sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cardonald, Carmunnock, Carntyne, Carnwadric, Castlemilk, Cowlairs

City Council

Housing Development Committee

Report by Director of Development and Regeneration Services

Contact: Jennifer Sheddan Ext: 78449

Operation of the Homestake Scheme in Glasgow

Purpose of Report:

The purpose of this report is to seek approval for priority groups for housing developments through the new Homestake scheme, and for other aspects of operation of the scheme.

Recommendations: Committee is requested to: - (a) approve the priority groups for housing developments through the new Homestake scheme; (b) approve that in general, the Council’s attitude to whether the RSL should take a ‘golden share’ in Homestake properties is flexible, with the exception of Homestake development in ‘hotspot’ areas where the Housing Association, in most circumstances, will retain a ‘golden share’; (c) approve that applications for Homestake properties should normally be open to all eligible households, with preference given to existing RSL tenants to free up other existing affordable housing options; (d) approve that net capital receipts to RSLs through the sale of Homestake properties will be returned to the Council as grant provider to be recycled in further affordable housing developments.

Ward No(s): Citywide:

Local member(s) advised: Yes No Consulted: Yes No

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: Any mapping included within this Report is provided by under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to fulfil its public function to make available Council-held public domain information. Persons viewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey Copyright for advice where they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping/map data for their own use. The OS web site can be found at . If accessing this Report via the Internet, please note that any mapping is for illustrative purposes only and is not true to any marked scale

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Housing Development Committee on 10 November 2005 considered a report on the new Homestake scheme and approved arrangements for its introduction in Glasgow. The report noted that further discussions were required to agree priorities in respect of locations and client groups to be targeted.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to seek approval for priority groups for housing developments through the new Homestake scheme, and for other aspects of operation of the scheme.

2. CONSULTATION

2.1 The Homestake Guidance issued by Communities requires local authorities to consult with partners on priorities for implementation of the scheme and to relate priorities to the Local Housing Strategy. The citywide Housing Investment Forum which includes representation from the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations and Communities Scotland considered initial draft proposals at its meeting on 16 November 2005. Detailed feedback is awaited from the Forum. Representations regarding Homestake have been made by Glasgow Council for Inclusive Living and Ownership Options, and by Link Group. The proposals made here reflect all these discussions.

3. ELEMENTS OF THE HOMESTAKE SCHEME

3.1 The Homestake scheme is being introduced to assist households on low incomes who cannot afford to purchase a suitable property in the local housing market. Homestake is another mechanism with which RSLs can develop or purchase properties for householders who cannot afford the full price of the property. This shared equity scheme allows the householder to purchase a stake in the property and the RSL to retain the remaining stake in the property. Distinguishing the scheme from shared ownership, there is no rent to be paid to the RSL for the stake in the property held by the RSL. A key advantage of the scheme, in comparison to low cost home ownership schemes, is that when the property is sold, the RSL stake in the property can be recycled and used in further Homestake schemes.

3.2 There are no fixed income eligibility figures, but applicants would have to demonstrate that they cannot afford to buy suitable housing on the open market, after allowing for retention of £5,000 savings. In the first instance, the expectation is that most households will purchase a stake of between 60% and 80% of the property with the RSL purchasing the remaining stake with Homestake grant from the development funding budget, which will formally be HAG. The minimum percentage stake that a householder can take in the property is 51% and the maximum percentage at the time of initial purchase is 80%. The householder can increase their stake to 100% unless the RSL takes a 20% ‘golden share’.

3.3 Separate criteria apply to households who own property which is scheduled to be demolished for regeneration purposes. There is no minimum percentage stake in the property required to be purchased by these households. However, the householder is required to invest the full sum returned from the demolition/ clearance property in the Homestake property.

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc

3.4 The property must be newly built for the specific purpose of the Homestake scheme, or bought new from a housing developer. Currently, a pilot Homestake scheme is operating in the housing market under which Homestake applicants can pursue and buy property on the open market and so are not restricted to developments with RSLs. This will not be available in Glasgow, at least for the time being.

4. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

4.1 The assessment of the LHS Update (May 2005) was that Glasgow does not have a general problem of affordability, but that there are serious hotspots, particularly in the West End and inner South Side. It stated that the Council would use Homestake to meet priority needs for affordable housing, and continue to fund Low Cost Home Ownership (on a full and shared equity and shared ownership basis) by RSLs through HAG on the basis of locally justified demand. The full statement relating to affordability of owner occupation is in Appendix 1.

4.2 House price analysis updated to 2004/05 indicates that the affordability position in Glasgow has grown more difficult. There has been a ripple effect whereby many of the less popular areas have now had substantial price increases, and the proportion of homes which are affordable on a three times income basis has fallen. In 2003, 43.3% of second hand sales were ‘affordable’ on the basis of three times workplace Glasgow average income; in 2004/05, this fell to 30.7%. Nevertheless the contrast between the West End and inner South Side on the one hand, and the rest of the city on the other, remains strong. In 2004/05, over 40% of homes were affordable on the three times median resident income basis in 30 postcode sectors, while the median second hand price was £70,000 or less in 36 postcode sectors. Fuller details of house price changes in Glasgow are in Appendix 2. Further work on affordability in Glasgow is ongoing, including an update of the Glen Bramley work commissioned for all of Scotland by Communities Scotland.

