Bath’s Liberal Democrat Councillors are considering a controversial plan to relocate first and third year students in Bath from houses in town to purpose-built student accommodation or back to campus.
Since the Chronicle broke the story two weeks ago, it has been a controversial talking point, though confusion reigns as to the exact nature of the proposal. The Chronicle reported that the plan was “to force all first and final year students at the city's universities to live on campus or in purpose built accommodation.”
When we asked Don Foster, he claimed not to have heard of any such proposal. He did admit, though, that Bath has “a significant shortage of affordable residential properties”, adding that “as student numbers at both Bath University and Bath Spa University increase, it makes sense to seek to provide additional purpose build [sic] student accommodation on both campuses and within the city.”
Oldfield Park Councillor Will Sandry clarified the situation, explaining that “the proposals are not about forcing students to live anywhere”. Rather, they involve “mak[ing] it easier for the universities to build accommodation on campus.”
SU President Daniel O’Toole also objected to use of the word ‘force’, arguing that, while the proposal was “a step in the right direction” the use of such language “doesn’t really help the fragile town/gown relationship”.
However, impact can find no evidence to connect the Lib Dems to the use of the word ‘force’. We located the source of the Chronicle’s front-page story, an obscure Lib Dem document suggesting that “all first year and final year undergraduate students at our two universities should be housed on campus or in purpose-built student accommodation off-campus”. It’s not immediately clear how this would be achieved, but the document hints that landlords of HMOs, which are often occupied by students, should be given “incentives” to start renting to families.
Offering ‘incentives’ is about all the council could do to remove students: HMOs must be licensed, and these licenses last five years. They cannot be withdrawn without good reason, so if B&NES wished to force students out, the most aggressive policy they could enact would be to refuse to offer any more licenses, and not renew existing ones when they expire.
Even this relatively mild move does not look likely in the near future; Don Foster told impact that any plan to forcibly remove students would be unworkable. Additionally, as Councillor Roger Symonds pointed out in a letter to the Chronicle, the Lib Dem document relates to a long term planning strategy with a timescale of about twenty years, so immediate action is unlikely.
Thus, current students have no reason to worry, as the writer of the Chronicle article, Felicity Crump, acknowledges; she wrote to one concerned student that “as clearly stated in the article this is simply a proposal put forward by the Lib Dems and in no way say's [sic] it would happen. They think it is a good way to free-up homes in the city but there are no concrete plans to force anyone anywhere - merely suggestions.”
In a further email to said student, Ms Crump added that “nothing has been put to the council and before it is both universities would have to build more accommodation to make room for everyone. At the moment it is just an idea which has been suggested by the Lib Dems and it would be a long time before it could possibly be passed, if indeed it could be. This would also require both universities to agree and find land on which they could build.”
As far as we can tell, there is little or no substance to the allegation that students will be ‘forced’ out of town; the proposal, still in the very early stages, seems to be simply suggesting that more houses be built on campus and in town, and students encouraged to move into them. If this plan is eventually enacted, it will not be for some years, and not without the consent and co-operation of both the city’s universities.
Post new comment