Volume Two:Background Research – November 2008

8/14/2019 Volume Two:Background Research November 2008

1/187

1

Addressing theChallenge of the

Back-to-Backs in Leeds

Volume Two:Background ResearchNovember 2008


2/187

2

This report has been prepared by Janey Barraclough, David Horner and Huw Jones of Renew Leeds Ltd on behalf of Leeds City Council. Ithas benefited from the guidance, ideas and support of a multi-agency Steering Group. Market research exploring perceptions of, andattitudes towards, back-to-back housing was conducted specifically for this study by SWIFT Research, Wetherby. The views expressed inthe report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of Leeds City Council, Renew Leeds Ltd, SWIFT Research orthe members of the Steering Group.

The report is presented in two complementary parts:Volume 1 StrategyVolume 2 Background Research

Renew Leeds Ltd 2008

Renew Leeds Ltd (trading as renew) is a company limited by guarantee with charitable status. Its mission helping to regeneratecommunities is achieved by working in close partnership with public, private, community and voluntary sector organisations.

Renew Leeds LtdMill 1, Floor 3Mabgate MillsLeedsLS9 7DZ

0113 380 0864380 0864www.renew-leeds.co.uk


3/187

3

Addressing the

Challenge of theBack-to-Backs in Leeds

November 2008


4/187

4


5/187

5

A multi-agency Steering Group was established to guide the project. The authorsacknowledge with gratitude the commitment, insight and support received from the Groupmembers during the course of the research and preparation of the strategy.

Steering Group Members

Andy Beattie Leeds City Council, Environmental HealthRichard Burnham Home GroupGarry Corbett English HeritageNeil Diamond Aire Valley Homes LeedsErnie Gray Leeds City Council, Environments and NeighbourhoodsDavid Horner renewMaggie Gjessing Leeds City Council, RegenerationSally Hinton West Yorkshire Housing PartnershipMark Ireland Leeds City Council, Environmental Health

Huw Jones renewBrian Sloan Leeds City Council, Civic ArchitectsRon Strong UnipolRichard Taylor Leeds City Council, PlanningChris Town Residential Landlords AssociationRachael Unsworth University of Leeds / Leeds InitiativeMatthew Walker Leeds Federated Housing AssociationSteve Williamson renew

The authors acknowledge the input of ideas and information from a wide range of individualsand organisations, including Steering Group members, in preparation of this Report.

Market research exploring perceptions of, and attitudes towards, back-to-back housing wasconducted specifically for this study by SWIFT Research of Wetherby. We are grateful to themany individuals who gave freely of their time and views to respond to interviews: theirinsights have proved invaluable to our understanding of the back-to-back housing market inLeeds, and to development of the Strategy.

However, the content of the Report, including interpretation of views expressed byinterviewees, remains the responsibility of the authors alone, and does not necessarily reflectthe policies of Leeds City Council, renew or Steering Group members.

Janey Barraclough renew

Steering GroupSteering GroupSteering GroupSteering Group

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsAcknowledgements


6/187

6


7/187

7

Foreword 9

1.0 Introduction 11

2.0 Background/Historical Overview 15

3.0 Back-to-backs in ContextBaseline DataIdentification of Back-to-backsLocation of Back-to-BacksTenure Constitution of back-to-back propertiesCondition of Back-to-back propertiesTenant/Owner DemographicsPolicy ContextAffordability of Back-to-backsPrevious Proposals

19191924262626293132

4.0 Housing Market Intelligence

Research MethodsQuantitative ResultsQualitative ResultsConclusionsRecommendations

33

3334374345

5.0 Technical ConsiderationsThermal EfficiencySound Insulation TestFire SafetyDensity

4747484952

6.0 Design OptionsProperty 1 - Narrow front two bedroom type 3 Back-to-backProperty 2 - Wide front four bedroom type 2 Back-to-backProperty 3 - Wide front four bedroom Blind backPotential Costs

5354606769

7.0 Case Study AreasLeeds 6Beeston Hill and HolbeckHarehills

71737883

References

Appendices:Appendix A Project BriefAppendix B Bradford Back-to-back typesAppendix C Market Demand ResearchAppendix D Back-to-back Sound Insulation TestingAppendix E&F Strategic Design Alliance Quantity Surveyor ReportAppendix G Typical SAP/Annual Fuel CostsAppendix H Area Breakdown of Interventions and Costs

87

9299102137141156173

Appendix J Mapping Data 182

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of Contents


8/187

8


9/187

9

In 2007, Leeds City Council commissioned renew to undertake comprehensive research intoback-to-back housing in the city, identifying the various constraints of the house type, and to

develop a forward strategy to tackle these issues.

A Brief for the project was negotiated (attached as Appendix A), with the following keyelements:

Baseline Data Literature Review/Back-to-Backs in context Housing Market Intelligence

Technical Options

Cases Strategy Development

The progress of the research, and various drafts of the text, were submitted to review andcomment by a multi-agency Steering Group set up for the purpose, and reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the topic.

In addition, the other local authorities in West Yorkshire, coordinated by West YorkshireHousing Partnership, undertook some parallel work to identify the scale of back-to-backhousing across the sub-region. It transpired that there remain an estimated 50,000back-to-back houses in West Yorkshire, with the largest proportion, 19,500, in Leeds.

The publication of this Report is the start of a process. It provides up-to-date baselineinformation on the numbers of back-to-back houses in Leeds, where they are located, viewson the different types and styles of back-to-back property, and ideas to make them a more

popular product in the housing market. Volume 2 of the Report, Background Researchestablishes the nature and scale of the challenge presented to Leeds by the legacy of back-to-back housing. Volume 1 of the Report, Strategy, responds to the detailed report in Volume2 and sets out various realistic interventions which are required, ranging from minor repairsand refurbishment, through more substantial remodelling, to demolition and redevelopment inthe context of urban regeneration. The outline programme is costed over some 20 years.

The Report should provide robust evidence for further development of detailed housingstrategy by the City Council and other housing partners; it should also stimulate and informdebate on the challenge of the back-to-backs, and the need for sustained and coordinatedaction and investment to tackle the range of issues identified.

renew, September 2008.

ForewordForewordForewordForeword


10/187

10


11/187

11

The first back-to-back terrace houses in Leeds were erected by a building club in an areaeast of Vicar Lane in 1787 (Beresford), however, the majority of back-to-backs wereextensively built during the 19th and early 20th centuries to house the rapidly expandingpopulation attracted to manufacturing and industrial jobs in the cities across the country.

Back-to-backs were built on either side of a spine wall so they have no rear windows or backgardens. High density meant higher profits for speculative builders. A recent studyundertaken by the West Yorkshire Housing Partnership (2008), states that there are stillapproximately 19,500 back-to-back properties in Leeds.

A national debate about the house type developed, led by social and health reformers,focusing on the lack of through ventilation, insanitary conditions of shared toilet yards,frequent overcrowding, and lack of other amenities. The debate resulted in a national banon back-to-backs under the terms of the 1909 Housing and Town Planning Act. Today, acourt of 11 back-to-backs remains in Birmingham, refurbished and managed as an importantsocial history project by the National Trust. In Leeds there was opposition to this nationallegislation; and a loophole in the Act permitted certain plans with prior approval to continue to

be built up to 1937.

Since the 1950s, various programmes of clearance and redevelopment have reduced thestock of back-to-backs, often replacing them with more modern Council housing. Howevermany problems remain, including inherent design constraints. A significant number of back-to-backs are located in the most deprived areas of the city; high costs are associated withnecessary improvements to meet Decent Homes and Housing Health & Safety RatingSystem standards; often there is an imbalance in local communities, with above averagelevels of private rental and multiple occupancy, high turnover and transience. All too often,back-to-back properties are occupied by those with limited choice in the housing market.

Not all back-to-back housing is so problematic. There are a number of variants in terms ofdesign and density of development, with improvements incorporated in more recentlyconstructed properties. Some, especially those located in highly desirable parts of the city,provide a first rung on the housing ladder for first time buyers. In Leeds 6 (Headingley, HydePark and Woodhouse areas) back-to-backs provide a key part of the student rental market.In certain parts of the city, larger Type 3 back-to-backs with small front gardens offeraffordable family accommodation. However the sheer scale of back-to-back housing, thecost of improvement, and the unattractiveness of the earlier, smaller Type 1 and 2 back-to-backs bring significant issues of long-term sustainability.

