This letter was submitted to Dr. Richardson on Wednesday 25 March 2009, the day of the principal's installation
Dear Dr Richardson,
The Lower Rents Now! Coalition would like to congratulate you on your inauguration as Principal. We have been impressed with the way in which you have been willing to meet with us (and other campaign groups) and discuss our concerns – it’s a nice change! We’re sending you this letter, and have been handing out our leaflets, not in order to protest your installation, but to urge for a continued dialogue on the subject of affordable housing.
We have waged a long, hard and often bitter opposition to the University’s plans for the Fife Park redevelopment, believing that an increase, not a decrease in cheap accommodation is utterly vital. This is true both for existing students, many of whom can barely afford the cost of living as it is; and for prospective students, especially those from lower-income backgrounds who simply could not afford to attend this University otherwise. We believe that the petition calling for 1000 affordable beds - which was signed by over 1000 students last year and presented to the University - as well as the protest of a year ago and the hundreds of letters of objection to the planning application which we delivered to the Fife Council prove that we represent the interests and opinions of a very significant proportion of the student body.
This large-scale support is due to the fact that these redevelopment plans directly or indirectly affect the lives of every student: the university controls around 55% of the student housing market in the town, so when it puts up its prices, private landlords can (and do) follow suit. Indeed, Derek Watson, Quaestor and Factor of the University, argued that ‘providing more beds will lower accommodation costs for all students and widen access’. This was in response to SRC questioning as to whether 500 affordable beds would be adequate. Lowering University rents would therefore have a dramatically beneficial effect on the price of housing in general in St Andrews, which even students from ‘comfortable’ financial backgrounds often struggle to pay. With
so many students being turned down from places in halls for next year, the problem becomes even more acute and the first step to a solution is to exert tacit pressure on landlords to stop charging such extortionate prices.
Thus, we would argue, affordability should be one of the most crucial areas of concern for any building or refurbishing projects that are being undertaken; this is especially true when the new buildings are replacing these crucially necessary cheap houses. The Fife Park plans fly in the face of this thinking completely, slashing the number of beds to meet a seemingly arbitrary (and inadequate) target of 500. In fact, according to minutes from a University court meeting held in 2004, the promise was ‘the retention of at least 500 bed-spaces (c. one sixth of the total University complement) at low cost”. The target of 500 therefore only makes sense within the context of a wider aim for one-sixth of all student lodgings to be affordable. As it stands, the new Fife Park will leave the University around 145 beds short.
The bulk of the University’s response has been to either ignore our concerns or to claim that their hands are tied and that they could not possibly make any more concessions to affordability than they are already making. We simply do not believe that this is the case: the new Fife Park will be based around David Russell Apartments, which will cost just over £130 a week to rent in the next academic year. DRA is so expensive because every bedroom has a television (though this will not be a feature of the new Fife Park), the rooms have under-floor heating, and the kitchens all have dishwashers. The Scottish Tourist Board rates it as 3-star accommodation, hardly necessary for students. The University has also chosen to build 567 of the 777 new Fife Park rooms as en-suite, despite the increased cost of doing so. Additionally, Derek Watson has admitted that building more rooms per apartment would reduce the build costs. To say that the proposed model of accommodation is what is needed by students, in the light of the factors already outlined in this letter, is simply wrong as far as we are concerned.
We do, however, understand that Fife Park is in need of some sort of work. Your own view on the matter is clear, calling the residence ‘hideous’ and ‘not of a standard that […] students are entitled to’ in a recent interview. However, affordability must be at the heart of any new development plans. For a reasonable number of students, there is no other option than to live in these places - if there are not a significant number of students for whom this is the case, then this reflects badly on the number of prospective students who cannot afford to come here in the first place (St Andrews is 10% short of the national average for students from low income backgrounds). We do not believe that decent, adequate housing has to cost as much as the University seems to believe it does. Most residents of Albany Park, for example, are satisfied with the
standard of housing that they get, even if it is not particularly luxurious; this shows that halls do not have to be 3 star-rated luxury flats in order to be acceptable.
The main solution that you have identified to the expensive cost of living here is bursaries. We wholeheartedly support your plans to increase the means-tested scholarship programme, but do not feel that this is a substitute for affordable housing. As it stands, the Wardlaw Scholarship programme only offers 38 scholarships, this would have to increase by 252 by the time that Fife Park opens just to cover the loss in affordable housing, let alone significantly increase the number of lower-income students who can come here. We also have concerns that it is risky for scholarships to form the entirety of the university's widening access policy, given that philanthropy is less popular now with the recession. Importantly, increasing bursaries does not do anything to help ease the affordable housing crisis in general, which affects most students; increased scholarship numbers can only be part of the solution.
For the reasons outlined above, we feel that the current plans for the redevelopment of Fife Park will only exacerbate the financial struggles that a significant proportion of both existing and prospective students suffer from. As we see it, both the plans themselves and the responses that we have been getting from the University have been far from reasonable. We have, however, been very encouraged by your open approach to student groups in your time here. It is our hope that your fresh approach can continue to involve the students’ concerns more in the University’s considerations, and that we can convince you of the crucial relevance that affordable accommodation has to the student body at large.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read through this long (and probably quite turgid!) letter. We look forward to meeting with you both on this issue and on the myriad other campaigns that members of the group are involved in.
Best Wishes,
The Lower Rents Now! Coalition
