The impact of student and key worker accommodation on urban regeneration

Citation

(2002), "The impact of student and key worker accommodation on urban regeneration", Property Management, Vol. 20 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2002.11320aab.025

The impact of student and key worker accommodation on urban regeneration

The impact of student and key worker accommodation on urban regeneration

Background

The twentieth century exodus from UK city centres to suburban living has produced severe social and economic problems in many cities. Successive Governments have attempted to address these issues with varying degrees of success, usually through planning policy.

The introduction of large numbers of young people, at high density, in central city locations can be a positive driver for the regeneration of a previously run down area. The economic activity they generate through localised concentration of spending power can support a variety of retail and leisure uses. Planners are keen, however, to avoid the creation of gated "yuppie" communities, deserted during office hours, by developing mixed-use schemes where possible. Students and key workers can act as a positive attribute in this mix, bringing under-appreciated spending power and additionally providing activity at otherwise quiet times, due to the different demands of their timetable and shift patterns.

Planning framework

Whilst builders have responded to changes in people's attitudes to living in central areas, the UK Planning Framework has also increasingly attempted to drive private residential development into town centres. The primary objective of this is to encourage the reuse of previously developed or "brownfield" land before greenfield sites. However, there are additional benefits in repopulating central areas sometimes abandoned by residents in the past, not least of which is the stimulus the new population provides for local services and businesses.

Planning policy which allows reuse of redundant buildings in central areas for residential use is clearly part of government aims for regeneration. As yet though this has added only 3 per cent to the residential stock (Property Week, 2000). Local Authorities have, in some areas, been reluctant to allow redevelopment of old commercial buildings for residential use, citing the loss of employment use as key to their objections. Very often this ignores the fact that the commercial property in question has been empty for some considerable time, reflecting a change in the patterns of employment use within an area.

Higher density accommodation, particularly around transport interchanges and within access of shops and other amenities, is also in favour. This is planned to maximise the benefits of expensive transport infrastructure, reducing the reliance on cars as a primary source of transport and thus reducing congestion. Such accommodation is not always suitable for family accommodation, however, and a young adult population will more readily adapt to living in city centres.

The social provision

At the same time as being coerced toward redeveloping brown land, developers are also being required to provide an increasing proportion of affordable, social housing through "S106" agreements as part of the "planning gain" Local Authorities seek to extract on behalf of the wider community.

This requirement for the private provision of public housing reflects the fall in the public provision of new social housing from an average of 168,000 dwellings a year in the 1960s (Sinden, 2001). Last year Registered Social Landlords and Local Authorities combined provided just 18,500 dwellings (Wehner, 2001) and it is notable that total private sector new residential building at 166,000 dwellings was also the lowest peacetime figure since 1924 (Bale, 2001). On the face of it, the Government's target for 100,000 new low cost homes over the next three years looks unlikely on these numbers, even allowing for the fact that the target includes private sector provision under S106 agreements.

In London, the Mayor has indicated a wish to take this element as high as 50 per cent, albeit not without opposition. Many builders have suggested that this is not a financially supportable proposition. The House Builders' Federation has indicated that, if imposed, these targets will push developers away from brownfield sites altogether, reducing the amount of both market and social housing being provided in central areas and thus producing results diametrically opposite to the Government's declared aims.

Affordability

House prices in the UK have risen strongly since 1994/1995, the bottom of the last cycle. By definition, a strong housing market affects the ability of lower income groups to compete in the open market for accommodation. Key workers are very often within this classification, but it is worth noting that key workers nowhere are universally defined and it is their skills that are in sufficiently short supply to make them key rather than their absolute income levels in some cases.

The Government has investigated a variety of schemes designed to help teachers, nurses and police officers in the South East purchase their own properties, the most recent of which has been interest free loans of up to £25,000 (Webster, 2001). While this assistance is obviously welcome for those groups, it fails to address the problems that arise from assisting one group of key workers to the disadvantage of another. It also fails to address the issue of key workers who may prefer different tenure arrangements for a variety of reasons and where they will also face high competition for accommodation.

Whatever the preferred solution, it can be argued that key workers are now an accepted element of social housing provision along with groups more normally considered sufficiently disadvantaged to require housing assistance. As such they should be considered as suitable occupiers of affordable property required under S106 agreements.

Students

Students are not key workers, yet share many of the same characteristics. Both groups share similar age profiles, are predominately single, have lower than average car ownership and are prepared to live in high-density, often shared, accommodation when compared to the wider residential market.

Both groups also have limited income and unequal access to housing, particularly when their acceptable travel to work/study distance is impacted by their dependence on public transport links and, in the case of key workers, non-standard travel times.

Most students, like most key workers, are aspirational in terms of owning their own home but recognise that there is a period of their life in which other forms of tenure are more flexible and thus appropriate. Very often students and key workers compete for the same kind of low cost, usually rented, usually shared housing.

It is important, however, to note that these very features of population density, age and marital status combine to produce a vibrancy that can contribute significantly to the local environment. Their collective concentration of spending power also provides an economic boost, which belies their individually low income. Furthermore, their high willingness to dispose of what money they have puts them in the "high entertainment spenders" bracket which explains why high street and leisure market organisations spend so much time and effort advertising to them.

Independent research carried out by NOP and MORI on behalf of UNITE has identified a strong "tribal" element in both students and key workers in their desire to socialise with others from their peer group. However, particularly in the case of key workers, this is not to the exclusion of other groups. Key workers have a clearly expressed wish to break out of the institutional nature of the hospital environment. A break from work-based social relationships may, therefore, be more valuable to key workers than students. It can be argued, however, that carefully balanced developments, housing a mixture of students and key workers, can create valuable opportunities for the improvement of the life/work balance of both groups.