Towards a Strategic Approach to Back-to-Back Housing

The Leeds Housing Strategy has tackling obsolete housing as a major priority for action anda key contributor to achieving regeneration and the creation and maintenance of mixed,sustainable communities. While strategy and policies to tackle the future of obsolete Councilhousing are well advanced, equivalent policies have yet to be developed for older, obsoleteterraced housing, most of which is located in the most deprived neighbourhoods in Leeds.

A significant proportion of back-to-backs in Leeds are likely to fail the Decent HomesStandard, one component of which is the Housing Health and Safety Rating System(HH&SRS). No city-wide strategy exists to address this. Realistically there is neither the

1.0 Introduction1.0 Introduction1.0 Introduction1.0 Introduction


12/187

12

funding available nor the appetite for large scale demolition and replacement. Most back-to-backs in Leeds will need to be retained and will require refurbishment or remodelling in themedium to long term, while it may be possible to introduce a gradual and limited programmeof phased redevelopment in selected priority areas where this can contribute to widerregeneration objectives and dramatically improved quality of life for all residents in acommunity.

This strategy aims to address the issues posed by back-to-backs, identifying and appraisingthe necessary mixture of replacement, remodelling and renovation of back to backs in areasof deprivation. A strategic approach towards back-to-back housing should:

form part of the overall approach to providing access to affordable housing across the city

help revive housing markets in areas of fragile demand and high multiple deprivation

help reduce instability and the dominance of certain areas by transient, vulnerablepopulations

improve housing options for residents of deprived areas including affordable homeownership

provide new housing options for first time buyers, households moving from private orsocial rented housing in inner urban areas, relocators or downsizers

help to address a crucial need for access to decent affordable accommodation acrossLeeds

identify options for either remodelling to provide greater opportunities for improved accessto decent affordable housing or improvement to enable a longer shelf-life

help provide entry level access to decent housing in areas of high demand and housingcosts

complement other regeneration research projects and local regeneration plans

This background research document shall cover the following six key components:

Chapter 1provides a historical overview on back-to-backs and considers the implications forlong term strategy, policy and practice.

Chapter 2sets out the changing needs, demands and aspirations of households throughoutthe city, housing market conditions and trends in the market areas covering Leeds, asmeasured through research and consultation, operational intelligence, stock conditionanalysis and needs assessments. This chapter also covers relevant aspects of the currentbroad national policy agenda, and the more local policy agendas, relevant to back-to-backs.

Chapter 3 gathers evidence to establish demand patterns, prices, turnover, tenure split,occupancy levels and void properties for back-to-back housing in Leeds (for sale and rent),

establishes the various roles and positions of back-to-back housing within the Leeds housingmarket, and aims to understand as far as possible the factors influencing the market whichcould lead to dynamic change.

Chapter 4reviews the physical form of back-to-backs.

Chapter 5provides an analysis of the available options for regeneration intervention.


13/187

13

Chapter 6provides a review of recent experiences in the city in developing approaches toback-to-backs in the context of local regeneration strategy. Case studies are included withinthis chapter.


14/187

14


15/187

15

Historical Overview

The building of back-to-back houses (or urban cottages) in Leeds date as far back as 1787.

The first streets of back-to-back houses were east of Vicar Lane and had grand names Union Street, Ebenezer Street and, grandest of all, St George Street (WR Mitchell, 2000:51). Fascinatingly, many original back-to-backs were built by local working people, whoformed Building Clubs or Building Societies, these were the terminating building societiesas opposed to the later permanent ones. Members of the clubs paid membershipsubscriptions regularly and used the money raised to purchase low cost land on which tobuild houses. Members skills and labour was used to reduce costs as much as possible andonce each house was built it was allocated to a member by a lottery system. Once everymember of the club had a house, the club, or building society, was wound up. (Caffyn, inWorld Archeology, 1983: 176).

By maximising rent-bearing living space relative to unproductive street space, such layouts

could deliver the most economic return on investment in the building ground. However,forcing housing layouts to fit field patterns also made provision of connected streets andsanitation more difficult. As the city expanded and larger fields were developed it becamemore difficult to sustain such arguments to justify the affection for back-to-backs. Culturalfactors may have played a role, including perhaps the desire for the level of domestic privacywhich a self-contained home even a humble back-to-back could afford (Beresford, 1971;Power and Houghton, 2007: 16)

A bill was introduced into the Commons in 1841 containing a clause to outlaw back-to-backs.Following sustained opposition by builders (and indeed the Town Clerk of Leeds) on thegrounds that rents would have to rise and would be unaffordable to many working classpeople, driving them into lodging houses, the entire Bill was dropped in 1842. Between 1886

and 1914 there were 57,029 new houses were built in Leeds, two-thirds being back-to-backs(Thornton, 2002:160).

Back-to-backs built in Leeds at this time differed depending on the individual builder. Certainsmall characteristics are still visible today on many of the rows of back-to-back houses withindividual property improvements incorporated over the years. Small numbers of back-to-backs can be found in other parts of Leeds, including popular commuter areas such as Otley,Horsforth and Morley. Located in the Crimbles area of Pudsey, there are a number of purelydomestic looking two storey cottages, built in the early nineteenth century. They are tworooms wide, with large sash windows, but although the two ground floor rooms providedliving accommodation, the floor above was left undivided and was used to hold three or fourbroadlooms (Caffyn, inWorld Archeology, 1983:175).These properties, due to their historicalfeatures and desirable location, are still popular today.

The first developments were of blind back houses built around the edges of yards, gardens,and small fields. As the adjacent properties were similarly developed the blind back housesbecame back-to-backs. Soon houses were deliberately built as back-to-backs. These earlyback-to-backs, referred to as Type 1s, were built before 1870, most opened direct on tonarrow streets as such densities in excess of 60 per acre were achieved. They had only oneground floor room and usually only one first floor bedroom, although most did have atticbedrooms. Nearly all had cellars which were often made available as accommodation for themost poorly paid.

2.0 Background2.0 Background2.0 Background2.0 Background


16/187

16

One of the most pressing immediate social problems the authorities faced after the FirstWorld War was the number of substandard houses in the city. Seventy percent of the housesin Leeds were back-to-backs and the general consensus was that without a through flow ofair they were unhealthy. Unlike many other cities, which outlawed back-to-backs altogether inthe late 19th

century, Leeds still permitted them. However in 1866 regulations wereintroduced by the Town Council requiring that the streets on which they were built should be36 feet wide, with blocks limited to eight houses, and each block separated by a yard withprivies. Subsequently Type 2 back-to-backs were built in the period 1870-1895 with a densityof 40-60 per acre. Each with a basement cellar, living room and a scullery/kitchen on theground floor, two bedrooms on the first floor and a single attic room.

In 1909 an Act of Parliament forbade any further building of back-to-backs declaring suchaccommodation unfit for human habitation. Leeds City Council exploited a loophole in the Actand subsequently the rush for approvals prior to the legislation meant the building of Type 3and modern back-to-backs to continued in the Leeds until 1937 (Thornton, 2002). Type 3swere built between 1890-1907 or thereafter with bye law permission at a density of 40-60 peracre. Of similar overall proportions to the Type 2, the main difference was they all had acourt-yard between the street and the house, and individual or sometimes shared basement

privies/WC. It was still considered insanitary to have a WC inside the house, so it could onlybe reached via steps from the front yard. Although not ideal, this was a great improvementon having to share with at least seven other households.

Large scale slum clearance and city redevelopment programmes during the 1920s and1930s, and again in the 1960s and 1970s, resulted in a significant number of back-to-backsin the poorest condition being demolished and replaced with modern housing much of it inCouncil estates. A survey in 1930 identified some 74,805 back-to-backs in Leeds; by 1979this had fallen to 34,190. By the end of 20thCentury there were still 23,000 back-to-backs inLeeds (Thornton, 2002: 213).

The majority of literature on the history of back-to-back properties focuses on their negative

aspects. However, there was, and still is today, a clear argument for either retention ordemolition of back-to-back properties:

Advantages for Back-to-Backs in the Late 19th/early 20thCentury: The land available was low in cost.

Reduced building costs due to the scale of projects, the number of shared party walls,and the reduced space used from rows of back-to-backs.

Shared warmth from the heat of the fireplaces (the later statutory ventilation ducts wereoften stuffed up (Stefan, 1990:106).

