Life in Britain's CHEAPEST town: House prices in Burnley are lower than anywhere else... but locals still can't afford them
Locals say life in Burnley is like being stuck in 'a rut'.
And a stroll through the town centre quickly reveals why.
The streets here tell a rather depressing story of a region that has been left behind the rest of the UK.
Once popular retail stores lay empty and boarded up for years on end, while bookies have popped up on every street corner, and phone repair shops and vaping stores have become commonplace.
They are all the tell-tale signs of a town in decline.
The council is hopeful it can prop itself back up through its expanding university campus, regeneration projects to 'revitalise' the town centre, and investment in its growing aerospace industry.
But the value of the area is reflected in its house prices.
And according to estate agents Purple Bricks, the Lancashire town has the lowest house prices in the entire country, with an average of £113,000.
But while that might seem like a steal for young professionals or first-time buyer couples commuting to nearby Manchester, Burnley natives say its left them stuck in a rut.
The town has some of the lowest wages in the country and a lack of skilled job opportunities - leaving the majority of the population of the minimum living wage.
While the higher earners, who can afford to get on Burnley's property ladder, are 'stuck in a cycle' because the low prices of homes mean they cannot afford to move anywhere else.
Care worker Kadi Flanagan, 20, told MailOnline: 'I would not say it is cheap here.
'I know compared to other areas it might be, but compared to the normal living wage here I don't think it's affordable for most people at all.
'You've got to be working yourself, working yourself, working yourself, for years on end to be able to afford something.
'I've always lived in Burnley and from what I know all the homeowners I know have had the property in the family for generations.
'But to do it yourself now is so hard.
'The house prices can be higher elsewhere but then so are wages.
'But here the wages are so low that house prices are not meeting that same balance.
'And it's so hard to get a job in Burnley. There's a lot of jobs in care and retail but that's it.
'I think a lot of people don't want to live here anymore because of it.
'And then you've got people moving here from out the area to commute to say Manchester, and landlords who buy up homes here and rent them as shared houses.
'I don't think its fair. Of course people should be able to have a business and buy homes, but people living here should have access too.
'I do think I could maybe afford to buy a place someday but it's a long way away and it depends what you sacrifice. You've basically got to sacrifice your social life.'
According to ONS figures, Burnley has some of the lowest salaries in the country, with an average wage of £604 a week.
In fact, thinktank Centre for Cities found in its Cities Outlook report earlier this year that the average London salary is 68 per cent higher than the Burnley equivalent.
The average yearly salary of an employee in London was said to be almost £20,000 higher than in Burnley - one of the lowest paid regions of the country.
The thinktank also warned post-Covid that Burnley was one of the worst-hit regions, when comparing inflation with wages.
An employee on the average salary of £49k in London would earn what the average worker in Burnley would earn in a year in just eight months.
While bigger cities such as London and Manchester are home to a more cutting-edge job market with private sector jobs, Burnley is still predominantly made up of manufacturing and retail jobs.
And for the lower-to-middle class in Burnley, they effectively find themselves in a situation where moving anywhere else in the UK would be less affordable.
Kadi's friend Otimah Gordon, 20, who also grew up in Burnley and goes to the town's University of Central Lancashire campus, described living there as being 'stuck in a cycle'.
She told MailOnline: 'As soon as I finish university I'm moving out of here.
'Down south the cost of living is higher, but then you do earn so much more.
'It seems a bit more even. Whereas here there's a gap.
'I'd be able to manage that better and there are also just so many more job opportunities.
'But it does just feel like being stuck in an endless cycle.
'You've got to pick which one you want to go down. Stay here and have low wages but lower cost-of-living, or go elsewhere but struggle with higher prices.
'But I'd still rather get out of here. There's not much to do here. At least down South there's better quality of life, days out.
'I think a lot of people don't want to stay in this area because it's not got much to offer.
'Right now because it's summer it's okay, but when I'm back at university in September, my social life kind of goes because I need to work to get by.'
Speaking to MailOnline, an estate agent in Burnley told of how low wages mean that locals do still struggle to get on the housing ladder, but that the area is becoming more attractive to those from neighbouring cities.
Scott Riley, senior sales consultant at Clifford Smith Sutcliff said: 'Prices have inflated massively post-Covid but they are still cheap relative to other areas.
