The ArgusUniversity of Sussex student expansion plans fall through (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Back to the drawing board for the University of Sussex

The Argus: Sussex University expansion plans fall through Sussex University expansion plans fall through

THE University of Sussex will have to go back to the drawing board in its bid to increase its student intake.

Brighton and Hove city councillors have voted against their £500 million plans for more student housing and academic buildings at the campus in Falmer.

The plans would have seen room for 1,408 more students on the East Slope and 1,122 on the West Slope, contributing to an expected 4,600 increase in students by 2018.

To avoid a student surge, the university has anticipated a maximum of 1,000 students a year.

But this, along with the size and breadth of the scheme, was too much for councillors, who felt the application could be broken down into smaller proposals.

There were four objections put forward by the planning committee.

The first was a negative impact on the amenities of the campus in terms of ecology through a loss of trees.

Under this plan 453 trees would have been removed, 12 on health and safety grounds. While 250 trees would have been retained and protected, it was revealed that this protection would not extend to tree preservation orders. The woodland areas bounding the site would have remained unaffected.

Secondly concerns were raised over the scale and height of the plans with fears it would create a “dense urban environment”, the committee stated.

This was despite the buildings in the application being arranged so the tallest buildings were at the bottom of each slope with the shortest at the top to minimise visual impact.

In addition, it was felt there was a failure to demonstrate there would be no negative impact on the city's housing stock.

Caroline Lynch, of the Coombe Road Local Action Team, opposed the scheme because she felt it would detract from the affordable housing stock for residents. She told the committee: “Granting this planning application would be reckless of the council.”

Labour councillor Les Hamilton remarked that student houses, if lived in by families, could yield an extra £4 to £5 million in council tax.

Finally, councillors felt the plan did not respect the composition of the campus as envisaged by Sir Basil Spence originally - in the 1960s.

The campus was intended for 800 students.

Allan Spencer, director of finance for the University of Sussex, said the university had already planted two hectares of trees and added that landscaping would have been taken “very seriously” in the development.

Afterwards he said the university would think about its next move.

A University of Sussex spokesman added later on: “We're disappointed but we have a lot of options open to us, including appeal.

“It's too early to say which of these we'll choose.

“This does not affect our targets for student recruitment.”

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:18pm Wed 25 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Why try and stop the Juggernaut now ,that side of the A27 might as well be used.As to how it can have a negative impact on housing stock in the City only they know. When there is more to follow will that be anytime Soon?
Why try and stop the Juggernaut now ,that side of the A27 might as well be used.As to how it can have a negative impact on housing stock in the City only they know. When there is more to follow will that be anytime Soon? rolivan
  • Score: 9

6:42pm Wed 25 Jun 14

The Gnome says...

University's? I try not to be a grammar nazi but...
University's? I try not to be a grammar nazi but... The Gnome
  • Score: 3

6:59pm Wed 25 Jun 14

RottingdeanRant says...

Good. It seems that they have been allowed to over develop the site already.
Good. It seems that they have been allowed to over develop the site already. RottingdeanRant
  • Score: 17

7:05pm Wed 25 Jun 14

rk1here@gmail.com says...

Maybe it`s time to stretch your wings. Brighton University quite hapily and successfully expanded into Eastbourne and Hastings. Most of these students spend more of their precious money on studying and books rather than accommodation. There is no reason why SUSSEX University can`t build around this choked city.
Maybe it`s time to stretch your wings. Brighton University quite hapily and successfully expanded into Eastbourne and Hastings. Most of these students spend more of their precious money on studying and books rather than accommodation. There is no reason why SUSSEX University can`t build around this choked city. rk1here@gmail.com
  • Score: 7

8:42pm Wed 25 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

rolivan wrote:
Why try and stop the Juggernaut now ,that side of the A27 might as well be used.As to how it can have a negative impact on housing stock in the City only they know. When there is more to follow will that be anytime Soon?
Thought you lived in France?
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: Why try and stop the Juggernaut now ,that side of the A27 might as well be used.As to how it can have a negative impact on housing stock in the City only they know. When there is more to follow will that be anytime Soon?[/p][/quote]Thought you lived in France? HJarrs
  • Score: -8

8:46pm Wed 25 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

The university will be back with another plan. It is now primarily a large quasi-private business first and education establishment second, it will always push for expansion.

In the meantime, there are at least 2000 student residences opening over the next couple of years, so it looks like the city's housing stock may have a little relief.
The university will be back with another plan. It is now primarily a large quasi-private business first and education establishment second, it will always push for expansion. In the meantime, there are at least 2000 student residences opening over the next couple of years, so it looks like the city's housing stock may have a little relief. HJarrs
  • Score: 9

8:59pm Wed 25 Jun 14

carlmchambers says...