4.3 Homestake can support a range of Glasgow’s Local Housing Strategy (LHS) Objectives, particularly in relation to: • LHS Aim A: To promote the regeneration of the city: to retain and attract population, particularly families, by ensuring that a full range of house types, sizes and tenure options is provided within the city • LHS Aim B: To raise the city’s housing in all tenures to satisfactory standards, with affordable costs: to ensure affordability of housing in all tenures • LHS Aim C: To meet people’s changing housing needs: to improve access to suitable housing for people with particular needs.

4.4 The recycling of resources will support the LHS Objective of maximizing available resources by all possible means whilst allocating housing investment based on housing need.

5. RESOURCES

5.1 The Scottish Executive is not making any additional funding available to Glasgow for Homestake. Homestake will be a component of the existing development funding programme, competing with existing streams.

5.2 Recent spend on low cost home ownership schemes may be used as indicative of possible future spend on Homestake. Spend averaged £1.26m in 2002-2003 to 2004- 2005. The average spend on GRO over these three years was an additional £2.01m and some of this might be regarded as available.

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc

5.3 In addition, the Financial Services Committee on 30 November decided to reduce the Council Tax discount on second homes from 50% to 10%. The projected revenue is £0.22m per year, and is required to be used to finance affordable housing provision by RSLs. The first funds under this provision will become available by June 2007.

5.4 All of these sources together would put an overall ceiling on low cost home ownership programmes in Glasgow of £3.62m per year. On the (very rough) assumption that the average unit cost for Homestake would be of the order of £30,000-40,000, this suggests that the initial Homestake programme would be quite small. It could eventually build up as resale proceeds become available for recycling.

6. SUGGESTED PRIORITY GROUPS

6.1 Taking the above into account, the following groups are proposed as priorities for Homestake funding.

(i) Affordable housing for families In recognition of the LHS priority to increase family housing options and increase the population within Glasgow, the Homestake scheme should be targeted at family households who cannot afford to purchase in their local area or alternative neighbouring areas. The rationale for this would be that while the city still has plenty of affordable housing if size of house is disregarded, many families with children are likely to have considerable difficulty in finding an adequately sized affordable house. It is desirable that construction of larger family houses for owner occupation should be promoted. Another significant grouping could be families living in over-expensive private rented accommodation, as highlighted at the lone parents consultation in March 2005. It is suggested that, as far as possible, homes provided under this element of the scheme should be situated in areas of lower housing pressure.

(ii) Mixed Tenure Development in High Price Areas The viability of mixed tenure developments in the ‘hotspot’ areas could benefit from the presence of Homestake along with social rented housing development. At the same time the Homestake element would make a greater contribution to affordability than open market sale for owner occupation.

It is recommended that in ‘hotspot’ areas, a key aspect of Homestake developments would be the retention of a ‘golden share’ by the Housing Association. This would mean that in areas where there may be issues of land supply to develop new affordable housing provision, the Homestake development would remain a more affordable option within the housing market.

(iii) Householders with particular housing needs Homestake could increase the housing options of households with particular housing needs. The scheme could make an important difference to individuals who would otherwise be unable to find a suitable independent living solution. Consideration was given to whether, in the development of particular needs housing delivered through Homestake, a ‘golden share’ should be retained by the Housing Association. Although there are sound reasons for the use of the ‘golden share’ in order to ensure that the properties will be targeted on re-sale towards individuals with particular housing needs, this could be considered discriminatory and therefore, the ‘golden share’ option is not recommended for individual properties within a larger development.

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc

(iv) Owner occupiers in clearance and redevelopment areas This group would include ‘type 3’ projects which grant fund RSLs to develop new properties for sale on a shared equity basis to owner occupiers whose homes are scheduled for demolition and who wish to participate in an agreed area redevelopment plan. This priority would assist in progressing regeneration projects and increasing housing options by providing an additional housing solution for households who are required to move house.

In these circumstances, no minimum stake is required to be taken by households. This could exert a significant demand on development funding with high investment needs per Homestake unit. On the other hand, a key criterion in the Homestake scheme is that households should not be able to meet their housing needs in the area on the open market. Therefore, Homestake could not be used if there were alternative affordable housing opportunities in the area. Due to the nature of many of the key regeneration areas, it is likely that there will be alternative affordable private housing already available.

The Council cannot give HAG to the GHA. If owners in GHA clearances are included in this category, they would have to be served by a partner RSL in the same way as for the RSL half of the new build Reprovisioning programme. The GHA’s large clearance programme could generate significant demand for Homestake.

7. OTHER DECISION ON OPERATION OF HOMESTAKE

Onward Sale of Homestake Properties 7.1 There are a number of options for the onward sale of a Homestake property.

(i) Where the RSL retains a share of the equity, it can buy back the Homestake property and sell it onto another Homestake owner or the Homestake property can be sold directly to another Homestake owner. Alternatively, the Homestake owner can sell on the open market, keeping their % capital stake in the property with the housing association realising their % capital stake in the property.

(ii) If the Homestake householder has 100% ownership they are entitled to sell on the open market.

7.2 In all cases, any net capital receipt to the RSL will be returned to the Council as grant provider. This will then be recycled into the Development Funding programme. It is recommended that the Council should state that such receipts will normally be recycled into Homestake or similar low cost home ownership programmes.

7.3 Whether the RSL has control of the resale of the property may depend on whether it has taken a ‘golden share’ of 20%. In general it is suggested that the Council’s attitude to whether the RSL should take a ‘golden share’ should be flexible.

