Issue - items at meetings - Evidence Gathering from Members of the Public and Stakeholders

Witnesses include:

 

• Dr Darren Smith, Reader in Geography, University of Brighton

 

• Kevin Manall, Community Liaison Officer, University of Brighton

 

• Simon Newell, 2020 Community Partnership Officer, Brighton & Hove City Council

 

• Martin Reid, Head of Housing Strategy and Development & Private Sector Housing,Brighton & Hove City Council

 

• Paul Allen, Director ebndc Partnership and Head of Neighbourhood Renewal Development and Strategy

9.1             The panel heard from a number of witnesses.

 

9.2             Evidence from Dr Darren Smith, Reader in Geography, University of Brighton and from Jo Sage, University of Brighton

 

a)     Dr Smith and Ms Sage introduced themselves, explaining that they had studied the impact of increasing student numbers on a number of cities.

 

b)      In answer to a question regarding student/resident ‘charters’, the panel was told that these charters had been trialled in several locations, including Leeds, Nottingham and Loughborough. Such schemes could be difficult to implement as they required consistent engagement from Student Unions, something which was hard to guarantee, given the high turnover of Student Union officers. However, students are typically under-presented on residents group and associations, and any work which encourages greater engagement should be welcomed. 

 

c)      In response to a query concerning the concentration of student households in the city, members were told that the situation was very fluid. Mapping from 2002-2007 showed the greatest concentration in the ‘traditional’ student areas of Hanover, Hartington Rd and Moulescoomb. Recent years have seen significant numbers of students around London Road station and in Regency Ward, with future movements into Hollingdean anticipated. 

 

d)     Members were told this fluidity in student housing was not entirely due to the market expanding; there were also ‘fashions’ within the market, with some areas of the city seeing an expansion in the number of student households and others a contraction.

 

This was a very significant issue, as it was not necessarily clear whether former student housing tended to revert to family use or whether it stayed in the private rented sector (e.g. let to ‘young professionals’). In the latter instance, the impact of student housing on family housing on the city might be considerably greater than in the former.

 

 Members were informed that, in some other parts of the country such as Leeds, an expansion of student housing in one area of a city (e.g. from newly built Halls of Residence) had seen a matching reduction in the private rented sector for students, but little or no improvement in the availability of family housing, as the great majority of former student housing had been re-targeted at the young professional sector rather than at families.

 

e)     In answer to a question concerning the relationship between student numbers and national economic performance, the panel was told that the relationship was very complex. However, even if student numbers fell nationally as a result of an economic downturn (and this was by no means guaranteed), ‘de-studentification’ of Brighton & Hove was unlikely, as the city was considered a particularly attractive destination for students. Recent estimates for both the University of Brighton and the University of Sussex saw stable or rising student figures until at least 2015.

 

f)        In response to queries about Planning issues, members were informed that there was currently no requirement to report or obtain permission for plans to convert family accommodation for student use (unless the accommodation in question was designated a ‘Home in Multiple Occupation’ – an ‘HMO’). Although there was widespread support for the notion of introducing some kind of ‘class order’ for such changes of use, this could not apply retrospectively, so even if it was to be introduced, it would apply to only a small percentage of student housing.

 

Members were told that a more realistic approach to the issue might be to ensure that all existing management techniques were being employed efficiently in order to manage particular areas of city housing.

 

g)     In answer to a question regarding negative student perceptions of areas such as Bevendean and Moulescoomb, members were informed that such perceptions may have originated from surveys undertaken in 2002, when there was relatively little student housing in either area. In recent years, student concentration in Bevendean and Moulescoomb has increased considerably, and perceptions have changed for the better.

 

Members were also told that, in recent years, students had begun to favour proximity to their place of study above proximity to city centres, so this might also lead to improved perceptions of these suburban areas.

 

h)      In response to questions about student Halls of Residence, the panel was told that a recent University of Brighton Needs Assessment identified 90% of 1^st year students preferring Halls to the private rented sector, with up to 20% of returning students also expressing a preference for Halls. Similar figures could probably be assumed for the University of Sussex.

 

Members were advised that if there were sufficient capacity for this volume of students in attractively sited Halls of Residence, there could be a very significant impact upon the private rented sector in the city.