'It is an old mill town. It's an old-fashioned northern town, a previous industrial town, and I guess that affects people's wages in the area.
'It is obviously relative to wages here and the demographic, so even though house prices are low it can still be hard to get on the housing ladder.
'Some people are stuck in that sort of rut of renting and it's difficult to put together a deposit when you've got a massive chunk going to rent every month.
'But I do think it's got plenty going for it now, with the university campus expanding and aerospace industry going.
'You get people coming in from other areas, for example Manchester, where prices are so much higher but only 40 minutes from here.
'So people are drawn to Burnley, it has that label of being cheap for what you get for your money, and I do think it's on the rise.
'I have always found it a really funny place Burnley, because you get places where one end of a street is more desirable than the other end of the street. One end can be £50,60,70k, while the other end can be upwards of £100 or 150k.
'But even the higher end, you get more for what you pay here. If you pick those houses up and stick them in areas like Alderley Edge, you'll be paying a massive premium on that.'
On whether he thinks prices will continue to rise, he said: 'It's always had that thing of low house prices, but that might sort of change.
'People from out the area are coming here now.
'You do get a lot of landlords from out the area wanting to buy here because of the university campus. And its linked to the university of Central Lancashire now.
'It may not be as lucrative anymore and there's a lot of red tape now, but we still find that for every one landlord that's thinking they've had enough and want to sell, there's about five or six landlords who want to buy up here.
'They do tend to be landlords from out the area. They buy up a couple of terraced ones and still get rent from each of them.
'In Manchester the prices have gone crazy, and that will work its way out to neighbouring areas like here as well.
'And investment as well will help improve the region, investment into transport links, Burnley is back in the Premier League, the authority are doing up the town centre, these are all things that will help make it a more desirable area.'
Mr Riley told of how house prices shot up in Burnley post-Covid, but still remain relatively cheap.
According to the estate agent, an average three-bed semi-detached home is usually 'sub-£200k, around the £150-200k mark'.
Meanwhile, a two-bed terraced house can be anything up to £100k, but tends to be on average around £80k to £90k.
'The stuff in the town centre is the cheaper stuff, and the further out you go the more desirable it gets, Cliviger, those sorts of areas', he said.
Further into the town centre, more locals told of the gap between wages and housing.
One local said: 'To be completely frank, it is not cheap.
'Housing is not cheap here. Maybe compared to other areas but not compared to wages.
'I read it in the papers that you can get cheap housing here but surely that's relative to earnings.
'Even rent is unaffordable here, it is at least £600 a month for one room in a shared house.
'But we're all on minimum wages here. Most people around here, especially in retail are on minimum wage.'
Her friend chimed: 'Burnley is bad and it has gotten worse, for begging and for one thing and another.
'A lot of houses are just boarded up.'
Frank Gillies was looking at houses advertised on the window of an estate agents when he spoke to MailOnline.
The 54-year-old, who does not live in Burnley, told of how he was surprised by how 'expensive' the properties were.
He said: 'I'm surprised looking at how expensive it is.
'I'm looking at two or three-bed houses and some of them are like £300k. They're not even nice, they're dumps.
'I was a bit shocked I have to say.
'Maybe I'm shocked because my impression was it's a cheaper part of the country but it doesn't seem like it.
'There's stuff on the window for £600k and the look of it is nothing unbelievable.
'You can get something down South for that, but maybe it's arrogant to say.
'In that shop window there's nothing I would take, it's either too expensive or a dump.
'It comes as a surprise to me because I have a lot of family in Glasgow and they have a lot nicer houses there for around the £200k mark.
'My cousin has just bought a gorgeous four-bed slightly out of Glasgow for £200k and that's the sort of pricing I expected here.'
Michael and Pamela Irving, both 73, told of how they moved to Burnley from neighbouring Rossendale as they purchased a cheaper bungalow.
They said: 'The prices are reasonable here compared to other places but it's not the best area.
'That said, it's also not the worst. It depends where you buy really.
'We came here from Rossendale because we found a cheap bungalow.
'It's changed a lot since six years ago. There are a lot more people begging on the streets now, drunks, it's a sign of the times I guess.
'But it's definitely value for money here. But the problem is wages are lower here too.'
Annmarie and Chris Ireland are both renting in nearby Accrington and say it is impossible to buy property in the area now.
