The Fool on the Hill: On Village and Community

A village is a (small) settlement; a collection of dwellings in which people live, and with additional buildings in which at least some of them work, where they shop, where their children are educated. A community is a group of people bound together by common interests and friendship. Are these two things the same? In Auchencairn, it increasingly feels that they are not, that there are (at least) two communities, with a worrying degree of stress between them.

So how can we plan to make things better?

I am currently, for my sins, chair of Auchencairn Community Council. As chair, one of the things I have been pushing forward is creating a Local Place Plan for the village, and to do that we are consulting the population using a Scottish Government sponsored web app called the Place Standard Tool. The Place Standard Tool is a 'one size fits all' solution for the whole of Scotland, and, as the overwhelming majority of the Scottish population is urban, it's primarily geared to urban communities. I've written about this before.

The working group we set up to develop the plan did recognise this, and put a lot of work onto developing a questionnaire more tailored to the village's needs and controversies; but this was inevitably controversial, and there was pushback from some local worthies which led to the Place Standard Tool being adopted as a 'safe' alternative.

And yet, despite this, we're still getting letters from worthies, including from

yin birkie, ca'd a lord
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that

to slightly misquote oor Rabbie, attacking the whole principle that the common people should have any say in the planning decisions which closely affect them.

Is 'Housing' the same as 'Community'?

One of the problems with the Place Standard Tool, in my opinion, is that it asks questions on just fourteen topics. In doing so, it conflates 'Housing' and 'Community' into just one topic. 'Community' is a topic on which we would expect Auchencairn to score well; most of its community institutions function well, and there is generally very good co-operation between them.

Housing, however, is very different. The key issue here is the cost of housing, and this, of course, is an issue by no means unique to Auchencairn. Across the UK, the ratio between median income and median house price is 8.4. In Dumfries and Galloway, however, incomes are depressed, while in a pretty village on the edge of a National Scenic Area, house prices are elevated. In consequence the ratio is significantly worse.

They're elevated because people who have had successful careers in urban centres have much more money available to spend on housing than people at the start of their careers, trying to raise families, in rural areas. There's nothing wrong with wanting to retire to somewhere beautiful. The people who do it are not bad people. But the result of their doing it, in aggregate, is to bid house prices up to a level at which people who earn their living in the local economy cannot compete.

As a result, a total of at least twenty-eight people (my count, as of last night; the number does fluctuate and this is towards the low end of that fluctuation, and there may be more I don't know about), including at least eight children, live in 'informal accommodation': tents, old caravans, old motor vehicles, and huts. Full disclosure, I'm one of these. We don't have good numbers for what the total population of the village is. It's somewhere between 250 and 300, I think. So this represents about 10% of the population, but an even higher proportion, I think, of the children.

In summary, my opinion is that housing, in the village, is in crisis. We cannot house people; and critically, among the people we cannot house are precisely those with young families, who are vital to the continuance and stability of the community.

The result of conflating 'housing' and 'community' into a single score is that the average score given by people who have responded to date is 3.88 out of 8. I suspect that represents the majority of people feeling, as I do, that community is good but housing is poor. Of course, the number cannot give direct evidence of this, but looking at the narrative responses gives a better feel.

To be clear: the responses to the consultation are anonymous. I do not know who wrote any of the passages I'm quoting, and it is better that I should not know.

Do we want social housing?

As I've written above house prices and private rents are currently well above levels that wages in the local economy can sustain. A minority of respondents clearly see this as a good thing.

"Expensive housing brings a level of wealth to the village"

"Don't build anymore houses, keep the village as its (sic) been for years"

"I hope they don't build any more affordable homes in my village. I don't feel that people who live in these properties, contribute to the village."

"Future housing development needs special care to avoid harming a village like Auchencairn. It is only a few years ago that proposals for houses/workshops behind Main Street were voted down in a referendum by a majority of around 2 to 1."

(The last point is correct, unfortunately. We had a very good proposal that the village should build a small number of rental housing units with workshops attached, to attract and retain young craftspeople and other self employed people to the village; and it was indeed voted down in a secret ballot. Who the nay-sayers were I do not, obviously, know, and it is pure prejudice on my part to believe that it was rich, elderly incomers).

However, these views are very much outweighed by respondents who were concerned about housing affordability. Building more social or affordable housing was mentioned by sixteen respondents; building community-owned housing was specifically mentioned by one:

"Community housing. Allow small scale, sustainably built, ecologically houses locally. Tax second homes"

Several respondents commented directly on affordability. In particular, affordability was frequently linked with the needs of younger families, and the perceived need to keep the school open.

"Properties are priced at higher than people on a low or average wage can afford."

"There is not enough affordable housing for young families."

"There is no affordable housing and very little rental property. I know of many young people who leave Galloway when they would far rather stay, due to lack of accommodation."

(I know of — many — such people too.)

"Private housing is priced far beyond what wages in the local economy will support. Social housing provision is limited. This means that it is effectively impossible for people of child-rearing age to settle in the village."