Application Procedures 7.4 It is suggested that application for Homestake properties should normally be open to all eligible households, rather than limited to those already on the RSL’s waiting list. But preference should be given to existing tenants of RSLs where this would free up a house for reletting to another household in housing need.

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Committee is requested to: -

(a) approve the priority groups for housing developments through the new Homestake scheme (b) approve that in general, the Council’s attitude to whether the RSL should take a ‘golden share’ in Homestake properties is flexible, with the exception of Homestake development in ‘hotspot’ areas where the Housing Association, in most circumstances, will retain a ‘golden share’ (c) approve that applications for Homestake properties should normally be open to all eligible households, with preference given to existing RSL tenants to free up other existing affordable housing options (d) approve that net capital receipts to RSLs through the sale of Homestake properties will be returned to the Council as grant provider to be recycled in further affordable housing developments.

9. SERVICE IMPLICATIONS

Financial – Homestake does not involve any additional financial commitment by the Council. It will generate receipts in future years. Legal – None Personnel – None Service Plan - None

Development and Regeneration Services JS 13 January 2006

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc APPENDIX 1: EXTRACT FROM THE LHS INVESTMENT STRATEGY, May 2005

The Council’s approach to affordability of owner occupation comprises the following:

Continuing to promote quality private housing development in disadvantaged areas in order both to assist in regenerating these areas and to help relieve the localised issues of affordability in the high price areas of the city. Continuing to provide GRO grant to housebuilders for low cost home ownership where a need is demonstrated. Using the new Homestake scheme, when it is launched, to meet priority needs for affordable housing, and continuing to fund Low Cost Home Ownership (on a full and shared equity and shared ownership basis) by RSLs through HAG on the basis of locally justified demand. We will seek regular reviews of the price ceiling (currently £80,000) for GRO and LCHO funding so that they continue to be effectively targeted. Encouraging developers and RSLs to adopt a partnership approach in appropriate areas to create mixed tenure developments with a proportion of the stock available for rent. Continuing to monitor house prices and to review the availability of affordable housing in the city on a regular basis.

The Council considers that circumstances in Glasgow do not justify a general requirement on private developers to provide fixed quotas of affordable housing.

The Council will continue to press for adequate resources to address water/sewerage infrastructure problems and will work with Scottish Water and other partners to enable development constraints to be removed.

Our Priorities In Balancing Supply and Demand. The Council‘s priorities for balancing supply and demand are therefore:

To ensure that demand for social and private housing is reviewed on a regular basis and that the results of these reviews are reflected in both the housing strategy and in investment decisions. To ensure that infrastructure constraints are addressed so that they do not inhibit necessary residential development; so far as possible, housing development will also reflect sustainable urban development principles in order to minimise its impact on drainage systems To ensure that the HAG-funded new build programme for social housing reflects both current and future demand both in the size and type of houses constructed, and in the location where they are built. To maximise opportunities for the provision of middle market family housing in the private sector. To work closely with our partners in all housing sectors to ensure that a proper balance of tenure is maintained at local level. To seek to address specific local issues of affordability of owner occupied housing.

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc APPENDIX 2: HOUSE PRICES IN GLASGOW

"AFFORDABLE" SECOND HAND HOUSE SALES BY POSTCODE SECTOR 2004/2005 Sector Area name All 3 x Glasgow 3 x Glasgow residence median sales workplace mean <£73,42 <£60,653 Difference 9 No. No. % No. % No.% G1 E City Centre 216 16 7.4% 7 3.2% -9 -56.3% G11 5 191 3 1.6% 2 1.0% -1 -33.3% G11 6 Meadowside 102 5 4.9% 1 1.0% -4 -80.0% G11 7 Broomhill 329 19 5.8% 9 2.7% -10 -52.6% G12 0 278 3 1.1% 1 0.4% -2 -66.7% G12 8 156 7 4.5% 6 3.8% -1 -14.3% G12 9 357 4 1.1% 2 0.6% -2 -50.0% G13 1 /Temple 269 24 8.9% 9 3.3% -15 -62.5% G13 2 N 141 29 20.6% 20 14.2% -9 -31.0% G13 3 S Knightswood 116 7 6.0% 3 2.6% -4 -57.1% G13 4 N 82 21 25.6% 9 11.0% -12 -57.1% G14 0 S Yoker 158 97 61.4% 48 30.4% -49 -50.5% G14 9 159 27 17.0% 14 8.8% -13 -48.1% G15 6 S-E 63 23 36.5% 18 28.6% -5 -21.7% G15 7 N-E Drumchapel 18 15 83.3% 13 72.2% -2 -13.3% G15 8 W Drumchapel 39 9 23.1% 8 20.5% -1 -11.1% G2 W City Centre 59 3 5.1% 1 1.7% -2 -66.7% G20 0 N 99 14 14.1% 8 8.1% -6 -42.9% G20 6 N Kelvin 187 8 4.3% 3 1.6% -5 -62.5% G20 7 Woodside 81 8 9.9% 2 2.5% -6 -75.0% G20 8 N 148 31 20.9% 22 14.9% -9 -29.0% G20 9 48 11 22.9% 1 2.1% -10 -90.9% G21 1 92 79 85.9% 69 75.0% -10 -12.7% G21 2 Garngad 29 25 86.2% 18 62.1% -7 -28.0% G21 3 / 86 45 52.3% 34 39.5% -11 -24.4% G21 4 110 86 78.2% 50 45.5% -36 -41.9% G22 5 16 11 68.8% 11 68.8% 0 0.0% G22 6 Parkhouse 59 51 86.4% 35 59.3% -16 -31.4% G22 7 High Possil 33 29 87.9% 18 54.5% -11 -37.9% G23 5 113 77 68.1% 67 59.3% -10 -13.0% G3 6 Woodlands 139 8 5.8% 2 1.4% -6 -75.0% G3 7 Kelvingrove 115 4 3.5% 3 2.6% -1 -25.0% G3 8 181 11 6.1% 3 1.7% -8 -72.7% G31 1 36 21 58.3% 16 44.4% -5 -23.8% G31 2 286 83 29.0% 43 15.0% -40 -48.2% G31 3 138 91 65.9% 72 52.2% -19 -20.9% G31 4 S 35 34 97.1% 31 88.6% -3 -8.8% G31 5 N Parkhead 31 28 90.3% 22 71.0% -6 -21.4% G32 0 /N Mount Vernon 140 62 44.3% 45 32.1% -17 -27.4% G32 6 54 41 75.9% 22 40.7% -19 -46.3% G32 7 /Tollcross 147 118 80.3% 89 60.5% -29 -24.6% G32 8 159 85 53.5% 60 37.7% -25 -29.4% G32 9 /Mount Vernon 108 35 32.4% 21 19.4% -14 -40.0%

