Leeds HMO Lobby

Home
What is a HMO?

The Lobby
Origins
Aims
Constitution
Members
Reports
Publications

Local Action
Developments
Policy Papers
Studentification in Leeds

National Action
Developments
Representations
Use Classes Order
HMO Licensing
Students & Community

National HMO Lobby

Contact
Leeds HMO Lobby
Links

Representation on
Leeds Metropolitan University’s
Proposed Development at Headingley Campus

1 Introduction Leeds HMO Lobby welcomes Leeds Met’s intent to consult on its proposal to develop student residential accommodation for approximately 500 students on the Headingley Campus. However, the Lobby is disappointed by the form the consultation has taken.
(a) The consultation provides no context within which the proposal might be assessed – for instance, what are the University’s long-term plans for teaching provision at its different sites? who is the accommodation intended for? and so on.
(b) The consultation form does not address the concerns of the community which is being consulted. Many of the benefits proposed are internal (to the Campus) rather than external, and the latter are problematic at least.
(c) In fact, if a respondent’s answer to the first question is ‘No’, there is nowhere else for them to go.
The Lobby therefore, representing a coalition of all the local community associations, raises here some of the concerns about Leeds Met’s proposal, from a range of perspectives.

2 Neighbour Perspective The most immediate concerns are of residents neighbouring the Campus, in the Beckett’s Park estate, around St Chad’s church, along Queenswood Drive, and other near neighbourhoods.
2.1 Demand for Student Houses: the consultation asserts unproblematically that “on campus accommodation will take students out of rented housing accommodation in the Headingley area, releasing existing housing for more general use.” This is indeed one possible outcome, but no evidence is offered that this will be the case. A second possible scenario is that the development will make very little difference. A third scenario is that it will actually exacerbate the situation. Leeds Met’s pioneering developments at Kirkstall Brewery and Sugarwell Court have generated local student colonies, which would not otherwise be there.
2.2 Demand for Car Parking Space: the consultation tells us that “additional on campus car parking is provided to cater for residential students. This will further reduce student on street car parking in the Headingley area.” Clarification is needed. This provision will of course attract more cars to an already congested area. If the provision is insufficient, overflow will impact on neighbouring streets. The Lobby understands that the development will in fact displace existing parking space for staff.
2.3 Foot Traffic: the consultation asserts that on-campus accommodation “will reduce people movements to and from campus.” But this is true only for attendance at classes. Unless residents are confined to the campus 24 hours a day, seven days a week, then necessarily they will be moving in and out of campus, out of hours, in the evenings and at weekends.

3 Community Perspective The impact of student accommodation is exacerbated if this accommodation is at the expense of family homes. But it is recognised that the fundamental problem in & around Headingley is the population imbalance, regardless of the accommodation.
3.1 Population Balance: the proposal will not increase the population diversity of the community – it will either be unaffected, or made worse. A wide range of literature has drawn attention to the detrimental social impact of polarisation. The effects are further exaggerated when that polarisation is towards a demographic which is young, seasonal, and above all, transient.
3.2 Economy: suburban economies like Headingley’s struggle to survive. Their viability is undermined when their markets are seasonal, and when these markets reduce diversity. The proposal will reinforce the seasonal and polarised market locally.
3.3 Night-time Economy: a particular consequence of the polarisation of the population of Headingley has been the conversion of central Headingley into an extension of the city-centre night-time economy, alienating local residents. The proposal will support this trend.

4 City Perspective The expansion of higher education in Leeds has generated imbalance, in the population of Inner NW Leeds, and in the distribution of student housing throughout the city. A range of city-wide strategies has been developed to address these imbalances. But the proposal for an additional 500 student beds in Headingley is contrary to all of these.
4.1 University of Leeds, Housing Strategy (2004): Section 15, Working with Leeds Metropolitan University, Overarching aims: “The University of Leeds and Leeds Metropolitan University ... recognise and support initiatives to restrict the growth of student housing in residential areas of Leeds where imbalance has occurred, particularly in the Headingley and Hyde Park communities” (p25).
4.2 Leeds City Council, Unitary Development Plan (revised, 2006): “POLICY H15, WITHIN THE AREA OF HOUSING MIX PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR HOUSING INTENDED FOR OCCUPATION BY STUDENTS, OR FOR THE ALTERATION, EXTENSION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF ACCOMMODATION CURRENTLY SO OCCUPIED WHERE ... [here, five criteria are specified]; POLICY H15A, THE COUNCIL WILL WORK WITH THE UNIVERSITIES AND WITH ACCOMMODATION PROVIDERS TO PROMOTE STUDENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER AREAS BY IDENTIFYING AND BRINGING FORWARD FOR DEVELOPMENT SITES THAT WOULD SATISFY THE [five] CRITERIA SET OUT BELOW.”
4.3 Leeds City Council, Shared Housing Group, Shared Housing Action Plan (revised, 2006): “Objectives: (1) To increase the sustainability of Inner North West Leeds; (2) To reduce the number of students in full-time education accommodated within the Area of Housing Mix as a proportion of the population, by the Census in 2011; (3) To increase the proportion of students in full-time education accommodated outside Area of Housing Mix by 2011.”

