York City Council’s new development plan: A Saviour for Student housing?
This article seeks to engage with what the local authority is doing about student housing in York. In particular, I will be focussing on the York Local Development plan. It will be argued the current development plan from 2005 is long outdated and does not adequately address the housing issues of today. Secondly, the new development plan, although unclear in some areas, is generally a step in the right direction to address the issues with student housing. I will be primarily discussing the University of York as it is the largest University in the city and therefore has the greatest impact. The article addresses the extent of the student housing problem, and provides a brief overview of the planning process and the development plans’ role within it, before making arguments about the local development plan.
The Student housing shortage
Student housing in York is seriously lacking in availability; the city has the highest demand for purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) in the country. Consequently, rent for students has increased significantly, often far exceeding the lowest student loan.
The primary cause of the student housing shortage is the growth of the student population. The University of York’s student population has grown from 15,850 in 2012, to 20,480 in 2023; This represents nearly a 25% increase in just over a decade. Comparatively, the population of York, according to the Office for National Statistics has grown by a meagre 2.4%. Furthermore, a recent report from Unipol commissioned by both the University of York and York St Johns further highlights the issues surrounding the student housing shortage. Their reports suggested the student population will grow by around 2318, where as only 776 PBSA beds are in the pipeline and with regulatory changes there will be fewer HMOs (Homes of Multiple Occupancy) leaving a shortfall of between 1000 to 1500 rooms. Naturally, it follows from the rules of supply and demand that such a shortfall will drive rental prices up for students.
Another worsening factor is the aforementioned regulatory changes to HMOs. The Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings and Liability for Owners) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023 came into force on December 1st. This regulation now treats HMOs as a single dwelling for the purposes of council tax; it also shifts the responsibility of paying for council tax onto the owner as opposed to the residents. Students are still exempt from paying council tax; the onus will now be on the landlord to request evidence of study status from students. Whilst renting already involves the landlords seeking many details from potential tenants; this change could still deter landlords from renting their property as an HMO or encourage higher rents for several practical reasons. Previously landlords could leave council tax for the student tenants to deal with. However, now the landlord must be prepared to pay council tax if he/she cannot acquire evidence of study status from students or if a student in their HMO ceases to be a student. This creates a new risk of incurring added costs in student lettings which could justify further rent increases or encourage landlords to use their property for other purposes.
An overview of the planning process
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires decision-makers determining planning to both have regard for their local area’s development plan provisions and any material considerations. Although the focus of this article is on local development plans, I will briefly cover material considerations as they are used alongside said plans in determining planning applications.
Existing case law has defined material considerations incredibly broadly. It includes any consideration which relates to the use and development of land. But it has also been said to include points of public interest which can involve protecting the interests of individual occupiers. These considerations should be used alongside a local development plan in determining the outcome of planning applications.
In deciding planning applications local authorities have more options than simply refusing or allowing planning applications unconditionally. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 also permits planning permission to be granted on certain conditions being met. This effectively allows local authorities to negotiate with developers to ensure their development furthers the interests of the locality. Any conditions agreed upon will be enforced through what is known as a Section 106 Planning Agreement. There are few restrictions on what conditions can be asked of developers in return for planning permission. Aberdeen City Council v Elsick Development Company Ltd requires that planning conditions meet the following.
A) The conditions must be imposed for a planning purpose and not to achieve some other motive
b) The conditions “must fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development”
c) The conditions must not be unreasonable (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
Material considerations and local development plans should be given regard when deciding what conditions should be imposed, alongside granting planning permission.
York’s Local Development plan (2005)
The current development plan used in York is outdated, having been approved in 2005. With this in mind, York is awaiting the finalisation of a new development plan which is pending approval.
York's current local development plan is very much outdated, having been approved in 2005 and made even before then. The University of York’s student statistics data only backdated to 2012 further showing how outdated the current plan is. In 2012 University of York’s population was 15,885, nearly 5000 students less than the current population. From this, it is safe to assume the student population was even smaller in 2005. Consequently when the 2005 plan there simply was not such a housing shortage and so it did not accommodate for that.
Chapters 9.4-9.43 in the 2005 plan concern student housing; they include the following points.
a)In recognition of the pressure students put on local housing stock the council encourages the provision of PBSA.
b) PBSA should be built on-campus where the opportunity exists but where not possible it should be built on the sites allocated in policy ED10 alternative sites will be considered but need to conform to a separate criteria. (This includes access to transport links, appropriate to surroundings, lack of detriment on locals, and parking management.)
The above 2005 development plan policy would have been regarded when determining the outcome of the planning application to build recent on campus student accommodation, David Kato, and Anne Lister. Unfortunately, the reasons for this decision have not been published, because there is no general common law duty on planning authorities to give reasons for planning decisions. However, it is not surprising the plans were approved considering Anne Lister and David Kato were built on campus which is seen favourably in the aforementioned policy from the 2005 Development Plan.
The approval of this is not ideal considering the majority of rooms in these new student blocks are used to accommodate more first-year students. This increases pressures on private student houses the following year because these new students are only guaranteed this on-campus accommodation in their first year of studies. Consequently the following year there is a larger number of students competing for the same quantity of private accommodation.
Although some second and third years do stay in Anne Lister or David Kato, a planning obligation should have been imposed to require a large percentage of the new rooms to be allocated to existing as opposed to new students. Such an obligation would have been justified as it would have alleviated pressures on private-sector rentals by allowing more existing students to live on campus. This would reduce the number of rooms available to new students (who are guaranteed campus accommodation) , restricting the growth of the student population and alleviating housing pressures in the city.