The uncomplicated utilisation of the end of blocks on corner sites. A number of back-to-backs were built with large rooms upstairs in order to accommodate

large looms, therefore providing an excellent property enabling machinery/equipment to be kept in the house

so workers could literally work from home, and Back-to-backs met the needs of workers at the time and still do in a majority of cases. The close proximity of the properties encouraged a close-knit community. Provided accommodation to workers who would have faced barriers in accessing other

types of accommodation. The workers formed a crucial part of the Industrial Revolution. Did back-to-backs provide an element of choice for working-class people in housing?

How conscious were the inhabitants themselves of these differences? Standards of livingrose steadily at least from about 1860 onwards. The better-paid workers could now afford


17/187

17

a slightly better type of house: the poor and unskilled remained in the older parts of thetowns. Strong status sub-division within the working classes were making themselves felt(Stefan, 1990: 142).

Disadvantages for Back-to-Backs in the Late 19th/early 20thCentury: Back-to-backs built in the second half of the 19th Century, were considered extremely

unhealthy since they did not allow fresh air to circulate freely. Members of the medicalprofession and those concerned to improve standard of living did their best to ban theirbuilding, through by-laws and national legislation, however, they were not successful.

Poor materials were used to accommodate an inflow of poor immigrants. Back-to-backhouses were hurriedly fashioned, using the soft red brick of Leeds for the walls and blueslate for the roofs.

Many back-to-backs were squashed into little space regardless of the comfort of thosewho would have to occupy them (Maichell, 2000).

Lack of personal/amenity space. FM Lupton put in 1906, there is no back yard in whichto deposit filth (Stefan, 1990).

The argument for back-to-back properties today is that they:

Form an important rung on the ladder into the housing market for first time buyers. Would not be cost effective to compulsory purchase privately owned back-to-backs to

refurbish and sell.

It would not be energy efficient to demolish and replace all existing back-to-backproperties.

It may not be cost efficient to demolish and replace all back-to-back properties

However: Back-to-backs may not meet the Housing Health and Safety Guidelines due to steep

stairs, lack of fire escape, poor lighting etc. Many back-to-backs will fail the Governments Decency Standard, which is supposed to

be met by 2010. Housing is required to meet Health and Safety Standards (see section5.0). Other factors taken into account include the size of kitchens and bathrooms plus theage of the furnishings.

The structural layout of the properties has meant that if back-to-backs are to beremodelled, the price to do so will be extremely high.

Current regeneration projects in priority areas in Leeds envisage a limited programme ofselective demolition, including back-to-backs, together with refurbishment, remodelling andnew construction. At current rates of acquisition and demolition/replacement there will besubstantial numbers of back-to-backs in Leeds for at least (another) hundred years. Innations terms the scale of the back-to-back legacy in Leeds is unique.


18/187

18


19/187

19

Baseline Data

The number of back-to-backs in Leeds reached a peak of 108,000 in 1920, which was 70%

of the housing stock at the time. This number has been reduced dramatically throughclearance and redevelopment projects, often replacing rows of poor quality back-to-backswith more modern council houses and neighbourhoods. A recent electronic map studyundertaken by the West Yorkshire Housing Partnership estimates that there are still 19,500back-to-back properties in Leeds. The largest concentrations of back-to-backs are located inHarehills (4189), Beeston Hill (2090), Armley (1681),Morley (1619), Burley (1246) andHolbeck (1191). A full list of figures are attached to this report in Appendix H and are referredto in greater detail in the accompanying Strategy Document, Volume One.

Identification of Back-to-Backs

Some attempts have been made to categorise the different types of back-to-backs. Manygive the impression that each type is quite distinct from the next and is easily identified by afew common features. However, in Leeds the reality is somewhat different (see below). Awide variation in the constructional features of each Type can be found such that theboundaries blur making identification difficult.

Some common rules do apply. All back-to-backs apart from the moderns were built withcellars. The vast majority of the Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 & pseudo Type 3s have staircasesto an attic room but occasionally some dont. None of the Moderns were built withstaircases to an attic. All Type 1s & Type 2s were built with privy yards. All Type 3s andpseudo Type 3s have basement WCs although some were shared rather than provided toeach property.

In most historical texts Type 1 and Type 2 properties are described as street line when inrealty quite a few have yard areas some of which are a similar size to the 15ft courtyard oftenreferred to as an identification feature of a Type 3. To make things a bit more confusingblocks of different types can be intermingled on the same street. You may even get a blockconsisting of different types e.g. the gable being a Type 3 and the rest of the block PseudoType 3s.

Much of the existing literature attempts to differentiate the different types of back-to-backsaccording to date, density of construction and the width of the street on which they stand.From a surveyors perspective trying to classify an individual property using these features isdifficult.

The following pages with photographs give a brief guide to identifying the most commontypes as well as showing some of the variations that you might come across.

3.0 Back3.0 Back3.0 Back3.0 Back----totototo----Backs in ContextBacks in ContextBacks in ContextBacks in Context


20/187

20

Type 1 Back-to-Backs (Aviary Road, Armley LS12)

Characteristically, Type 1 back-to-back propertieshave only one ground floor room. Blocks of back-to-back properties were originally built with interdispersed privy yards containing dry toilets (nowfunctioning as shared bin yards). This block happensto be street lined but not all are, as such this featurecant be relied on for identification. As with the vastmajority of back-to-backs these have cellars. Thisphotograph was taken in Aviary Road, Armley and wasthe only block of Type 1s amongst many blocks ofType 2s.

A longer block of Type 1s this time with small yardareas formed adjacent to the steps and which are nowused to store wheelie bins. The bin yard is adjacent to

the visible gable.

Type 2 Back-to-Backs

To the left are blocks of street line Type 2 back-to-

backs characterised by the fact they have two groundfloor rooms, comprising a living room and scullery.This particular row was built in blocks of 4, each blockseparated by characteristic privy yards with dry toilets,now functioning as shared bin yards.

This is a close up of a Type 2 back-to-back from therow above. There is a cellar which is accessed fromthe scullery, two ground floor rooms, two bedrooms to

the first floor, one of which has been converted to abathroom. Being a back-to-back the soil and vent stackis located to the front of the property. Many end terraceback-to-backs still have ornamental cast iron coalholecovers which were produced locally.


21/187

21

This is a row of back-to-backs with bay windows to themain living room as well as a scullery. Because of theyards they could be mistaken for Type 3s. Howeverthe key here, although not visible in the photo, is thepresence of bin yards between the blocks, as suchthey are classified as Type 2s.

This is a block of back-to-backs with yards largeenough to provide stairs to a basement. However thetell tale presence of bin yards confirms they do nothave basement WCs and are therefore Type 2s, notType 3s.

Type 3 Back-to-Backs

This is a photo of a typical Type 3 back-to-back. Thedistinguishing feature between this and a Type 2 is therelatively large yard which offers external access via aflight of steps to a basement WC. This particular

property has a living room and scullery to the groundfloor, a bedroom and converted bathroom to the firstfloor and attic bedroom.

We can clearly see the external steps down to abasement WC.


22/187

22

Although not obvious at first sight these Type 3s haveshared basement WCs.

This close-up reveals the shared access to thebasement WCs.

Pseudo Type 3 Back-to-Backs

Pseudo Type 3s vary from Types 3s in that they were

only built with a single ground floor room.

Pseudo Type 3s with a bay window.


23/187

23

Modern Back-to-Backs

Built without cellars/basements modern back-to-backshave internal WCs and two ground floor rooms.Staircases were not provided to what was a roof spacerather than attic and windows were commonly casementrather than sliding sash. All had gardens of varying size.

A wider view of the street.

Blind Backs

Although they are of a similar typology to back-to-backs,blind backs are not really back-to-backs at all as noother houses actually back on to them. They look asthough someone has cut away the properties from theback by running a large knife down the spine of a blockof back-to-backs, leaving an exposed dividing wall. Butthat is not the case, they were actually constructed thisway.

At the back there is one large wall unbroken by doors orwindows. Blind backs have the same fire safety hazardsas traditional back-to-backs, there are very few in Leedsand this example is at the rear of St James Hospital.


24/187

24

Location of Back-to-Backs

These maps show the spread of back-to-back properties throughout Leeds. Data has beencollected electronically which clearly shows the number of back-to-back properties withineach Ward area within Leeds (see Appendix H). Further work is currently being undertakenby Leeds City Council to map the location of back-to-backs on a smaller scale including atestate and street level (see Appendix J).


