 18% 13%

Student (including full-time

students)168 4% 11%

Looking after home or family 134 3% 4%

Long-term sick or disabled 187 4% 4%

Other 39 1% 2%

Total 4680

Table 6 - Occupation

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

Professional occupations 708 23% 20%

Associate professional and technical

occupations 41813% 11%

Administrative and secretarial

occupations 41213% 11%

Managers, directors and senior

officials 36812% 8%

Skilled trades occupations 352 11% 11%

Caring, leisure and other service

occupations 2648% 10%

Elementary occupations 207 7% 12%

Sales and customer service

occupations 2037% 10%

Process plant and machine

operatives 190 6% 7%

Total 3122

The information in Table 5 and 6 is from the 2011 Census.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

RUDV Sheffield

There are more people in employment, including full and part time and self employment in this area than in Sheffield overall. There is also a larger percentage of people that are retired which corresponds with the over 65 population in the area. Generally there are higher proportions of people employed in better paid occupations in this area including: professionals, associate professionals and managers/directors. The most common industries for employed people in the area are: Health and Social Care, Wholesale and Retail, and Education.

7

Table 7 - JSA Claimants

RUDV Sheffield

Total number of claimants 35 8540

% of working population claiming

JSA 0.9% 2.3%

Table 8 - Proportions of households by income band (%) Figure 4 - Average household incomes by Wards in the RUDV

RUDV Sheffield

Median average income £35,370 £27,230

<£10,000 4% 11%

£10,000-£14,999 10% 15%

£15,000-£19,999 6% 11%

£20,000-£24,999 8% 14%

£25,000-£29,999 12% 11%

£30,000-£39,999 20% 16%

£40,000-£49,999 17% 10%

£50,000-£59,999 10% 6%

£60,000-£74,999 7% 4%

£75,000+ 6% 3%

- JSA data is the December 2016 claimant rate from the Office of National Statistics, and also includes people who claim Universal Credit for reason of unemployment. - The income data in Table 8 and Figure 4 is from Mosaic 2016.

The average income in this area is higher than citywide at £35,370, and 20% of households earn £30,00-£39,000. There are also more higher earners living in this area with incomes over £50,000, 23% compared to 13% across Sheffield. The higher incomes will assist people to buy properties in the area and also enable them to have a relatively high standard of living.

The numbers of Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) and Universal Credit due to unemployment fell in this area after rising in 2015. Rates are now well below the city average.

£-

£5,000

£10,000

£15,000

£20,000

£25,000

£30,000

£35,000

Stannington Stocksbridge andUpper Don

Sheffield

Wards

8

Table 9 - Equity of existing households

RUDV % Sheffield

Negative Equity 0% 2%

Up to £9,999 0% 5%

£10,000-£24,999 0% 5%

£25,000-£49,999 8% 9%

£50,000-£99,000 5% 23%

£100,000-£149,999 27% 23%

£150,000-£249,999 31% 21%

£250,000-£349,000 30% 7%

£350,000+ 0% 5%

Table 10 - Savings of existing households

RUDV % Sheffield

Up to £4,999 17% 45%

£5,000-£9,999 28% 14%

£10,000-£14,999 12% 8%

£15,000-£19,999 0% 5%

£20,000-£24,999 6% 4%

£25,000-£29,999 6% 4%

£30,000-£39,999 7% 3%

£40,000-£49,999 4% 3%

£50,000-£74,999 7% 3%

£75,000 13% 12%

- The SHMA asked homeowners how much equity they thought they had in their property and this is shown in Table 9. - Table 10 is the level of savings all existing households said they have regardless of the tenure they live.

Equity levels are relatively high in the RUDV with no home owners having less than £25,000 in equity and the highest proportion having £150,000-£249,999. This probably reflects the higher numbers of older people in the area that will have paid off their mortgage. Saving levels are also higher in the RUDV than generally in the city, with over half of households (55%) having over £10,000 in savings compared to 41% in Sheffield. This level of savings and equity provides a sizeable deposit for households looking to buy and will also help to pay for any care or support costs that older households may have.

Section 3: Summary • The highest proportion of people work full time in professional, associate professional or management positions. • The levels of retired people is also higher reflecting the larger older population in the area. • The JSA rate fell in 2016 after rising in 2015. • The average income is almost £27,000 in the RUDV with the Stannington Ward having an higher average income than the Stocksbri dge and Upper Don Valley Ward • House equity levels are most high with most home owners having at least £150,000 in housing equity. • Over half of households have over £10,000 in savings, which could be used for a deposit on a home or to help pay for care and support costs.

9

4. Housing profile

Table 11 - Property types in area Figure 5 - Property type

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

Detached House/Bungalow 915 34% 14%

Semi-Detached House/Bungalow 1007 38% 37%

Terraced House 482 18% 27%

Flat, Maisonette or Apartment 275 10% 21%

Other 0 0% 0%

Shared Dwelling 0 0% 0%

Total 2679

Table 12 - Housing tenures in area

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield Figure 6 - Property tenure

Owned 2092 78% 58%

Shared Ownership 6 0% 0%

Council rent 345 13% 18%

RP rent 21 1% 7%

Private rent 194 7% 16%Other 21 1% 1%

Total 2679

The information on the housing profile is from the 2011 Census

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Det

ach

edH

ou

se/B

un

galo

w

Sem

i-D

etac

hed

Ho

use

/Bu

nga

low

Terr

aced

Ho

use

Flat

, Mai

son

ette

or

Ap

artm

ent

RUDV Sheffield

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Owned Council rent RP rent Private rent Other

RUDV Sheffield

The RUDV has the second highest percentage of home owners in the city after the South West. This results in the area having lower levels of social and private renting. However the tenure mix is different across the neighbourhoods. Oughtibridge is mainly owner occupied at 81%, Wharncliffe Side has a higher than average social rented sector at 27% and the private rented sector in Worrall is similar to citywide at 15% of the stock.

