1.  Housing in Headingley was one of the main motivations for the establishment of a Development Trust in Headingley.  Housing of course is the principal concern of Leeds HMO Lobby, representing all the local community associations in & around Headingley, in their campaigns for sustainability in the area through ‘housing mix’.  The possibility of a Land or Development Trust as part of a solution was raised in CURS, The Changing Nature of the Housing Market in Selly Oak: Phase III, University of Birmingham, 2000, brought to the Lobby’s attention by fellow-members of the National HMO Lobby in Birmingham.  This paper was the basis for a number of initiatives.  In July 2004, a Headingley Area Land Trust (HALT) was proposed.  In February 2005, the Lobby submitted Kept in the Community to Area Committee, which went on to support attendance at the conference Capturing Asset Value: the mechanisms of Community Land Trusts, 17 March 2005, University of Warwick.  Headingley Development Trust was launched soon after, and has since been promoted by Headway.

2.  The problems of housing in Headingley are outlined in the Lobby’s Grand Strategy 2 (Nov 2005).  Housing in Headingley has been under assault for more than a decade.  University expansion in the last ten years of the last century led to massive demand for student accommodation – almost entirely met by the private rented sector (PRS) invading the local housing market, inflating prices and commandeering properties.  Housing in Headingley is now dominated by the PRS.  The Birmingham proposal for Land Trust intervention was intended to resist such pressure.  It still continues in Headingley – family homes (including semis with gardens) are still subject to conversion.  But a new problem is also emerging.  Current pressure is the result, not of expansion of the student market (there is in fact a surplus of accommodation) – but rather of migration, from less to more desirable areas.  This in itself is creating low-demand areas.  Even more so, such areas are arising as students evacuate to the new purpose-built developments, especially around the city centre.  The Invasion Phase is being succeeded by an Exodus Phase.

3.  The questions arise, how to resist further intrusion by the student market? and how to encourage in-migration by other populations, especially families?  The problem has been addressed by HDT itself (Open Forum, 3 December 2005), by Leeds HMO Lobby (for example Grand Strategy 2), and by Leeds City Council – the Shared Housing Group has established a research project on a Student Housing Strategy for Leeds, which includes tackling evacuated areas. 

4.  A range of distinctions must be made in any analysis of housing in Headingley.

(a) The level of demand varies enormously, from low-demand to high-demand.  Broadly, towards town, demand drops (e.g. South Headingley, where some find themselves in a property trap), while away from town, demand rises (e.g. Far Headingley).  Relevant factors include quality of stock, amenity of area, local population (student or resident).

(b) The market comprises both owner-occupiers selling and buying, on the one hand, and the PRS (landlords, parents, investors) buying and selling on the other.  Much of the trade is within these two categories, some of it is between.  The need is to increase movement from PRS towards owner-occupation and social renting.

(c) Market transactions could take a number of forms.

• Property for sale could have restrictive covenants attached, or planning conditions, or (on a larger scale) be subject to a Development Brief.
• Property could be leased.  As we understand it, this is what American Land Trusts do – by separating land value from property value, homes become affordable; when re-sold, capital return is shared between the householder and the Trust.
• Property could be let, especially as social housing (scarce in Headingley).

(d) there are a number of possible markets for housing in Headingley:

• traditional family owner-occupiers;
• the aspirational, such as stay-on students, young professionals, city-centre over-spill;
• the disadvantaged, such as social housing, sheltered housing, asylum-seekers (there are 500 homeless families in Leeds, and 5,000 in overcrowded accommodation).

5.  The greatest hurdle to solving problems of housing in Headingley is over-inflated prices, due to recent high demand from a sector (students) which provides high revenue returns.  A complementary problem is the perception of the area as ‘studentland’.

6.  In-migration can be encouraged by the revival and promotion of the amenities of Headingley, its superstructure.  A strategic framework is provided by the Leeds Left Bank policy (which is included for examination in the NW District Plan).  Specific tactics within this include a promotional website for Headingley and initiatives such as HEART at Headingley Primary School, the idea of a farmers market and other projects on the agenda of HDT.

HDT Options

7.  However, Headingley will only see a renaissance as a community with a fundamental change in the infrastructure, the pattern of housing in Headingley, and especially the dominance of the PRS.  HDT can explore three areas of intervention. None of these on their own will solve the housing problems, but they may help the move away from the PRS to owner occupation and social renting.

a)       Estate Agent: An estate agent dealing only in family accommodation would provide a service for owner-occupiers selling and not wanting to sell to the PRS, to landlords looking to sell for owner-occupation, and to those looking for owner-occupation in Headingley. It would help promote the benefits of living in Headingley for all age-groups. This could be set up on a small scale voluntary basis (for example using a web-site to advertise properties), as an independent not-for-profit organisation, or in collaboration with an existing estate agent.

b)       Housing Associations: encouraging them to be more active, increasing the amount of social renting in Headingley, and offering a shared ownership scheme for those wanting to buy in Headingley but unable to because of high prices.

c)       Land Trust: buying houses ourselves and either selling them on to owner-occupiers, leasing them, or establishing our own shared ownership scheme.

8.  Immediate proposals include:

a)       Estate Agents  We propose initially we hold discussions with one or more local estate agents to discuss the estate agent idea. Castlehill, David Moore or Mannings are probably the most appropriate.

b)       Housing Associations  We propose we hold discussions with one or more Housing Associations.  The Ridings and Leeds Federated (both are Leeds based) are probably the most appropriate, but there may be others.  Issues to explore are:

• Are they able/willing to be more active in Headingley, in terms of social housing and shared ownership?

• Can HDT help in any way?

• What mutual benefit may there be in having a formal partnership?

• Their thoughts on HDT buying properties.  Would a partnership arrangement for this be feasible?

c)      Purchasing properties As well as discussing with Housing Associations, we should meet with one or more banks to find out under what circumstances they might lend money for us to purchase properties.

9.  Longer term proposals include:

a)      Feasibility Study  Ideally we need a more detailed Feasibility Study into these options.  We propose therefore looking for funds to employ someone with more knowledge and time than us to carry out this on our behalf.

b)      Think Tank  Finally, we could organise a seminar/think tank, bringing together experts from Housing Associations, the Council, community organisations, and others – to explore further possible solutions.