Student villages

Although it exists, modern, campus style accommodation is not the norm in the UK university market. In part, this reflects the age and central city locations of many universities. A university quarter in many historic towns is seen as an attractive feature worth preserving. Very often this is a function of historic buildings. More modern cities have less to offer in this sense but there is a powerful dynamic that indicates that the character of an area is also driven by the activities carried out there and, if present, the resident population.

As well as defined collegiate areas incorporating teaching and administrative functions, most university towns have areas traditionally identified with providing private sector accommodation for students, for example Headingley in Leeds or Cathays in Cardiff. While wholesale changes to these established residential areas are unlikely, patterns of land use for student accommodation, as for other uses, can and do change. Part of this is a function of the move back into higher density city centre living and part the change in student lifestyle to reflect their status as paying customers of the higher education experience in the widest sense. Value for money and an enjoyable consumer experience are the drivers for accommodation selection rather than absolute cheapness, regardless of quality.

New, privately run, purpose built student accommodation is predominately located within these central areas, very often in converted or redeveloped commercial buildings, in line with central government planning guidelines to regenerate central areas.

In some towns this development is "clustered" and is beginning to achieve a sufficient population concentration to generate a student village "feel" with the critical mass to support associated leisure facilities to service the new local population. It is clear from the research referred to above that in such areas there is the potential to create a more mixed population by including key worker accommodation within the same locality as students with beneficial effects for both service providers and local residents alike.

Case study

In Bristol, new development has expanded the business area with edge of town developments like Aztec West and others to the north of the city, close to the M4/M32 junction.

Major redevelopment of the city centre has recently concentrated around the Temple Meads area and there has been considerable flexibility in land use within the traditional core with an influx of high quality, waterside residential development.

Competitive economic success for Bristol had been assisted by this flexibility but issues of social cohesion must also be balanced with this progress and it is clear that within the central area residential prices are beyond the reach of many. This residential development has hinged on both rising residential property prices and the willingness of people to live in what had previously been considered relatively unattractive central areas. It can be argued, however, that the environment in some of these areas had already been improved by the early redevelopment of vacant office accommodation for residential use by UNITE together with the related service uses this student population has attracted.

At the date of this note, UNITE's portfolio of student property in Bristol extends to the provision of 1,420 completed bed-spaces, with 1,235 planned or under construction. Of the completed developments, 553 bed-spaces are within three adjacent formerly redundant office blocks. Two of these buildings are attractively sited on the waterfront at Welshback, in the centre of the city. Beneath these accommodation blocks are a doctor's surgery, a convenience store, a multimedia centre and bar and restaurant uses. All of these facilities serve both the student population and, significantly, the wider community, bringing activity to an area previously adversely affected by the loss of its former commercial occupants.

Clearly, despite being typically considered short of money, the student population can prove an attractive customer base for the right commercial operators. In part, this reflects the fact that students seem prepared to spend what they do have in the expectation of an increase in income once their studies are completed. In addition, the debt stigma that once surrounded students no longer exists in a world of student loans rather than student grants

More importantly perhaps, it must be remembered that the aggregation of students in these developments holds a collective concentration of spending power, which belies their individually low income. Including work and other income sources, UNITE and the DfEE (Callender and Kemp, 2000) broadly agree on an annual figure in the region of £5,500 available income per student with the DfEE putting expenditure 12 per cent higher, reflecting students' use of savings. Considering the three buildings above, this produces a gross total of over £3.4 million per annum to be spent, providing a focussed economic boost to a locality.

Local traders also benefit disproportionately from this "captured" spend as a consequence of relatively low student car ownership compared to the wider population and the convenience factor of residents living "over the shop". The income figures for key workers would be higher, perhaps by a factor of three or four, and thus their impact on an urban area still more pronounced, despite a potentially different propensity to spend.

Conclusion

Students and key workers share many demographic and economic characteristics. Their income and unequal access to housing means they have to be more flexible in their accommodation requirements compared to other residential users. There is, however, a clear trend for both groups to coalesce in central areas with immediate access to work and study opportunities as well as leisure, retail and public transport facilities if residential accommodation can be made available to them.

The economic activity they generate collectively, despite their individually limited income, means that both groups can be positive drivers for the regeneration of a previously run down area and in some locations have led other forms of residential development.

While acknowledging their economic effect, it is perhaps more important to understand the contribution they can make to sustainable development by providing activity at otherwise quiet times, reducing the peak demand on supporting infrastructure through their different patterns of activity and adding vitality to city centres.

Independent research carried out for UNITE indicates that wider social experience and personal development are still important to students. Equally, key workers have a clearly expressed wish to break out of the institutional nature of the hospital environment and reduce their reliance on work-based social relationships.

The way forward is for planners to recognise the difficulties faced by student and key worker groups to allow both to be classified as suitable residents of schemes produced as part of the social element of S106 agreements. This would provide developers with greater flexibility to help create sustainable communities through choice based letting policies that include both students and key workers within the same developments.

For further information, please contact: Dr Ian Scott, Head of Research, 103 Temple Street, Bristol BS1 6EN, UK. Tel: 0117 907 8100; Fax: 0117 907 8101; E-mail: info@unite-group.co.uk; Web site: www.unite-group.co.uk