As with citywide the most common properties in the area are semi-detached, but the RUDV has a significantly higher percentage of detached properties. However because of this the supply of smaller properties is small, in particular flats. This is especially the case in Oughtibridge where 36% of properties are detached but just 6% are flats.

10

Table 13 - Size of homes in area Figure 7 - Number of bedrooms

Number of bedrooms RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

0 beds 4 0% 0%

1 bed 187 7% 12%

2 bed 665 25% 27%

3 bed 1277 47% 45%

4 or more bed 563 21% 16%

Total 2696

Table 14 - Vacancy and turnover levels

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

Number of properties 2875 247234

Number of vacant properties 35 1.2% 1.8%

Long term vacant properties 11 0.4% 1.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 or more bed

RUDV Sheffield

The information in Table 14 about vacant properties is taken from data on the Council Tax Register December 2016. 'Long term vacant properties' is defined as those that have been vacant for 6 months or more.

Only 35 properties were vacant in this area during December 2016 which represents 1.2% of the total stock. Just 11 have been vacant for over 6 months. The low vacancy rate in the RUDV suggests that the area is popular and that demand for properties is high.

The highest proportion of stock has three bedrooms, but reflecting the large number of detached properties in the area there is also a high supply of properties with 4 or more bedrooms. The highest proportion of four beds are located in Oughtibridge at 23% of the stock. The 2 bed stock is similar to citywide, but there is a lower supply of 1 bed properties in the area. Worrall has the highest percentage of one bed properties making up 16% of the stock. This limits the options available to younger people looking to buy and older people considering downsizing.

11

Table 15 - Housing adequacy

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

Households living in inadequate

housing0 0% 14%

Table 16 - Occupancy

RUDV % Sheffield

% overcrowded 0% 3.0%

% under occupying 90% 71%

% under occupying in SRS 63% 40%

Table 17 - Recent housing completions in HMA

RUDV Sheffield

2010/11 2 942

2011/12 3 638 Figure 8 - Completions in the last 6 years

2012/13 11 933

2013/14 5 974

2014/15 5 1812

2015/16 7 1621

Total 33 6920

The SHMA suggests that few households find their home inadequate, which suggests a high satisfaction with the housing in the area and illustrates its popularity as a place to live. However, this needs to be caveated however by the small number of respondents who answered this question. Few households are over occupied which is due to the high supply of larger properties in the area and the smaller households size. Because of this the under occupancy rates are higher than citywide especially in the social rented sector. However there are few smaller properties available in the area for those that may wish to downsize.

The information in Table 15 is based on responses to the 2013 SHMA. Households were asked if their home was adequate for their needs The information in Table 16 is from the 2013 SHMA and is based on households needing one less or one more bedroom than the household size needs.

Table 17 shows the number of properties built in the HMA and in Sheffield.

Only 33 new build properties have been completed in this area over the last 6 years. The lack of land availability due to the proximity to the Peak District National Park and the amount of Green Belt land means that opportunities for new developments have been limited. However, there are sites identified a suitable for housing (Section 17) part), and we may see more development in the coming years. 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

RUDV

12

5. Neighbourhood profile

Table 18 - Neighbourhood Satisfaction

% of households satisfied with their

neighbourhood

Education

provision 51% 45%

Access to nature/

countryside 42% 39%

Health services 42% 38%

Access to parks

and open spaces 42% 38%Appearance of

properties 31% 38%

Condition of

roads &

pavements 73% 72%

Activities for

teenagers 36% 46%

Cleaner streets 30% 36%

Public transport 24% 28%Community

facilities 21% 26%

97%

Five

ne

igh

bo

urh

oo

d

qu

alit

ies

that

mak

e a

gre

at

pla

ce t

o li

ve

Sheffield

Clean streets

Public transport

69%

Five

ne

igh

bo

urh

oo

d

qu

alit

ies

that

ne

ed

imp

rovi

ng

Crime levels

ASB levels

Education provision

Cleaner streets

Shopping facilities

RUDV

Condition of roads &

pavements

Condition of roads &

pavements

Low crime levels

The information in Table 18 is from the 2013 SHMA and measures neighbourhood satisfaction. The households were asked to chose the: a) Most important neighbourhood qualities that make a great place to live; and b) Neighbourhood qualities that need improving in their neighbourhood. This was a multiple choice question and households could select as many options as they liked. The percentages therefore represent the proportion of households who chose this reason as one of their options, which is why the percentages in the table do not add up 100%. The top 5 answers for each question are shown in this table. A higher percentage means that more people chose this as an option and therefore the issue is more important in this area.

Section 4: Summary • The RUDV is characterised by large detached and semi-detached good quality housing and lower numbers of flats, especially in Oughtibridge.

• The best opportunities for renting are in the neighbourhoods of Wharncliffe Side which has a adequate supply of social properties and Worrall, which has a similar size private rented sector to the city (although this is numerically a small number given its size).

• There are few small properties such as flats with one bedrooms which may restrict the options available to younger people looking to buy or older people considering downsizing.

• The vacancy rate is low and few households feel their home is inadequate which is reflected in the popularity of the area.

