When articulating an argument it’s always wise to speak of what you know, so let me talk about Roehampton, my patch. Roehampton has a large university (remarkably called Roehampton University – one of the country’s pre-eminent trainers of teachers); but it also has the largest council estate in Europe: the Alton. It also has the misfortune of being within Tory-run Wandsworth, home of aggressive right-to-buy promotion which has halved the number of council homes in the borough: 32,000 in 1981, barely 16,000 today.
Why are those two factors linked? Because what the Tories have done to the Alton is ensure that a huge proportion of right-to-buys have been converted into buy-to-lets: and not spread evenly throughout the estate but concentrated in very particular parts of it. The Alton’s high-rise blocks have hardly any right to buy properties; but among the maisonettes and terraced homes on the Alton, a big majority are.
Who are buy-to-lets rented to? Principally two groups: east Europeans – just under 20 per cent of the electorate on the Alton are from accession countries; and Roehampton students who move out of the halls onto the estate after their first year of study – another 15 per cent.
And why is that a problem? Not because of crime or the threat of crime. Not economically: both groups invest in the local economy. Not because the Alton is an inverted community hostile to incomers: it is the most diverse part of the Putney area. But for two far more important reasons for those of us who believe in the value of council housing and who want to build thriving, successful and mixed estates.
First, just imagine if you are one of the only remaining long-term residents in a terrace of eight houses, the rest of which have been sold off and sublet. You find yourself every year – or even six months – with a new set of neighbours – six or seven to a house, partying regularly, creating noise throughout the day and night, lacking some of the respect long-term residents have for the area, treating it for what it is: a roof over their head during one of the most free from responsibility times of their life. Students impact dramatically on the quality of life of longer-term residents.
Second, consider the impact such a high turnover of population has on any area. More than one third of the Alton’s population changes every year. The student presence produces an economic cycle of its own: bustling, noisy, busy during term time, quiet during vacations. There can be no such thing as society – or at least community – when there is such a churn of residents. The very problem the Tories envisaged right to buy sorting: injecting pride into them because homeowners had a stake in keeping their area nice; in fact has been exacerbated.
That’s why the law changes Labour enacted earlier this year were so important for places like the Alton. Not to punish students: the university has a hugely important role in Roehampton. But in order to give local people some control over their own area. To be able to say ‘no’ when the long-departed owner of a home on the Alton wants to maximise his nice little earner by turning the fifth, sixth or seventh house in a terrace of eight into another buy-to-let. To better balance our estates. To build stronger communities.
We don’t need to transform for the worse the communities of long-term residents just to do right by students. Nor am I saying that the unusual circumstances of the Alton and surrounding estates are typical of the sort of areas students inhabit in larger university towns and cities. But the fact that these circumstances do exist is why Labour was right to give local councils and local people the power to halt unlimited changes of use of desperately needed affordable homes.
I agree with what you have said,,though I am against selling social housing in principle,I felt ,as the negative changes to the Alton estate took place,that the only way to be able to move was to buy my home,as the family I raised there had now grown up.It used to have a great community spirit, knew and got on with alot of my neighbours,but as they sold their buy to lets and the new temporary tenants were obviously not going to invest or contribute to an area they have no connections with,I realised it was time to move before the negative effects took place.I still have good memories of the street parties and good times living on the estate.shame it has now all gone.
You mentioned large student houses in your comment – houses of 7 were actually already were outside of the definition of a C3 dwelling house (the legislation in question). The legislation meant that planning permission would be required to rent a property for just three people. That’s not just students. That is anyone who wouldn’t qualify for council housing, or be able to buy a property. That’s me, most of my friends, teachers, nurses, social workers, trainee lawyers, shop assistants – you name it. Through it’s myopic approach, this legislation actually restricted the only area of housing growth – privately rented housing. It has been predicted that one fifth of people will be living in the PRS by 2020. You can continue to resist this and assume overnight council housing and home ownership will become a realistic option for the majority of young population of this country. Or get real. Private rented housing is the life blood of our housing stock and this change was nothing more than a nimbyish vote winner. Finally, if we are going to say where people can’t live, we need to ensure our policies are robust enough to say where they can. Now, if there are issues in the community ‘parties’, or a ‘lack of respect’ then let’s engage in a useful dialogue in how the key players can work together to address those issues. That has nothing to do with planning legislation. Many areas have ‘churn’ but still manage to evoke a sense of a community. I suggest you try harder. Finally – the Tories did not remove the C4 definition – if Roehampton really needs to use this, then it can introduce an Article 4 Direction have planning permission requirements, but the entirety of England’s housing stock doesn’t need to be negatively impacted by national legislation just for Putney does it?