25/187

25


26/187

26

Tenure Constitution of Back-to-Back Properties

During 2007 Leeds City Council, via its appointed consultants, CPC Ltd, undertook its fiveyearly city wide Private Sector Stock Condition Survey. The survey was conducted inaccordance with the former Office of the Deputy Prime Ministers (ODPM) Local HouseCondition Survey Guidance. Prior to the survey information from the Building ResearchEstablishments Housing Stock Modelling Service was used to identify nine sub-areas togive a more detailed picture of conditions across the City.

The survey shows that back-to-backs in Leeds form 7% of the private housing stock. In totalthere are estimated to be approximately 19,500 back-to-back houses in Leeds withapproximately 18,000 of these being private sector dwellings and 1,500 owned by RegisteredSocial Landlords. The following table illustrates the distribution of back-to-backs by sub area.

(source: Private Rented Stock Condition Survey, 2007, Leeds City Council)

Condition of Back-to-Back Properties

The 2007 Private Sector Stock Condition Survey surveyed a random sample of 2,200properties to assess the condition of the stock having particular regard to the Housing Health& Safety Rating System (HHSRS), the Decent Homes Standard and Energy EfficiencyStandards.

The survey found that 73% of private sector back-to-backs fail the Decent Homes Standard.Failure of the thermal comfort criteria being the biggest single reason for failure at 50% of thestock. This was followed by the presence of Category 1 hazards at 14% and disrepair at11%. Only 3 % of the stock was found not to have reasonably modern facilities, taken to be amodern kitchen or bathroom. In relation to Category 1 hazards, of the 29 hazard categoriesthere were three main areas of failure, excess cold (45%), falls on stairs(36%) and means of

escape in case of fire (28%). To put this into context the next highest category was falls onthe level at 4%.

Tenant/Occupier Demographics

Recently, back-to-backs have proven to be more popular with first time buyers thanpreviously, due rather to market forces, than choice. Nearly 75% of heads of householdwithin private sector back-to-back properties are under the age of 50, compared to 37% forthe Leeds stock as a whole. Many back-to-backs are within close proximity to the city centre

AreaBack-to-backs(private Sector) % of stock

Kirkstall 1,810 27%

North Central 780 2%

Headingley Woodhouse 1,940 18%

Gipton & Harehills 2,070 28%Killingbeck & Seacroft - 0%

Armley 1,460 17%

City & South Central 5,070 31%

Burmantofts & Richmond Hill 1,770 27%

Outer 2,940 2%

Total 17,840 7%


27/187

27

enabling access to shops and entertainments, and due to their location, they also gain inparklands, sports fields and places of worship where the city centre fails to cater as widely. Inrelation to household income, the 2007 Leeds City Council Private Rented Stock ConditionSurvey found that 24% of back-to-back households have an income of less than 10kcompared to 15% of all households city wide.

In Leeds, we have a clear knowledge of the location of the back-to-backs. Although anumber of back-to-backs are located in less deprived areas within Leeds, the large majorityof back-to-backs are located on the fringe of the economically prosperous city centre, in theLeeds Rim.

Using the Index of Multiple Deprivations statistics, 2007 for electoral wards in Leeds, we areable to research a number of key factors relating to areas of dense back-to-back properties.

These are:

Income:The areas with a high back-to-back density all have low Income Domain scores in relation toboth Leeds and national figures. Many of the previous/current occupants of back-to-backs

within these areas formed a major segment of the previous industrial workforce. Between1951 and 1973 there were approximately 37,000 jobs lost in manufacturing.

Jobs in manufacturing:Year Approximate number

1973 one third of workforce

1981 80,000

1991 64,000

2004 1775 firms (23% decline since 1994); 10% of workforce, 14% ofoutput

(LCC, 2006, Leeds Economy Handbook).

With the fall out of available jobs due to the change in industry type, many of these workerswill have turned to low-skilled and low-paid jobs. Low income jobs may leave owneroccupiers in these wards facing barriers to housing of a better standard, forcing them intoproperties of last resort and removing the element of choice.

Employment:Wards with a high concentration of back-to-backs also have a higher unemployment rate

than the rest of the city. This too could be related to the shift in workforce from manual toskilled. Many people may not hold the skills now required and therefore face difficulties infinding employment within this rapidly growing employment sector. There are, however, anumber of wards within Leeds where the unemployment rate is higher than it is in the wardswith a high concentration of back-to-backs. The Index of Multiple Deprivation figures do showthat although unemployment within these wards is not the highest for the city, the level ofincome for these jobs is low compared with the city as a whole.


28/187

28

Health:Health issues are also a concern for people living in areas with a high number of back-to-backs. General health is ranked much lower for these areas in comparison with the rest ofthe city. Hunslet and Richmond Hill are ranked amongst the worst in the city and the country.Housing conditions in this area may contribute to poor health, along with the overallenvironment of the streets, roads and access to health care amongst others.

Education:Beeston Ward and Richmond Hill Ward have been ranked the lowest for educationalattainment of any in the city. Other wards with a high concentration of back-to-backs alsorank amongst the worst educational figures for Leeds. Schools within these areas have lowsuccess rates, with the majority of students leaving school without reaching the nationalaverage of 5 GCSEs over grade C. The lack of qualifications correlate with the level of skillrequired for the jobs undertaken by school leavers, and ultimately, the level of income andavailable mortgage borrowings.

Housing:The wards with high levels of back-to-backs receive an average score for Leeds, but are stilllow compared with city-wide and national scores. These figures come with a caveat as the

research may now be out of date. Property prices have risen dramatically since 2000. Withproperty prices increasing annually, the element of choice has been taken out of the equationfor many first-time buyers. Back-to-backs, many of which provide poor living conditions, arebarely affordable to an average wage earner. This ultimately distorts figures to represent afalse demand for back-to-back houses.

Access:Wards with a high concentration of back-to-backs score amongst the highest in the city foraccess. As many of these wards are adjoining the city centre, access to services is excellent.Whether the services that residents can access are the right services is another matter. Theavailable access routes and close proximity to the city centre could be a draw for first timebuyers into these deprived wards.

Child Poverty:Child Poverty is an issue for concern in wards with a high concentration of back-to-backs.Harehills and Richmond Hill are amongst the worst in the city and the country for ChildPoverty. Low levels of income, high unemployment rates, low educational attainment andpoor quality of housing all contribute to child poverty. The environment that children areraised in is more deprived than areas with few, if any, back-to-backs. Living conditions inback-to-backs can be poor, with little space for children, often damp with higher levels ofasthma and respiratory illnesses. There is a lack of play spaces/greenspace and a generallylower quality environment in areas with a high concentration of back-to-backs.

It is clear that areas with a high concentration of back-to-backs face many issues shared by

deprived areas generally. The key point to raise here is that vulnerable tenants, living indeprived areas, need support. This is characteristic of deprived areas and the fact that manytenants within back-to-backs face these issues is due to the location of the property, ratherthan the property fabric. Tenant occupying a back-to-back house in wealthier areas such asOtley may not face these issues.


29/187

29

Policy Context

Sustainable Communities:Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future (2003) marks a step change in theGovernments approach to creating and maintaining sustainable communities. It is an actionplan to build successful, thriving and inclusive communities in which people want to live and: are economically prosperous

have decent homes at a price people can afford safeguard the countryside

enjoy a well designed, accessible and pleasant living and working environment are effectively and fairly governed with a strong sense of community

In order to achieve a sustainable community as set out by the Government, opportunitiesarise in a number of priority areas to address the sustainability of the communities. A mix ofphased acquisition/demolition and redevelopment, refurbishment or remodelling of stockcould be undertaken to address these issues and reinforce sustainability. Although this wouldbe a positive step for back-to-back housing, this strategy would not come close to addressingthe problem of the majority of back-to-backs in Leeds.

Tenants and occupants of back-to-backs with low income and high risk of unemploymentmay be vulnerable and excluded socially. The Social Exclusion Task Force will concentrateon identifying the most at-risk and focus on specific hardtoreach groups including childrenin care, people with mental health problems and teenagers at risk of pregnancy. Althoughthis will have the potential to increase the occupants standard of living, it will not address theproblems of meeting Decency and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).

