WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. 
The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and 
misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you 
should refer to the pdf version of this document.



CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 
Paper 3 06/10/06 

CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 


FOR INFORMATION 

Title: Housing Policy Progress 

Prepared by: Gavin Miles, Planning Officer 
Fiona Munro, Housing Officer 


Purpose 

The purpose of this paper is to inform the Board of progress in developing detailed 
housing policy and supporting mechanisms that will be delivered through the 
National Park Plan and Local Plan. 


Executive Summary 

This Paper summarises the information gathered by CNPA staff on the factors that 
create the current housing issues in the Cairngorms National Park, are likely to be 
influential in the future, and on the potential ways that the CNPA can positively 
intervene in the housing market. The paper outlines some of the possible scenarios 
for future population change and associated household change in the Park. Features 
of all projections are an older population, and without policy changes, steady losses 
of younger adults and children, combined with a trend to smaller households which 
gives rise to an overall increase in the numbers of households. Significant numbers 
of new homes would need to be built to accommodate the new households, and 
mechanisms to ensure that those homes went to those who needed them would be 
required to avoid a continuing gap between supply and the ability of Park 
households to access the supply. The paper highlights this gap in ability of Park 
households to access the housing market by comparing incomes and house prices. 

The Paper also summarises research and practice in other parts of Scotland, the UK 
and abroad before running through a selection of mechanisms that are considered to 
offer a range of practical ways in which the CNPA and housing partners, including 
developers, may be able to create a more sustainable balance within the housing 
market of the Park area. The need for further dialogue with these partners in order 
to select and refine the most appropriate tools for the Park area is highlighted as 
critical to the ability of CNPA staff to present viable options to the CNPA Board and 
Planning Committee throughout the first part of 2007 and leading to the deposit of 
the Local Plan in June 2007. 



Introduction 

1. This information paper summarises the information collated by the CNPA 
and partners to date to inform the housing policy that will be delivered 
through the Local Plan, the Park Plan and other organisations’ work. The 
paper provides an overview of the key points from research and updates the 
Board on what needs to be done in order for the Board to consider detailed 
housing policies and supporting or supplementary guidance. It follows on 
from the Board Paper of 19 May 2006 where the Board approved the 
following points: 

“The Board approved the recommendations of the paper as a basis for further work and 
consultation as follows: 

• The principle of intervention in the housing market to achieve more sustainable 
communities; 

• That the focus of CNPA supported intervention should be to support the delivery of 
housing to meet the economic and social needs of the Park’s communities in line with 
the statutory aims of the Park; 

• CNPA support for the creation of significant new, publicly subsidised affordable 
housing; 

• To consider how the CNPA might encourage or support the creation of new crofts; 

• The principle of residency criteria, implemented via Section 75 agreements, to ensure 
that new market housing is helping to meet the aims of the Park; 

• That the CNPA investigate other opportunities to increase private investment in the 
provision of affordable housing; 

• That the CNPA should seek to influence the local authorities and Housing 
Associations in developing their Common Housing Registers and allocations policies, 
so that people can clearly identify their housing market preferences within the 
National Park area; 

• That the CNPA investigate the potential for encouraging and supporting community 
owned low cost rented housing; 

• That the CNPA initiate discussion with the Scottish Executive about the potential 
for a change in the Planning Use Classes Order to the effect that a change of use from 
a permanent house to a second home or holiday home would require planning 
permission; 

• That the CNPA discourage the public sector from disposing of houses on the open 
market. 

The Board agreed an additional action: that further thought should be given to the point 
raised in discussion that the CNPA should investigate the proposal to set up a housing 
register for the National Park based on criteria particular to the Park and separate from 
those used by local authorities. 

Action: 

a) Further report to be brought to the Board in due course, summarising points 
raised during the consultation, and the outcome of work to take forward the 
recommendations of the paper and points raised during its discussion 



2. In following up these points, we have focussed on the need to identify 
realistic and practical options that contribute to the delivery of the National 
Park Plan’s proposed “Making Housing Affordable and Sustainable” outcomes 
of: 

• There will be an increase in the supply of housing to meet communities’ 
needs. 