 

9.3             Evidence from Kevin Mannall, Community Liaison Officer,          University of Brighton 

 

a)     In response to a question concerning what the University of Brighton did to ensure that its students were aware of appropriate behaviour, members were told that this was covered in the compulsory induction for all first year students. Printed guides were also available, and the Student Union was extensively involved with this issue.

 

b)     Members were informed that a joint council/University of Brighton information pack for students would be useful, particularly if landlords/letting agents were encouraged to distribute it (as many students take up accommodation in advance of their university induction, meaning that landlords are a better initial contact than universities or student unions).

 

c)      In answer to a question about accessing student addresses, Mr Mannall told members that he did not have direct access to students’ address details, although he could often confirm which students lived at which addresses by informal means.

 

d)     Mr Mannall told members that the majority of his time was not spent in dealing with complaints about students, but with liaising with a variety of city agencies. Mr Mannall noted that he had received very positive feedback from city organisations, glad that they had a liaison officer to deal with.

 

9.4             Evidence from Simon Newell, Head of Partnerships and External Relations, Brighton & Hove City Council

 

a)     Mr Newell explained aspects of the role of the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) and of the city Strategic Housing Partnership (SHP) and gave members some background as to what the SHP had done in terms of examining the issue of studentification. Mr Newell noted that the LSP and SHP brought key city partners together and facilitated high level discussion of issues; consequent practical measures would typically be taken by individual partner organisations rather than by the strategic partnerships themselves.

 

b)     Mr Newell noted that the LSP focused on the overall impact the city’s universities had, not just upon any negative aspects of studentification.

 

c)      Mr Newell was asked to provide some examples of actions arising from the SHP’s work. Mr Newell offered to produce a briefing paper for the panel.

 

9.5             Evidence from Martin Reid, Head of Housing Strategy and Private Sector Housing, Brighton & Hove City Council

 

a)     In response to a question regarding Homes in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), the panel was told that the legislation governing HMOs was quite restrictive, both in terms of defining an HMO (a property of more than two storeys and/or housing more than 5 people not living together as a single household), and in terms of the powers it granted to local authorities (which tended to focus on ensuring the quality of accommodation provided by HMOs rather than on managing their impact upon the local community).

 

b)     In answer to a query as to whether more Student Halls of Residence were required, members were told that this was an issue currently being examined by the Strategic Housing Partnership (SHP). The issue was not a simple one, as Halls could themselves impact upon the local community and it was not necessarily the case that increasing the number of places available in Halls would mean that an equivalent amount of private sector student housing was returned to more ‘desirable’ uses such as family housing.

 

c)      In response to a question on landlord accreditation schemes, members were told that these could be useful, but that most city landlords already provided good quality accommodation. This situation might perhaps be best improved by closer co-working with the universities and by greater encouragement of university ‘head-leasing’ rather than via formal accreditation schemes. In any case, the ultimate guarantor of housing quality was demand: if demand for a particular kind of housing outstripped supply, then accreditation could never be wholly effective, as non-accredited landlords would still find customers.

 

9.6             Evidence from Paul Allen, Director of ebndc, Head of Neighbourhood Management, Brighton & Hove City Council

 

a)     Mr Allen stressed the positive contribution that the city’s universities and their students made to local communities, much of which went relatively unheralded.

 

b)     Mr Allen noted that both city universities were heavily involved in community work, although he had less direct work undertaken by the University of Sussex than by the University of Brighton.

 

c)      Mr Allen told the panel that it was his understanding that the University of Sussex was considering introducing a compulsory element of community engagement into its undergraduate degree courses.

 

 

9.7             Evidence from members of the public.

 

The panel heard additional evidence from members of the public attending the meeting.

 

a)     Mr Richard Scott, a city resident, directed the panel’s attention to the issue of the availability of city private rented sector accommodation for young people who were not students, noting that competition from students could drive rents beyond the reaches of many young working people, and that the conversion of bedsits into (more expensive) studio flats could exacerbate this problem.

 

 

b)     Mr Scott also noted that the ongoing scrutiny review into Dual Diagnosis (of mental health and substance misuse problems) had addressed housing issues, and that the work of the two panels might usefully be co-ordinated.

 

c)      Mr Mike Stimpson, a city resident and landlord, informed the panel that there was in fact no legal or planning reason why student accommodation should not revert back to family use.