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc G33 1 Blackhill 170 21 12.4% 17 10.0% -4 -19.0% G33 2 83 51 61.4% 23 27.7% -28 -54.9% G33 3 37 24 64.9% 11 29.7% -13 -54.2% G33 4 46 42 91.3% 38 82.6% -4 -9.5% G33 5 58 44 75.9% 30 51.7% -14 -31.8% G33 6 Stepps (NL) 30 18 60.0% 11 36.7% -7 -38.9% G34 0 E 69 64 92.8% 55 79.7% -9 -14.1% G34 9 W Easterhouse 13 13 100.0% 12 92.3% -1 -7.7% G4 0 86 10 11.6% 6 7.0% -4 -40.0% G4 9 140 14 10.0% 7 5.0% -7 -50.0% G40 1 W Bridgeton 104 67 64.4% 44 42.3% -23 -34.3% G40 2 34 25 73.5% 15 44.1% -10 -40.0% G40 3 E Bridgeton 4 4 100.0% 4 100.0% 0 0.0% G40 4 15 11 73.3% 11 73.3% 0 0.0% G41 1 S 54 13 24.1% 9 16.7% -4 -30.8% G41 2 305 29 9.5% 15 4.9% -14 -48.3% G41 3 460 42 9.1% 21 4.6% -21 -50.0% G41 4 110 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 G41 5 112 19 17.0% 17 15.2% -2 -10.5% G42 0 / 37 28 75.7% 26 70.3% -2 -7.1% G42 7 N 109 64 58.7% 42 38.5% -22 -34.4% G42 8 Crosshill 418 189 45.2% 119 28.5% -70 -37.0% G42 9 Battlefield 360 64 17.8% 25 6.9% -39 -60.9% G43 1 93 36 38.7% 14 15.1% -22 -61.1% G43 2 Newlands 157 33 21.0% 17 10.8% -16 -48.5% G44 3 74 12 16.2% 6 8.1% -6 -50.0% G44 4 Kingspark 300 102 34.0% 44 14.7% -58 -56.9% G44 5 / Park 212 69 32.5% 17 8.0% -52 -75.4% G45 0 E 53 24 45.3% 17 32.1% -7 -29.2% G45 9 W Castlemilk 41 28 68.3% 26 63.4% -2 -7.1% G46 7 5 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 G46 8 /E 111 46 41.4% 19 17.1% -27 -58.7% G5 0 98 18 18.4% 16 16.3% -2 -11.1% G5 8 Kingston 62 1 1.6% 0 0.0% -1 -100.0% G5 9 23 9 39.1% 8 34.8% -1 -11.1% G51 1 N Kinning Park 229 127 55.5% 97 42.4% -30 -23.6% G51 2 Ibrox 86 61 70.9% 39 45.3% -22 -36.1% G51 3 44 41 93.2% 36 81.8% -5 -12.2% G51 4 106 77 72.6% 57 53.8% -20 -26.0% G52 1 Craigton/ 109 42 38.5% 23 21.1% -19 -45.2% G52 2 N /Hillington 165 102 61.8% 49 29.7% -53 -52.0% G52 3 S Cardonald 141 65 46.1% 22 15.6% -43 -66.2% G52 4 33 27 81.8% 18 54.5% -9 -33.3% G53 5 92 41 44.6% 24 26.1% -17 -41.5% G53 6 42 40 95.2% 36 85.7% -4 -10.0% G53 7 /S Nitshill/Darnley 263 45 17.1% 25 9.5% -20 -44.4% G69 6 N 178 36 20.2% 26 14.6% -10 -27.8% G69 7 S Baillieston 135 66 48.9% 45 33.3% -21 -31.8% G76 9 22 1 4.5% 1 4.5% 0 0.0% Total 11,131 3,413 30.7% 2,178 19.6% -1,235 -36.2%

