All posts in the topic Should Brookes students be allowed to have cars? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 16 posts — by 8 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Mike Ratcliffe at Aug 12 10:28 UTC
An alliance of residents' groups in East Oxford has called for Oxford Brookes University to ban students who live in privately rented accommodation from keeping cars in Oxford. The University has dismissed the idea, claiming it would make students "lesser citizens with fewer rights". Is the student parking situation getting any better in Headington and Marston now that residents' parking permits have to be paid for? And should there be any restrictions? If you did not see the article in the local press, you can read it here: Oxford Mail/Times 1 August 2008: "Take students off our roads": http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2008/8/1/255126.html
There are, I believe, two different on road parking schemes (CPZs) in Oxford. The first was a Resident Parking scheme with restrictions that applied 24/7. Later on, a second scheme, Community Parking was introduced, this operates monday to friday between about 9am to 5pm, times do vary on adjacent roads. Permits are required for on road parking in these areas. The number of permits per residence is restricted. quote from http://www.oxford.gov.uk/websitetools/faqs.cfm/faqdetail/93/faqcat/534/faqcont/0 Can I have a residents parking permit? Most properties in the parking zones are eligible, but new or recent conversions are frequently excluded from any on street parking eligibility. Most zones have a limit of 2 resident permits, and each resident can only have 1 car. The vehicle must be registered in the name of the applicant, although some company cars are also eligible. endquote In Mark Road, 4 permits are allowed. In Margaret Road, where the old pimary/junior schools have been converted to 56 flats only 28 parking places are on site with NO on road parking permits allowed. When the CPZs came in around the NOC area and later HQ area the reduction in parking around Rock Edge and adjacent roads was very noticeable during the day during the major building works at the NOC was underway. When the CPZs come in near multiple occupancy residences this will force some student parking off the roads, they will not be able to get permits. Parking attendants do travel around and issue fines albeit not in every road everyday. This is perhaps an indirect way to control students having cars in Oxford. http://www.oxfordparkingshop.co.uk/ is a good place to find lots of information.
As anyone who visits the page at the Oxford Mail site mentioned will
know I am completely with the university on this in not wanting to
create a two tier system. One can make just as much of a case
against anyone who happens to live in an area with no off-street
parking not being allowed a car - after all it is enclosing what is
common property - the highway, and if one were to put one's sofa,
coffee table and television out on the side of the street and use it
as an extra room it would not be tolerated!
There are particular problems in the Divinity Road sort of area,
where I remember us considering a controlled parking area when I was
first on the city council in 1999 and it still doesn't have one so
far as I am aware. At the time it was pointed out that many people
in the HMOs are also not students, but young workers (yes, often
having been students but not necessarily) who live together to save
on Oxford's exorbitant housing costs but nevertheless often have just
as much a need for a car for work and so on as any other resident.
People often say that students want to live out as soon as they are
able to avoid the restrictions of living in halls, but (and I'm sure
Mike could maybe confirm this if he reads this) survey after survey
shows a clear majority of students actually would prefer the security
of tenure, the lack of hassle of joint liability, the inclusion of
utilities and the overall quality control of university owned
accommodation to almost anything in the private rented market.
As to rules, as one who has to enforce them every night, I can say
they do tend to get away with more in halls in the sense that I know
what is acceptable and can step in before it gets too much, rather
than complaining at each infraction in the hope someone will do
something some day. There are rules and fines for not keeping flats
clean and so on which would not apply usually in a private landlords'
and these are causing more and more resentment nowadays in halls and
could perhaps lead to a backlash of people deciding it's too
restrictive for them. There again, halls for continuing students can
be run differently from those for first years where day to day
cleanliness is less of an issue.
So the way forward seems clear - if the university or some associated
body were able to provide more university owned accommodation which
could then be excluded from parking zone permits and so on, that
would be best. Until then, I reckon this is an issue that local
residents should take up with the private landlords who make so much
out of the lucrative student market. There is nothing on earth to
stop them including car bans in their tenancy agreements for example,
just as happens in halls.
I've personally never had a problem with parking, in the daytime or
otherwise; in fact many of the streets around where I live are completely
barren of cars after 9AM.
There's a bit of confusion as to "keeping cars" (relating to parking permits
in Oxford) and traveling from outside.