They said: 'We rent a home in Accrington and it's a two-bed terraced but rent is just over £600.
'You can't get anything for under that and it's the same here.
'And buying just isn't an option. It is unaffordable.
'There's a 30 per cent gap between north and south, the infrastructure is totally different down South to what it is up here.
'And this town used to be thriving, I used to come here constantly.
'The nightlife was amazing, you had a Wetherspoons there, and come down here to pubs right round here, now they are all coffee shops, vape shops, bookies.
'This used to be the place to come out drinking, now I've noticed it's full of empty shops.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The state spends £24,000 a year for every adult. Something's got to give
It's amazing how things change. Just a few months ago Rachel Reeves told us the financial situation was so grim she had no choice but to take the winter fuel payment from all but the poorest pensioners. And now, thanks to Labour, it's all going so well she can afford to give it back. That was, of course, a lie. But it wasn't the big lie. No, the big lie was that the spending review bore any relation to what we will actually spend. The traditional recipe for political success is simple: scrimp, then splurge. Get the pain out of the way after the election, so you can splash out before the next one. • Jobs market is flashing a warning sign to Rachel Reeves That's not the approach Reeves took. She wanted to show she was ending austerity (such as it was). But the finances were desperately tight. Her solution, apart from raising taxes, was to frontload her spending increases and hope something turned up. The result is a spending profile that resembles a child playing a violin: sharp, then flat. Between 2025-26 and 2028-29, day-to-day departmental spending is to rise from £518 billion to £568 billion. Factoring in inflation, that means budgets in the last two years of the parliament will grow by just 1 per cent a year — and far less for most departments, since the overall figure includes 3 per cent a year for the NHS (which is getting more than half of all the extra cash). Will Labour really go into the election amid more 'Tory austerity'? Well, no. It'll want to spend more. Or need to: Reeves's ferociously tight numbers leave no room for downturns, pay strikes, trade wars or shooting wars. Her plans also depend on £14 billion in hazily detailed 'efficiency savings'. And the hoped-for bailout via a mid-term growth bonanza is less likely than ever. But here's the paradox. From the perspective of the Labour Party, most of those working in public services and her own electoral prospects, Reeves isn't spending nearly enough. But from another perspective, the chancellor is spending far, far too much. Public spending is running at 44 per cent of GDP, a historic high. Taxes, too, are historically high, and universally expected to go higher. Not only have we been spending like crazy, not least because of the pandemic, but we've been spending money we don't have — resulting in an annual bill of more than £100 billion just to cover the interest on our debts. These numbers can be hard to put into context. So our team at the Centre for Policy Studies think tank has come up with a different way of looking at it. We estimate that we are now spending £23,757 for every adult in this country: roughly two thirds of the average full-time salary of £37,500. That includes £3,807 on health, £5,817 on welfare and pensions and a shocking £1,955 for that debt bill. Restrict the calculation to those of working age, and spending is north of £30,000 a head. Factor in economic inactivity, and the state is almost certainly spending more than every worker aged 18 to 65 is earning. This is very obviously not sustainable. So how to square the circle? Given the position we're in, shaving departmental budgets just won't cut it, especially when the chancellor claims to have already ruthlessly reviewed every pound they spend (yet somehow set them all the same target for efficiency savings). We need to accept instead that government cannot actually do all the things it tries to. But we already know how hard that will be. If ministers are going to U-turn on the winter fuel payment and wobble on a set of welfare reforms that barely slow, let alone halt, the rise in disability and incapacity spending, how can they possibly tackle issues like the triple lock, social care or special educational needs and disability (Send) costs for councils? That's before even mentioning the NHS. So here are a couple of heretical thoughts. The first is that rather than guaranteeing the level of any individual benefit, we should think in terms of total spend. Let's say we decide that we can only afford to devote 1.5 per cent of GDP to a particular benefit. If more people claim, the totals go down. If people want more cash, they either have to dob in the fraudsters or accept the kinds of policy likely to swell GDP. A gentler version would be to keep benefits from falling, but ensure that they increase only when we can actually afford it. Revolutionary, I know. The second idea is more fundamental: to accept that government cannot actually move the economic needle. If you were listening to the spending review, you would have heard pledge after pledge: billions spent on this, billions on that. But that is not how you get the economy growing. You do that by creating the conditions for individuals and businesses to boost it for you. This may sound like Thatcherite dogma. But it's simple