 

d)     Mr Stimpson also queried whether the problem of studentification was really as major as was being supposed, noting that some research had suggested the problem was concentrated in a few localised areas rather than being a broader urban issue.

 

e)     In addition, Mr Stimpson questioned whether useful comparisons could really be made between Brighton & Hove and large cities such as Leeds and Nottingham where there was typically a citywide oversupply of housing.

 

f)        The Chairman responded to Mt Stimpson’s first point (9.7(c) above), explaining that references by witnesses and panel members to student housing not reverting to family use referred to an observed tendency, on average,  for such use not to revert, rather than to any legislative bar on such a reversion.

 

g)     Dr Darren Smith challenged Mr Stimpson’s assertions (in 9.7(d) and 9.7(e) above), arguing that the evidence Mr Stimpson had quoted on studentification was based on 2001 census data which was insufficiently sensitive and which largely pre-dated the rapid growth of student numbers in Brighton & Hove and many other cities. Dr Smith also noted that while it was true that direct comparisons of Brighton & Hove with much larger Northern cities were of limited value, a good deal of work had been done on the impact of students on comparator towns and cities such as Loughborough, Bath and Canterbury.

 

9.8      The Chairman thanked all the witnesses for their contributions.                         

 

 

 

 

4.1             Panel members heard evidence from a number of city residents with points to make about the issue of students living in the local community.

 

4.2             Evidence from Sheila Rough, Milner Road

 

4.2(a) Ms Rough made the following points:

 

• The Milner Road area had now reached saturation point with students, and that additional accommodation on campus was therefore needed urgently;

 

• Privately rented housing occupied by students (‘student houses’) now outnumber other types of housing in the area;

 

• There should be a cap on Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)* permitted in one street;

 

• The number of student houses in the area has a negative impact on general property values;

 

• The number of houses occupied by a number of adults (many of whom have their own cars) causes severe parking problems, exacerbated by anti-social behaviour in relation to parking (i.e. double-parking) which has the potential to impede emergency vehicle access;

 

• There is a major issue of noise nuisance (esp. late night parties);

 

• Rubbish is a major problem, with some students not adhering to collection days, not recycling etc;

 

• The universities should accept more responsibility for their students living in private sector housing;

 

• The universities should take responsibility for informing students of appropriate behaviour in terms of living in the community;

 

• Noise problems are constant, with particular problems at or after 3am;

 

• She had tried in the past to talk to individual students about these issues, but had been discouraged by negative responses;

 

• She had tried to involve the police, but had been discouraged by the police response (not attending incidents etc.);

 

• She would suggest key areas for improvement were: imposing a street-by-street cap on student numbers; provision of more on-campus accommodation; better guidance from the universities on appropriate student behaviour.

 

• NB: ‘HMO’ has a particular meaning in planning law – referring to housing with three floors or more/six or more occupants not living as a family unit. However, it is also frequently used more generally to refer to privately rented housing shared by several adults – e.g. to ‘student houses’, although relatively few student houses in the city are, technically speaking, HMOs. It seems sensible to assume that non-expert witnesses to the panel use the term HMO to refer to shared private sector rented housing in general.

 

4.3             Evidence from Ted Harman, Chair of Coldean Tenant’s Association

 

4.3(a) Mr Harman made the following points:

 

• There are some problems with students in Coldean, particularly in terms of the number of adults living at some properties and in terms of parking;

 

• Although there have been isolated problems with student behaviour (including urinating in front gardens), most students are polite and do not cause trouble;

 

• Bus stops in the area can become very crowded with students queuing to go in to town etc. Sometimes the sheer number of students waiting for buses can pose a problem, particularly for older people/people with young children who can feel intimidated (even when no one intends to be intimidating);

 

• Given the very large numbers of people in the city on the shortlist for family homes, can it be a sensible use of resources to house students in homes more obviously suited to families?

 

4.4             Evidence from Mr Wright, Southall Avenue

 

4.4(a) Mr Wright made the following points:

 

• The major problems with students involve noise and rubbish;

 

• There is also a problem with absentee landlords who do not upkeep their properties;

 

• Clear guidance from the council and from universities (particularly in terms of refuse collection dates etc) might help;

 

• Furniture is frequently dumped in the front gardens of student houses for long periods of time. More pressure should be placed on landlords to ensure that this does not happen;

 

• Stickers placed on rubbish bins (giving details of collection days) would be useful. (This was endorsed by other audience members).