As to keeping cars, I find the phrase "lesser citizens with fewer rights" a
bit galling. An HMO with multiple cars owned by students is exempt from
council tax. Pay the same rates as the rest of us, get the same rights.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Stephanie Jenkins <
Jock If you follow the link http://www.oxfordparkingshop.co.uk/ and half way down - Controlled parking zones- CPZ consultations this tells one that Divinity Rd and Magdalen Road schemes are having consultations the bottom line is Subject to consultation and committee approval we would expect the scheme to come into force by March 2010. If its anything like the HQ area then add another year!
I don't know what Jock means about "the private landlords who make so much out
of the lucrative student market." Only yesterday a foreign student was
complaining to me that Brookes charges him £664 per month merely for a room,
and then has the cheek to charge another £2.50 per week for internet access! No
private landlord would dare to charge anything like so much. I meet loads of
students, British and otherwise, who tell me that they are keen to go and live
in private accommodation, ideally a house-share, and one reason is that it
saves them so much money. My own son and his friends are among them, so don't
tell me about "surveys after surveys".
As for students having cars, this has been regularly banned by many
universities up and down the country over the past thirty-five years at least.
Only the very richest students can afford a car, and so to complain that they
are being treated like second-class citizens is rather a stretch of the
imagination.
On 9 Aug 2008, at 22:50, Julia Gasper wrote:
> I don't know what Jock means about "the private landlords who make
> so much out of the lucrative student market." Only yesterday a
> foreign student was complaining to me that Brookes charges him £664
> per month merely for a room, and then has the cheek to charge
> another £2.50 per week for internet access!
Unless this person is paying for one of the few two room flats we
have (and nobody is allocated those without expressly applying for
them, usually as a family) there is no hall of residence that charges
anywhere near £153 a week. Perhaps he's got arrears? Perhaps he's
in Cheney and splitting his 50 weeks contract into what he considers
as "useable" ie the 8 months of semester times only (which is partly
the planners' doing in that one of the conditions on Cheney was that
it would not be used for summer schools so has to be let to the
student for 50 weeks). £2.50 a week for what should be in most halls
be amongst the fastest internet access in Oxford doesn't seem like a
bad deal to me. I only know of one landlord (and he doesn't take
students by and large) who rolls all the bills, especially telecoms/
cable into the rent. And, if memory serves, they also get their
annual bus pass and I think I'm right in saying now that for all
halls a Brookes bus service from right outside their halls.
In halls, all energy use is in the bill, they get their flats (but
not bedrooms) cleaned every week, in the newer halls which I think
this coming year will be £120 a week (which I agree is expensive,
more on which later*) they'll have their own en suite shower room and
loo and their bedroom is about 12 sq m excluding these shower "pods"
Their shared kitchen/sitting room is actually large enough to fit all
of them and some friends in at once (to my chagrin - "friends"
usually means "party") and all get a maintenance service that would
make any private landlord or their agents' eyes water. They pay no
deposit, and do not have joint and several liability with people they
met only a few weeks before they had to start the hunt for their
second year accommodation. They can call someone out 24hrs a day for
any problems, even if we can't fix them all at 4am - or in one case I
had refuse to call out Bruce Gillingham at 6am one morning because a
student with a bit of flu wanted the last rights!
Now, I'm sorry, I don't know how many student rented houses you have
visited in person, and maybe I've only ever been to really bad ones,
but by comparison, halls are worth a great deal more than any private
student accommodation I've seen when you add everything up. For not
an inconsiderable number of the better off students, however, judging
by the overheard snippets of conversation, in the recent housing boom
at least, one disbenefit of halls is that you don't own it and make
money out of it!
> No private landlord would dare to charge anything like so much. I
> meet loads of students, British and otherwise, who tell me that
> they are keen to go and live in private accommodation, ideally a
> house-share, and one reason is that it saves them so much money. My
> own son and his friends are among them, so don't tell me about
> "surveys after surveys".
I don't need to tell you about surveys - but AFAIK they do all say
most responding students want more university owned accommodation,
but that yes, they find it expensive, and that the private market in
Oxford is unsatisfactory, and also expensive for what you get. I can
merely point you to the rapid success of the (some now huge) private
companies who build and run halls. They cannot build their halls
fast enough for the demand. And most Brookes students will never
have seen some of the flats that are now being built for marketing to
continuing year students, because we don't have any, but those
private companies recognize there is a different dynamic in
continuing years - with self selecting groups wanting to live
together. These companies are marketing high price, yes, but high
quality accommodation and are succeeding in spades. One company
tries to build a gym and swimming pool into all its new halls!