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc

MEDIAN SECOND HAND PRICES 2004/05 BY SECTOR Sector Area Sales Median £150k+ In Migrants G1 E City Centre 216 125,000 71 126 G11 5 Partickhill 191 142,025 86 89 G11 6 Meadowside 102 115,000 31 44 G11 7 Broomhill 329 123,000 104 108 G12 0 Kelvindale 278 177,400 168 87 G12 8 Hillhead 156 173,000 104 52 G12 9 Hyndland 357 202,000 294 132 G13 1 Jordanhill/Temple 269 125,000 100 101 G13 2 N Knightswood 141 93,000 6 47 G13 3 S Knightswood 116 100,000 8 35 G13 4 N Yoker 82 95,500 9 22 G14 0 S Yoker 158 70,000 0 64 G14 9 Scotstoun 159 120,000 67 28 G15 6 S-E Drumchapel 63 97,000 11 20 G15 7 N-E Drumchapel 18 46,000 0 5 G15 8 W Drumchapel 39 87,300 1 14 G2 W City Centre 59 150,000 30 27 G20 0 N Maryhill 99 99,000 7 34 G20 6 N Kelvin 187 144,000 79 84 G20 7 Woodside 81 99,950 0 37 G20 8 N Kelvinside 148 121,250 42 60 G20 9 Ruchill 48 105,000 4 18 G21 1 Cowlairs 92 50,000 0 42 G21 2 Garngad 29 47,000 0 12 G21 3 Barmulloch/Robroyston 86 72,500 9 27 G21 4 Balornock 110 63,000 0 34 G22 5 Hamiltonhill 16 49,250 0 7 G22 6 Parkhouse 59 55,000 0 15 G22 7 High Possil 33 59,000 0 6 G23 5 Summerston 113 59,000 2 35 G3 6 Woodlands 139 133,170 50 62 G3 7 Kelvingrove 115 135,000 52 49 G3 8 Yorkhill 181 125,000 61 90 G31 1 Camlachie 36 66,500 0 15 G31 2 Dennistoun 286 85,025 7 143 G31 3 Haghill 138 59,998 2 59 G31 4 S Parkhead 35 44,000 0 14 G31 5 N Parkhead 31 40,000 0 7 G32 0 Springboig/N Mount Vernon 140 78,000 20 27 G32 6 Carntyne 54 64,000 0 7 G32 7 Shettleston/Tollcross 147 55,000 0 39 G32 8 Carmyle 159 70,000 7 61 G32 9 Sandyhills/Mount Vernon 108 92,000 17 32 G33 1 Blackhill 170 119,500 34 71 G33 2 Riddrie 83 71,000 0 15 G33 3 Ruchazie 37 68,000 0 9 G33 4 Barlanark 46 50,000 0 11

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc G33 5 Garthamlock 58 60,000 0 8 G33 6 Stepps (NL) 30 67,500 2 53 G34 0 E Easterhouse 69 38,557 0 19 G34 9 W Easterhouse 13 34,000 0 3 G4 0 Townhead 86 110,000 6 47 G4 9 Port Dundas 140 129,500 52 74 G40 1 W Bridgeton 104 66,626 1 46 G40 2 Calton 34 65,075 0 13 G40 3 E Bridgeton 4 41,000 0 1 G40 4 Dalmarnock 15 42,000 0 6 G41 1 S Kinning Park 54 88,250 2 16 G41 2 Strathbungo 305 120,000 57 90 G41 3 Shawlands 460 110,000 78 174 G41 4 Pollokshields 110 230,000 95 17 G41 5 Dumbreck 112 139,500 54 24 G42 0 Polmadie/Toryglen 37 55,557 0 11 G42 7 N Govanhill 109 69,000 1 30 G42 8 Crosshill 418 75,000 45 116 G42 9 Battlefield 360 98,000 38 134 G43 1 Pollokshaws 93 78,500 11 22 G43 2 Newlands 157 114,650 66 42 G44 3 Cathcart 74 127,050 33 26 G44 4 Kingspark 300 80,000 37 102 G44 5 Croftfoot/Linn Park 212 78,000 23 68 G45 0 E Castlemilk 53 77,500 6 14 G45 9 W Castlemilk 41 49,650 0 7 G46 7 Thornliebank 5 276,000 4 2 G46 8 Carnwadric/E Darnley 111 88,000 17 41 G5 0 Hutchesontown 98 110,000 8 40 G5 8 Kingston 62 145,000 26 32 G5 9 Gorbals 23 89,000 0 8 G51 1 N Kinning Park 229 68,000 7 69 G51 2 Ibrox 86 63,088 0 30 G51 3 Govan 44 45,000 0 17 G51 4 Shieldhall 106 58,050 2 24 G52 1 Craigton/Mosspark 109 80,000 6 25 G52 2 N Cardonald/Hillington 165 68,500 17 51 G52 3 S Cardonald 141 75,000 15 40 G52 4 Penilee 33 60,000 0 6 G53 5 Pollok 92 75,550 0 16 G53 6 Nitshill 42 37,500 0 7 G53 7 Hurlet/S Nitshill/Darnley 263 120,000 70 62 G69 6 N Baillieston 178 103,000 17 47 G69 7 S Baillieston 135 74,000 13 48 G76 9 Carmunnock 22 170,000 13 13 Total 11,131 94,000 2,305 3,864

