Ministers want to clamp down on houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) - homes rented by six or more unrelated people - as a part of a knee-jerk reaction to so-called ‘studentification'. Problems with anti-social behaviour have arisen around high concentrations of HMOs, drawing complaints from locals about litter, noise and towns becoming empty during holidays.
With a new consultation, the government is pressing ahead with measures to clear students out of residential areas. But immigrants, young professionals and others who rent HMOs will also be affected.
Property experts say that using planning laws to restrict HMOs will raise rents and drive out the students, young professionals and immigrants who rent them because they are affordable. Local businesses, particularly those which rely on student custom, also face being hit if students are driven out.
The move is also a wholesale contradiction of social integration policies, which the government have promoted to ensure that ‘sink estates' are not recreated.
The NUS has joined forces with property groups in condemning the plans as a ‘nimby's charter' which would create student ghettos and dictate where people live based on their income.
The British Property Federation, National Landlords Association, Residential Landlords Association, and NUS all say the proposals will not help and that similar moves failed in Northern Ireland.
The property industry wants a local management option to tackle the problems without further legislation. This could take into account local circumstances and offer a cost effective solution to the problem.
Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation, said: "You can't use the planning system for social engineering or to tackle anti-social behaviour. Only a tiny fraction of places suffer from a high concentrations of HMOs and using a broad brush approach to deal with different issues relating to anti-social behaviour makes no sense. It's vital that the property market is left flexible and we hope ministers will head our warnings and reconsider going down the legislative route.
Richard Price, director of operations, National Landlords Association, commented: "Planning is about buildings; homes are about people. Changing HMO planning regulations in order to allow small groups of vociferous local residents to discriminate against certain parts of the community is not helpful. Students, migrant workers and other people looking for affordable and more flexible accommodation are already a part of normal community life. Where there are problems, the current proposals would encourage local authorities to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut."
Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students added:"Students live and work within their communities and contribute hugely to their local areas through charity work and campaigning on local issues, not to mention the massive boost they give to the local economy. These proposals would marginalise students by forcing them to pay private companies to live in large ghettos away from the rest of the community. This would do nothing to improve community cohesion.
"We must also remember that it is not just students who live in HMOs. Many young professionals and migrant workers share houses - it is extremely foolish to propose that we displace all of these people in the middle of a housing crisis. It is critical that the Government takes a thoughtful and consultative approach to any problems that may have arisen in certain areas, rather than resorting to an ineffective headline-grabbing initiative."