> As for students having cars, this has been regularly banned by many
> universities up and down the country over the past thirty-five
> years at least. Only the very richest students can afford a car,
> and so to complain that they are being treated like second-class
> citizens is rather a stretch of the imagination.
I agree that only the very richest of students can afford a car,
which is one reason why I don't even take as read that the car
problem is all student caused. The last time the Brookes "Green
Commuting Group" did a survey of first years at the end of their stay
in halls about modes of transport I think it was more than ninety per
cent said that they would not be bringing a car to Oxford in
subsequent years. Nevertheless since the roads are common property,
taking away one group's right to use some of that common property is
creating two classes of people.
*Now, I tend to agree that halls, indeed any accommodation
(especially in Oxford) is expensive. The private halls companies for
example have been buying land at prices that imply them getting
between £5.5k and £7k per bedroom per year for their halls,
considerably more than most Brookes halls. I have been trying for
some years to drum up some, any, enthusiasm for trying out some co-
operative halls of residence. They do very well in North America and
in the far east and, since most domestic services and so on are
carried out by the students working on a rota or similar, they keep
running costs low enough to be able, in my calculations anyway, to
provide halls quality accommodation for private rented rates and
maintaining all the other benefits of halls. The market needs a
variety of providers, not just those in it for shareholder gain, and
especially with the small amount of land available in Oxford if we
were to get into a position where we had just one or maybe a couple
of the private halls companies stitching up the market prices would
inevitably rise, and not just in the halls market but in the private
rented market as well to match.
No, the student has not got arrears and he is not living in any special
accommodation. That is what he and others told me he was charged for a single
room including bills earlier this summer, which is why he and all his friends
are in such a hurry to move out and find private accommodation. They have found
it - a house at one thousand pounds per month, which can be shared between four
of them. They also paid two thousand pounds for a two-month course in English
at Brookes, which sounded extortionate.
I notice a strange incoherence in your politics, Jock. One moment you are
denouncing planning restrictions as an attack on private property, the next
minute you are presenting private landlords as greedy exploiters.
On 10 Aug 2008, at 12:56, Julia Gasper wrote: > No, the student has not got arrears and he is not living in any > special accommodation. That is what he and others told me he was > charged for a single room including bills earlier this summer, > which is why he and all his friends are in such a hurry to move out > and find private accommodation. They have found it - a house at one > thousand pounds per month, which can be shared between four of them. Argh - I have no idea what they are charge during the summer. That's for the individuals and schools to negotiate via the conference office. But I think they are fed for that which they are not, by and large, for their £120 a week term time. In our most expensive halls. > They also paid two thousand pounds for a two-month course in > English at Brookes, which sounded extortionate. £250 a week may sound a lot to you and me, but then if I want Microsoft authorized training for example it would cost me more like £1200 for a week's course and even the local ambulance service first aid course would set me back over £300 for four days, neither with any out of hours social program included. It is also worth noting that nobody has to do these courses, and unlike fees for EU students during their HEFCE funded courses in the main part of the academic year they operate in an open market competing with other universities offering the same sort of course. Frankly the British university system would be up Queer Street with no means of turning round if they didn't charge market rates for this sort of thing. I notice EF would charge me up to £3970 for eight weeks with single accommodation (starting September, not in "high season"). > I notice a strange incoherence in your politics, Jock. One moment > you are denouncing planning restrictions as an attack on private > property, the next minute you are presenting private landlords as > greedy exploiters. I suspect you really mean contradiction or inconsistency over the rather more pejorative "incoherence". But whichever there is no inconsistency, contradiction or incoherence in what you seem to be saying I wrote (but in fact didn't). I am in favour of freedom to do what one wants with one's own property on the condition, as a libertarian, that what you do does not harm others' enjoyment of their own property or is mutually compensated for if you do, which is also why I am in favour of land value tax - http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/jocks_categories/ land_value_tax - instead of other current taxes because changes in land values are not created by the landowner qua landowner and are, in fact, a measure of how much their exclusive occupancy of that piece of land affects the rest of the community. This is called "geo-libertarianism" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Geo-libertarian - of which creed I adhere to an near relative, "geo- mutualism" - http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/ journey_through_libertarian_anarchism - to differentiate ourselves from "anarcho-capitalists" because we take a different view of how much capitalist corporations tend to be hierarchical coercive structures. I can hear the big sighs from here of my Lib Dem colleagues who have heard all this a thousand times so for their sake I'll stop. You can go look at those two web links for yourself.
