Spotlight on Rural Homelessness

The physical and cultural make-up of rural areas is as varied as that of urban areas. Just as London and Liverpool are distinctly different cities so Cornwall and County Durham are equally diverse as rural counties. This means that in England’s rural counties there are areas of both affluence and deprivation. Areas of affluence, such as the Cotswolds and Richmondshire tend to be characterised by high levels of tourism, second-home ownership, and a high proportion of older, retired residents. Areas of deprivation include parts of County Durham and Gloucestershire, which are former mining communities that have struggled with geographic isolation, unemployment and lack of regeneration since the pit closures of the 1980s and 1990s. And Wisbech, a small market town surrounded by fens in rural Cambridgeshire, which has some of the highest rates of deprivation in England.

What rural areas, whether affluent or otherwise, have in common is that most employment opportunities are low paid and tend to be in sectors, such as tourism, hospitality, or care-work, that have the highest rates of zero-hours and casual contracts. As many as a quarter of people living and working in rural areas do not earn the living wage making housing affordability a significant issue for people in local jobs in rural areas. In fact, much of the limited supply of housing in rural areas is unaffordable, even for people travelling long distances to jobs in urban centres. For example, research by English Rural Housing Association, which Homeless Link partners with on its work on rural homelessness, shows that just 8% of homes in rural areas are affordable, compared with 17% in urban areas. Further, under previous governments rural areas have received 65% less homelessness funding per capita than urban areas. The current, updated Fair Funding framework does seek to take into consideration the cost differences of delivering services in rural areas, such as geographical spread, travel time and limited public transport. However, the framework is heavily weighted towards urban deprivation and by the Government’s own admission, the new formula means local authorities in ‘predominantly rural authorities are more likely than not to experience decreased in core spending power.’

All these factors combine to mean that for people living and working in low-wage, high-cost rural areas, homelessness is an ever-present risk. Limited funding for local authorities also means that resolving homelessness and rough sleeping in the countryside can prove especially challenging.

Bedding down in vehicles is a form of rough sleeping that is becoming increasingly prevalent across some areas of England. It is impossible to estimate the numbers of people who are homeless and sleeping in vehicles due to economic necessity, however, a report by Bristol local authority, which has a significant vehicle dwelling population itself, suggests that areas such as Glastonbury in Somerset and Falmouth, Launceton and Bodmin in Cornwall all have large numbers of van dwellers.

It is important to distinguish between recreation and necessity when talking about vehicle dwelling. This is not retirees who are living in motorhomes as a travel activity, ‘vanlifers’ with fitted out vehicles that are being used for travel and recreation, or the car camping of weekenders and summer visitors to coastal and rural areas. It is also important to distinguish between vehicle dwelling and Gypsy, Roma, or Travellers, who are ethnic nomadic peoples. The focus of this spotlight is anyone bedding down in cars and vans, hidden in and around their communities, due to the lack of affordable homes in rural areas. A recent Guardian article illustrates well the challenges of having to sleep in a vehicle, including extreme cold in winter, lack of cooking facilities and places to fill water tanks, and the need to constantly move on to new park ups.

It is also unhelpful that some local authorities don’t view living in a vehicle as being homeless but as a ‘lifestyle choice’ because it is happening in nature. But, as the work of Dr Michael Preston-Shoot, Emeritus professor of Social Work at the University of Bedfordshire, the evidence of people with lived experience of homelessness, safeguarding adult reviews, and research all show the ‘lifestyles’ of people who rough sleep in cars and tents are more often the result of lack of choice and in some cases even self-neglect.

Alongside specialist support services and innovative outreach approaches for people experiencing homelessness, what is also desperately needed in rural areas is more affordable housing. Rural focused housing associations including English Rural and Broadacres are working hard to make this a reality and one way of doing this is though focusing new developments on rural exception sites. These are small parcels of land on the edge of existing rural settlements where development would be permitted of up to 20 dwellings for local residents. Residential development on rural exception sites can only be considered by the local authority for housing that will remain affordable and address local housing needs in the long-term and sustain rural communities.

This may sound straightforward, but bringing together local authority planners, landowners, and house builders to develop such schemes can be complex. However, the Rural Housing Enabler programme delivered by ACRE provides specialists help to rural communities in order to plan and deliver local affordable housing programmes on rural exception sites.

The cost developing and managing social housing in rural areas can be perceived as prohibitive. However, research has shown that this is not the case. In terms of house building, there can be additional capital investment costs that stem from a lack of pre-existing infrastructure, slow planning processes, strict environmental policies, and challenges in sourcing local materials and skilled labour. However, these are not insurmountable with the support of Rural Housing Enablers, and once built, research by English Rural Housing Association using data from 145 housing associations shows that the cost of maintaining rural social homes over time is significantly less than urban social homes. In particular, the data show that operating margins are almost double for rural social housing providers, and tenant satisfaction is over 87%.