Decent Homes Agenda:Delivering Decent Homes is a commitment in the national strategy for neighbourhoodrenewal and has a key role to play in narrowing the gap between deprived neighbourhoodsand the rest of the country. The delivery of this commitment needs to be a part of a holistic

approach to regeneration which is about more than just bricks and mortar and which makesthe right linkages to wider regeneration objectives such as improving health and educationoutcomes, renewing failing housing markets, tackling poverty and delivering mixedsustainable communities.

Many socially rented back-to-backs do not meet the governments Decent Homes Standard,which social landlords must achieve by 2010. But future demand patterns for this house typetend to be uncertain and the cost of achieving even a very basic decency standard isrelatively high. Option appraisal on some of the properties has concluded that the level ofinvestment required is not economic/does not offer best value for money. Many back-to-backs fail the Category 1 (most serious risk) threshold under the Housing Health & SafetyRating Scheme for private property [Housing Act 2004]. Substantial investment will berequired to meet minimum compliance standards without addressing many other aspirationalissues.

Improved quality of urban design and place-making:There are recognised design constraints small size of many properties, narrow and steepinternal stairs, no through ventilation, no alternative exit in event of fire, lack of sunlight fornorth-orientated properties, poor thermal efficiency in many cases, noise transfer between


30/187

30

houses, lack of private amenity space, poor communal environment, etc. As general housingaspirations increase this type of housing became and will continued to be less popular.

Plans to regenerate key areas by demolishing alternate streets, introducing green space,encouraging community-led social enterprise start ups could all benefit the improved urbandesign of the areas with high concentrations of back-to-backs, however, these initiatives canprove costly, both in terms of resources and finance. It is also arguable whether selectivedemolition produces improved urban design. The livability of tight-knit communities withineasy reach of greenspace should be considered in great depth before selective demolition isundertaken.

The Provision of Affordable Housing:The government believes everyone should have the opportunity of a decent home, whichthey can afford, within a sustainable mixed community, including those whose needs are notmet by the housing market, and should include a good balance of housing types and tenures.

Leeds City Council has to meet Government targets to provide access to affordable housingunits across the city. Volume 1 covers how, in relation to back-to-backs, this can be

achieved. One option is to retain and refurbish or remodel back-to-backs in the medium tolong term, while introducing a limited programme of phased redevelopment in selectedpriority areas where this can contribute to wider regeneration objectives by freeing up landavailable for new affordable housing developments.

However, opposition has emerged to some proposals for demolition of obsolete (mainlythrough) terraces property in Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder areas (Wilkinson, 2006),on grounds such as heritage value, sustainability, community impact, cost/value for moneyand changing housing markets; this has in turn stimulated a significant national debate aboutthe relative merits of strategies involving significant demolition versus refurbishment. Thesame issues may be explored in relation to back-to-back houses, in which case, thesignificant demolition of numbers of back-to-backs may not be a straight-forward approach.

Housing Health and Safety System:

The Housing Act 2004s Housing Health and Safety Rating System states that all dwellingsmust meet the following requirements:

Physiological requirements including hydrothermal conditions and pollutants (non-microbial)

Psychological requirements including space, security, light and noise

Protection against infection including hygiene, sanitation, and water supply Protection against accidents including falls, electric shocks, burns and scalds, and

building collisions

Under the Health & Safety Rating System (HHSRS) local authorities have a legal duty to takeappropriate action wherever a property is found to have a Category 1 hazard. The EnglishHouse Condition Survey 2006 found that, in total, some 4.8 million homes in England (22%)have Category 1 hazards present. Of these, the vast majority are in the private sector 4.2million homes.

The most common Category 1 hazards are excess cold and falls. According to thegovernments Operating Guidance on HHSRS, excess cold on its own would be enough to


31/187

31

classify the average pre-1945 dwelling as a Category 1 hazard. HHSRS can be used toenforce action in all tenures except local authority owned stock, but is most likely to be usedin private rented sector homes, which are typically the least energy efficient and where thereare the greatest barriers to encouraging action. Back-to-back properties raise issues ofhealth as identified by the Housing Health and Safety Rating on a number of levels,especially psychological requirements.

The Black Report on Inequalities in Health, published in 1980, showed that there hadcontinued to be an improvement in health across all classes (during the first 35 years ofNational Health Service) but that there was still a correlation between social class and health.This report touched on issues relating to areas of decline in relation to health problems,which may affect tenants of all ages. It also stated that inequalities in health and early deathare not simply, or even mainly due to failings in the Health Service but are rooted in povertyand inequality in material wellbeing. The report concluded that: "While the health care servicecan play a significant part in reducing inequalities in health, measures to reduce differencesin material standards of living at work, in the home and in everyday social and community lifeare of even greater importance" (Black Report, 1980, p357). In relation to back-to-backs,standard of living at home and in the social environment may be of a lower standard than forthose living in other types of properties, and could adversely affect the health of residents.

Oscar Newmans Defensible Space Crime Prevention through Urban Design (1972)research includes extensive discussion of crime related to the physical form of housingbased on crime data analysis from New York City public housing. Newman stated thatdefensible space must contain two components. First, defensible space should allow peopleto see and be seen continuously. Ultimately, this diminishes residents fear because theyknow that a potential offender can easily be observed, identified, and consequentlyapprehended. Second, people must be willing to intervene or report crime when it occurs. Byincreasing the sense of security in settings where people live and work, it should encouragepeople to take control of the areas and assume a role of ownership. Newman claims thatwhen people feel safe in their neighborhood they are more likely to interact with one anotherand intervene when crime occurs.

Although Newmans research is heavily related to crime, his theories link into the futurecreation of sustainable communities. In order to create comfortable living environments forpeople, it is important to take into consideration peoples personal space, streets in theirneighbourhoods, lighting, physical layout of communities, levels of noise and the ability tomake people feel safe within their homes. It could be argued that back-to-back propertiesproduce highly visible neighbourhoods where people can be seen continuously, reducing thefear of crime, however, with several bin yards/shared outdoor areas, often visually closed offfrom the street, rows of back-to-backs could also produce a haven for anti-social behaviourand drug dealing, increasing peoples fear of crime and reducing the level of comfort withinthe living environment.

Affordability of Back-to-Backs

The strength of the overall housing market in Leeds in such that most back-to-backs still findpurchasers. Location is an important factor. Some are stone-built and occur in small numbersin highly desirable parts of the city; these provide a first rung on the housing ladder for firsttime buyers. In some areas (mainly within North West Leeds, Headingley and Hyde Park)there is a vibrant student rental market (though this is starting to change as mandatorylicensing of HMOs drives up standards, students aspire to better quality, and modernpurpose designed student living flats in the city centre offer a contemporary alternative).


32/187

32

Larger back-to-backs with small front gardens in some areas offer economic familyaccommodation. However the majority of smaller back-to-backs concentrated in areasexperiencing multiple deprivation occupy the bottom of the market; there is evidence in areassuch as Beeston Hill of a significant shift in the past few years from owner occupation toprivate rental with increasingly transient resident population; more and more of the back-to-backs in some priority areas are becoming the refuge of those with limited choice. Suchareas are thus experiencing imbalance in tenure, limited choice of housing type/size andsignificant problems of social-economic exclusion and deprivation.

Previous Proposals

The Land Use Framework for Beeston Hill and Holbeck (approved by Leeds City Council asSupplementary Planning Guidance in February 2005) in an appendix sketched out the urbandesign possibility of converting back-to-back terraces into through terraces, with everysecond street being closed to traffic and converted into back gardens/amenity space forresidents. The document did not explore the economics of the approach. However, work byWest and Machell Architecture in 2004 in relation to Harehills proposed conversion of back-to-backs into flats or through terraced family town-houses, but concluded that substantial

deficit funding would be required (-75k for a flat up to -90k for a family townhouse). Such aproject requires initial investment in the purchase of two original houses, together with aconversion and environmental costs, to provide resulting property which has a market valuesignificantly less than the investment cost. Similar work by Watson Batty Architects inBeeston Hill examined conversion into through terraced housing, concluding that it would betechnically feasible in some cases but would require significant deficit funding. In certaincases, horizontal or vertical offset of the two houses adjoining back-to-backs would makesuch a technical solution more problematic. Both in Harehills and Beeston Hill there would beadditional costs to address residential area amenity. Large scale conversion of this type wasnot considered viable due to the technical and/or economic constraints.