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc

NEW BUILD SALES GLASGOW 2004/2005 Sector Area name All buyers In-migrants Company sales Sales Median £150k+ All £150k+ All £150k+ G1 E City Centre 93 105,500 18 61 14 3 1 G11 5 Partickhill 11 180,000 11 5 5 G11 6 Meadowside 41 257,000 41 27 27 2 2 G11 7 Broomhill 36 179,375 29 15 13 1 1 G12 0 Kelvindale G12 8 Hillhead G12 9 Hyndland 2 410,000 2 1 1 G13 1 Jordanhill/Temple 57 138,000 13 27 5 19 7 G13 2 N Knightswood G13 3 S Knightswood G13 4 N Yoker G14 0 S Yoker G14 9 Scotstoun G15 6 S-E Drumchapel G15 7 N-E Drumchapel G15 8 W Drumchapel 37 167,000 37 11 11 G2 W City Centre 25 176,000 22 18 16 4 3 G20 0 N Maryhill 13 210,000 10 6 4 1 1 G20 6 N Kelvin 4 181,000 3 2 2 G20 7 Woodside G20 8 N Kelvinside 69 152,000 39 30 22 9 1 G20 9 Ruchill G21 1 Cowlairs 1 93,500 0 G21 2 Garngad G21 3 Barmulloch/Robroyston G21 4 Balornock G22 5 Hamiltonhill 25 92,950 0 6 0 G22 6 Parkhouse 3 84,495 0 1 0 G22 7 High Possil G23 5 Summerston G3 6 Woodlands G3 7 Kelvingrove G3 8 Yorkhill 104 213,000 102 69 69 9 9 G31 1 Camlachie 5 125,000 0 2 0 2 0 G31 2 Dennistoun 66 123,852 15 46 10 2 0 G31 3 Haghill 9 132,000 0 3 0 G31 4 S Parkhead G31 5 N Parkhead 19 75,000 1 7 1 G32 0 Springboig/N Mount Vernon G32 6 Carntyne G32 7 Shettleston/Tollcross 8 66,950 0 3 0 G32 8 Carmyle G32 9 Sandyhills/Mount Vernon 8 121,000 0 4 0 G33 1 Blackhill G33 2 Riddrie G33 3 Ruchazie 1 125,000 0 G33 4 Barlanark

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc G33 5 Garthamlock G33 6 Stepps (NL) G34 0 E Easterhouse G34 9 W Easterhouse 24 70,000 0 6 0 G4 0 Townhead 63 199,000 54 42 33 G4 9 Port Dundas 11 115,000 0 10 0 G40 1 W Bridgeton 1 89,995 0 1 0 G40 2 Calton G40 3 E Bridgeton G40 4 Dalmarnock 25 93,000 0 16 0 3 2 G41 1 S Kinning Park 9 160,000 8 4 4 3 0 G41 2 Strathbungo 5 149,950 1 3 0 G41 3 Shawlands 32 186,000 27 17 14 3 1 G41 4 Pollokshields G41 5 Dumbreck G42 0 Polmadie/Toryglen G42 7 N Govanhill 1 156,500 1 0 0 G42 8 Crosshill 1 175,000 1 1 1 G42 9 Battlefield 17 152,000 9 7 5 1 0 G43 1 Pollokshaws 79 144,000 25 48 13 5 2 G43 2 Newlands 30 188,123 29 15 15 G44 3 Cathcart 37 182,000 37 18 18 G44 4 Kingspark 13 169,485 11 3 3 G44 5 Croftfoot/Linn Park G45 0 E Castlemilk 50 113,000 3 15 0 1 0 G45 9 W Castlemilk G46 7 Thornliebank G46 8 Carnwadric/E Darnley 29 99,999 0 19 0 2 0 G5 0 Hutchesontown 66 115,500 12 28 4 G5 8 Kingston 147 162,350 78 77 51 25 13 G5 9 Gorbals G51 1 N Kinning Park 17 214,995 13 6 6 1 1 G51 2 Ibrox G51 3 Govan G51 4 Shieldhall 56 81,000 0 5 0 G52 1 Craigton/Mosspark 51 105,000 1 4 0 G52 2 N Cardonald/Hillington G52 3 S Cardonald G52 4 Penilee G53 5 Pollok G53 6 Nitshill 30 96,000 0 8 0 G53 7 Hurlet/S Nitshill/Darnley 71 204,995 67 22 21 1 1 G69 6 N Baillieston 20 83,300 0 6 0 1 0 G69 7 S Baillieston 46 186,000 38 26 20 G76 9 Carmunnock City 1,568 148,000 758 751 408 98 45 Note: In-migrants are purchasers recorded as having a place of origin outside Glasgow.

L:\Cmtserv\HOUSING\PARENT\Meetings\2006\190106\Item 04.doc AFFORDABLE" SECOND HAND HOUSE SALES BY POSTCODE SECTOR 1996, 2003 and 2004/2005