• There will be a reduction in the number of businesses identifying housing 
as a barrier to staff recruitment. 

• There will be more good quality private rented sector accommodation 
available at affordable rates to meet local need. 

• New housing will be of a more sustainable design. 

3. We have also been working to prepare a robust and deliverable Local Plan for 
the Park that can be finalised and placed on deposit during June 2007. It is 
inevitable that the investigation of some of the options agreed by Board will 
be an ongoing process that runs beyond the point at which the Local Plan is 
finalised and that over time new opportunities and mechanisms for ensuring 
a suitable housing supply will be considered. 

4. Clearly, the provision of housing is only one, albeit important, part of social 
and economic needs of the Park’s communities. The National Park Plan 
looks to develop improved access to further and higher education, and 
skilled employment opportunities within the CNP in the future that may lead 
improved economic opportunities, higher incomes, and the retention of and 
attraction to younger people in the Park. These factors may also lead to 
improved ability to access the housing market over time. 

5. All this work is framed by the need for the CNPA, National Park Plan and 
Local Plan do deliver the aims of the National Park in a coordinated way. 
This information paper is focused on housing related issues alone and does 
not assess the extent to which other needs or priorities will guide our future 
recommendations to the Board. 


Population and Household Projections 

6. In order for the Local Plan to provide enough housing land, an estimate of 
the likely number people living in the Park area in the future, and the 
number of households they may form is required. The household 
projections, which are an estimate of the number of households likely to be 
formed within or move into the area, are used to inform the housing land 
requirement, which reflects the numbers of houses required to be built in 
order to meet the household projections and also to influence housing 
availability, population structure and economic conditions. Further detail on 
the population and household projections is provided in Appendix 1. 

7. This paper does not recommend a particular housing land requirement or 
target for numbers or types of houses to be built in the future. It is simply a 
summary of the range of factors and issues that will influence our future 
recommendations to the Board. Those recommendations will be within the 
context of what is appropriate as well as what can be delivered through the 
Local Plan and National Park Plan, and will need to take into account the 
coordinated delivery of all the National Park’s aims. 

8. This can be one of the most contentious issues for a Local Plan to consider, 
particularly as the provision of effective housing land to meet future needs is 
closely linked to long term aspirations for economic growth, both in the 
National Park area and outside its boundary. It is therefore important that 
these projections link to other partners’ (and particularly other public bodies 
such as the local authorities, enterprise companies and Communities 
Scotland) expectations of future social and economic conditions in order to 
contribute to their aims and inform their future planning. 

9. The Local Plan looks to a 10 year period for housing land supply, and the 
University of Manchester’s Cathie Marsh Centre for Census Survey and 
Research (CCSR) provided the CNPA with population and household 
projections to inform the Local Plan. The CCSR projections suggested a small 
rise in population (of approximately 600 people) in the Park over the next 10 
years, combined with a large rise in the number of households 
(approximately 900) over the same period. The projections also showed that 
the population of the Park was getting older, with the number of people in 
the 65+ age group expected to increase to 27% of the population in 2016 from 
20% in 2004 (from around 3190 to 4560 people). The number of children (0-15 
years old) in the Park could be expected to fall from around 17% of the 
population in 2004 to around 12% of the population over the same period (a 
total fall of about 750, with a drop of more than 400 school-age children). 

10. The Highland Council have produced their own population and household 
projections for Badenoch and Strathspey which predict similar changes in 
population structure over time. The Highland Council projections use the 
Highland Wellbeing Alliance’s baseline assumption for net in migration to 
the Highlands as a starting point and the projections based on this in 
migration suggest that population growth in Badenoch and Strathspey would 
be at a lower rate than the CCSR projections which assume a higher rate of in 
migration. Similarly, projected household growth would be smaller with the 
smaller rate of population growth (around 600 additional B&S households at 
the Highland Wellbeing Alliance in migration rate vs. around 766 extra B&S 
households at the CCSR rate). In an alternative projection, Highland Council 
looked at the what level of net in migration would be required to reduce by 
half the fall in numbers of children to 2016. This showed that a significantly 
higher rate of in migration to the CCSR projection might be required, leading 
to a potential increase in households in Badenoch and Strathspey alone. 