"There are some good quality homes within the village however these can be very expensive to buy and very little social housing available for young families"

"More rented accommodation and affordable housing for young people, families."

"More affordable family housing to keep the school open"

"The village needs more affordable housing for young families. At the moment there are not enough young people in the village to ensure its future"

So, on balance, given the responses so far, there's about a four to one majority in favour of increased social housing.

Intra-communal hostility

In the textual responses, the strains within the village are laid bare. Again, full disclosure, I struggle not to be prejudiced some of the richer and more entitled residents, especially against those with handles to their names or who choose to fly the butcher's apron from flagpoles.

There's some commentary on people living in informal accommodation. This is seen by some as a lifestyle choice:

"There is enough homes for the retired and people who work full time and not just casual work, living in vans, making a choice to live like that."

"Seem to be plenty of house (sic) for those who want to live here".

To be serious, my choice, when a relationship broke down during a period of mental illness, was between leaving my home village, my friends, my community, and finding the cheapest possible house in somewhere like Cumbernauld or the east Ayrshire coal field; or else building an illegal hut in the woods. I built a hut in the woods.

It was a choice. It is illegal. I make no apology. It was a choice I made at least partly because I didn't think that, depressed and suicidal, if moved away from my community and my friends, I'd survive a year.

And, seriously, are people really suggesting that I, in my old age, should be driven out of the village where I've had a home for fifty-five years of my life because I'm now poor? Are they really suggesting that those young parents who choose to bring up their families in the relative peace and safety of our quiet, low pressure, less polluted landscape should be forced to move to the cities and work two jobs while living in insecure tenancies to send their children to worse schools along polluted, congested, unsafe streets? Is that how we want the children of our nation raised? Seriously?

Just as we've seen hostility to those living in informal accommodation, we've already seen (above) some hostility towards those who live in social housing. Some of the rich of this village clearly want to pull the drawbridge up now they have their house.

On the other side, there's also evidence of some hostility to the wealthy incomers:

"Less retirement by people with little social investment who drive the price of housing beyond the reach of young people and families"

"The population consists to a notable extent of retired professionals, many originating from outwith the region. As in many places, this affects the availabilty (sic) and price of houses in the village."

"Build energy efficient affordable homes to stop the village becoming more like a retirement village."

Holiday homes are widely unpopular, with three respondents suggesting punitive taxation and one suggesting a complete ban:

"Not allow 2nd homes. No more holiday rental houses until all locals are housed" Mixed views on housing quality

Looking to windward

It's hard to see, in the future of Scotland or of the UK, a government which will seriously tackle the housing market. Too many voters have too much of their money invested in it. The political pain of trying would be too intense. Similarly, it's hard to see any future government seeking to make a serious attempt to redistribute wealth. Labour certainly won't, and in my opinion the SNP are equally useless. So both on housing and on social equity, the situation isn't merely going to continue as it is: it is inevitably going to get seriously worse.

I also don't believe we're going to see significantly more social housing. Labour claim they're going to build 'one and a half million more homes', but they don't talk much about social housing. Instead they talk about

a government-backed mortgage guarantee scheme

So, loading more debt onto the poor. Sure, they talk about 'affordable housing,' but they're using a semantic trick by redefining 'affordable' to mean '20% below current market price'. Well, when current prices are of the order of ten times median incomes, 20% less than that is 'affordable' only to the substantially wealthy, or those planning to hold them as speculative assets, while (perhaps) letting them on the private rental market at unaffordable rents.

And if we let that happen, then the gap between rich and poor will continue to get worse, and, specifically, the gap between rich and poor in this village will continue to get worse; and I would suggest that it's already at an undesirable level.

Charting a course

Auchencairn needs more housing, in order to house more ordinary people, and in particular more families, in order to support the village civil society and in particular its school. That housing needs to be protected from the speculative market, because otherwise it's unaffordable to people earning their livings in the local economy. If it does not get this additional housing, then the village inevitably degenerates into an enclave for geriatric strangers. But, the current residents of the village core have shown themselves very resistant to additional housing.

So how do we go forward from here?

The Rural Housing Burden

The Scottish Government already has an excellent scheme called the Rural Housing Burden. This allows a permanent condition to be added to the title deeds of any dwelling which allows a nominated social housing provider the option to buy in the house at a social housing valuation any time it's put on the market. The consequence of that, of course, would be that the price of the house would never rise much above the social housing valuation, since any new purchaser could not be confident of getting their investment back at any higher price.

If the Rural Housing Burden were a condition of every planning consent for new housing in the village, that would create a tier of private housing which was not vulnerable to speculative pricing, which would be a significant win.

However, the scheme doesn't really work, and it's my understanding that it doesn't really work because the commercial banks won't offer mortgages for houses subject to the Rural Housing Burden. So, unless either building societies, or ScotGov itself, can be persuaded that offering mortgages on these houses is worth while, this is not going to work.