Sector Area 1996 2003 2004/0 5 ALL "AFFORDABL ALL "AFFORDABL ALL "AFFORDABL Change 2003- E" (<£50,450) E" (<£68,312) E" (<£73,429) 2004/05 No. No. % No. No. % No. No. % All "Aff" "Aff" % G1 * E City Centre 119 95 79.8% 173 23 13.3% 216 16 7.4% 43 -7 -30.4% G11 5 Partickhill 203 77 37.9% 184 11 6.0% 191 3 1.6% 7 -8 -72.7% G11 6 Meadowside 61 51 83.6% 86 21 24.4% 102 5 4.9% 16 -16 -76.2% G11 7 Broomhill 352 171 48.6% 334 41 12.3% 329 19 5.8% -5 -22 -53.7% G12 0 Kelvindale 299 86 28.8% 238 13 5.5% 278 3 1.1% 40 -10 -76.9% G12 8 Hillhead 140 38 27.1% 150 11 7.3% 156 7 4.5% 6 -4 -36.4% G12 9 Hyndland 441 55 12.5% 399 11 2.8% 357 4 1.1% -42 -7 -63.6% G13 1 Jordanhill/Temple 201 123 61.2% 277 53 19.1% 269 24 8.9% -8 -29 -54.7% G13 2 N Knightswood 74 51 68.9% 124 56 45.2% 141 29 20.6% 17 -27 -48.2% G13 3 S Knightswood 97 63 64.9% 109 29 26.6% 116 7 6.0% 7 -22 -75.9% G13 4 N Yoker 38 30 78.9% 80 24 30.0% 82 21 25.6% 2 -3 -12.5% G14 0 S Yoker 87 77 88.5% 148 123 83.1% 158 97 61.4% 10 -26 -21.1% G14 9 Scotstoun 143 72 50.3% 132 48 36.4% 159 27 17.0% 27 -21 -43.8% G15 6 S-E Drumchapel 53 24 45.3% 62 24 38.7% 63 23 36.5% 1 -1 -4.2% G15 7 N-E Drumchapel 3 3 100.0% 25 23 92.0% 18 15 83.3% -7 -8 -34.8% G15 8 W Drumchapel 4 3 75.0% 36 19 52.8% 39 9 23.1% 3 -10 -52.6% G2 * W City Centre 23 18 78.3% 37 1 2.7% 59 3 5.1% 22 2 200.0% G20 0 N Maryhill 73 41 56.2% 117 41 35.0% 99 14 14.1% -18 -27 -65.9% G20 6 N Kelvin 200 80 40.0% 228 20 8.8% 187 8 4.3% -41 -12 -60.0% G20 7 Woodside 42 36 85.7% 78 20 25.6% 81 8 9.9% 3 -12 -60.0% G20 8 N Kelvinside 117 85 72.6% 141 41 29.1% 148 31 20.9% 7 -10 -24.4% G20 9 Ruchill 24 24 100.0% 33 21 63.6% 48 11 22.9% 15 -10 -47.6% G21 1 Cowlairs 61 51 83.6% 95 90 94.7% 92 79 85.9% -3 -11 -12.2% G21 2 Garngad 7 7 100.0% 29 21 72.4% 29 25 86.2% 0 4 19.0% G21 3 Barmulloch/Robroyston 41 35 85.4% 94 67 71.3% 86 45 52.3% -8 -22 -32.8% G21 4 Balornock 58 58 100.0% 100 83 83.0% 110 86 78.2% 10 3 3.6% G22 5 Hamiltonhill 8 8 100.0% 13 13 100.0% 16 11 68.8% 3 -2 -15.4% G22 6 Parkhouse 18 18 100.0% 55 55 100.0% 59 51 86.4% 4 -4 -7.3% G22 7 High Possil 13 12 92.3% 36 33 91.7% 33 29 87.9% -3 -4 -12.1%

G23 5 Summerston 112 82 73.2% 116 88 75.9% 113 77 68.1% -3 -11 -12.5% G3 6 Woodlands 92 62 67.4% 132 22 16.7% 139 8 5.8% 7 -14 -63.6% G3 7 Kelvingrove 77 49 63.6% 92 6 6.5% 115 4 3.5% 23 -2 -33.3% G3 8 Yorkhill 140 89 63.6% 180 21 11.7% 181 11 6.1% 1 -10 -47.6% G31 1 Camlachie 15 15 100.0% 33 27 81.8% 36 21 58.3% 3 -6 -22.2% G31 2 Dennistoun 185 178 96.2% 304 154 50.7% 286 83 29.0% -18 -71 -46.1% G31 3 Haghill 106 104 98.1% 183 155 84.7% 138 91 65.9% -45 -64 -41.3% G31 4 S Parkhead 19 18 94.7% 40 39 97.5% 35 34 97.1% -5 -5 -12.8% G31 5 N Parkhead 9 8 88.9% 28 22 78.6% 31 28 90.3% 3 6 27.3% G32 0 Springboig/N Mount Vernon 114 51 44.7% 142 80 56.3% 140 62 44.3% -2 -18 -22.5% G32 6 Carntyne 49 46 93.9% 62 54 87.1% 54 41 75.9% -8 -13 -24.1% G32 7 Shettleston/Tollcross 69 65 94.2% 148 128 86.5% 147 118 80.3% -1 -10 -7.8% G32 8 Carmyle 85 61 71.8% 144 107 74.3% 159 85 53.5% 15 -22 -20.6% G32 9 Sandyhills/Mount Vernon 91 48 52.7% 121 68 56.2% 108 35 32.4% -13 -33 -48.5% G33 1 Blackhill 103 61 59.2% 189 44 23.3% 170 21 12.4% -19 -23 -52.3% G33 2 Riddrie 74 65 87.8% 102 71 69.6% 83 51 61.4% -19 -20 -28.2% G33 3 Ruchazie 15 13 86.7% 54 43 79.6% 37 24 64.9% -17 -19 -44.2% G33 4 Barlanark 29 29 100.0% 25 24 96.0% 46 42 91.3% 21 18 75.0% G33 5 Garthamlock 31 31 100.0% 67 66 98.5% 58 44 75.9% -9 -22 -33.3% G33 6 Stepps (NL) 6 4 66.7% 41 21 51.2% 30 18 60.0% -11 -3 -14.3% G34 0 E Easterhouse 36 35 97.2% 45 43 95.6% 69 64 92.8% 24 21 48.8% G34 9 W Easterhouse 11 11 100.0% 24 24 100.0% 13 13 100.0% -11 -11 -45.8% G4 0 Townhead 55 34 61.8% 66 16 24.2% 86 10 11.6% 20 -6 -37.5% G4 9 Port Dundas 123 54 43.9% 154 24 15.6% 140 14 10.0% -14 -10 -41.7% G40 1 W Bridgeton 61 61 100.0% 85 71 83.5% 104 67 64.4% 19 -4 -5.6% G40 2 Calton 23 22 95.7% 43 38 88.4% 34 25 73.5% -9 -13 -34.2% G40 3 E Bridgeton 5 5 100.0% 11 11 100.0% 4 4 100.0% -7 -7 -63.6% G40 4 Dalmarnock 2 2 100.0% 13 13 100.0% 15 11 73.3% 2 -2 -15.4% G41 1 S Kinning Park 43 41 95.3% 45 16 35.6% 54 13 24.1% 9 -3 -18.8% G41 2 Strathbungo 249 183 73.5% 294 59 20.1% 305 29 9.5% 11 -30 -50.8% G41 3 Shawlands 435 308 70.8% 512 102 19.9% 460 42 9.1% -52 -60 -58.8% G41 4 Pollokshields 126 4 3.2% 112 2 1.8% 110 0 0.0% -2 -2 -100.0% G41 5 Dumbreck 87 18 20.7% 108 20 18.5% 112 19 17.0% 4 -1 -5.0% G42 0 Polmadie/Toryglen 14 11 78.6% 43 37 86.0% 37 28 75.7% -6 -9 -24.3% G42 7 N Govanhill 86 85 98.8% 82 64 78.0% 109 64 58.7% 27 0 0.0%