11. We do not have equivalent comparisons for the other areas within the CNPA, 
partly due to resources in the local authorities being focused on wider issues 
and also because the population numbers within the other parts of the Park 
are not large enough to produce projections with much confidence. We are 
working hard to improve our own ability to model and monitor population 
and household changes. 

12. The projections do not take into account the potential effects of migrant 
workers in the Park. As yet there is little direct information as to the numbers 
arriving and the length of time they stay. Public agencies across Scotland are 
trying to assess this and we hope to be able to use more detailed information 
in the future. 

13. None of the projections reflect with any certainty what will happen in the 
future. They simply illustrate potential changes that may occur under 
different conditions. If no new housing was built in the Park, there would be 
fewer properties available for the increasing numbers of smaller households 
and the population would fall slowly at first and more rapidly over time. If 
the in-migration to the Park was at a lower level than has been projected but 
the out migration of people under 40 fell by a quarter, the population of the 
Park could rise by nearly 1000 people over the next 10 years, and the Park 
might need as many as 1500 additional homes for those people. We are using 
these projections and additional in-house work to develop realistic 
projections and housing requirements that balance the likely trends and our 
policy aims. 


Population and Household Projections - Key Points 

• The CNP’s population is going to get older and the aging means that over 
time, population loss can be expected, even with low rates of net in 
migration. 

• More young adults leave the Park area than come into it, and this means 
that fewer children are being born in the area, leading to a decline in the 
numbers of children over time. 

• High levels of net in migration to the Park area lead to modest population 
growth; 

• The greatest net in-migration is likely to be in the 40-60 age group who 
may be economically active, relatively affluent, but less likely to bring 
children. 

• The inability to access housing may be a component in the loss of young 
adults, but access to further and higher education and skilled and well 
paid work is also likely to be a driver. 

• The Park is likely to see an increase of between 600 and 1000 households 
over the next 10 years. 

• In order to maintain sustainable communities in the National Park in the 
future, the Park will need to either stop losing young people or encourage 
more young people to come and live and work in the area. 

• The availability of housing that is accessible and available to young 
people may help to reduce out migration and create conditions more 
attractive to young in migrants. 

National Park Household Incomes 

14. The average household income (this is not individual income) in the CNP is 
around £29,100 pa which is slightly lower than the Scottish average of £29,900 
pa. Household incomes in the CNP area show similar patterns in distribution 
to three of the surrounding Local Authorities, with the £15-20K band being 
the most frequent income band, 50% or more of households having an 
income of not more than £25K, and 75% or more of households having an 
income of not more than £40K. The exception to this pattern is the 
Aberdeenshire Council area where incomes in the Park are consistent with 
the rest of the Park area but much lower than the significantly higher 
household incomes for the entire Aberdeenshire Council area (£33,500). 

Figure 1. household incomes in the CNP 
(not available in full text format)



National Park House Prices 

15. House prices in the CNP area have risen sharply over the past 5 years (Figure 
2), reflecting the house price rises that have affected all of the UK. The 
particularly high rate of increase from 2003 onwards reflects the trend in 
many parts of rural Scotland, and it is expected that house prices will have 
continued to rise over 2006. As an illustration of the relative price of houses, 
the average price in the CNP area in 2005 (£156,700) is higher than the 
average prices in all four constituent local authorities, with Aberdeenshire 
and Highland closest at around £140K, Angus at around £118K and Moray at 
around £110K. 

