The Chair invited representatives of both universities to address the Panel.

The Pro Vice-Chancellor for Planning and Resource Allocation at the University of Oxford spoke first.  He explained that the University had over 10,000 under-graduate students, who were mostly in college accommodation, plus about 10,000 graduate students including 4,500 postdoctoral researchers. 

The Pro Vice-Chancellor for Planning and Resource Allocation at the University of Oxford said that researchers were young professionals from around the world who needed to live close to their research and should be treated differently from students who were taught.  Students in this group tended to reside in the City for 3-4 years and were the most adversely affected by the housing situation, spending up to 60% of their earnings on housing costs.

  The University was in a position to develop 2,000 units of accommodation for these people to rent at affordable rates.  The only impediment to doing so was the Council’s affordable housing policy, which made such schemes unviable by requiring the delivery of new affordable housing.  In summary the University of Oxford had two asks of the City Council:

1.    That research students be exempt from the Council’s planning policy target to have no more than 3,000 Oxford University students without a place in university provided accommodation living in the City.

2.    That the development of employee housing schemes (such as purpose built accommodation for postdoctoral researchers) be exempt from planning policies requiring the direct or indirect delivery of new affordable housing.

The Director of Infrastructure Investment at Oxford Brookes University advised that his institution had some 12,000 students.  This figure had remained fairly static over recent years but a growing proportion were seeking accommodation in Oxford which had led to the University exceeding the 3,000 target, despite making more rooms available in halls. 

The Panel heard that Oxford Brookes University needed to focus on investing in its academic estate over the coming decade following years of under-investment.  The University wanted to provide an attractive offer to students but the lack of availability and high cost of housing presented a double whammy.  Land values in the City were incredibly expensive and the University had no land bank or significant un-earmarked capital for student accommodation.  The University would be decamping from Wheatley over the coming 10 years and redeveloping facilities at Harcourt Hill.  A new Student Residencies Strategy had been agreed which set out the aims of increasing capacity and improving the quality of older halls but without sites or capital the University would need to work with private sector developers.  The 3,000 target was a blunt instrument that should be revisited to ensure there were no perverse impacts on local services.  For example, Oxford Brookes could train their share of the Government’s 10,000 additional nurses and these trainee nurses would spend half their time working in local placements. 

The Panel noted that a priority of the City Council was the delivery of new affordable housing and questioned whether the University of Oxford could use some of its land to support this.  The Pro Vice-Chancellor for Planning and Resource Allocation at the University of Oxford said that the proposed developments totalling 2,000 units would relieve pressure on the lower end of the private rented sector, which would have wider benefits for the City.  The University and its partners had land and could access very competitive rates of financing to deliver 2,000 units across multiple locations with the first tranche at Osney Mead.  They would not be seeking to make a profit but where university owned land was sold for commercial development the affordable housing policies would be applied. 

The Panel asked whether 2,000 new units could be insufficient if the number of post-graduates in the City continued to grow.  The Pro Vice-Chancellor for Planning and Resource Allocation at the University of Oxford said this sector had grown 7% per year since the global financial crisis, which had not been anticipated back in 2011.  Some further growth was expected and 2,000 units would be a start.  Lenders were keen to finance these schemes and more could be done if they were successful. 

The Panel questioned whether an opportunity had been missed when a proposal for a community land trust at a specific site had been rejected.  The Panel heard that the University was unwilling to take risks with an experimental proposal which would have involved going back through the planning process and may have been unviable.  The University of Oxford was an educational charity as opposed to an all-purpose charity, and therefore it had to focus on supporting the best educational outcomes. 

The Panel noted that staff members employed by the University were also affected by the high cost of housing and suggested that there was a need for a package of measures including student and social housing.  The Panel heard that providing loss-leading social housing that would be subject to Right to Buy would not be in the University’s interests.  The Director of Estates and Facilities Management at Oxford Brookes University said that her university could potentially consider supporting this type of approach in 10-20 years’ time but was focused on delivering its investment plan and refreshing its existing stock.

The Panel noted concerns about standards in the HMO sector and about students bringing vehicles into the City.  The Director of Infrastructure Investment at Oxford Brookes University said that the increase in students living in HMOs was not a decision that his University had taken.  He wanted these numbers to reduce because HMO accommodation was expensive and of poor quality.  Oxford Brookes had three asks of the City Council:

1.    The allocation of additional sites for student housing and the recognition that Oxford Brookes University would need to develop these in partnership with private sector developers.

2.    That nursing and teaching students be exempt from the Council’s planning policy target to have no more than 3,000 Oxford Brookes students without a place in university provided accommodation living in the City.

3.    Tougher regulation to improve standards in the private rented sector.

The Chair asked the City Council’s Executive Director of Housing and Regeneration and Board Member for Planning and Regulatory whether they had anything to add. 

The Executive Director of Housing and Regeneration said that the Council was in continuous dialogue with universities as well as colleges and health partners.  Significant developments of new student accommodation were coming forwards.  The current affordable housing policy included provisions for reducing affordable housing requirements on viability grounds.  The proposed new units of accommodation for postdoctoral students could potentially be delivered under the current policy.  He also noted that the hospitals could provide staff accommodation and generate a return rather than sell off their land. 

The Board Member for Planning and Regulatory said that the percentage of affordable housing delivered under the current policy was 30%, which was a significant achievement given that small sites had been exempt.  The Council’s planning policies would all be reviewed as part of the Local Plan review and the universities were right to challenge them but the affordable housing policy was not as restrictive as some had made out.

In discussion the Panel also noted that:

·         There was a need for a clear definition of keyworker.

·         Planning policy targets for numbers of students without a place in university provided accommodation living in the City did not apply to language schools or other types of educational establishments.

·         The City Council could encourage private developers of new student accommodation to work more closely with the universities.