• Only 33 new properties have been completed in this area over the past six years, reflecting the lack of available sites. However, sites for future housing development in this area have been identified by the Council.

13

Table 19 - Crime/ASB incidents

RUDV Sheffield

No. of crime incidents 218 43365

Crime per 1000 population 34 78

No. of ASB incidents 169 40758

ASB incidents per 1000 population 27 74

Table 20 - School performance

RUDV Sheffield

No of primary schools 2 119

% achieving expected standard in

reading, writing and maths71% 52%

No of secondary schools 0 30

Pupils achieving a grade C or above

in English & Maths GCSE'sNA 59%

Neighbourhood satisfaction in the RUDV is the highest in the city. Education provision is considered the most important neighbourhood quality which explains why the area is popular with families that have young children. The access to nature/countryside and the parks is also a draw to the area. The RUDV is adjacent to Peak District and each village contains a park, such as Glen Howe Park in Wharncliffe Side which covers an area of 19 acres in the valley of the Tinker Brook, a minor tributary of the River Don. In terms of neighbourhood qualities that need improvement the condition of the roads and cleaner streets are important, which is also a citywide issue. Residents also want the public transport to be improved. This is something that needs to be addressed as the present bus service is minimal, with just 2 buses running every hour through the area to the City Centre and a Supertram Link to Middlewood Tram Terminus. Activities for teenagers and community facilities could also be improved, and supporting local community groups to promote the work they do is a key priority in the Stannington Ward Plan, where Worrall is located.

The incidences of crime and ASB per 1,000 of the population in the RUDV are, along with the South West HMA, the lowest in the city. This low crime level will be another draw to the area and explains why residents do not think this needs improving unlike in Sheffield overall, see Table 18.

• Table 19 is from South Yorkshire Police statistics and shows the number of crime and ASB incidents in December 2015 to November 2016. This is then calculated by 1000 of the population to indicate the rate of crime and ASB as compared with citywide.

• Table 20 is from the Department of Education for 2016.

Performance at the two primary schools in the RUDV is high. Oughtibridge Primary school had 88% of pupils achieve level 4, the highest number meeting this standard in the city. This area is in the catchment of Bradfield Secondary School, where 76% of pupils at Bradfield achieved A - C in GCSE English and Maths in 2016. The well performing schools may also attract families from other parts of the city, such as Stocksbridge & Deepcar or the North West where the attainment levels are lower.

14

6. Recently moved to HMA

Table 21 - Moved in last five years

RUDVRUDV % of

householdsSheffield

Moved into HMA in the last 5 years 742 28% 70909

Moved into HMA from outside

Sheffield103 14% 14328

Table 22 - Top five reasons for moving

RUDV % Sheffield %

Move to a larger home 33%Move to a larger

home28%

To be closer to work or a new job 32%Move to smaller

home20%

Move to a smaller home 25% A bigger garden 19%

A bigger garden 24%Move to a better

neighbourhood18%

To live with a partner 17%Condition of

property14%

The information in Tables 21 & 22 is from the 2013 SHMA and shows the households who moved into their present home in the last five years and the reasons for this move. This helps us understand the demand for and the draws to this area. This was a multiple choice question and households could select as many options as they liked. The percentages therefore represent the proportion of households who chose this reason as one of their options, which is why the percentages in the table do not add up to 100%.

Section 5: Summary • Satisfaction with the RUDV as a place to live is the highest in the city.

• This high satisfaction is due to the well performing schools, the good access to the countryside and parks, as well as the low crime and ASB levels.

• However some residents think that the community facilities and activities for teenagers could be improved.

• The crime and ASB levels are, along with the South West HMA, the lowest in the city.

• The schools perform well and have received a 'outstanding' or 'good' rating from Ofsted. This will attract families to the area from other parts of the city.

15

7. Existing supply becoming available from moving households

Table 23 - Households moving in the next 5 years

RUDV Sheffield

% of households moving from this

area in the next 5 years18% 28%

Turnover of households per year 4% 6%

% of households moving out of

Sheffield0% 18%

The supply information is from the 2013 SHMA. This data provides a guide on the percentage of households in the area that said they expect to move in the next five years, and the reasons for this move. This was a multiple choice question and households could select as many options as they liked. The percentages therefore represent the proportion of households who chose this reason as one of their options, which is why the percentages in the table do not add up 100%. The table shows the five most popular answers given in the HMA and in Sheffield

Section 6: Summary • 28% of households in the RUDV have moved in the area in the last 5 years, which is slightly lower than the 31% of movers citywide.

• Half of these households were from elsewhere in the UK rather than local authorities within the Sheffield City Region.

• A third of households moved to the area because they wanted a larger property which mirrors the stock available in the area. While an equal proportion of

households also moved to be closer to work. This could indicate that people are taking jobs within the local area because the RUDV does not have great links to the City Centre.

• A quarter of households also moved to a smaller home which could show some demand for down sizing in the area.

• Although schools did not appear in the top five reasons, a third of families in this area said being in a catchment area for a good school influenced their decision to move compared to a tenth citywide. This was the highest proportion across all the HMAs and shows that the well-performing schools in the RUDV are an important factor for households wanting to live in this area.

16

Table 24 - Top five reasons for wanting to move

RUDV % Sheffield %

Move to a smaller home 56%Move to a larger

home27%

Move closer to shops and services 36%To move to a

smaller home20%

Free up capital 33%Move to better

neighbourhood16%

Retiring 33%Condition of

current property12%

Access problems e.g. stairs 33%For cheaper

accommodation12%

Section 7: Summary • The turnover of households is smaller than citywide which will limit options for

households wishing to move within and to the area.