5 Conclusion Leeds HMO Lobby recognises that the universities can be an asset to the city of Leeds. But all stakeholders in higher education in Leeds themselves recognise that this also entails costs, which have to be managed, hence the establishment of the Shared Housing Group in 2001. Leeds Met’s proposal to develop student residential accommodation for approximately 500 students on the Headingley Campus is particularly untimely. The city and the community have been working long and hard to redress the balance in & around Headingley. The current academic year has seen the first real signs of movement towards a sustainable balance in the community. But there is still a long road to travel. So it is particularly inopportune for Leeds Met to choose this moment to propose more student accommodation in Headingley.

Leeds HMO Lobby, 4 December 2006

07/01373/FU/NW, Carnegie College, LS6 3QP

I write to object to planning application 07/01373/FU/NW by Leeds Metropolitan University for the erection of 23 cluster flats in 4 blocks with 483 bedrooms, a new conference wing with residential accommodation and the laying out of 2 car parking areas with 115 car parking spaces, at Carnegie College, Church Wood Avenue, West Park, Leeds LS6 3QP. I write on behalf of Leeds HMO Lobby, an association of all the associations in Inner NW Leeds concerned with the balance of our community. The Lobby considers that the application is contrary to local amenity, local policy and local strategy.

The application would be detrimental to the amenity of residents neighbouring the Beckett's Park Campus of Leeds Met (in the Beckett’s Park estate, around St Chad’s church, along Queenswood Drive, and other near neighbourhoods) in a number of ways. First of all, by providing nearly 500 beds, it makes the Campus an intensive focus of student accommodation. In the past, similar intensities have served to attract students to the neighbouring area - either as a result of students leaving the accommodation, and settling nearby in familiar territory; or by encouraging friends to gravitate to the area (for instance, around Kirkstall Brewery or around Sugarwell Court in Meanwood). (Other scenarios are possible, see below; the Lobby would like to know what measures are to be taken to prevent a scenario which has already developed elsewhere?) The consequence will be yet more loss of family homes in the neighbourhood to seasonal second homes for students.

Secondly, car parking generated by students attending the campus was for long a problem for local residents, and a Residents Parking Zone was eventually introduced. But this Zone is effective only during normal class times. The application offers accommodation for 500 - but car parking for less than a quarter of these, who will be seeking parking all day, every day. Conventional wisdom says that generally students don't bring cars to Leeds - but local experience shows this to be a nonsense (and recent research has shown that student houses have twice the car ownership of the city average). The consequence will be intense pressure for on-street parking in the neighbourhood - but Policy H15 (iv) of the UDP requires, in any student housing development, that 'satisfactory provision would be made for car parking.'

Thirdly, campus accommodation is often cited as ecological, as it reduces commuting to classes. But this overlooks the fact that students do not remain permanently on campus. Unless the 500 occupants of the proposed accommodation are confined to the campus 24 hours a day, seven days a week, then necessarily they will be moving in and out of campus, out of hours, in the evenings and at weekends. The consequence will be increased foot traffic and disturbance of residents - but Policy H15 (ii) requires that 'there would be no unacceptable effects on neighbours' living conditions, including through increased activity.'

Fourth, a particular consequence of the general polarisation of the population of Headingley (which the application will aggravate) has been the conversion of central Headingley into an extension of the city-centre night-time economy, alienating local residents. The proposal will support this trend, and its consequent antisocial behaviour, which will impact especially on residents neighbouring the campus. But Policy H15 (ii) requires also that 'there would be no unacceptable effects on neighbours' living conditions, including through ... noise and disturbance.'

The application is evidently contrary to local planning policy. A fifth objection furthermore is that the application is contrary in general to Policy H15 of the revised UDP. Policy H15 as originally proposed prohibited any new student halls in the area; in the Review, this prohibition was removed in favour of more general restraint. The preamble now states that the Council will consider purpose-built student housing on certain conditions. These are "[a] that [it] will improve the total stock of student accommodation, [b] relieve pressure on conventional housing and [c] assist in regenerating areas in decline or at risk of decline." None of these conditions applies here. (a) The proposal adds to 'the total stock of student accommodation', but there is no way in which it improves the stock, which is already very diverse. (b) The Lobby argues that there is no clear evidence at all that the development will 'relieve pressure on conventional housing' and it could well have exactly the reverse effect [see objection one above and objection eight below]. And (c) it makes no contribution at all to regeneration - in fact, if anything, it is likely to lead to degeneration. The application meets none of the relevant conditions.