16. The price range in the housing market can be further explored by looking at 
different sections of the market. The 1st quartile and 2nd quartile represent the 
cheapest quarter of house sales and second quarter of house sales 
respectively. These sections of the market have risen rapidly over the past 
years to the point at 2005 where only half of the sales cost less than £145,000 
and only a quarter of sales less than £92,250. It is also interesting to see 
average new build house prices rising to nearly £190,000 in 2005. We do not 
know to what extent this reflects the build costs or simply the prices the 
market is prepared to pay. Figure 2 shows that across different sections of 
the open market, the cost of houses within the Cairngorms National Park has 
more than doubled over the past 5 years. 

Figure 2. CNP house prices 2000 - 2005 
(not available in full text format)


Accessing the Housing Market 

17. The Housing System Analysis research carried out by Heriot Watt University 
estimated housing need in the CNP area and concluded that, based on its 
affordability model, around 113 units were required each year in the Park for 
the full range of people who could not access the open market. That 
estimation took into account an element of population and household 
projection, house price data to 2003/2004 local household incomes, and the 
local authority and housing association waiting lists. Since the Heriot Watt 
study was carried out, more information for house prices in 2004 and 2005 
has become available and it is likely that due to the continued rise in house 
prices, the estimated housing need would have risen. 

18. By comparing household incomes with house prices, it is possible to get an 
indication of how likely different household income groups are to be able to 
access the housing market. In reality, the ability to access the market will also 
depend on whether households have capital or equity with which to gain 
leverage in the market. A quick look at figures 1 and 2 shows that 75% of 
households within the Cairngorms National Park have an income that would 
not be sufficient to secure a mortgage great enough to purchase a house of 
average 2005 price within the Park. In addition to this, on the basis of 2005 
house prices, 50% of the households within the Park have an income that 
would be insufficient to secure a mortgage for 79% of house sales. 

19. Diagram one summarises the general difficulties that National Park 
households are likely to have in accessing housing. On the basis of incomes 
alone, only about a quarter of households are likely to have a range of choices 
on the open market. 

Diagram 1. 

National Park households’ ability to access
housing market based on income. 

(not available in full text format)


20. With the average price of new build properties even higher than those of 
second hand properties (only 12% of households in the Park could afford an 
average-priced new build property on 2005 prices), it is clear that a large part 
of current house building within the CNPA cannot be realistically said to be 
for the Park’s own population. 

How others approach the issues 

21. We have looked at practice elsewhere in the UK and overseas and considered 
a range of research into rural housing. A detailed summary of this work is 
provided in Appendices 2A to 2G to this paper. 

22. Appendices 2A to 2D relate to other organisations research into rural housing 
provision. A common theme throughout the research is that different 
approaches and a range of approaches may be appropriate in different 
locations. International experiences provide an in interesting context and 
comparison to the UK’s problems, but, short of the state providing 
substantial funding for housing, do not provide clear solutions which could 
be used to provide significant volumes of housing. 

23. Research focused into housing provision in National Parks in England and 
Wales tends to have a clear focus on the need to provide Affordable housing. 
Although the most radically restrictive policies introduced to English 
National Parks are relatively new and untested, our own investigations of the 
ways in which they have formulated and applied residency or occupancy 
conditions leads us to think that they would, for a number of reasons, be 
unlikely to provide the sorts of housing that the CNP needs in the future: 

a. the criteria have generally been introduced in order to restrict house 
building rather than to facilitate more building for those who need it; 

b. the policies have succeeded in reducing house building of open market 
housing but the Parks must still rely heavily on the availability of public 
funds to support affordable housing; 

c. the reduced housing supply further inflates existing housing prices, but 
significantly, the price of housing with the restrictions does not become 
affordable (at around 20% cheaper than equivalent open market 
properties) to many of the households with ‘Park’ incomes, and so is only 
available to the better off qualifiers. 

24. The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority also use 
occupancy criteria that they inherited from the local authorities and were 
originally raised in a 1986 subject local plan for the Loch Lomond Regional 
Park. The policies only apply to small parts of the Park area on west Loch 
Lomondside, and the villages of Drymen and Croftamie south east of Loch 
Lomond. Again, the policy was introduced to stop speculative development 
and not to support housing for particular groups in need. The properties 
remain desirable due to their locations and retain high sale prices. 