• The reasons for moving suggests demand for housing from older residents, such as retiring and freeing capital in the home, therefore more smaller homes for downsizing are needed.

Over half of households wish to move to a smaller home, but given the limited supply and small turnover of this stock it is likely that these households will need to look elsewhere in other HMA's such as Stocksbridge and Deepcar and the North West to achieve this aspiration. Wanting to be closer to shops and services is a common reason for moving and reflects the isolated location of the RUDV and the limited facilities available. Moving to free capital in the home, retiring and access problems are also popular reasons and suggests that a number of older households are looking to move in the area this could show a demand for downsizing.

17

8. Existing households that cannot move

Table 25 - Want to move but cannot

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield Figure 9 - Would like to move but cannot

Yes, for less than a year 138 19% 16%

Yes, for 1-2 years 59 8% 10%

Yes, for 2-3 years 79 11% 4%

Yes, for 3-5 years 0 0% 3%

Yes, for over 5 years 79 11% 6%

No 355 50% 61%

The 2013 SHMA asked households if they would like to move but cannot. This is shown in Table 25.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes, for lessthan a year

Yes, for 1-2years

Yes, for 2-3years

Yes, for 3-5years

Yes, for over5 years

No

RUDV Sheffield

Section 8: Summary • At the time of the SHMA survey a higher percentage of people had been unable to

move in the RUDV over the previous three years in comparison to citywide (39% compared to 30%).

• However, since the SHMA was undertaken there has been a large increase in the average house price for this area (Section 11), suggesting that negative equity is no longer likely to a problem for most existing homeowners who are planning to move

• The SHMA survey produced too few responses in this area to draw comprehensive conclusions on the main reasons why people had been unable to move, however.

18

9. Newly forming households demand

Table 26 - Number of newly forming households expected to form

RUDV Sheffield

No. of newly forming households 97 11345

Proportion in city 0.9%

Table 27 - Mosaic groups likely to contain newly forming households

CategoryNumber of

householdsDescription

Boomerang Boarders 130 Long-term couples with mid-range incomes whose adult children have returned to the shelter of the family home

Bank of Mum and Dad 102 Well-off families in upmarket suburban homes where grown-up children benefit from continued financial support

Family Ties 101 Active families with teenage and adult children whose prolonged support is eating up household resources

The 2013 SHMA asked existing households if they have any people in their household that are likely to move in the next 5 years to form their own household e.g. son/daughter moving out. These are known as newly forming households. Although the SHMA did not ask where these households expect to move to, we do know that each HMA is a relatively self-contained market and that households are most likely to move within their local area due to the 'place attachment' that they have to the area they live. This is supported by Rightmove data which shows that a quarter of all house searches are within a 1 square mile radius.

Only 97 new households are expected to form in the next 5 years in this area, most of which are likely to be single adults. This low number of newly forming households reflects the small size of this HMA and also the lower than average percentage of young people aged 16-24 years living in the area.

Section 9: Summary • Less than 100 new households are expected to form in the next 5 years.

• The Mosaic groups highlighted above suggest that these households are most likely to be adult children leaving their parenta l home. The housing stock profile of

the area (section 4) suggests that there are unlikely to be enough smaller properties in the RUDV becoming available to meet their needs, and they are more likely to move elsewhere in the city.

• The SHMA survey produced too few responses in this area to draw comprehensive conclusions on the main reasons why people had been unable to move, however.

19

10. Social rented market

Table 28 - Current social stock in the area

Council/RSL RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

Council stock 348 100% 39,996RP stock 0 0% 17,411

Total social stock 348 57,407

Table 29 - Social stock by bedroom size

Figure 10 - Social stock by bedroom size

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

Bedsit 0 0% 1%

One 80 23% 31%

Two 157 45% 37%

Three 109 31% 29%

Four or more 2 1% 2%

Total 348

Table 28 shows the amount of social housing stock the area has, compared with Sheffield overall. This includes both Council owned and those owned by Registered Providers. Table 29 and Figure 10 show the social stock by bed size.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Bedsit One Two Three Four or more

RUDV Sheffield

The RUDV only has 348 social rented properties, which is the smallest supply across the city's HMAs. All of these properties are owned by the Council. The largest supply of stock is in Oughtibridge (173), while Worrall only has 32 properties. Two bed properties make up the highest proportion of the stock, followed by three bed properties. The area has fewer one bed social rented properties than the city average, and most of these are either sheltered flats or one bed bungalows.

20

Table 30 - Social housing demand

Indicators RUDV Sheffield

CBL lettings 2016 29 4526

Average number of bids per

advertised social property 25 45

Average days to re-let a property 57 60

SHMA affordable housing shortfall 2 725

Figure 11 - Social lets by bed size

Table 31 - Social stock let by bedroom size

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

Bedsit 0 0% 2%

One 11 38% 45%

Two 7 24% 36%

Three 11 38% 16%

Four or more 0 0% 1%

Total 29

Table 30 shows a number of indicates that measure social housing demand. • CBL lets 2016 - number of council and RP properties that were let

through Choice Based Lettings • Average number of bids - a high number can show demand for the

properties • Average days to re-let - a low number suggests that the property or

area are popular • SHMA affordable housing shortfall - This is the number of affordable

homes that the area and Sheffield need per annum for the next 5 years.