There is a sixth objection. Policy H15A provides that "the Council will work with the universities and with accommodation providers to promote student housing developments in other areas." It has to be born in mind that student housing is provided in a market context, indeed it is precisley this market which has ruined our neighbourhood. New provision has to address this same market. The more purpose-built student housing that is provided within the popular areas, the less viable is new provision elsewhere. But this is exactly what the application proposes. The application therefore is contrary to the intent of Policy H15A.

The application is contrary, not only to the letter of planning policy, but also to its spirit - or to local strategy on housing in & around Headingley. This is spelled out in the Revised UDP, a dedicated committee has been established by the Council to implement the strategy, the Shared Housing Group, and this Group has adopted a revised Shared Housing Action Plan (SHAP2) in order to do so.

The Revised UDP is very clear that "the population overall is out of balance and that action is needed to ensure a sustainable community" (para 7.6.28), and the first objective of SHAP2 is "to increase the sustainability of Inner North West Leeds." It is clearly recognised therefore that the fundamental problem in & around Headingley is the population imbalance (regardless of the accommodation). The present application will not increase the population diversity of the community – it will either be unaffected (at best), or made worse. A wide range of literature has drawn attention to the detrimental social impact of polarisation. The effects are further exaggerated when that polarisation is towards a demographic which is young, seasonal, and above all, transient. The effects in & around Headingley are the most extreme in the country. They impact on our society, our environment and our economy. Four primary schools have recently closed in the area, and isolation of the elderly is the most severe in the city. Squalor permeates the neighbourhood during term time. Suburban economies like Headingley’s struggle to survive - their viability is undermined when their markets are seasonal, and when these markets reduce diversity. A seventh objection therefore is that the proposal will undermine the sustainability of Headingley's communities.

This impact has been recognised by the universities themselves. In its Housing Strategy (2004), the University of Leeds wrote: “The University of Leeds and Leeds Metropolitan University ... recognise and support initiatives to restrict the growth of student housing in residential areas of Leeds where imbalance has occurred, particularly in the Headingley and Hyde Park communities” (Section 15, Working with Leeds Metropolitan University, Overarching Aims, p25). It has been argued that on-campus accommodation could take students out of rented housing accommodation in the Headingley area, releasing existing housing for more general use. This is a naive assumption [which has also been made in the Report on the new Kirkstall District Centre, 24/572/05/OT]. It is indeed one possible outcome, but no evidence is offered that this will be the case. A second possible scenario is that the development will make very little difference - Unipol argues that there is a basic proportion of student occupants who have no intention of leaving their shared houses. A third scenario is that it will actually exacerbate the situation - Leeds Met’s pioneering developments at Kirkstall Brewery and Sugarwell Court have generated local student colonies, which would not otherwise be there (as noted in objection one above). More fundamentally, there is no guarantee that students will move out of HMOs - they might equally move out of other purpose-built accommodation (further away) and over to Beckett's Park, as being more convenient. The second objective of SHAP2 is "to reduce the number of students in full-time education accommodated within the Area of Housing Mix as a proportion of the population, by the Census in 2011." An eighth objection then is that the application is actually contrary to this intent in local housing strategy [to which, Leeds Met is supposedly a signatory].

The Lobby has a final, ninth objection. The expansion of higher education in Leeds has generated imbalance, in the population of Inner NW Leeds, and in the distribution of student housing throughout the city. A range of city-wide strategies has been developed to address these imbalances. But the proposal for an additional 500 student beds in Headingley is contrary to all of these. Leeds HMO Lobby recognises that the universities can be an asset to the city of Leeds. But all stakeholders in higher education in Leeds themselves recognise that this also entails costs, which have to be managed, hence the establishment of the Shared Housing Group in 2001. Leeds Met’s proposal to develop student residential accommodation for approximately 500 students on the Headingley Campus is particularly untimely. The city and the community have been working long and hard to redress the balance in & around Headingley. The current academic year has seen the first real signs of movement towards a sustainable balance in the community. But there is still a long road to travel. In the mean time, progress remains in the balance. Community and Council resist further deterioration in the situation, but pressure continues from developers at all levels - and Leeds Met is now one of these. It is particularly inopportune to choose this moment to propose more student accommodation in Headingley. Approval of the present application would have profound significance for the future of the whole of Inner NW Leeds.

In view of all these objections, Leeds HMO Lobby, its member organisations and their individual resident members, urge Plans Panel West to REFUSE the application by Leeds Metropolitan University for the erection of purpose-built student accommodation on their Beckett's Park Campus.

(Dr) Richard Tyler, Co-ordinator, Leeds HMO Lobby
23 April 2007

Leeds HMO Lobby
email: hmolobby@hotmail.com website: www.hmolobby.org.uk/leeds