maths. Investment in the UK is roughly 18 per cent of GDP. But the state is responsible for perhaps a sixth of that. Hence Reeves's talk of 'co-investment': using small amounts of state funding to leverage much larger private sums. Or let's look at affordable housing, one of the few areas that did get some cash at the spending review. The government is promising an extra £39 billion over ten years. That's useful. But housebuilders knocked up £46 billion in private sector housing in just the past year — a pretty slow year, at point is that even small increases, or falls, in private sector activity have a far larger impact on the economy, and balance sheet, than the endless initiatives that pour forth from government. Which is precisely why Reeves's jobs tax was so damaging. Generating those increases, or falls, often isn't about money, but common sense. On housebuilding, for example, our system is based on local plans set out by councils. But loads of councils don't have plans in place. And Labour has embarked on a massive local government reorganisation that will delay their publication still further, dooming any hope of hitting its housing targets. It may be anathema to many on the Labour benches, but if the government is to have any hope of avoiding tax rises not just this autumn but for years to come, it needs to do what it finds hardest: clear the obstacles and let the private sector get on with it. The temptation, instead, will be to hammer work, wealth and business one more time. Which will of course make the task facing the chancellor even harder.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Thames Water investors beg Keir Starmer to step in and save debt-ridden water company from collapsing after clashing with Ofwat over future fines
Investors of Thames Water are begging Keir Starmer to intervene as Britain's biggest supplier crumbles under crippling fines and could be facing collapse. The stricken company is drowning under huge debts and the threat of further fines for pollution incidents. It was hit last month with a record £123 million in fines for sewage spills and dividend payments, by the industry regulator Ofwat. The fine, which is the largest the watchdog has ever issued, follows two 'big and complex' investigations by the regulator. Ofwat said Thames Water would pay £104.5 million for the wastewater breaches and a further £18.2 million for breaking rules on dividend payments. It said the fines would be paid 'by the company and its investors and not by customers'. Investors say that the regulator's unwillingness to go soft on the company over future fines could put it at risk of administration, as they scramble for a lifeline. Now they are pleading with the Prime Minister to compel the watchdog to adopt a more compromising position to its stance on financial penalties. An investor involved in rescue talks said: 'We have had a year of dealing with one of the most intractable regulators I've ever had the misfortune of coming across. 'They have failed in their job. Absolutely, we need intervention from Downing Street.' 'I think what it takes is the government and the regulator coming together - it needs the Environment Department, the Treasury and even Number 10 to say: "What's the least worst outcome here?",' another investor said. It comes just days after Ofwat received a proposal that would provide the water company the capital they desperately need to recover from the billions of pounds worth of fines looming over them. Creditors have said that Thames could be looking at more than £1 billion in further pollution and environmental failings, according to the Telegraph. But the watchdog have been reluctant to grant the request. The regulator's probe into how the company was managing its treatment works and wider wastewater network uncovered a number of failings. Ofwat said these amounted to a significant breach of the company's legal obligations, which has caused an 'unacceptable' impact on the environment and customers. Creditors are preparing a second bid in an attempt to soften Ofwat's stance that could see the company willing to offer more cash and write off a larger sum of debt. A FTSE 100 infrastructure fund warned Ofwat's stubbornness could dampen Labour's attempts to bring in foreign investors for UK assets. They said: 'There is a £500 billion investment that's needed across UK infrastructure that is contingent on stable regulation.' A source close to Thames' creditors said: 'Ofwat is undermining the government's aim to attract private capital and deliver growth and reform across the water sector.' Now with the risk of rescue talks being stalled, Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing, has demanded to rejoin the auction for Thames after KKR abandoned its bid fore the business earlier this month. However investors fear his links to China will trigger a long and drawn out investigation under the National Security and Investment Act.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Rachel's gone on a £4TRILLION spending spree... so here's how to make sure it gives your investments a turbo boost: These are some of the firms that will win big - and how to invest in them
After the blowout comes the debt hangover – and economic experts expect us all to end up with sore heads and wallets after Rachel Reeve's Spending Review last week. But while we wait to see which of our taxes she'll raise in the autumn Budget to pay for it all, we can help ourselves by investing in some of the companies that will reap the benefits from her largesse.