 

4.5             Evidence from Anna Hunter, Hanover

 

4.5(a) Ms Hunter made the following points:

 

• There was a growing feeling amongst Hanover residents that problems associated with students had reached an unsustainable level and that things needed to change;

 

• Hanover residents recognised the value of a vibrant and mixed community which welcomed students, but feared that the mix of the community had become unbalanced;

 

• Residents (both students and long-terms residents) could make an effort to get to know their neighbours;

 

• Most students are reasonable enough, but a minority cause very major disturbances; the problem is particularly centred around the Phoenix Halls of Residence and surrounding streets;

 

• Noise is the biggest problem in Hanover; a fact recognised by many students themselves;

 

• There have been positive changes in recent months, with local pubs enforcing drinking inside after 10pm and less graffiti appearing;

 

• The ‘SSHH’ campaign has had some effect and is much appreciated by residents;

 

• It is not always clear who people should contact with noise/ASB complaints. In particular, council Environmental Health services need a clearer pathway for complaints and all council staff need to be aware of and able to refer into this pathway. Too often, council staff offer conflicting advice to complainants;

 

• The situation at Phoenix Hall could be improved by Brighton University ensuring that: two security officers are present (and on duty) at nights (one officer cannot police the entire Halls effectively); that residents do not play loud music with their windows open; that more of an effort is taken to remind residents of the need to be considerate to neighbours; that firmer action (including academic sanction) is taken against persistent troublemakers.

 

4.6             Evidence from Trevor Wood, Coldean Residents’ Association   

 

4.6(a) Mr Wood made the following points:

• That students are normal people, often living away from home for the first time, and shouldn’t be blamed for everything;

 

• Giving houses with 5 or 6 adults a wheelie bin the same size as that allocated to normal households does not make sense, as there is inevitably more rubbish produced than the bin can hold (which means the extra rubbish goes in black bags which are then pecked open by seagulls etc.);

 

• There are problems which CityClean needs to address, such as unacceptably long waits for recycling boxes and CityClean operatives who refuse to pick up recycling which hasn’t been left in precisely the correct place. Such actions tend to discourage students from recycling when the council should be working hard to encourage them;

 

• In terms of noise problems, the Residents’ Association makes a point of obtaining landlord details whenever possible and contacts landlords should problems arise. This is an effective way of dealing with noise nuisance;

 

• Members of the Resident’s Association make a point of welcoming new students to the area and trying to work together with them to address any problems which might arise (advising people where they should park etc.);

 

• There should be a cap on HMOs, and the universities must take some responsibility for housing their students;

 

• Coldean is a community which welcomes students, but it is also a pleasant area for families to live and it is very important that the family nature of the area is not lost through an excess of student housing.

 

4.7             Evidence from Richa Kaul-Padte, Sussex University Students’ Union

 

4.7(a) Ms Kaul-Padte made the following points:

 

• There is a tendency to view all problems associated with young people sharing houses as being student related, but by no means all young people in shared accommodation are in fact students;

 

• Sussex University houses nearly all its 1^st year students on campus (or students live with their families);

 

• There are also large numbers of part time and mature students who do not necessarily fit the stereotype of students;

 

• There should be a properly functioning accreditation system for landlords, to ensure that student housing is of an acceptable standard: both in terms of the quality of accommodation which students should expect to find, and in terms of the impact of student housing on the broader community (e.g. landlords should be discouraged from using conservatories as living spaces);

 

• The council should work together with the universities and the Students’ Union on refuse and recycling issues in order to encourage student recycling;

 

• Students should be seen as part of the local community; students do lots of volunteering and do make practical contributions to community cohesion;

 

• Landlords and Lettings Agents could do much more in terms of refuse/recycling – ensuring that students have up to date information, advising on bulk waste disposal etc,

 

4.8             Evidence from Gillian Fleming, Hanover

 

4.8(a) Ms Fleming made the following points:

 

• That she does not feel the universities do enough to tackle problems caused by students – particularly in terms of noise;

 

• That Phoenix Halls of Residence is a particular source of problems, with more needing to be done by Brighton University to minimise the disruption caused to local residents (for example by placing tighter controls on students congregating on the ‘podium’ at night-time);

 

• That many students are very pleasant, but the annual churn of people in and out of student housing means that developing good relations with neighbours does not necessarily provide a permanent solution to neighbour problems.