15

G42 8 Crosshill 299 249 83.3% 429 265 61.8% 418 189 45.2% -11 -76 -28.7% G42 9 Battlefield 329 276 83.9% 395 129 32.7% 360 64 17.8% -35 -65 -50.4% G43 1 Pollokshaws 76 65 85.5% 88 51 58.0% 93 36 38.7% 5 -15 -29.4% G43 2 Newlands 155 40 25.8% 191 60 31.4% 157 33 21.0% -34 -27 -45.0% G44 3 Cathcart 124 55 44.4% 105 22 21.0% 74 12 16.2% -31 -10 -45.5% G44 4 Kingspark 254 214 84.3% 338 190 56.2% 300 102 34.0% -38 -88 -46.3% G44 5 Croftfoot/Linn Park 253 195 77.1% 269 186 69.1% 212 69 32.5% -57 -117 -62.9% G45 0 E Castlemilk 20 20 100.0% 51 45 88.2% 53 24 45.3% 2 -21 -46.7% G45 9 W Castlemilk 9 9 100.0% 37 29 78.4% 41 28 68.3% 4 -1 -3.4% G46 7 Thornliebank 3 3 100.0% 15 1 6.7% 5 0 0.0% -10 -1 -100.0% G46 8 Carnwadric/E Darnley 82 54 65.9% 100 51 51.0% 111 46 41.4% 11 -5 -9.8% G5 0 Hutchesontown 8 6 75.0% 94 17 18.1% 98 18 18.4% 4 1 5.9% G5 8 Kingston 21 8 38.1% 51 3 5.9% 62 1 1.6% 11 -2 -66.7% G5 9 Gorbals 22 18 81.8% 24 16 66.7% 23 9 39.1% -1 -7 -43.8% G51 1 N Kinning Park 169 152 89.9% 228 159 69.7% 229 127 55.5% 1 -32 -20.1% G51 2 Ibrox 50 46 92.0% 70 64 91.4% 86 61 70.9% 16 -3 -4.7% G51 3 Govan 29 28 96.6% 39 38 97.4% 44 41 93.2% 5 3 7.9% G51 4 Shieldhall 60 59 98.3% 100 79 79.0% 106 77 72.6% 6 -2 -2.5% G52 1 Craigton/Mosspark 87 60 69.0% 122 76 62.3% 109 42 38.5% -13 -34 -44.7% G52 2 N Cardonald/Hillington 135 115 85.2% 169 138 81.7% 165 102 61.8% -4 -36 -26.1% G52 3 S Cardonald 144 116 80.6% 128 108 84.4% 141 65 46.1% 13 -43 -39.8% G52 4 Penilee 21 21 100.0% 18 18 100.0% 33 27 81.8% 15 9 50.0% G53 5 Pollok 43 40 93.0% 98 78 79.6% 92 41 44.6% -6 -37 -47.4% G53 6 Nitshill 33 33 100.0% 68 68 100.0% 42 40 95.2% -26 -28 -41.2% G53 7 Hurlet/S Nitshill/Darnley 127 66 52.0% 249 66 26.5% 263 45 17.1% 14 -21 -31.8% G69 6 N Baillieston 158 69 43.7% 171 33 19.3% 178 36 20.2% 7 3 9.1% G69 7 S Baillieston 97 43 44.3% 89 45 50.6% 135 66 48.9% 46 21 46.7% G76 9 Carmunnock 20 3 15.0% 13 0.0% 22 1 4.5% 9 1 #DIV/0! Total 8,605 5,508 64.0% 11,202 4,851 43.3% 11,131 3,413 30.7% -71 -1,438 -29.6%

16