Prejudice against social housing

It's clear to me from responses we've had that there is some prejudice against social housing from some rich incomers, simply because they don't like poor people. But there's also prejudice I'm aware of among people who are native to this community, some of them social housing residents themselves. The basis for this prejudice is more focused, and it is this: the social housing provider which manages the housing in Auchencairn is a large organisation covering the whole of Dumfries and Galloway, and there is a popular belief that they have a policy of housing certain categories of socially difficult tenants, including paedophiles, in rural villages.

Now, clearly, paedophiles, once they have completed custodial sentences, do need to be housed somewhere; and there's obviously a case for housing them where they're not already known so that they can try to build a new life. So it's not impossible that there is such a policy, and one can see the reason why there might be.

I don't know whether such a policy exists, but it is a fact that some years ago a convicted paedophile from a considerable distance away was housed in Auchencairn. It doesn't help that housing allocation decisions are made at a distance, and by a process which is not at all transparent. Again, there may be good reasons for this; social policy is difficult.

The local social housing provider solution

Some defence against the 'oh, but they'll put paedophiles from far away into our village' objection to social housing would be to for Auchencairn Initiative, a social enterprise which already owns the shop and lets the flat above the shop, to become a local social housing provider. Then decisions about allocation of tenancies would be seen to be made in the village by villagers elected to the board by more villagers. It would also mean that Auchencairn would make decisions about what sort of housing to build, and (subject to land availability and planning consent), where it should be built.

The NIMBY problem

Although, as I say, there is a substantial majority among respondents who mentioned it were in favour of more social housing, when the village previously proposed to build new social housing it was voted down in a referendum. I think it will be difficult to get agreement to new social housing in or adjacent to the existing village core.

The crofting solution

Scotland has among the largest agricultural holdings in Europe. Almost two thirds (65%) of farms in Europe are smaller than 5 hectares; Scotland's agricultural holdings averaged 101 hectares a decade ago and trending upwards; only the Czech Republic has larger. To be clear about that: Scotland's farms average twenty times the size of the average European farm. Around Auchencairn, the majority of holdings are significantly larger than the Scottish average.

Of course, five hectare farms are not viable without subsidy. But guess what, Scotland's enormous farms are also not viable without subsidy; and while the stated purpose of agricultural subsidy is very often to keep people on the land, Scotland's agricultural subsidies channel public money into the hands of people who are already enormously wealthy — because a hundred hectare holding has a huge hunk of value — while effectively driving people off the land.

A hundred years ago, farms in the region employed at least six times as many people as they do now, and those people's homes were, very largely, on those farms — sporadically distributed across those farms. You cannot today walk 300 metres anywhere in the district without coming across either a habitation or the ruins of a former habitation. These sporadic holdings are also generally not objected to by the NIMBYs, precisely because they are sporadic.

But as agriculture has become ever more capital intensive, fewer and fewer farms have more than one full time employee outside the owner's immediate family. If we split Auchencairn's farms into holdings which were the European average size, you would support between ten and twenty times as many families on the land.

But that would really only work if the land was held in common and let it as crofts on liferents to people. If you sell the crofts, or let them on heritable tenure, you simply develop new classes of haves and have nots. Dumfries and Galloway Council planning policy is also resolutely hostile to sporadic development; when 'lowland crofts' were allowed for a period in parts of the upper Glenkens (without either Rural Housing Burden or social ownership), the result was not working families, but enormous mansions for the very wealthy. Finally, although crofting is the solution which most appeals to me, I don't see any political party with the courage to carry it through.

The Standingstone solution

I've said, above, that there are a significant number of people in the village area who are informally housed. The overwhelming majority of those informally housed people live at Standingstone, which is a farm which was bought fourteen years ago by a collective of mainly local people who were homeless, on the basis that one farm cost a lot less than eight decent houses. The farm was divided into crofts, one for each of the original households. One of the benefits of Standingstone are that it is relatively remote, and not particularly visible. We don't impact much on any of the NIMBYs views; the noise and mess which we do make with our various agricultural and industrial activities, and our occasional but loud parties, are largely out of sight and out of mind.

I think that it would be difficult to gain popular agreement to build new housing, particularly social housing, in the existing village. I think it would be very much less difficult to gain popular agreement to build new housing around Standingstone, or to convert another relatively hidden farm (Barlocco, Rascarrel, Mains of Collin, Hass) into a new settlement.

If Standingstone were to be selected as the core for the new settlement, the deal could be sold to the existing residents by offering planning consent (including, where appropriate, retrospective planning consent) for dwellings for themselves and their families.

Summary

I think overwhelmingly the most likely outcome for Auchencairn over the next twenty years is that it will become so expensive to live here as to become effectively an exclusive retirement village for elderly strangers, with local people, except perhaps farmers, increasingly driven out. I think that only a very small minority of people would see this as a good outcome.

Share on social media

I'm no longer offering links to kleptocrat owned social media. If you're still using it, please think about whether you should be.