25. An interesting alternative approach to balancing the overall housing market 
of an area is being proposed by South Shropshire District Council in 
consultative draft interim planning guidance on Affordable Housing 
Solutions (summarised in Appendix 2F). The gap between incomes and 
house prices in South Shropshire is so great (average house prices ten times 
greater than average income) that a 50/50 split between open market and 
affordable housing has been in place for a number of years. The district 
council are now trying to create a framework to increase the variation in 
options for how the 50% affordable quota is developed. There are a range of 
proposals including setting price limits for properties based on multipliers of 
average income, limiting any increases in value of properties to increases in 
average incomes or house price index rises, and dictating the occupancy and 
type of mortgage that can be used to purchase the properties. The proposals 
are complicated and have not yet been tested, but illustrate that other parts of 
the UK are looking at new ways of influencing the housing market. 

The options we are exploring as a priority: 

26. As a result of the information gathering, research and discussions with 
partners described above, we are pursuing a range of options for improving 
the affordability of the Cairngorms housing market for typical Park 
households. We have split the options into two sets. One deals with the 
existing mechanisms for securing public subsidy towards housing, how to 
make best use of it and how to develop new mechanisms that help the Park. 
The other set explores options that do not involve public subsidy but involve 
private developers providing a broader range of housing options that more 
closely reflect the long term housing needs of the Park. 

27. One of the most controversial points in the 19th May Board paper in terms of 
media and public interest was: “The principle of residency criteria, implemented 
via Section 75 agreements, to ensure that new market housing is helping to meet the 
aims of the Park”. Through our research into practice elsewhere, discussions 
with public sector partners and the development industry, we have 
developed a better understanding of the nature of the housing problems in 
the Park and the potential ways of tackling them. It has become clear that a 
more refined mechanism that targets more precisely the occupancy of certain 
properties in the market, rather than simply a residency requirement, would 
be more likely to have a direct impact on the availability of housing for those 
the Park needs to retain or attract. However, we continue to work with 
Communities Scotland to model what effects a range of criteria or policy 
options might have on the Park and surrounding areas. 

28. We believe that the use of occupancy criteria, as opposed to residency 
criteria, through Section 75 agreements, offers a more flexible tool that could 
help to more accurately deliver housing for the kinds of households that the 
Park needs to maintain and to attract. The occupancy criteria could retain the 
basic premise that the occupants would use a property as a primary 
residence, but could also be used to target the specific income groups, family 
units or types of worker the Park needs. We consider that this would allow 
more economical use of section 75 agreements in order to create longer term 
affordable housing and, as a more targeted approach, is more likely to be 
acceptable to developers as a proportion of an overall housing development. 
Significantly, we believe that this could prove a useful mechanism for 
ensuring that new market housing provides both commercial viability to 
developers as well as a balance that more closely reflects the economic and 
social needs of the Park’s communities. 

29. There are no simple answers to providing housing for all groups of society 
and this is a problem common to all areas of Scotland and the UK. A range of 
tools are available and the CNPA must use those that will have the greatest 
effect in the Park. Diagram 2 summarises some of the key mechanisms that 
may be suitable options and we envisage that we will recommend a ‘tool kit’ 
with a range of these options to the Board in the future, where different 
options or combinations of options become the appropriate tools for 
delivering housing fit for the Park. 

Diagram 2. Range of mechanisms for securing housing in the Park 
(not available in full text format)



The mechanisms involving public subsidy 

30. Public subsidy provides one of the simplest routes to housing provision for 
those who can’t access the housing market. In the past, social housing was 
provided on a large scale by local authorities and more recently on an 
increasing level by housing associations through Communities Scotland. The 
combination of loss of council housing to private housing and the rise in 
property prices has contributed to the current housing problems on a national 
level. There is an increasing awareness that publicly subsidised housing 
must be provided for not only the poorest or most in need in society but that 
it also needs to help people who would previously have had both better 
access to social rented accommodation and more choice in the open housing 
market. Table 1 summarises the forms of public subsidy available and their 
potential value to the Park area. In particular, the “Homestake” mechanisms 
have been suggested as having greater potential by both Communities 
Scotland and the Scottish Executive. We are working with Communities 
Scotland to investigate how Homestake could help in the Park area, how it 
might be tailored to the Park area, and what level of funding would be 
required for it to make a significant contribution to housing supply within the 
CNP. 