33/187

33

Points two and three have covered the historic development, policy implications andaddressed the current numbers and condition of back-to-back properties in Leeds. Thissection aims to gather evidence from a broad audience to establish demand patterns, prices,turnover, and public opinions and perceptions of back-to-back housing in Leeds (for sale andrent). This will unveil the various roles and positions of back-to-back housing within theLeeds housing market, and will enable key stakeholders to understand, as far as possible,the factors influencing the market, which could lead to dynamic change.

SWIFT Research Limited, highly experienced in both qualitative and quantitative techniques,were commissioned through the back-to-back strategy, to undertake the housing marketintelligence exercise (see Appendix C). Research Officers from SWIFT discussed theirproposals and research methods with officers from renew, working on the back-to-backStrategy, before undertaking interviews. It was agreed that combination of telephoneinterviews, and in-depth interviews would be undertaken with a range of stakeholders fromacross the city. A presentation of the findings was delivered to the Back-to-Back Steering

Group in October 2007.

Research Methods

A two stage approach was adopted to address the above objectives:

Stage 1 Quantitative Telephone Study

130 quantitative interviews of 10 minutes duration amongst non back-to-backresidents were completed

Interviews were completed using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI)technology

Half of the sample was in dense back-to-back districts, one quarter in areas with someback-to-back properties and the final quarter spread more widely

Fieldwork was conducted in September 2007

Stage 2 Qualitative Depth Interviews

A series of depth interviews were conducted with a number of interested parties Social landlords 6 interviews Private landlords 5 interviews Estate agents 9 interviews Letting agents 4 interviews

Back-to-back residents 12 interviews (6 owners, 6 tenants) Professional representatives covering Fire, Police, NHS, Environmental Healthand Student Accommodation

See Appendix C for an overview of the Respondent Profile and further findings.

4.0 Housing Market Intelligence4.0 Housing Market Intelligence4.0 Housing Market Intelligence4.0 Housing Market Intelligence


34/187

34

Quantitative Results

Did Ex-Residents Enjoy Living in Back-to-Back Housing?

Outside toilet

No

32%

Yes

68%

Base Size = Those that have lived in a back-to-back (55)

No privacy/neighbours tooclose (more likely to be

mentioned by males)

No garden

Houses warmer in winter

More community spirit/people lookedout for one another (more likely to bementioned by the 60+ age group)

Good/friendly neighbours (morelikely to be mentioned byfemales)

Ideal for first house/when firstmarried

42% of the sample had previously lived in a back-to-back house

Of those that had not lived in a back-to-back only 7% had considered this property type

28

33

35

41

18

19

25

27

12

17

10

2

4

12

10

4

3

5

5

3

22

23

32

26

32

32

32

35

50

42

41

52

43

3

1

2

2

2

1

5

5

8

13

10

23

34

29

42

5

4

11

5

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Are safe to walk around at night

Lowers the value of other property types in the area

Have greater safety issues compared to other housing

Areas provide problems for local services, fire, police etc.

Residents have a sense of pride in their area

Areas have adequate facilit ies for residents

Areas have more concerns regarding H&S issues for

residents

Areas are prone to higher crime levels

Are safe to walk around in the day

Generates a sense of community for local residents

Is part of the heritage/culture of Leeds

Provides affordable rented accommodation

Provides an affordable housing option for 1st time buyers

Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Opinion of Back-to-Back Housing

MeanScores

4.2*

4.1*

4.0*3.7*

3.5*

3.4

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.0*

3.0*

2.8*

2.8

Base Size = Total Sample (130)

* Indicates areas where the under 40 age group show higher levels of disagreement compared to other ages


35/187

35

Benefits and Concerns Regarding Back-to-Back Housing in Leeds

17

6

10

12

15

15

25

Nothing/no

concerns

Less privacy

Usually in bad/run

down areas

No/limited garden

space

Small/lack of

space

The type of

people that live in

them

Noise/noisy

neighbours

27

6

6

6

12

13

18

Nothing/no benefits

More community spirit

More

neighbourly/friendlier

Cheaper to heat

Good for FTBs/a way

onto the property

ladder

Houses take up less

area/fit more houses

on land

Cheap/economical

housing

Benefits Concerns

Over half of the sample (56%) believe that presence of back-to-backs have no impact on localproperty prices.

However, over a third (39%) believe that they lower other local property prices.


33

16

11 26

41

10

293

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Local government money

should be invested in

demolishing and replacing

back-to-back housing with

modern housing

Local government money

should be invested in

renovation and

refurbishment of back-to-

back housing

Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Mean score

3.8

2.9

70%

36%


Of those that said demolish and replace back-to-backs, council housing was the most favouredreplacement option followed by private or part-buy housing.

Opinion of Back-to-Back Housing


36/187

36

Summary of Quantitative Results

Almost half the sample had lived in back-to-back housing previously. Of these overtwo-thirds had enjoyed living in back-to-back housing.

The main benefits of back-to-back housing were seen as providing cheap andeconomical housing, being a way onto the property ladder for first time buyers andbeing able to fit more houses in a space due to their size.

The main concern relating to back-to-back housing was the noise/noisy neighbours,followed by the lack of space and the type of people that live in them.

When asked whether they would like to see government money invested in renovationand refurbishment of back-to-back housing almost three-quarters agreed. Whenasked if government money should be invested in demolition and replacement over athird agreed.

Of those that favoured demolition and replacement, council housing was the maintype of housing they wanted to see.

Feelings were mixed with regard to the impression back-to-back housing has onLeeds. A quarter said it was part of the heritage and history of Leeds, whereas arounda fifth said it gave a bad or negative impression.

Impact of Back-to-Back Housing on the Impression of Leeds as a 21stCentury City

2

2

7

12

22

2

2

7

7

8

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

Don't look well kept/look neglected

Better off without them

Run down/slum/deprived areas

Old fashioned/needs updating

Negative/bad impression

Gives Leeds character

Good for 1st time buyersShould be kept/not knocked down

Good impression if looked after/modernised

Positive/good impression

Part of the heritage/history of Leeds

%


Positive comments

Negative comments


37/187

37

Qualitative Results

Social Landlords

In depth interviews were carried out with representatives from the following Social HousingProviders:

Aire Valley Homes

Canopy Unity Housing Association

West North West Homes Yorkshire Metropolitan Housing

Opinions were mixed among social landlords as to the demand for back-to-back housing.Some said it had fallen as people now want bigger properties with gardens. Whereas,some claimed it had increased as people saw it as a first time property and a steppingstone to something else. Several mentioned that demand was related to where peoplewant to live not what they want to live in.

In most cases back-to backs were rented to long term tenants.

It was generally felt that back-to back areas were relatively poor/lower incomecommunities.

Access to amenities was dependent on the area. Some mentioned that the areas tend tobe served by smaller shops and not to have supermarkets nearby.

Back-to-backs are often viewed as a second choice to a through terrace with a gardenbut are thought to be better than flats as they have more space.

Generally people felt that back-to-backs gave an impression that Leeds was notprogressive, looked like Coronation Street or the Hovis advert. It was also mentionedthat back-to-backs are part of Leeds duality modern/service industry city centre,deprived/industrial past inner suburbs.

However, most mentioned that they were also part of the cultural heritage/history ofLeeds and should be retained in some form.

Private Landlords

There is a high demand for back-to-back properties according to private landlords. Someof the reasons for this are the general housing shortage and the affordability of them in a

market where prices are increasing.

Houses are usually let on a short term basis of 6 months or a year.

The general feeling was that some areas are more deprived than others for example,Cross Green and Holbeck. However, with continued renovation and refurbishment bylandlords these areas would improve given their proximity to the city centre.

It was felt by some that back-to-back housing areas tended to be anti-landlord as localsbelieved landlords were only there to make a profit and didnt care about the area. From a


38/187

38

landlord perspective they felt they were improving the areas as they renovated andrefurbished properties and that the council/ALMO tenants pulled the area down due totheir transient nature.

Back-to-backs were viewed as being in the same market (cost bracket) as flats and werepopular as people renting get the space of a house.

Areas with back-to-back housing were thought to have good facilities and amenities as

well as a community spirit. Back-to-backs were seen as projecting a good impression, the reasons for this were thatthey provide low cost housing and are seen as part of the heritage of Leeds.

