I’m just back from a week away and disgusted by some of the emails I have received about a planning application in East Oxford. Clearly there is a campaign going on and a standard email has been circulated. I quote some phrases repeated in many of them:
“from my many years of experience of the growing numbers of students in the East Oxford area they are incapable of talking quietly or without using offensive language in every sentence that leaves their mouths along with continuously playing loud music.”
“The student population is increasing to unbearable amounts already in this area and they do not need any further encouragement or welcoming into our community because they bring nothing positive.”
“Our community is being destroyed and controlled by the universities and their students.”
Well I’m sorry but I completely disagree with all of that. It is full of gross generalisations and is frankly offensive to the many people in Oxford who are students or staff at either of its world-class Universities. To say students bring nothing positive is utter nonsense – how do people think local business remain viable and vibrant? I don’t just mean bars either – I mean buses, restaurants, supermarkets, local shops and much more. How many people in Oxford would become unemployed if out two Universities disappeared? I would, as would the leader of the council and many thousands more local people. The other thing to consider is that if purpose-built student accommodation is provided then this reduces pressure on more conventional housing that could then be used for families and other social groupings. In principle I think purpose-built student accommodation is a vital part of the accommodation mix in Oxford and the more of it we can have (so long as it is appropriate in scale, site etc.) the more we will reduce the massive housing pressure Oxford suffers.
On this particular planning application I will retain an open mind – there may be reasons to refuse it if it gets called in and there may not. As chair of Planning Review Committee I’ll have to study it more carefully. But I can say this without any doubt: I will not be making any decision in either direction just because this is accommodation intended for students. To do so would show complete disregard for planning law and would be frankly stupid.
The language I have read in emails sounds horribly like the racism of the 60s, the homophobia of the 80s and the sexism of the 70s. I wonder – would people oppose an afro-Caribbean resource and advice centre, or an LGBT resource and advice centre, on that site with such gross and frankly disgusting generalisations. They might find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they did.
You make fair points about the contribution of students but do you know what ‘vitriol’ actually means? The comments you quote are anti-student for sure, but they’re hardly vitriolic. They may even contain a kernel of truth: sometimes students are extremely foul-mouthed, not understanding that the language you use in public and the language you use in private may not be the same if you wish to extend courtesy to the diversity of sensibilities you’re likely to encounter on any street. In talking of ‘anti-student vitriol’ you are enhancing rather than defusing the ‘them and us’ division between town and gown; a little acknowledgement of the downside of a large student population and dominant culture it can project would probably go a long way with some of your voters.
Dear Anna – yes, as a chemistry graduate I know that vitriol either means “neat sulphuric acid” or “bitterly abusive language”. I count the comments I quoted as the latter.
I am entirely happy with people criticising particular behaviours, particularly antisocial behaviours, but I will always strongly challenge any assumptions about behaviour that are based on people’s social grouping or any other status. It’s called prejudice and I abhor it. If people don’t like that then they are of course welcome to vote for someone else.
Personally I like living in an area with a large student population and feel it makes a very vibrant and economically thriving area. Anyone who lives in East Oxford and is surprised at the number of students in the area would do well to remember that Universities are hardly a new feature of our City, particularly the older one at 800 years or so!
[…] application is the one that was the subject of the nasty anti-student comments I posted about last month so I thought we ought to have a site visit to try to get a feel for the site and try to understand […]
Tony
Currently 45% of properties in my East Oxford Street are HMOs. From 30 January 2012 all houses that are occupied by three or more occupants who form more than one household will require an HMO license. As such we can expect the number of HMOs on my own East Oxford Street to be in excess of 75%.
Oxford City Council recommends that, for a balanced community, this number should not be in excess of 25% and many other reports suggest this should be nearer 10%.
What’s your view Tony? What’s the maximum percentage of HMOs that should be permitted?
I am getting rather tired of hearing, when I complain to (Mostly Brookes) students living in the HMOs down my street about being woken by shouting, midweek and Sunday night parties, about vomit and people peeing in the street, about broken glass and rubbish strewn everywhere, that I shouldn’t \live in a student street\.
Excessive student numbers in East Oxford, particularly in HMOs, and the associated anti-social behaviour problems this brings, is a serious and growing problem. I’d encourage you to take it seriously rather than dismiss those who raise concerns as expressing \anti-student sentiment\. I like students. I teach them. I am married to one. This has nothing to do with my being anti-student.
Ignoring the problem and poo-pooing concerns raised by people such as myself will only worsen relations between university and local residents. And landlords.
In reply to Stephen – sorry I’ve only just seen the post – well I have found in the past that if the only or first contact I have with any group of people is to complain then yes, the response is fairly negative. I think most of us would respond negatively if our neighbours only ever contacted us to complain.
I think communities can work well in any balance – the key to success is for residents of that community (and yes, students and other HMO-dwellers are residents too) to make the effort to get to know each other in a positive and welcoming way. We all have a responsibility there and I find it works extremely well in my street, also in East Oxford. Making sweeping generalisations about any group is not usually found to be the best way to to forge good relations. We wouldn’t dream of dictating the proportion of people from a particular ethnic group that should live in a street so I really don’t think we should dictate how many properties should be run as HMOs. Most people below about 30 years old in Oxford simply can’t afford to live in Oxford in any other way, other than in social housing. Why should they suffer just because people who have the luxury (or luck if they owned property before about 2000) of being able to live in houses they own don’t like it. It seems rather like 21st century apartheid to me! There is a reason why I am a Liberal Democrat. For me, being Liberal means encouraging people to get on and take responsibility for making positive efforts towards other people and what’s going on in their immediate neighbourhoods.