Table 1. Mechanisms that require public subsidy 

Description and potential use 

Increase the % of Affordable 
housing on developments 
through Local plan 

This could be used to increase the proportion of social 
housing created as part of a development but relies 
heavily on the availability of public funds to be 
practical. 


Shared Equity 
Homestake (for New Build) 
Homestake “off the shelf” 
(for 2nd hand) 

These mechanisms allow people to purchase a 
minimum of 51% of a home and, assuming that the 
local authority has “pressured area status” a maximum 
of 80%. Profits from sale are split between the owner 
and Communities Scotland for reinvestment in 
affordable housing. 

The CNPA is working with Communities Scotland to 
identify how these grant mechanisms could be used to 
provide homes for more people in the CNP. 

As a guide for the CNP area, approximately half of all 
households have incomes that could make them eligible 
for Homestake. If enough money was made available, 
and the criteria set for the CNP market conditions, 
Homestake could target exactly the kinds of households 
the Park needs to help. 


Grant for Rent or Ownership 
(GRO) 

This grant is given to a developer to provide homes for 
low cost ownership. 

The SRPBA has been exploring a rent model that 
would allow landowners to provide homes for rent. 
This may help private landlords provide additional 
social rental accommodation in the future. 


Housing Association Grant 
(HAG) 

This is the basic grant to housing association to provide 
social rented and low cost home ownership 
accommodation. It will continue to play a very 
important role in providing social housing in the 
CNPA in the future. 


Rural Home Ownership 
Grant (RHOG) 

For individuals to build homes in rural areas. This 
Grant has not been well used but has the potential, 
particularly where landowners are prepared to sell land 
at non market prices. This could provide limited 
numbers of homes in the CNP area. 


Rural Empty Property Grant 
(REPG) 

This grant allows estates and individuals to reuse 
empty property. The grant can help where properties 
are not in need of significant work but otherwise the 
capital investment required may be too great for estate 
or individual. 


The mechanisms without public subsidy 

31. Given the currently accepted costs of building houses, and the limits of public 
money, privately developed housing is always likely to provide the majority 
of homes. Given the rise in the housing market, privately developed 
housing, even where sold at prices affordable to a typical CNP household, 
has risen in price quickly to make it less affordable to many thereafter. Also, 
as house builders are businesses seeking profit, it is understandable that they 
will often seek to build for the greatest profit. 

32. The need for profit in the house building industry is a reality that the CNPA 
must accept. It would not be possible to ask the industry to work at a loss, or 
to instantly alter conventional practices in order to create less costly 
properties. However, there should be many ways of securing greater balance 
in the properties built to meet the needs of the communities in the Park. We 
have outlined a range of these below and consider they offer a variety of 
mechanisms that could be applied in a range of circumstances and negotiated 
between the CNPA, the local authorities and developers. Some of these 
mechanisms could be described as planning gain while others may simply be 
delivered over time through negotiation with developers about changing 
practices and attitudes to housing supply. 

33. We have not defined exactly what “local need” or “the Park’s needs” are at 
this stage, as they are likely to vary between different areas and communities. 
As a general rule, they are intended to mean the variety of housing types that 
are needed to house the people that the Park needs in order to sustain vibrant 
communities. This may incorporate social housing, housing for low cost sale, 
housing for at cost sale, housing that is discounted, or housing that is simply 
cheaper than open market rates. This range of housing will include 
properties where developers still make profit from selling homes to people 
from the Park’s communities. 