The lets across the bedroom sizes was relatively evenly split which does provide options to suit all household types seeking social rented accommodation in this area. 14 properties were let in Oughtibridge and 15 were let in Wharncliffe Side. No properties were let in Worrall in 2016.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Bedsit One Two Three Four or more

RUDV Sheffield

Only 29 properties were let through Choice Based Lettings in RUDV during 2016, which is a 8% turnover of stock, similar to the city's turnover rate. Average bids in this area were lower than citywide. One reason for this may be the isolated location. Most properties in the area are a distance from the city centre or local facilities and transport links are relatively poor. The SHMA, published in 2013, estimated a shortfall of 2 affordable homes per annum over the next 5 years in the RUDV.

21

Table 32 - Average number of bids on social stock by bed size Figure 12 - Average no. of bids by bed size

RUDV Sheffield

Bedsit N/A 42

One 31 44

Two 17 46

Three 17 34

Four or more N/A 53

While bid levels were generally lower than the citywide average, this was partly due to the high proportion of lets of sheltered properties, which tend to attract fewer bids. The one bungalow that was relet attracted 96 bids , suggesting there is demand for social housing if the right properties are available.

Section 11: Summary • This area has the lowest supply of social rented properties in the, city but a similar turnover rate.

• The properties let were fairly split across all sizes which provides options for different household types.

• Average bid levels are vary by bedroom size and locality, and are also linked to the property types available (e.g. sheltered).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Bedsit One Two Three Four or more

RUDV Sheffield

22

12. Home Ownership Market

Table 33 - Average house price

RUDV Sheffield

2009 £146,078 £129,418

2010 £138,992 £126,808

2011 £146,150 £124,359

2012 £131,003 £125,342 Figure 13 - Average houses prices since 2009

2013 £128,149 £130,141

2014 £177,007 £141,246

2015 £161,127 £144,767

2016 £192,682 £149,968

Table 34 - Average house price by type of property

RUDV Sheffield Figure 14 - Average house price by property type 2016

Detached £273,966 £260,312

Flat £98,113 £104,157

Semi-detached £188,564 £161,128

Terraced £117,943 £104,157

The house price information in Tables 33 & 34 is taken from Land Registry sales. The sale data for each HMA has been weighted against the UK House Price Index average price for the city. This is done to ensure that the average house price for each area is not skewed by the number or types of sales in the particular quarter, and to ensure that it gives a true reflection of the property values.

£0

£50,000

£100,000

£150,000

£200,000

£250,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

RUDV Sheffield

The average house price is higher in this area, and has increased by 20% over the last year. Due to the lower number of sales in this HMA the average price is more subject to change based on which properties are on the market in a particular quarter. In this case the size of the increase is affected by the sale of three properties at values of over £500k, and the underlying increase in values is less dramatic.

£0

£50,000

£100,000

£150,000

£200,000

£250,000

£300,000

Detached Flat Semi-detached Terraced

RUDV Sheffield

Flats are currently more affordable in the RUDV than citywide, although these values are based on only 13 sales. Prices for all other property types reflect the fact that values in the Upper Don Valley are generally higher than the average elsewhere in the city.

23

Figure 15 - Numbers of Sales and price paid, by property type 2016

Table 35 - Income needed to buy a property

RUDV Sheffield

Average house price £192,682 £149,968

Typical home mover deposit £53,951 £41,991

Typical home mover income required £41,786 £32,523

Entry level house price £116,366 £101,000

Typical first time buyer deposit £17,455 £15,150

Typical first time buyer income

required £27,706 £24,048

Average house price ratio 5.45 5.51

Table 35 shows the incomes needed to buy a average price property and an entry level price in the area. For the average house price the income required is based on providing a 28% deposit and getting a 72% mortgage worth 3.32 times the household income for the average house price. For the entry level house price the income required is based on providing a 15% deposit and getting a 85% mortgage worth 3.57 times the household income for the average entry level house price. These are the typical deposits and income multiples provided by the Council of Mortgage Lenders for home movers and first time buyers in December 2016.

Figure 15 shows the range of prices paid for each property type in the RUDV and the number of sales at different price range. It does demonstrate that, although the area has an average price of over £190,000, the most common sales prices are in the £100 to £200,000 range. Detached properties sold for prices in between £150,000 and £800,000. However £250, 000 to £300,000 was the most common range.

24

Figure 16 - Income needed to afford to buy a property in RUDV

Table 36 - Average deposit held

RUDV Sheffield

All Households £136,915 £83,818

Newly forming households £2,500 £5,229

No equity households £8,296 £6,248

Entry level properties in RUDV are affordable for households with the median income of £35,370 if the household has a 15% deposit. The average terrace or flat would be affordable to a household with this income. The relatively high incomes in this area results in average house price income ratio being lower than citywide at 5.45 times. However, average price properties in the area, and most semi detached or detached properties would not be affordable for households with the median income.

To buy an entry property with a 15% deposit households need around £17,000, but the level of savings amongst newly forming households and those with no equity is low indicating that they would struggle to afford to buy a property in this area. The available deposit amongst all households is high because of the levels of home equity amongst home owners which will enable them to move within the housing market in this area.

Table 36 is from the 2013 SHMA and shows the average deposit households are likely to have in this HMA based on the levels of savings, equity and other financial resources. The 'all households' includes all tenures while those with no equity is households living in the rented sectors and also homeowners with negative or no equity in their property. The total sales in the last year shown in Table 37 is based on all private property sales in 2016. Figure 17 shows the trend in sales in this HMA since 2008, and Figure 18 shows the types of property sales in 2016.