Estate Agents

In depth interviews were carried out with representatives from the following Estate Agents:

Bairstow Eves Headingley Brooklands Robinson Armley Castlehill Headingley

Halifax Beeston

Manning Stainton South Leeds Reeds Rains Morley Robertson Thomas Horsforth Simple Moves Ltd South Leeds

Whitegates South Leeds

According to Estate Agents demand for back-to-back properties varies according to areaand the current market.

Those being sold for residency tend to be purchased by first time buyers such as couples,young professionals and small families.

Families with children prefer the Type 3 properties given that they have a frontyard/garden.

The decision to purchase a back-to-back is usually based on what people can afford.

The communities tend to be close due to the population density of the areas. However,this again depends on the area.

Type of community varies dependent on area, such as students, ethnic groups, etc.

The fire risk is not particularly an issues and as no different to a flat.

Back-to-backs are viewed as part of the tradition and history of Leeds and are also part ofits character. They are part of the diversity of Leeds housing and are viewed as projectinga positive impression if they are well maintained.

Letting Agents

In depth interviews were carried out with representatives from the following Letting Agents:


39/187

39

261 Rentals Harehills The Accommodation Centre South Leeds Brooklands Rents Armley

Jane Wetherop Leeds

There is a high demand for letting back-to-backs as it is difficult to find other house types.However, demand does depend, to some extent, on the location. People rent properties

according to location; key workers near hospital, young professionals near city centre,families near schools they want their children to attend.

Type 3 properties were easier to let due to the garden/yard at the front. This type wasalso more popular with families as they are safer for children.

Back-to-backs were generally let on a short term (6 months to 1 year) basis. However,some agencies did have long term tenants.

Some agencies mentioned that there is a growing market for letting to Eastern Europeantemporary workers. This is reflected to some extent in the types of shops in the areas.

Letting agencies only let back-to-back houses if they meet the required standards. Therewere no particular issues with fire safety as refurbished houses met standards such asfire doors and windows big enough to escape from.

It was generally thought that tenants on housing benefit dont look after their houses.

One of the main concerns for letting agencies is trying to get landlords to invest in theirproperties. This is more of a problem among more established landlords as newerlandlords saw the houses as an investment as they paid more for the houses thereforeneeded to cover their investment by making the houses more desirable.

Letting agents thought that back-to-backs gave a mixed impression as they were seen asold but on the other hand they were slowly improving as they were refurbished.

Residents - Owners

The sample interviewed were long-term residents, 15 50 years.

House choice was driven by what was affordable, either as a first home or the desire tomove out of a flat into a house.

Back-to-back homes are considered good, well built, (many) spacious properties. The

garden area of Type 3 is treated with pride and is a valued and used space, making thisstyle preferable over Type 2.

A high level of modernisation has been undertaken making them comfortable homes.

The community spirit was very strong, knowing good support was available from theirneighbours. However, all have noticed significant deterioration in the districts they live inover more recent years (last 10).


40/187

40

When they first moved in there was higher owner-occupancy but now there is a higherproportion of rented houses.

This has affected the profile of residents, changing from older residents to a wider agemix, more families and, with the higher turnover, a diluted sense of community spirit.

Leeds Federated was singled out as a major provider of the rented properties. They were

praised for the refurbishing they undertook prior to a new occupier but criticised forputting every Tom, Dick or Harry in them.

Disturbances or concerns are driven by anti-social behaviour: Additional noise, from the street / party music People throwing rubbish anywhere Motorcyclists or cars racing up and down the streets, or younger cyclists on

pavements Drunks People who dont work and hang around the streets Pick-pockets/muggings

Residents Tenants

The sample interviewed were a mix of long and short-term residents comprising students,family and elderly people, private rented and council tenants.

Longer term residents have noticed a deterioration in the neighbourhood but are notcomplaining about the quality of their home. They have social landlords.

Short-term residents face the poorest housing standards and greatest variety of standardsprovided by private landlords.

Matching tenant to house is less evident amongst private landlords compared to sociallandlords. The family residing in a one bedroom Type 2, had a strong desire for a biggerType 3 property.

All bar one respondent lived in Type 3 houses, which were far more desirable and theoutside space enjoyed by all. However in student areas many were often neglected bythe tenants and the landlord.

Enforcing a cleanliness standard to tenants and landlords could lift the overall appearanceof the locality of high rental and multi-occupancy accommodation areas.

Beyond cheaper rent, students appreciate the space back-to-back properties provide thatother accommodation doesnt offer.

Professional Bodies Fire

The station covered Headingley, Hyde Park, Woodhouse Moor and Burley which has ahigh student population (potentially 80% now). Conversion into flats/bed-sits brings theincreased risk of multi-occupancy homes with several times the normal amount of


41/187

41

electrical equipment coupled with young, carefree or naive negligence regarding behaviourand safety.

Mixed feeling about landlords expressed. Those going through the licensing system areexcellent and have all the fire protection in place. Some private landlords have a severeimpact on the quality of the back-to-back properties that exist, investing very little money inthem and not meeting building regulations.

Lack of escape routes is the main problem. All doors onto the stairwell should be firedoors and kept shut to allow a route down from the upper floors, smoke alarms should befitted on all landings. It is advised to take a phone to upper bedrooms and in the event offire operating a stay put policy - phone 999, block the gap at the bottom of the door, opena window for ventilation but do not use as a means of escape. The area is well positionedfor a quick response.

Those protecting against burglary with security bars to the windows and doors increasesthe difficulty of access for fire fighters.

The gated alleyways are alleviating problems as stronger communities are forming again

and responsibility to keep the area clean and tidy is increasing.

Encouraging more owner-occupancy is required to revert the multi-occupancy homes backto standard houses.

Professional Bodies Police

Cover Beeston and Holbeck area. There is a good proportion of back-to-back housing.Beeston tends to have a mixture of Type 2 and Type 3 properties. Whereas, Holbeck ispredominantly Type 2.

Holbeck, Beeston and parts of Hunslet are very densely populated due to amount ofback-to back housing. Police have a good relationship with the community as they arevery active in community events.

This super output area and is in the 3% most deprived in the country. Therefore hasreceived funding in areas of back-to-back housing.

Resident profile has changed in last 20 years from families to short term private rented.

Some issues with student areas. Need to make them aware of how to protect theirproperty and themselves.

Sometimes its difficult to locate people due to the transient population but police havegood network with landlords.

Have contact points in the community, that are advertised, where people can go and seea PCSO or a PC to discuss their concerns or report anything.

ASB/crime no more prevalent than in any other area/type of housing.


42/187

42

Excellent facilities in areas of back-to-back housing. Sports centre, mosques, one stopcentre, schools, multi-cultural centre, police and fire station, local shops andsupermarkets and good bus service.

Work partnership with youth services and other service providers to reduce ASB.

Leeds is an old city, people identify with the way Leeds looks. They dont necessarily

identify with the new buildings in the city centre as the Leeds image. Back-to-backs areviewed as part of the Leeds structure.

Professional Bodies Environmental Health

Back-to backs are Category 1 hazards in relation to falls and safety.

Externally issues exist around green space and amenities in the high density, moredeprived areas, which face anti-social behaviour problems and mobility issues to accessservices. High level ALMO or private rental tenants and the influx of asylum seekers hasaltered district profiles, creating a transient population with less of an interest in the area

and dilutes community cohesion work undertaken.

Friction also exists between long-term residents and student markets, which are transient,but can be managed more easily through work with university, student and private rentalrepresentatives, but this cant be managed city-wide because the districts have differentneeds.

Leeds has several districts in the bottom 3% of Super Output Areas, and more in thebottom 10%, which dense, poor quality housing contributes to. Changes in wardboundaries have made comparison and measurement of change difficult.

Areas where back-to-back houses are amongst a mix of the local housing and act asstarter homes are stable environments.

Professional Bodies NHS Nurses

The majority of housing covered is Type 2 and the district nurse treats people in their ownhomes, patients tend to be old and not very mobile. She assesses the house andrecommends aids and adaptation where possible or suggests re-housing.

The nurse cannot risk her own health and safety following somebody with mobilityproblems up steep, narrow stairs that twist at the top so bathing and toileting has to be

done downstairs. This lack of privacy impacts on dignity and mental wellbeing.

Poor housing stock, through damp and poor state of repair, means chest problems,asthma and eczema are more prevalent. Washing has to be dried indoors as many havepulley lines across the street that are in poor repair.