34. For some housing it would be possible to use Section 75 agreements to 
guarantee that the initial and even subsequent occupants were from the 
Park’s target groups. Aberdeenshire Council have used S75 agreements with 
developers and homeowners to secure discounted sale price housing for 
people that the council nominate and then split profits of subsequent sale 
between the homeowner, developer and council. It is our understanding that 
Aberdeenshire Council have also used this method to ensure that the selling 
price is the district valuer’s valuation and that they nominate subsequent 
buyers. We are still exploring how far this mechanism could be extended for 
different scenarios but consider that it is likely to become an accepted tool in 
the future for both targeting particular needs and delivering longer term 
affordability. 

35. We are still investigating these routes and need to spend more time 
discussing with public sector partners and the development industry. 

Table 2. Mechanisms to provide housing for the Park’s needs without public 
subsidy 

Description and potential use 

Provide a clear framework 
for the proportion of 
Affordable housing, housing 
for Local Need and open 
market housing expected on 
developments through Local 
Plan 

By providing a clear framework for developers that 
outlines the kinds of properties required and for what 
groups. At one end there may be justification in sites 
that are identified entirely for local need while at the 
other end some site may require a high proportion of 
open market housing to enable the development of 
important types of Local Needs housing 

This approach could be prescriptive by setting exact 
proportions of different types of housing, or could be 
negotiable with developers in order to allow them to be 
creative in providing homes suited to the Park’s needs. 
To some extent this approach could also provide 
flexibility to accommodate variation in the availability 
of public subsidy for social housing. 


Private Developers agree to 
produce target group 
housing as part of 
development 

One approach to the provision of housing for the 
Park’s needs would be to agree with the developer that 
a proportion of the development are particular house 
types for sale at fixed rates to particular household 
types. 

Alternatively, a developer may build housing for “midrange rent” 
(ie rents above social rates) where the 
developer makes profit from the rent and a housing 
association manages the properties on their behalf. 
This option would probably require some kind of 
capitalisation option for the developer but might still 
provide opportunities for use of Homestake or other 
tools to retain affordability. 

The proportion of local needs to open market housing 
could be agreed on the basis of the profit margins on the 
targeted housing. The initial and subsequent occupiers 
could be conditioned via S75 agreements to ensure 
longer term affordability and housing supply for 
priority groups. 


Private Developers agree to 
produce discounted housing 
as part of development – 
explore shared equity options 

This is the type of agreement that Aberdeenshire 
Council have used successfully. 

The mechanism may be adapted to help provide housing 
for a wide range of households. 


Private Developments 
affordable through design. 

One of the barriers to housing that can be accessed by 
Park households is simply the cost of building homes. 
Some of these costs can be reduced, while still 
improving the long term sustainability and suitability 
of the housing. 

The sustainable design guide will address this issue but 
developers can also take the lead in terms of providing 
alternative methods and materials that reduce overall 
cost. 

The CNPA is involved in the Milehouse affordable 
project at Kincraig which is looking to deliver low cost 
sustainable homes and we to hope to be able to use 
examples such as this to develop practices in the future. 


Landowners discounting 
land for local needs housing. 

A further barrier to the provision of housing that can be 
accessed by Park households is the cost of land that is 
added to the construction costs. 
Landowners, many of whom live in the Park and 
understand the difficulties many people have in access 
housing could play an important role in helping to 
relieve the housing pressures by providing a flexible 
pricing structure for land needed for local needs. 

Clearly, such an approach would rely on the goodwill of 
landowners and would need to be accompanied by land 
developed at full market value to maintain commercial 
viability. 



Open market sales for profit. 

A key part of the overall housing supply will continue 
to be the building of open market housing available to 
those who can afford it. 

This housing is required to both offset the lower 
profitability of some of the other forms of housing 
required in the Park area, and to enable the 
development of sites with high infrastructure costs. 