£0

£5,000

£10,000

£15,000

£20,000

£25,000

£30,000

£35,000

£40,000

£45,000

Typical home mover income required Typical first time buyer incomerequired

Income needed for mortgage RUDV Median Income

25

Table 37 - Property sales 2016 Figure 17 - Property sales since 2009

RUDV Sheffield

Total sales in 2016 103 6572

Turnover of owner occupied stock 5% 5%

New build sales 4 193

Sales at £250k-£500k 29 1163

Figure 18 - 2016 sales by property type

Table 38 - 2016 sales by property type

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

Detached 30 29% 15%

Flat 13 13% 15%

Semi-detached 27 26% 33%

Terraced 33 32% 37%

103 properties were sold in 2016, a 5% turnover of stock, which is the same as citywide. 26 properties sold at prices between £250,000 and £499,000, and three sold for over £500,000. In contrast, 7 properties in the area sold for £100,000 or less. This suggests that the area does have opportunities for buyers looking in every price range, despite the low numbers of stock and the higher average values. The median sales price is £166,000, lower than the mean average and only slightly above what would be affordable for a household with the median income for the area. Only 4 new build property was sold in this period, which highlights the limited development seen in the area in recent years

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Sales

Detached and terraced properties made up most of the sales, which provides options for those that want a larger home or a starter home. Only 13 flats were sold, which may suggest that more flats in the area would provide more affordable options for first time buyers and households looking to downsize.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Detached Flat Semi-detached Terraced

RUDV Sheffield

26

12. Private rented market

Table 39 - Average monthly private rent (mean)

RUDV Sheffield Figure 19 - Average private rent by bed size

2010 £630 £526

2011 £614 £554

2012 £590 £569

2013 £594 £586

2014 £644 £558

2015 £638 £561

2016 £623 £603

Table 40 - Average monthly private rent by bed size 2016 (median)

RUDV Sheffield

Bedsit £0 £500

One bed £495 £550

Two bed £570 £600

Three bed £685 £650

Four or more bed £850 £1,100

Shared £312 £355

The average (mean) private rent data is taken from rental information for properties advertised for let by estate agents through Rightmove.

£0

£200

£400

£600

£800

£1,000

£1,200

Bedsit One bed Two bed Three bed Four ormore bed

Shared

RUDV Sheffield

Section 11: Summary • The average house price in RUDV is higher than the Sheffield average and has grown significantly in the last year to £192,682.

• Due to the lower number of sales in this HMA the average price is more subject to change based on which properties are on th e market in a particular

quarter .

• Average earning households can afford to buy an entry level property in RUDV, but cannot afford an average price property.

• Properties were sold at a wide range of prices, from over £500,000 to under £100,000, suggesting that a range of buyers can b e accommodated in the area despite the generally high values and low turnover.

• The sale of some properties for over £500,000 recently suggests the RUDV has the potential for more of these high value prop erties to be delivered in the future.

27

Table 41 - Income needed to afford average private rent property

RUDV Sheffield

Yearly rent £7,476 £7,236

Income needed to afford £29,904 £28,944

13. Housing affordability

Table 42 - Proportion of income spent on housing costs

RUDV % Sheffield

Below 15% 57% 35%

15%-25% 20% 18%

25%-35% 9% 14%

35%-45% 7% 8%

45% or above 0% 7%

Don't know 8% 18%

The SHMA 2013 asked households how much of their income is spent on rent/mortgage and if people have difficulties with their bills, 25% or below is considered an affordable amount. This is captured in Table 42. Table 43 was a multiple choice question and therefore will not total 100% as people can struggle to pay more than one housing cost. The information in Table 44 is from the Council Housing Benefit records from December 2016 and shows the number of claimants in private and social accommodation (not hostel). Please note we do not have records for the tenure and age breakdown for all claimants.

Section 12: Summary • The RUDV's average private rent for properties advertised in 2016 was £20 above the Sheffield average. This was largely down to the larger proportion of

properties with four or more bedrooms advertised, since median rental prices for all but 3 bed properties are actually cheaper than citywide.

• The average rent varies quite significantly across the area's three main neighbourhoods: Worrall was the most expensive neighbourhood at £696 followed by Oughtibridge at £609. The least expensive neighbourhood was Wharncliffe Side, where the average rent of £552 was below the citywide average.

• Most of the area's rental properties are located in Oughtibridge, where 55% of the area's lets were made in 2016 compared to just 17% in Wharncliffe Side.

• The area's median income is sufficient to afford the average rental property and even three bedroom properties should be affordable to households in this area with the median income.

28

Table 43 - Difficulties with housing costs

RUDV % Sheffield

Yes, Rent/mortgage 0% 9%

Yes, Fuel bills 15% 23%

Yes, Council tax 13% 13%

Yes, Other bills 9% 13%

No 79% 58%

Table 44 - Claiming Housing Benefits

RUDV RUDV % Sheffield

Social rented 221 84% 80%

Private rented 43 16% 20%

Working age claimant 150 57% 67%

Pension age claimant 114 43% 33%

Total 264

% of all households claiming HB 10% 20%

14. Older people's accommodation

Table 45 - Older people's housing

RUDV Sheffield

Number of units/beds - all types 40 9545

Population aged 65 or above 1,171 61,488

Older people's housing per 1,000

older population34 155

The information in Tables 45 & 47 is taken from a variety of sources, including: • Council stock data • RP stock data • Private data from the Elderly Accommodation Council. • Mosaic The units/beds is the individual properties or beds available per person. The information in Tables 48 is taken from the SHMA and measures the percentages of older households aged 65 and over that intend to move in the area in the next five years.

