Student home solution

York Press: Student home solution Student home solution

The current administration of City of York claim that we need to build 22,000 new homes over the next 15 years in order to provide for York’s growth, social housing needs and to help young professionals be able to afford to buy.

On my way to work each day for the past few weeks I have been amazed by the sight of the rows and rows of student letting boards on houses in Milton Street, Nicholas St, Lansdown Terrace and Granville Terrace. Almost every other house has one.

In just these four streets there are 50 to 60 student letting properties. These are the type of properties that young professionals and young families could afford to buy, to get onto the property ladder, to live in the city in which they work.

Surely there is a relatively straightforward solution to this?

Make the universities responsible for providing accommodation for ALL their students, if private companies can build ‘halls of residence’ in the city and make a profit then so could the university. If the universities built sufficient accommodation, on and off campus, and charged sensible rents this would reduce the attractiveness of HMOs and student-filled buy-to-lets as money earners for private landlords.

Matthew Clements, Langwith Lane, Heslington, York.

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:02am Sat 15 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

Either way; 22,000 new homes, or additional purpose built accommodation it boils down to the same thing surely? - BUILDING. All the letters along this line ignore the fact that students are adults spending their "own" money and will choose where to live and in what sort of accommodation. Even if it were possible to compel them to live where it suits everybody else where do you stop? Stipulating a widow/er or single person has no right to a so called "family home" or compelling an employer to build a house for every new worker? We already have the situation now that it is very unlikely any more homes in the vicinity of the uni will be used by students following the Article 4 declaration of a couple of years ago by CoYC, and if there is not a continuous ongoing use, the deemed permission through historical use lapses.

I wonder if any of the letter writers on this subject do any research or try to understand what is actually happening. Neither do they have any wish to spoil their theory that it is all the fault of students/landlords, what about the impact on the York housing market due to the enormous rise in the fortunes of Leeds and the major road upgrade of the late 1990s? The same problems are affecting the whole country, particularly the south east. Instead of sniping at who has robbed whom, surely it would be better to acknowledge that everyone as an individual needs decent accommodation, and we either reduce demand which can only be by having less people needing accommodation or using what we have at greater density. Student housing certainly conforms with the latter, and as I have posted before - what sort of mess would we be in if most of the 23 year olds were paired off with a couple of kids as in previous decades?
Either way; 22,000 new homes, or additional purpose built accommodation it boils down to the same thing surely? - BUILDING. All the letters along this line ignore the fact that students are adults spending their "own" money and will choose where to live and in what sort of accommodation. Even if it were possible to compel them to live where it suits everybody else where do you stop? Stipulating a widow/er or single person has no right to a so called "family home" or compelling an employer to build a house for every new worker? We already have the situation now that it is very unlikely any more homes in the vicinity of the uni will be used by students following the Article 4 declaration of a couple of years ago by CoYC, and if there is not a continuous ongoing use, the deemed permission through historical use lapses. I wonder if any of the letter writers on this subject do any research or try to understand what is actually happening. Neither do they have any wish to spoil their theory that it is all the fault of students/landlords, what about the impact on the York housing market due to the enormous rise in the fortunes of Leeds and the major road upgrade of the late 1990s? The same problems are affecting the whole country, particularly the south east. Instead of sniping at who has robbed whom, surely it would be better to acknowledge that everyone as an individual needs decent accommodation, and we either reduce demand which can only be by having less people needing accommodation or using what we have at greater density. Student housing certainly conforms with the latter, and as I have posted before - what sort of mess would we be in if most of the 23 year olds were paired off with a couple of kids as in previous decades? Mulgrave

1:25pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Rocking Horse says...

Lets be clear about what York actually needs, and what the Labour (marxist) council want, shall we - both are different.

York does not need 22,000 new homes in the next 15 years, and it will not get them. There is insufficient capacity in the housebuilding sector to grow output to achieve the 1,090 dwellings per year the council have set as it's target.

The council's draft Local Plan uses inflated population growth figures to justify both the target, and the allocation of an excessive amount of green belt land. Labour want to maximise social housing by flooding York with cheap green belt land.