Other options being investigated 

36. The options described above are the main routes that we consider have 
potential to make significant contributions to the housing supply in the CNP 
area over the next 5 years or so and particularly as mechanisms to support 
the delivery of housing through the Local Plan. Clearly, there are other 
potential routes that may be pursued over the longer term and some of these 
are described below: 

• During discussions with partners over the National Park Plan it was 
confirmed that most of public sector organisations within the CNP area 
already have policies of not disposing of property on the open market, 
and many consult with a range of housing organisations on the potential 
uses. 

• We continue to work with landowners/ the SRPBA to try to improve the 
ability of landowners to provide housing for Park residents, both as social 
housing and simply as high quality rented accommodation affordable to 
Park households. 

• We continue to investigate community involvement in housing provision 
and whether there is a viable role for Community Trusts. 

• We have brought up the subject of the Use Classes Order and second 
homes with the Scottish Executive. The initial response has been that 
such would unlikely to receive backing but that the review of the Use 
Classes Order may provide more support for affordable housing. 

• The Board asked that we look at developing a housing register for the 
national Park based on criteria particular to the Park and separate from 
those used by Local Authorities. Initial discussions with local authorities, 
housing associations and Communities Scotland confirmed that due to 
the legal framework this would not be possible for social housing. 
However, there is a need to develop a set of CNP specific criteria for the 
identification of potential purchasers of privately developed local need 
housing and there may be potential for the CNP to compile such a list 
that could be used in addition to the common housing register for 
selection purposes. A similar approach is used in the implementation of 
GRO grants. 

• We continue to work with our housing partners to develop the common 
housing register. 

• We continue to explore what role crofting may play in providing housing 
for the Park’s needs in the future. 

• We will continue to monitor what effects the Rural Development 
Regulations may have on the CNPA and any linkages to rural housing. 


Discussions with partners 

37. Before we can present the Board with many of these mechanisms as definite 
options, we need to have further discussions with the local authorities, 
Communities Scotland, developers and landowners. We need a level of 
agreement about the issues and validity of potential options from some 
partners and need to explore the viability of some options with others. 

38. For a number of the potential mechanisms, we need further information on 
how to implement them and for others, we need partners to agree to use or 
enforce them. We also need to have had enough discussion with developers 
in order to understand how we can work together to deliver a greater supply 
of housing for the Park households we want to keep and attract. While we 
don’t expect developers to volunteer to do all we would want, we believe that 
we can have enough constructive dialogue to find some realistic options for 
the future 


Next steps 

39. We already have a large part of the information needed to identify the 
problems and to formulate policy but we need a greater level of common 
understanding with other public sector partners and need some supporting 
research to be further progressed before we recommend policy options to the 
Board. We will have met with the Cairngorms Housing Group on 27 
September to discuss some of the issues and potential solutions with 
representatives from the full range of partners. We will also have met with 
Communities Scotland on 29 September to discuss work on Homestake and 
possible joint research into the modelling of policy effects inside and outside 
the National Park boundary. 

40. The key stages of work are outlined below along with a timetable for 
bringing options to the Board for decision. 

• Exploring issues and range of potential housing solutions/mechanisms 
with local authorities, Communities Scotland and developers; 

• Compile revised Local Plan housing context, strategic options, policy 
options and allocation options 

• Review and discuss preferred options and appropriate mechanisms with 
local authorities, Communities Scotland. Review and test preferred 
options with developers; 

• Prepare finalised Local Plan housing context, strategic options, policy 
options and allocation options; 

• 12 January 2007 Informal Planning Committee session to discuss finalised 
Local Plan housing context, strategic options, policy options and 
allocation options; 

• 23 February 2007 Formal presentation of finalised Local Plan housing 
context, strategic options, policy options and allocation options to 
Planning Committee. 

• March 2007 Informal Planning Committee session to discuss finalised 
Local Plan – we would like to organise a special full day session; 

• 4 May 2007 Formal presentation of finalised Local Plan to Planning 
Committee for decision to place on deposit. 

• June 2007 Local Plan placed on deposit 


Gavin Miles & Fiona Munro 
October 2006 

gavinmiles@cairngorms.co.uk 
fionamunro@cairngorms.co.uk