Section 15: Summary • 77% of households spend less than quarter of their income on

their rent or mortgage compared to 53% in Sheffield. This reflects the higher incomes in the area and the high number of older people that own their property outright.

• As a consequence fewer households have difficulties paying their rent/mortgage and fewer households struggle with other housing costs than citywide.

• Only 10% of households claim Housing Benefit for their rent which is the third lowest rate in the city after the Peak District and South West.

• Due to the small private rented sector in the area most of the claimants are in social housing.

29

Table 46 - Older people's accommodation - existing provision

Schemes Beds/UnitsSheffield beds

/units

Care Home 0 0 3801

Extra Care 0 0 566

Sheltered 1 40 2414

Social age banded housing (60+) NA 0 2764

Total schemes 1

Table 47 - Older Households Mosaic

Categories

(Top 5 Categories)

Number of

householdsDescription

Classic Grandparents 173 Lifelong couples in standard suburban homes enjoying retirement through grandchildren and gardening

Pocket Pensions 173 Elderly singles of limited means renting in developments of compact social homes

Outlying Seniors 121 Pensioners living in inexpensive housing in out of the way locations

Solo Retirees 80 Senior singles whose reduced incomes are satisfactory in their affordable but pleasant owned homes

Legacy Elders 70 Elders now mostly living alone in comfortable suburban homes on final salary pensions

Table 48 - Social rented sheltered housing demand

RUDV Sheffield

No. of properties let 2016 (Jan-Sep) 5 186

Average bids 7 6

Days to re-let 64 66

Table 49 - Percentage of moving households that are over 65 years

HMA area RUDV Sheffield

65-79 16% 15%

80+ 0% 4%

Would like other purpose-built

supported housing 100%3%

Expect other purpose-built

supported housing 100% 2%

North West

30

Table 50 - Supply/demand balance for retirement housing

RUDV Sheffield

2015 Shortfall -29 -2,430

2034 Shortfall -60 -4,767

17. Care and Support Needs

Table 51 - Disabled households

RUDV % Sheffield

Disabled people (Census) 19% 19%

Disabled household (SHMA) 23% 25%

This section discusses the care and support needs for disabled people and the demand for adapted properties from existing households. Table 51 shows the percentage of disabled people from the Census 2011 and the percentage of households containing a disabled person from the 2013 SHMA. Both the datasets are shown to measure the proportion of disabled people per household.

Section 14: Summary

• The RUDV has a higher proportion of older households than citywide; the majority of these are homeowners enjoying relatively comfortable retirements but there is also a sizeable minority of social renters and some homeowners with limited means.

• This area has a much lower level of provision of older people's housing than citywide, just one Council owned sheltered housing scheme located in Oughtibridge with 40 one and two bed flats. The number of bids for the five properties let in the first 9 months of 2016 were slightly above the citywide average and the re-let times were also a little lower, suggesting a healthy demand.

• Around 16% of moving households in RUDV are aged 65-79 years and these households wanted other purpose built supported accommodation. Analysis by the University of Sheffield shows a shortfall of 29 units of specialist retirement housing , such as sheltered and extra care, which is likely to increase to 60 units by 2034 based on current demographic trends. This suggests that an additional specialist mixed tenure scheme should be considered for this area, perhaps including some extra care-type provision due to the lack of extra care or care schemes in this HMA.

• More information about older people's accommodation in the city and the demand for this across the HMA's can be found in the 'Sheffield Guide to Developing Older People's Accommodation'.

The information in Table 50 indicates the balance in demand and supply for older people's specialist independent living housing (such as sheltered and extra-care) and is taken from "Retirement Housing in Sheffield, Supply and Demand to 2034", University of Sheffield (2016).

31

Table 52 - Domiciliary Care Hours (per week)

RUDV Sheffield

Current Domiciliary Hours 361 23715

Average hours per household 0.13 0.10Unmet Domiciliary Hours 66 2634

Total Domiciliary Hours 427 26349

Households in the RUDV receive 361 hours of domiciliary care hours per week, which is above the citywide average of domiciliary hours delivered per household. This reflects the older age profile of the HMA and possibly the lack of specialist housing with care and /or support available. Households in Oughtibridge receive most of these hours, and as these households grow older they are more likely to require a move to some type of specialist accommodation with care and/or support available.

Section 15: Summary • A similar percentage of people to citywide have a disability in the

in RUDV.

• Domiciliary care hours are above average per head of the population compared to citywide, reflecting the older average age and possibly the lack of accommodation with care and/or support available.

• As those households currently receiving domiciliary care grow older they are more likely to require a move to some type of specialist accommodation with care and/or support available.

Table 52 shows the total hours per week that residents in the area receive domiciliary care and the unmet need. Domiciliary care is floating support going into the home to allow people to live independently.

32

16. Rural Upper Don Valley Summary

Household profile • The RUDV has the smallest population of all the HMA's but the area is popular with families and older people aged 65-74 years. • The families are likely to be from the ‘Mid-Career Convention’ or ‘Modern Parents’ Mosaic groups, while ‘Classic Grandparents’ and ‘Pocket Pensions’ are the main 

grouping of older residents. • The area has fewer young adults in the area aged 15-24 years, and only 4% of the population is from a BME community. • There are also a high number of retired households, reflected in the area's slightly older age profile.