It's a cheat, and they know it. So does the Planning Inspector who allowed the Grain Store site to go ahead with no affordable (social) housing. The Local Plan, like the council's pie in the sky housing target, is doomed to fail.
Lets be clear about what York actually needs, and what the Labour (marxist) council want, shall we - both are different. York does not need 22,000 new homes in the next 15 years, and it will not get them. There is insufficient capacity in the housebuilding sector to grow output to achieve the 1,090 dwellings per year the council have set as it's target. The council's draft Local Plan uses inflated population growth figures to justify both the target, and the allocation of an excessive amount of green belt land. Labour want to maximise social housing by flooding York with cheap green belt land. It's a cheat, and they know it. So does the Planning Inspector who allowed the Grain Store site to go ahead with no affordable (social) housing. The Local Plan, like the council's pie in the sky housing target, is doomed to fail. Rocking Horse

9:32pm Sun 16 Feb 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Either way; 22,000 new homes, or additional purpose built accommodation it boils down to the same thing surely? - BUILDING. All the letters along this line ignore the fact that students are adults spending their "own" money and will choose where to live and in what sort of accommodation. Even if it were possible to compel them to live where it suits everybody else where do you stop? Stipulating a widow/er or single person has no right to a so called "family home" or compelling an employer to build a house for every new worker? We already have the situation now that it is very unlikely any more homes in the vicinity of the uni will be used by students following the Article 4 declaration of a couple of years ago by CoYC, and if there is not a continuous ongoing use, the deemed permission through historical use lapses.

I wonder if any of the letter writers on this subject do any research or try to understand what is actually happening. Neither do they have any wish to spoil their theory that it is all the fault of students/landlords, what about the impact on the York housing market due to the enormous rise in the fortunes of Leeds and the major road upgrade of the late 1990s? The same problems are affecting the whole country, particularly the south east. Instead of sniping at who has robbed whom, surely it would be better to acknowledge that everyone as an individual needs decent accommodation, and we either reduce demand which can only be by having less people needing accommodation or using what we have at greater density. Student housing certainly conforms with the latter, and as I have posted before - what sort of mess would we be in if most of the 23 year olds were paired off with a couple of kids as in previous decades?
I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with the letter or criticising it?

Building 10, 300+ unit student accommodation blocks (some of which are already planned) could release 1000 houses back onto the market which covers both of your final points: less people needing accommodation and higher density usage.

The letter doesn't criticise students or landlords. it suggests the universities provide suitable accommodation reducing the demands on the York housing stock.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: Either way; 22,000 new homes, or additional purpose built accommodation it boils down to the same thing surely? - BUILDING. All the letters along this line ignore the fact that students are adults spending their "own" money and will choose where to live and in what sort of accommodation. Even if it were possible to compel them to live where it suits everybody else where do you stop? Stipulating a widow/er or single person has no right to a so called "family home" or compelling an employer to build a house for every new worker? We already have the situation now that it is very unlikely any more homes in the vicinity of the uni will be used by students following the Article 4 declaration of a couple of years ago by CoYC, and if there is not a continuous ongoing use, the deemed permission through historical use lapses. I wonder if any of the letter writers on this subject do any research or try to understand what is actually happening. Neither do they have any wish to spoil their theory that it is all the fault of students/landlords, what about the impact on the York housing market due to the enormous rise in the fortunes of Leeds and the major road upgrade of the late 1990s? The same problems are affecting the whole country, particularly the south east. Instead of sniping at who has robbed whom, surely it would be better to acknowledge that everyone as an individual needs decent accommodation, and we either reduce demand which can only be by having less people needing accommodation or using what we have at greater density. Student housing certainly conforms with the latter, and as I have posted before - what sort of mess would we be in if most of the 23 year olds were paired off with a couple of kids as in previous decades?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with the letter or criticising it? Building 10, 300+ unit student accommodation blocks (some of which are already planned) could release 1000 houses back onto the market which covers both of your final points: less people needing accommodation and higher density usage. The letter doesn't criticise students or landlords. it suggests the universities provide suitable accommodation reducing the demands on the York housing stock. What-a-joke-they-are

10:56pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

Balance is key, purpose built is fine for those who want to be in that type of accomodation, and are prepared to pay what are mostly premium prices. The new blocks will house the additional numbers as the uni grows, but there will always be demand for houses, however many new blocks are built.

Build too many though and have empty flats which won't appeal to non students would be the price of getting the balance wrong.
Balance is key, purpose built is fine for those who want to be in that type of accomodation, and are prepared to pay what are mostly premium prices. The new blocks will house the additional numbers as the uni grows, but there will always be demand for houses, however many new blocks are built. Build too many though and have empty flats which won't appeal to non students would be the price of getting the balance wrong. Mulgrave

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree