| |
National
HMO
Lobby
Home
What is a HMO?
Local HMO Plans
Ten Point Plan
Lobby
Aims
Constitution
Members
Regions
History
Papers
Leeds HMO Lobby
Lobbying
National Developments
Sustainable Communities
Use Classes Order
HMO Licensing
Taxation of HMOs
Students & Community
Contact
National HMO Lobby
Links
|
|
Students in the Private
Rented Sector
Briefing Bulletin
Selected from David Rhodes (University of York),
The Modern Private Rented Sector, Chartered Institute of
Housing (for Joseph Rowntree Foundation), October 2006
The study is based on data from the Census 2001.
History of the PRS The role of the private rented
sector (PRS) in housing in the UK has changed enormously in the
last century – from 90% of the stock a hundred years ago to
10% now [p8]. Four sub-sectors are identified – private landlords,
employers, relatives, and ‘others’ [p4]. The PRS now
fulfils five main roles – traditional (people who
have been renting for years), easy access (young, mobile
people – including students), employment, residual
(those who can’t access social renting or owning) and escape
(from social renting) [pp12-13].
Geography of the PRS Regionally, the PRS is largest
in London (16%), and smallest in Scotland (8%) [p16]. In individual
local authorities (LAs), it was large in London, of course, also
in coastal towns (Brighton 22%, Blackpool 18%, Southampton 17%)
and university towns, especially Oxford and Cambridge (22% each)
[p21]. Most of the PRS (80%) is rented from private landlords. The
proportion is highest in London, and in some coastal and university
towns – for instance, Liverpool, Brighton, Manchester and
Southampton (all 91%), Nottingham and Hull (89%), Blackpool and
Leicester (88%) [p19].
Properties in the PRS Student accommodation in
the PRS tends to be better quality than average – for instance,
only 5.7% lacked central heating (compared with an average of 17.4%
in the PRS) [p41].
People in the PRS “The PRS was clearly the
most youthful of tenures.” 15% of all Household Reference
Persons (HRPs, formerly ‘head of household’) were aged
16-24, compared with 4% of all households [p43]. “Not surprisingly,
the greatest levels of private renting HRPs aged between 16 and
24 were frequently to be found in some of the principal university
towns. There were eight local authority areas in which the proportion
of such HRPs exceeded three-tenths of the entire sector: Leeds (34.2%),
Durham (33.7%), Nottingham (32.8%), Sheffield (32.5%), Cardiff (31.4%),
Aberdeen (30.7), Southampton (30.5%), and Newcastle upon Tyne (30.2%)”
[p45].
“[Full-time students] were ... over-represented within the
PRS (15.6%) [the figure for all tenures is 6.5%], and [not surprisingly]
particularly within the ‘other’ type of landlord sub-sector
(26.1%), which includes landlords that were higher educational institutions.
There was also a relatively high proportion of full-time students
renting from a relative or friend, which is likely to have included
landlords that were parents of students as well as other students
letting to their friends. Taking all students within the PRS together,
the Yorkshire and Humber region stood out, with 22.4% of the people
living in the sector classified as such. There were also relatively
high proportions of full-time students living in the PRS within
the North East (20.2%) and Scotland (21.5%)” [p46].
Households in the PRS “Students ... represent
a key demand group for the private rented sector, and one which
has grown in size substantially over recent years ... A large proportion
of full-time students aged 18 and over were living in the parental
home (37.8%). The next largest group of students were classified
as living in the private rented sector (29.2%), which is likely
to have mostly comprised students who were renting from a landlord
or letting agent, as well as some renting from a friend or relative.
Student halls of residence are included within the communal establishment
category, within which 13.6% of all full-time students aged 18 and
above were living. In essence, the communal establishments were
probably privately rented in the great majority of cases, in that
the landlord would have been a university of other higher educational
establishment. Thus, such forms of accommodation are effectively
‘tied’ accommodation within the PRS, similar to the
way in which accommodation can be employment-linked, in that it
is not as a general rule publicly available (at least during term-times).
Based on the assumption that the communal establishments were all
private rented, grouping them with the other private rented students
gives a proportion of 42.8% of the full-time students aged 18 or
above who were probably private renters” [pp66-67].
“A number of local authority areas had particularly high
concentrations of students living in the PRS, which can have a range
of impacts on neighbourhoods, including a regenerative influence
[sic]. The highest level was, by some margin, to be found in the
district of Durham, where 57.1% of all people aged between 16 and
74 were classified ... as being full-time students. The second highest
concentration was in the Sheffield district, where 48.9% of people
living in the PRS were full-time students. Other areas with particularly
high concentrations of students within the PRS were the districts
of Welwyn Hatfield, containing the University of Hertfordshire (46.3%),
Nottingham (46.1%), Newcastle upon Tyne (44.6%), and Stirling (44%)
... In contrast [to rural districts], full-time students formed
higher proportions of the PRS in many of the urban districts of
the UK, and especially in a number of principal university towns.