 

4.9             Evidence from Tanya, former student

 

4.9(a) Tanya made the following points:

 

• Universities are in a ‘catch-22’ situation with regard to student accommodation: if they build halls of residence, they risk being accused of concentrating noise/ASB problems; if they rely upon private sector housing across the community, they risk being accused of not addressing the problem of housing their students;

 

• Universities can only fund new halls by increasing the student intake (which means increasing the future number of 2^nd and 3^rd year students seeking privately rented accommodation);

 

• Brighton University has no campus; it therefore has no option but to build halls in densely populated residential areas;

 

• A restriction on HMOs/student houses would only work if there was sufficient non-student demand (e.g. from young professionals) to replace students in particular areas. The risk would be that such restrictions would lead to empty homes;

 

• The ‘problem’ of students in the community may not be amenable to a single ‘big-fix’, but rather to a number of small scale interventions on issues such as refuse, recycling etc.

 

4.10         Evidence from Tom Wills, near Lewes Road

 

4.10(a) Mr Wills made the following points:

 

• He was shocked to hear of the behaviour of some students: such behaviour is by no means universal;

 

• In his experience local residents have been very reasonable and patient with students;

 

• Many students could manage quite happily without cars; perhaps the Students’ Union could do more here to promote public transport;

 

• More campus accommodation is needed at the University of Sussex, particularly for 2^nd and 3^rd year students who would prefer to remain on-campus;

 

• Campus accommodation must be affordable; recent campus building has focused on the ‘luxury’ end of the student market (with en suites etc.) and such accommodation is beyond the means of many students;

 

• There is a basic lack of supply of student accommodation in the city; this means that landlords are not encouraged to bring rental properties up to an acceptable standard as they know that demand outstrips supply and that they will therefore find people who have no option other than to rent from them.

 

4.11    Evidence from Julia Pilgrim, Hanover                                            

 

4.11(a) Ms Pilgrim made the following points:

 

• Noise is a major problem, even when the degree of noise does not reach a level at which Environmental Health (EH) services can take action;

 

• Noise problems are not just about students; non-students living in shared accommodation can cause just as many problems;

 

• Not all students cause problems; it’s very much a minority;

 

• If the universities’ contracts with students include sanctions for persistent ASB, then these should be enforced. If no such sanctions exist, they should be introduced;

 

• Noise can be very frightening: it’s not just an issue of inconveniencing people;

 

• Preston Barracks should be considered as a possible site for dedicated student accommodation;

 

• A central point of contact for student-related problems (for people complaining about student behaviour, but also for students to use) would help, but only if it had real ‘teeth’;

 

• Given the size of local universities, they should really do more to manage their students’ behaviour;

 

• Before EH will act on a noise problem, they require the perpetrator’s exact address. Obtaining this information can be frightening, as it may involve going out on one’s own in the early hours and possibly encountering the people who are making the noise who may well have been drinking heavily/taking drugs.

 

4.12    Evidence from Adam, Sussex University

 

4.12(a) Adam made the following points:

 

• That if city public transport was more affordable, fewer students might keep cars. As it is, it can be considerably cheaper to drive across the city than to take a bus;

 

• Students do not need to be singled out for special treatment: ASB should be treated as such whether students are its perpetrators or not;

 

• The universities have barred one landlord from advertising on their property lists, but that landlord is still doing business in the city, so it is not clear what effective sanction the universities actually have to ensure their students are housed by responsible landlords.

 

4.13         Evidence from Sam, Brighton University

 

4.13(a) Sam made the following points:

 

• He lives in Hanover and loves the area; he feels part of the community;

 

• Students should be encouraged to take an active role in the community, particularly in terms of engaging with Residents’ Associations. This would help integrate students with long term residents and provide a means to address minor niggles before they escalate;

 

• The National Union of Students is currently running a Neighbourhood Pride campaign to encourage students to engage with their communities;

 

• Brighton University currently runs the SSHH campaign (silent students, happy homes);

 

• Housing density and inappropriate conversions of homes are essentially planning issues and the city council should take responsibility for them;

 

• Brighton University employs a full-time officer to liaise between the university and local communities.