Economic profile • Households are wealthier in this area than across Sheffield; the average income is over £35,000 and over half of households have more than £10,000 in savings. • There are higher levels of employment in the RUDV than citywide. The most common occupation types are professional, associate professional and

administrative. • Numbers in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) and Universal Credit due to unemployment fell to 0.9% in this area after rising in 2015. Rates are now well

below the city average of 2.3%. • House equity levels are also high, with over 60% having more than £150,000 at the time of the SHMA, since when house prices have increased significantly in this

area. Housing profile • The RUDV is characterised by large detached and semi-detached houses in home ownership that are good quality. • 78% of households are owner occupiers, compared to 58% citywide. • There are opportunities for social renting in Wharncliffe Side and Oughtibridge and private renting in Worrall. • Households feel that their home is adequate and the vacancy rate is low which shows that the area and the housing is popular. • No households in the SHMA survey were overcrowded, but there were higher rates of under occupation, 90% overall and 63% in the social rented sector. • Just 33 new properties were completed in the past 6 years. • Opportunities to increase the supply will be limited, unless the two larger sites in the RUDV are developed.

Neighbourhood profile • The 2013 SHMA survey found satisfaction with RUDV to be the highest in the city. • Crime and ASB levels are much lower than the Sheffield average, while both primary and secondary schools perform well which contributes to the satisfaction

amongst existing residents.

33

Supply and demand balance • The supply and demand balance has been calculated by estimating the percentage of existing stock that will become available b y the demand expressed from

moving and newly forming households in the SHMA 2013 survey. However the response rate of movers from and to the RUDV is too small to yield a representative sample therefore this section has not been included in this profile.

• Although the demand from newly forming and the turnover of stock from sales and lets in the private and social sectors has be en considered to identify possible shortfalls across the different tenures and types of properties.

• The main reason to move was to downsize to a smaller property, but only 13 flats were sold in the area during 2016. This does suggest there will be a shortage of suitable downsizing properties available unless new properties can be provided.

• Detached properties made up the largest number of sales. The rural setting and the good performing schools indicates that thi s area will continue to be popular with families and the provision of larger top-end properties is likely to appeal.

• Newly forming households are likely to include the adult children of households in the ‘Boomerang Boarder’ or ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ Mosaic groups.  While this may suggest demand for smaller private rented properties, this should be treated with caution as some newly forming household s are likely to be students going to University.

Housing market • The average house price is around £192,600 in this area, higher than the city average of around £150,000. It has increased b y 20% in 2016. • There is a range of sales prices. Some sold at over £500,000, while at the other end of the market it is possible to buy for under £100,000. • The area’s median income (£35,370) is below the income required to afford the average property (£41,786), but it is above the income required to afford

the area’s typical entry level (lower quartile) property (£27,706). • Raising a deposit will be problematic for some first time buyers as average savings of newly forming households are £2,500 an d £8,000 for no equity households. • Average private rents in the RUDV at £623 pcm (table 47) are higher than in Sheffield. • Smaller properties can be more affordable than elsewhere in the city, rents for one beds average £495 pcm in RUDV compared to £550 pcm citywide. This may

offer more affordable options to smaller households. • All sizes of private rented property would be affordable for a household with the area’s median income, other than the average four beds which would be

affordable with an income of £40,800. • The area has 348 social rented properties and the turnover of stock is similar to the Sheffield proportion. The average bid l evel is lower, but demand is high for

some properties especially bungalows.

34

17. Rural Upper Don Valley Housing Recommendations

Flats with 1 or 2 bedrooms and houses with 2 bedrooms for sale • There is demand for smaller homes in this area. • High quality properties built to accessible and adaptable design standards with good levels of storage space will help the area's older households looking to

downsize, and help free up larger homes for families looking to move to the area. • There is also some demand from newly forming or ‘no equity’ households for smaller homes, although more work would be required to understand the extent of

this. Larger homes with four or more bedrooms

• The provision of larger houses for sale will appeal to families in the area and those looking to move to the area. • This would also help meet the city's overall shortage of properties in the £250,000+ price range. • The most recent new build sales in the RUDV were detached and semi-detached properties in Worrall that sold for over £330,000, suggesting that the market is

more than capable of supporting delivery of these high value properties.

Data on housing sites, capacity and delivery has been compiled from Sheffield's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, published November 2015, details of planning application on sites on sites identified since the SHLAA was published and some information about sites which may be considered as part of the Local Plan review. Any figures quoted should be seen as an indication of capacity in an area only, as it is difficult to maintain a complete record as sites are built out or as a development moves forward.

Older people's independent living housing • The RUDV has a higher proportion of older households than citywide; the majority of these are homeowners enjoying relatively comfortable retirements but there

is also a sizeable minority of social renters and some homeowners with limited means. • Specialist older people’s accommodation consists of just one sheltered housing scheme, which has 40 units.  • Analysis by the University of Sheffield shows a shortfall of 29 units of specialist retirement housing, such as sheltered and extra care, which is likely to increase to

60 units by 2034 based on current demographic trends. Care and support needs • A similar percentage of people in the RUDV have a disability to citywide. • The domiciliary care hours are high for the population and there are 66 hours of unmet care need per week in this area.

35

18. Sources

Sheffield Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013

Sheffield Housing Market Bulletin

Sheffield House Price Summary

Local Area Partnerships

Sheffield Community Profiles

Affordable Housing • One bed, age designated, suitably designed properties for the area’s older social renters would be appropriate.  Older people's independent living housing • There is a shortfall of older people’s provision in the RUDV.  A mixed provision scheme would meet the needs of the areas home owners, who generally have high

equity levels, as well as the sizeable minority of older households with more limited means. • More housing designed to accessible and wheelchair accessible and adaptable standards are required in all parts of the city to meet current need and the

requirements of a growing older population.

36