Thus, in addition to Durham and Sheffield, there was a high proportion
of students in Cardiff (43.8%), Leeds (41.9%), Oxford (41.8%), Manchester
(38.1%), York (34.8%), Cambridge (34.3%), and Bristol (33.2%). A
number of perhaps less expected areas were also in the top quartile,
including Ceredigion, which although a generally rural area contains
the University of Wales at Aberystwyth (43.8%); and Charnwood in
Leicestershire, which contains the University of Loughborough (38.7%)”
[p68].
Conclusions “The analysis confirmed that
students represent one of the largest demand groups for private
rented accommodation, clearly comprising a key dimension of the
PRS role of easy access accommodation for the young and mobile.
In terms of the census sub-sectors, they formed a large part of
the open market part of the PRS, within which they often have important
competitive advantages over other types of tenant. Many students
were also in the beneficial position of living in ‘tied’
private rented accommodation that was being provided by their educational
institution. The advantageous housing situation of students in these
parts of the PRS has been discussed elsewhere (for example, Rugg
et al, 2004). However, the analysis showed that students
were also commonly renting from a relative or friend as well (such
as their parents, other students, or other student’s parents),
which is accommodation, like that provided by educational establishments,
that may not have been available to the wider public. Thus, there
would appear to be a further dimension to the housing advantage
enjoyed by students in the PRS, with there effectively being a further
‘tied’ portion reserved for students who were renting
from a relative or friend” [p76].
“Much of the geographical variation in the nature of the
PRS found in this analysis suggests that the tenure was often responsive
to local housing needs where there was a clearly defined niche demand.
Examples of such niche markets in the PRS include the high concentrations
of students in principal university towns ... The resurgence of
the PRS in urban areas between 1991 and 2001 is suggestive of the
responsiveness of the open market part of the tenure in particular,
such as may have been relied on by the expanded number of students,
...” [pp77-78].
“Projections of future household growth ... tend to suggest
that, based on the existing pattern of household composition within
the PRS, there may be a healthy [sic] demand for private rented
accommodation in the future, and particularly in the open market
sector” [p78].
APPENDIX DISTRICTS WITH A HIGH PROPORTION OF STUDENTS
(30% or more of the PRS population)
District: Number of PRS households / PRS as % of
all households / Students as % of the PRS population
North East
Durham 3,028 / 8.7 / 57.1
Middlesborough 4,713 / 8.5 / 31.5
Newcastle upon Tyne 14,167 / 12.7 / 44.6
North West
Lancaster 9,010 / 16.1 / 31.4
Liverpool 25,640 / 13.6 / 30.4
Manchester 27,959 / 16.7 / 38.1
Preston 5,040 / 9.5 / 38.0
Yorkshire & Humber
Leeds 32,793 / 10.9 / 41.9
Sheffield 19,963 / 9.2 / 48.9
York 8,400 / 10.9 / 34.8
East Midlands
Charnwood 5,506 / 9.1 / 38.7
Leicester 14,774 / 13.3 / 30.8
Lincoln 4,400 / 12.1 / 37.3
Nottingham 16,999 / 14.6 / 46.1
West Midlands
Birmingham 37,311 / 9.5 / 27.7
Coventry 13,458 / 11.0 / 37.6
Stoke on Trent 8,380 / 8.1 / 29.5
Warwick 6,117 / 11.5 / 33.7
East of England
Cambridge 9,326 / 21.9 / 34.3
Norwich 7,662 / 14.0 / 29.6
Welwyn Hatfield 3,005 / 7.5 / 46.3
South East
Canterbury 7,956 / 14.3 / 39.1
Oxford 11,727 / 22.7 / 41.8
Portsmouth 12,254 / 15.6 / 30.5
Southampton 15,732 / 17.2 / 43.1
South West
Bath 8,987 / 12.6 / 32.2
Bristol 22,963 / 14.2 / 33.2
Exeter 6,901 / 14.8 / 37.2
Scotland
Aberdeen 9,924 / 10.2 / 37.9
Dundee 7,830 / 11.7 / 42.0
Edinburgh 27,686 / 13.5 / 36.1
Glasgow 22,585 / 8.3 / 31.2
Stirling 3,195 / 9.0 / 44.0
Wales
Cardiff 14,660 / 11.9 / 43.8
Ceredigion 5,479 / 17.7 / 43.8
Swansea 8,908 / 9.4 / 36.8
Northern Ireland
Belfast 14,608 / 12.8 / 27.0
Coleraine 2,583 / 12.0 / 35.0
Visit the Joseph Rowntree Foundation website for a Summary or the
full study, at http://www.jrf.org.uk/redirect.asp?url=findings/housing/1941
National HMO Lobby, October 2006
National HMO Lobby
email: hmolobby@hotmail.com
website: www.hmolobby.org.uk
|