The current development being made to tackle the problems of 2005 and not those of today would not have encouraged the planning authorities at the time to impose an obligation like that mentioned above. This is because according to the 2005 plan the new development is near perfect since it satisfies both of the aforementioned policies from the plan, as it is purpose-built for students and on campus. On the other hand, if planning decision makers were using the new draft development plan they would likely be in a better position to impose such an obligation.
The New draft Development Plan
The new draft development plan from York City Council rightly takes a hard-line approach to the University regarding their planning obligations for housing their students. However, it is important to note it was submitted 6 years ago in 2018 and is still not approved.
Firstly, Policy ED1 places the responsibility on the University to address the need for any student housing because of its future expansion, and it iterates that bespoke student housing in the city will be considered if it is economically prudent. This is much needed, as mentioned earlier the university has increased accommodation provisions for first-year students with the new David Kato and Anne Lister developments. Moreover, seemingly in doing so the University and the developers have not given sufficient regard to the aforementioned knock-on effect this has on the private student housing market. This new policy makes it clear that the University is responsible for meeting its own housing needs as a result of its own growth. Such a stance makes it easier for planning decision-makers to do what should have been done with David Kato and Anne Lister; this being to impose conditions on PBSAs to ensure a substantial proportion of the accommodation provision goes to existing as opposed to new students.
On the other hand, it is not clear from the policy to what extent the University needs to address student housing because of its own expansion. Nonetheless, the policy is suitable as it should mitigate the adverse impact the university can have on housing stock, by placing a greater onus on the University of York to address the issue it creates.
Secondly, Policy ED2 would require West Campus to maintain a capacity of at least 3586 beds for students unless the beds were replaced on Campus East. This is a step in the right direction because it ensures the University cannot make the housing situation worse. Preventing the university from reducing its own on-campus housing stock, means fewer students would be dependent on finding private housing.
Lastly, Policy ED3 would require the University to submit an annual student accommodation survey to the council this would ensure they can be held to account for not meeting the above planning obligations.
ED3 also allocates land for the expansion of Campus East (See article image). In doing this the council recognises the University of York’s need to grow, in order to contribute to “research and to the local, regional and national economies.” This policy is suitable since it balances the needs of the University and in combination with the previous policies the housing needs of the community. The policy permits the University to grow in a particular direction in a new area listed as “proposed expansion.” Consequently, the university can increase its population without needing to house so many of its students in nearby neighbourhoods.
Despite agreeing with the sentiment of this policy, allocating new space to permit further expansion. It is reasonable to argue it would be better to permit the University to develop other sites before resorting to the “proposed expansion” site. The local authority chose this site as they believed it would have the smallest impact on the character and setting of Heslington village. I would suggest there should be an emphasis on first ensuring the land currently available on campus east used to its fullest. For instance, much of the land between Constantine College and the Sports Village lies unused; developing here would have a smaller impact on Heslington Village than the proposed site. Moreover, the alternative area highlighted in red is further away from Heslington Village and would better suit the existing 66, 67 and campus bus routes.
Concluding thoughts
To conclude the current development plan in use is outdated and is no longer fit for purpose. Conversely, the new draft development plan places fair responsibilities on the University to combat the housing pressures. Moreover, at the same time, the new draft plan gives regard to the University’s need to expand, by allocating more land for development. Although there are issues with the plan; namely it is not clear when it will be approved and to what extent the university has to act to meet its new responsibilities. On balance the new plan seems to be a step in the right direction, to improve the student housing situation in York.
Bibliography
Case Law
Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited (Scotland), [2017] UKSC 66.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531.
Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1281.
Legislation
The Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings and Liability for Owners) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, SI 2023/1175.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Reports
City of York Council, “Development Control Local Plan Approved April 2005”, (City of York Council, April 2005) < untitled (york.gov.uk)> accessed 20 March 2024.
York City Council, “Local Plan - Publication Draft February 2018”, (York City Council, February 2018) < cd001-city-of-york-local-plan-publication-draft-regulation-19-consultation-february-2018-> accessed 21 March 2024.
O’Neill Associates, “City of York Local Plan Modifications Consultation 27 March 2023”, (Eamonn Keogh on behalf of the University of York and York St. John University, 27 March 2023) < 849-o-neill-s-obo-university-of-york-redacted > accessed 20 March 2024.
Websites
Guild of Residential Landlords, “HMO Council Tax Changes in 2023 Explained”,(GRL, 10 January 2024)<HMO Council Tax Changes in 2023 Explained | GRL (landlordsguild.com)> Accessed 21 March 2024 (See section “Student Lettings.”
Greenwood D, “York has highest demand for purpose-built student accommodation”, (York Press, 1 February 2023) < https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/23292287.york-highest-demand-purpose-built-student-accommodation/ > accessed 17 January 2024.
Guild of Residential Landlords, “HMO Council Tax Changes in 2023 Explained”,(GRL, 10 January 2024)
Office for National Statistics, “How the population changed in York: Census 2021”, ( ONS , 28 June 2022) < York population change, Census 2021 – ONS > accessed 20 March 2024.
University of York, “Student statistics”, (University of York, Unknown Date) < Student statistics - About the University, University of York> accessed 20 March 2024.
York City Council, “New Local Plan” ( Strategic Planning team, Unknown date) < New Local Plan – City of York Council > accessed 20 March 2024.