I have checked the details about the student rentals, and they are adamant that
they were charged £161.37 per week to live in a hall of residence called Clive
Booth in the Marston Road within the past month, at the height of summer, when
the heating bills were surely minimal. This was for a single room and did not
include any food, or other extras, not even internet. Multiply that by four and
you get £664 per month. They are mostly students who are going to start degree
courses at Brookes in September and they have all now moved into private
accommodation, where they can get even the broadband cheaper.
Yes, but you are still comparing apples and oranges, Julia. You cannot conclude that the typical Brookes student would make the same choice as someone coming on a commercial course in high season and paying a third more again for their room than the top semester time price - but still half as much say as a local B&B. In fact, there are halls that will cost only just on half what they are currently paying during the academic year, which I will still be superior accommodation to most private student lets. Of course, were Brookes not to seek to maximise their income from summer vacation lets by charging commercial comparable rates the prices would be higher for everyone during the academic year. I would certainly expect to do the same for my co-operative hall of residence idea. But it's not like we are pricing ourselves out of the market over summer either. We are full for most of July and August. I notice that for graduation week they charge even more per room - half as much again. I also notice that comparable accommodation without any of the additional benefits of halls can go for £118 per week ex bills: http://tinyurl.com/6msmg8
Thinking back to my student days, I don't think Halls were overpriced at
all, given the level of service that they gave. But the point is, it's a
free market - what matters to me might not matter to you - and as far as I'm
aware, Brookes doesn't require that students live in their halls; do you're
sums, if you think you're better off in the private sector, do that.
A word of caution about those 'private halls' - they tend to look
superficially like a good deal, but do have a habit of clawing back huge
sums in electricity and heating bills.
Anyway, the OP was asking about cars, and whether the situation had
improved, and whether there should be any restrictions.
Personally, I don't have a problem, so I would tend towards a 'no'. BUT, I
find the argument against that it would create a "two tier" system
inconsistent. There already *is* a 2-tier system; one that means in our
house, we pay the thick end of 2000 in council tax - part of which is to
cover 'road maintenance', and the student HMO up the road with 4 cars pays
0. So I don't think an argument-by-equality really flies. I also find it
faintly hilarious that Andrew Smith, a Labour MP of all people, comes round
to the idea that a kind of per-capita tax might help to pay for the
additional service burden placed by HMO housing. Oh how things change.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Jock Coats <
At one time, Oxford University Proctors regulated the use of bicycles by
licensing and registration - they had to have a number allocated by the
Proctors and painted on the mudguard - I think they also needed a special
light. I can vaguely remember this being in force in the early 1970s, though
it might be when it stopped.
Some precedent there perhaps? I can't unfortunately locate any reference to
the old Oxford University statute. But the issue was the same - the
University authorities trying to manage, if not actually control, something
that had an impact on others.
In my road, there is a multiple occupation house near us with 5 people and 5
cars. This means that cars are parked all over the place, sometimes flouting
the 'permissive parking' lines obstructing driveways, or just parking on
yellow lines. There's no attempt by anyone to regulate this by fixed penalty
notice from the Council side, despite the fact that you now have to pay to
leave a car on the street. Some of them have indeed paid, but the issue
isn't so much that it's students, but that such multi-occupation allows this
problem to build up. Agreed that the payment scheme means that they have to
pay a lot for the 3rd, 4th and 5th cars, but if they share it out between
them, it's not so bad. Phoning Control Plus has little effect, and the
parking lines are now so poorly marked out and confusing that I suspect that
it's not enforceable anyway.