The older people are owner occupiers who have lived there 50+ years and know no otherway of living. They would have had a close family network in the neighbourhood but nowthe younger family members are moving away and family support is less prevalent.


43/187

43

The council or private landlords own a high proportion now, occupied by different ethnicgroups, described as asylum seekers, African, Polish, East Europeans not Asianfamilies. This causes language problems. A language line is used but quality oftranslation means accuracy of information is lost.

Rubbish impacts in these areas with the communal rubbish area not being very welllooked after and rubbish falling off the collection lorry is left in the street in this area.

Also people put in the back-to-back houses in this district often have problems withbehaviour.

Bollards to prevent through traffic could delay access by emergency services to someproperties.

Professional Bodies UNIPOL

Around 15-20% of student housing through Unipol is back-to-back property. It is a mix ofowned, managed and leased from Leeds City council. Most student accommodation is

Type 3 and more likely to be for 4-6 students and converted into HMOs. Type 2 is usuallyoffered to couples.

Unipol have worked with the Fire Brigade and Environmental Health to develop guidelinesto improve safety standards and have recommend measures that should be taken instudent accommodation.

There are limitations with this code: Standards are voluntary, not law, and consequently some owners put in higher levels

of fire protection than others. There is no time frame in place for improvements, and is a forthcoming, not current

measure.

Overly-converted properties is an issue and some owners understand the need to convertthem back to standard houses. As this involves investment and loss of income it is not anattractive option.

There is a current surplus so this should imply that the more (cramped) properties will bethe least popular. However, these will also be the cheapest, of key importance to somestudents, so the logic of appeal may not follow through.

Specific requirements for fire, health and safety exist for back-to-back houses to belicensed for HMOs, centring around a protected escape route. Windows over 4.5m

cannot be used for this so protection of the stairwell is a key focus.

Conclusions

Back-to-backs have a genuine role in Leeds, not just as part of the tradition and culture ofthe city but as a modern day housing type. They are well built and affordable makingthem an essential part of Leeds housing mix, ideal for FTBs.


44/187

44

Categorically, no more high-rise flats are wanted in the city, and houses generally arepreferable to flats. They also satisfy the accommodation need of students.

Long-term residents report noticeable deterioration in areas of back-to-back housing, theloss of a strong community spirit and greater fear of personal safety, but many cannotafford to move out.

Overall the research supports investment in renovation rather than large scaleredevelopment, although selective demolition is desirable to introduce space.

Areas of focus would be districts with dense, older Type 2 housing where greater socialissues exist, being the areas in the bottom 3% of Super Output Areas and selectedpockets in wards in the bottom 10%.

Increasing personal space and green areas was a common request. However there is aquestion over whether house supply outweighs demand and therefore if some homes aredemolished and areas not rebuilt as densely, can these people be re-homed in fewerhouses?

Introduce a mix of house types to meet specific occupants needs, including bungalows,one- or two-bedroom houses and potentially low-rise flats, where the ground floor homesare reserved for the elderly or those with mobility problems.

Rehousing would free some back-to-back properties to house more suitable occupantsand allow an influx of more aspirational FTBs, increasing owner-occupancy and hopefullyrestoring pride in the properties aiding the regeneration of the areas.

However quantitative research revealed that under 40s, who are the most likely to beFTB purchasers, were most critical of back-to-back houses, so encouragement by way ofimprovement grants may help make the homes more affordable and attractivepropositions.

Poor housing, whether it be back-to-back or another property type, is an important factorin the overall quality of living in these districts, but is only one of several factors in need ofattention and financial investment. Attitudes and behaviours of residents needsaddressing.

Focus should be given to controlling the behaviour of some landlords. Newer landlords and those working to license standards are responsible and

implement higher standard improvements to ensure return on their investment. Longer-term and itinerant landlords, are considered the most negligent, either

leaving properties unoccupied for investment purposes or investing in minimalmaintenance to maximise personal profit. There is concern about this type of ownerreceiving any public money to support renovation, this should be personalinvestment.

The different groups interviewed are blaming the others for generating transient, short-term residency in back-to-back houses which causes a lack of responsible ownership anddiminished pride in the properties and areas and consequent degeneration.


45/187

45

Recommendations

Aim for greater control to enforce higher quality standards of back-to-back houses letby private landlords.

To manage over-crowding: Limit the number and manage the quality of HMO conversions.

Encourage de-conversion to return to more traditional household formats. When housing families with children, manage the household size allocatedback-to-back houses and restrict to districts with suitable facilities.

Aim to increase responsibility for keeping houses, gardens and streets tidy.

Areas of focus for back-to-back house improvements: Introduce more space per house a personal buffer zone and potentially aim

to reduce the steepness of external steps for improved access. Internal staircase(s) safety/space. Roof and guttering repair. Damp proofing.

Provision of central heating and improved quality of utilities. Insulation against heat loss and noise reduction. External appearance improved brickwork, chimneys. Door and window replacement against heat loss, security and safety. Dormer conversions checked for safety. Kitchens modernised and enlarged if possible.


46/187

46


47/187

47

A range of technical tests have been undertaken on the current physical form of back-to-back

properties. These tests cover thermal efficiency, sound insulation and fire safety.Considerations for these factors are crucial when assessing future refurbishment orredevelopment options.

Thermal Efficiency - (Mark Ireland, Environmental Health Services, Leeds City Council)

From December to March there are typically 40,000 more deaths in Britain than the averagerate for the year. Excess cold affects the respiratory tract and increase cardiovascular strain.Both of these factors are reasons why both conditions such as heart attacks, strokes andrespiratory infections like influenza, pneumonia and bronchitis are more likely to occur in thewinter than the summer months. Age is an important factor when considering excess cold.

Excess mortality in the elderly is highest in the winter. A person aged 65 and above has a50% high risk of dying from respiratory disease in winter than those aged 45 to 60.

Prior to the Housing Act 2004 energy efficiency or excess cold was not a criteria that wasconsidered as part of the legal fitness standard used to assess the housing stock. The Healthand Safety Hazard Rating System in the 2004 Act introduced risk assessed based criterialooking at individual properties rather than a legal standard. One of the 29 criteria introducewas excess cold. The recent Leeds City Council Private Sector Stock Condition Surveyindicated that excess cold was the highest single reason for properties having a Category 1hazard present.Failure of any property to achieve a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP)rating of 35 was deemed to have a Category 1 hazard and requires action to remove thehazard.

The Government has introduced targets for local authorities in relation to the energyefficiency. Public Service Agreement (PSA) 7 requires all socially rented stock to have beenmade decent by 2010. PSA 7 also required 70% of all private stock, occupied by vulnerablehouseholds to be made decent by 2010. This target has been achieved nationally and is nolonger part of the Governments reporting criteria. To achieve decency a property mustachieve four criteria, one of which is to have a SAP rating of 65 or above.

As part of the back-to-back strategy a theoretical study of back-to-back types and scenarioshas been undertaken to look at the various SAP ratings of property types and the measuresthat could be incorporated as part of any improvement (see appendix G). These have thenbeen given a hypothetical SAP rating to provide guidance of what would be required toremove any Category 1 hazard or decency in the various property types. It can only be seenas an indicative measure rather than actual real examples as these would be unique to thoseparticular circumstances.

A base property with no energy efficiency measure and minimal heating (gas fire and electricpoints) has been used in all instances. To summarise the findings it will be of no surprise thatin all cases the base property example failed to achieve a SAP rating of 35 and so wasdeemed to have a Category 1 hazard present. When compared to a similar scenario ofthough terrace and typical 1930s semi detached properties the back-to-back has a higher

5.0 Physical and Technical5.0 Physical and Technical5.0 Physical and Technical5.0 Physical and Technical

ConsiderationsConsiderationsConsiderationsConsiderations


48/187

48

rating. This is unsurprising as these more external elevations allow a greater area of heatingloss.

To improve a back-to-back property to above a SAP rating of 35 and remove a Category 1hazard requires less of an investment than with other property types. With the two story midterrace back-to-back scenario simply putting in loft insulation, as per current buildingregulations, would achieve this. If there is a dormer present, then simply replacing the sashwindows with double glazed windows would give the property a SAP rating greater than 35.In the similar though terrace and 1930s semi both would require additional works, in the twostory mid terrace property as well as insulation

Documents

Volume Two:Background Research – November 2008