[ad_1]
Settling in at university can be difficult for students – so the last thing they need is to arrive and find they have nowhere to live. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened up and down the country this year, not least for more than 200 University of Portsmouth students.
Two days before our students were due to move in they were told their new private development was not ready. Could they stay at home for the first few weeks of term?
Most students could not, so we had to find them temporary accommodation. Unfortunately, as the accommodation provider hadn’t put contingency plans in place, insufficient places were available. About one-fifth were “released” from their contracts and made homeless. In at least 54 cases, the housing provider hadn’t even signed the contracts yet, leaving our students with no rights.
Students started to move in gradually from mid-October but it was only at the end of December – four months after the original move-in date – that all the rooms were available.
Despite this, there are still no common areas, sometimes the lifts don’t work, and hot water availability is a challenge. Students have had a dreadful experience, and I know that it has affected the wellbeing and mental health of more than a few.
Our problems are far from unique – more than 20 private student developments were late this year – and they illustrate a much deeper problem: the rise of private student accommodation providers which often have no agreement of any form with a student’s university.
This matters because the private student accommodation sector is expanding. In 2014 two-thirds of halls of residences were provided by universities. Last year the private sector controlled more than 50% of the market. Private sector accommodation is also more expensive, estimated at 22% annually (excluding London).
Accommodation is students’ biggest single outlay, and parents subsidise it substantially. Some students take a second job. The taxpayer also pays: students are expected to default on a percentage of their student debt, some of which will be made up of living costs.
City skylines are increasingly silhouetted with high-rise student accommodation, and local residents notice how much faster these buildings go up than affordable housing. People don’t blame universities or students but it does reinforce a sense of neglect, particularly in left-behind places.
Student accommodation affects several policy areas: the student experience and mental health, the cost and value for money of universities, and the impact of institutions on their local area. These effects will only intensify.
The number of 18-year-olds is increasing. By 2030 it is predicted that there will need to be 300,000 more university places in England alone. This would require a lot of high-rise student accommodation and a significant taxpayer subsidy for private companies.
But mention this to policymakers and their eyes glaze over. The ideologues are not interested, as they only want stories that directly criticise universities, and the rest mumble about a lack of “policy levers”. Universities are left to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.
As taxpayer-backed loans are the main source of income for private student accommodation providers, it is surprising that the government does not recognise that it wields huge power. It could beef up regulation so that students cannot be left without effective rights when things go wrong, specify minimum contract requirements, and give the Office for Students powers to regulate accommodation providers.
The government could also change the planning rules that make it easier and cheaper to build student accommodation than affordable housing. It could require a minimum number of affordable homes for every high-rise student block.
On cost, imagination is needed. The government sets a maximum tuition fee; it could do so for rent. Local or national government could build student accommodation themselves or in partnership with universities. The rental income would be a transfer of taxpayers’ money from one part of the government to another, while future government coffers would be buoyed by ownership of appreciating assets.
Whatever the best mix of solutions, this is an expensive problem that needs to be addressed. Does the government have the appetite to use its power? I assure ministers that I, and many of my vice-chancellor colleagues, stand ready to provide whatever support and input they need.
[ad_2]
READ SOURCE