I am certainly not poo-pooing concerns but I am asking people to work to build communities rather than moaning about each other to other bodies. Trying to polarise situations rarely helps matters. As I said earlier – students are residents too. The Universities are as much part of our City as any other group within it. I simply do not agree with the statement in so many of the (clearly copied) emails that says: “Our community is being destroyed and controlled by the universities and their students.” Excuse me but the community is EVERYONE’s community – including students’. It’s as simple as that.
I was somewhat disappointed to get a call from the Oxford Mail today saying that some residents have contacted them because they are concerned about this blog post. Again – an attempt to polarise rather than reconcile. Why not just talk to me? All my contact details are on the blog.
I will of course support anyone who is trying to deal with antisocial behaviour from other Oxford residents but I absolutely will not make any assumptions about how someone might behave simply based on their current status in life.
Tony
This is disappointing. In effect, you’re dismissing people who report problems caused by student behaviour as moaners.
You’re also accusing people like myself of *assuming* that excessive students numbers have become a problem (endless parties, drunken behaviour, vomiting and urinating in street, shouting and swearing, noise, my kids being woken up repeatedly in the night, students telling us we should move out of a “student” area if we don’t like it, etc etc.) when we are simply *reporting* to you that excessive students numbers are causing such problems.
No one is ASSUMING that students are the overwhelming cause of antisocial behaviour problems in East Oxford. We KNOW they are. This is based on experience. Check the police stats for East Oxford in and out of term if you want some hard data. Residents are now compiling a database of antisocial behaviour problems in East Oxford to counter the kind of dismissive attitude we’re repeatedly coming up against, and which you are so very nicely illustrating here.
The main driver of all this is of course the Universities and landlords, who both have much to gain from the council’s to-date remarkably lax attitude to HMOs. It’s the rest of us that suffer.
But thanks at least for being clear about exactly what your position is on HMOs – no limit at all on their numbers.
I have plenty of friends who, like me, are in their late 20s, have jobs, but are unable to find rented accommodation in east Oxford. This is because the landlords can get more money by renting out a 3 bed house to 4 students (using the living room as an extra bedroom) rather than to 3 adults wanting to share a house and have a living room!
In reply to Stephen again: If HMOs are the only way that lots of people (like Jenny above) can afford to live in Oxford then restricting the number of HMOs will simply price such people out of Oxford. Is that what you want?
In reply to Jenny: Bad news is that the Labour Council will force your landlord to register as an HMO (unless any of you are related) from the end of January 2012 too so you’ll have just the same issues with people like Stephen not wanting “your type” around. HMO registration will apply across the board to any property (even a flat) with three or more unrelated people sharing it. How do you feel about that?
Tony
Pricing people out of Oxford? Let’s think about whose policies are doing that.
At the moment, house prices are inflated largely by the buy-to-let landlords who then pack in students as densely as possible. This has artificially pushed up house prices, meaning young families can’t afford to buy here anymore. They are being forced out of the area. Do you care about that, Tony?
But what’s really pricing people out of East Oxford is of course increased demand for HMOs. It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. Demand for HMOs has increased because student numbers have hugely increased, without adequate accommodation being provided for them elsewhere, such as on campus.
That, very clearly, is what’s pricing people out of cheaper accommodation in Oxford. Why don’t you do something about that? If this is something you genuinely care about (rather than, say, pandering only to the interests of landlords and the Universities, one of which is your employer)?
Your response to Jenny changes the subject to exactly how HMOs should be regulated. I’d argue that all HMOs should have a sitting room. That would solve the problem Jenny raises instantly, and also allow people like her to compete for those properties that they are being priced out of by landlords keen on packing students in as tightly as possible. Do you/will you support a compulsory sitting room, Tony?
OK – Sorry for the delay in replying.
1. If the supply of HMOs is cut drastically that will just unbalance the supply-demand situation even further.
2. I do not agree with insisting on living rooms as some tenants won’t want them and some houses have large open plan kitchen/dining/living areas. If you force landlords to keep another room not let they will just increase rent for the other tenants so the house still makes financial sense. This most certainly does not serve tenants. Houses are different and one set of rules definitely does not work for all.
3. I do not pander to anyone, I represent the interests of those who elected me and I make careful judgements on what I think is best for our City. Not everyone will agree with me all of the time!
4. I do care that young families are finding it hard to afford accommodation in Oxford but that’s a product of a desperate shortage of housing, largely brought about by successive governments’ (both Tory and Labour and now the Coalition) failures to build sufficient housing in our popular cities. It is true that the presence of the Universities puts extra pressure on housing but it is also adds a whole host of other benefits to our City including about 20% of its employment and a huge amount of wealth brought in that makes so many local business (often run by local people) financially viable throughout the year. It’s all a balance and I think artificially interfering with it is very dangerous and could have many unintended consequences, just as the current excessive regulation of professional top-quality HMOs in our City is having on that part of the market.
5. Stephen – would you prefer to live in a town/city with lots of families but no Universities, a far less healthy economy, few or no cultural activities and much higher unemployment? If so there are plenty of such towns around the UK.
Tony, you say:
[Stephen – would you prefer to live in a town/city with lots of families but no Universities, a far less healthy economy, few or no cultural activities and much higher unemployment? If so there are plenty of such towns around the UK.]
This is the logical fallacy known as false dilemma (it’s a classic politician’s ruse):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
[…] encouragement or welcoming into our community because they bring nothing positive” (See my previous blog post on […]