What everyone is saying is that there's a problem for everybody in parking,
and that students are causing it because they mostly live in
multi-occupation homes, and often in areas where there isn't much room on
the street anyway. So the evil is muti-occupation, and anything that Brookes
(sorry - nearly wrote 'Poly' - sorry - see next para) can do to make that
less intrusive by supplying accommodation, transport or parking facilities
together with advice to students on the best way to behave responsibly with
their cars in the locality would be welcomed - and they probably do.
When I was at the Poly 1970-74 - guess what - I brought my car (1937 Austin
7 Ruby) to Oxford and kept it at Cotuit Hall, and then later used it to
drive from a rented multi-occupation cottage in Tackley to the campus every
day - and later from Wheatley. So I do know how it feels to be discriminated
against as a student motorist, I did need it to get about, it was parked
safely at Cotuit for two years and didn't cause annoyance, and the issue
about parking and residents was just as lively then as now. Anyone else have
a firm foot in both camps I wonder? "Let them that are without motoring sin
cast the first stones" etc.
David Clover
Kennett Road
I am not comparing apples and oranges. The students in question WERE charged
£161 per week, and they are Brookes students who are starting degree courses
very soon. They did not get food or any other extras included, apart from bills
and this was in mid-summer. The point is that my facts were correct, though I
don't expect Jock to admit that, of course - I don't expect miracles!
IF private landlords are greedy and charge unreasonable rents they will get no
tenants, because of the same "market forces" which Jock says excuse the high
prices charged by Brookes.
As for his inordinately lengthy and prolix disquisition on his views, what it
all boils down to just proves the old saying: scratch a Liberal, and you will
find someone further to the right than the Conservatives. His agenda is so far
to the right, it would throw a Texan oil magnate into a blind panic.
So there is an irritating hypocrisy in Libdems casting pseudo-marxist
aspersions on wicked landlords. I still have copies of the messages in which
you denounced planning controls as an attack on private property, and then
complained about the "lucrative " rents of private landlords.
I assure you that most students are very reluctant to pay more than £80 per
week rent anywhere in Oxford, and they cannot afford cars. The reason they all
give for moving out of hall is that it is too expensive!!!!
The fees for the Microsoft course cannot be compared to those of an EFL course,
as the former is a qualification for highly-paid work. The Brookes students
appeared to have learnt little on their EFL course, but it was a requirement of
enrolling, in other words, just another way of squeezing money out of their
long-suffering parents. If we want a knowledge-based economy, I suppose that is
going to happen. The role of private landlords in all this is to give students
choice.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Meanwhile, back at the OP...
If you go back far enough, the Vice Chancellor and Proctors of the University
of Oxford have had the powers to ban all sorts of things. For example, in a
copy of the 1930 Memorandum on the Conduct and Discipline of Junior Members of
the University, undergraduates are not permitted to drive a motor vehicle (in
or outside Oxford) without a Protorial licence as well as forbidding them to
keep a motor car in or near Oxford. The same students were not to 'loiter in
the streets, at coffee-stalls or at the stage door of a theatre', act in a
'public theatrical performance' etc etc.
The purpose of these regulations was to 'prevent public disorder and annoyance
to the citizens of Oxford; to discourage the making by Undergraduates of
undesirable or casual acquaintances and the frequenting of resorts where such
acquaintances are likely to be made; and generally to forbid conduct unworthy
of members of the University'
It's not my call, but I don't think Brookes has the kind of powers in statu
pupillari that the older university had - and as a university that does not
require residential status, it would struggle to regulate either students in
Oxfordshire driving into Oxford to attend (whether they park in non-CPZ
streets, car parks or park-and-rides) or when they live in Oxford.
Brookes does plenty to encourage other forms of transport, but for some people
having a car just seems essential (I'm not one). Witness the people
[presumably some of whom are students] who live in the houses actually on Gipsy
Lane - smack opposite the main site with buses going in all directions at all
times, but still with three cars squeezed onto the front garden.
Mike
(Student regulations from other eras can be quite illuminating - my favourite
is a college of Freiburg which in 1497 had illustrated student regulations with
a excellent tarif system built around the removal of wine allocations - here's
one for Jock: "It is our wish that each scholar shall make his own bed
immediately after he has risen in the morning. Failure to comply as a result
of laziness, when noticed during the weekly inspection and reported to the
President, shall be punished by the removal of wine, but if this should happen
frequently, then the scholar in question shall be deprived of his bed...")