Very bad decision. Brighton has too many people seeking too few houses. The only solution - assuming we don't want to cleanse ourselves of a load of people - is to build more housing. This would have been a very good solution, and relieved pressure from needy parts of our city.
Very bad decision. Brighton has too many people seeking too few houses. The only solution - assuming we don't want to cleanse ourselves of a load of people - is to build more housing. This would have been a very good solution, and relieved pressure from needy parts of our city. carlmchambers
  • Score: 2

9:52pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Valerie Paynter says...

The Univerisity of Sussex is already over-trading - overtrading because it only houses first year students and then inflicts them on local towns where they colonise scarce family housing and flats, pay no council tax and that makes the university parasitical.

The countryside site is unsuited to being urbanised to accommodate their non-stop ambitions and impact on both that site and the city of Brighton & Hove.

They basically want to morph into a being a small town and make loadsamoney but Brighton & Hove need to draw a line because the city is overly student-populated now. An unbalanced situation is getting out of hand and preventing employers locating here. Even the unemployed and poor attract council tax benefit and housing benefit for the council which students do not.

Plus! Now that the city area has been accorded Biosphere status, the plan to fell 450 trees becomes an outrage. And the city planners need to get their skates on to create a Biosphere-accommodat
ing set of planning policy documents. Pronto.
The Univerisity of Sussex is already over-trading - overtrading because it only houses first year students and then inflicts them on local towns where they colonise scarce family housing and flats, pay no council tax and that makes the university parasitical. The countryside site is unsuited to being urbanised to accommodate their non-stop ambitions and impact on both that site and the city of Brighton & Hove. They basically want to morph into a being a small town and make loadsamoney but Brighton & Hove need to draw a line because the city is overly student-populated now. An unbalanced situation is getting out of hand and preventing employers locating here. Even the unemployed and poor attract council tax benefit and housing benefit for the council which students do not. Plus! Now that the city area has been accorded Biosphere status, the plan to fell 450 trees becomes an outrage. And the city planners need to get their skates on to create a Biosphere-accommodat ing set of planning policy documents. Pronto. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 28

9:57pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

carlmchambers wrote:
Very bad decision. Brighton has too many people seeking too few houses. The only solution - assuming we don't want to cleanse ourselves of a load of people - is to build more housing. This would have been a very good solution, and relieved pressure from needy parts of our city.
Not sure how you figure that out, according to the article

The plans would have seen room for 1,408 more students on the East Slope and 1,122 on the West Slope, contributing to an expected 4,600 increase in students by 2018.

That puts 2,530 more students on campus so the other 2,070 are presumably going to be fighting for the City's housing stock.

Student accommodation already denies the local population a substantial amount of the local housing stock and undoubtably contributes to the housing problems we have, on the face of it these plans will simply aggravate matters.
[quote][p][bold]carlmchambers[/bold] wrote: Very bad decision. Brighton has too many people seeking too few houses. The only solution - assuming we don't want to cleanse ourselves of a load of people - is to build more housing. This would have been a very good solution, and relieved pressure from needy parts of our city.[/p][/quote]Not sure how you figure that out, according to the article The plans would have seen room for 1,408 more students on the East Slope and 1,122 on the West Slope, contributing to an expected 4,600 increase in students by 2018. That puts 2,530 more students on campus so the other 2,070 are presumably going to be fighting for the City's housing stock. Student accommodation already denies the local population a substantial amount of the local housing stock and undoubtably contributes to the housing problems we have, on the face of it these plans will simply aggravate matters. Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 12

9:59pm Wed 25 Jun 14

itmeansnothingtome says...

Agree the plan to fell trees was bad.
But the point in the article about opposing it on grounds that we need more housing stock in brighton doesn't make sense, the plan was to build accommodation on campus, rejecting it just means more students down town.

Student numbers will increase anyway (the application was about buildings, council have no cnotrol on how many enroll) but now with less campus accommodation, so expect the situation to get worse here in town thanks to this.
Agree the plan to fell trees was bad. But the point in the article about opposing it on grounds that we need more housing stock in brighton doesn't make sense, the plan was to build accommodation on campus, rejecting it just means more students down town. Student numbers will increase anyway (the application was about buildings, council have no cnotrol on how many enroll) but now with less campus accommodation, so expect the situation to get worse here in town thanks to this. itmeansnothingtome
  • Score: 9

10:29pm Wed 25 Jun 14

power_ranger says...

too many foreign students already.
too many foreign students already. power_ranger
  • Score: -8

3:33am Thu 26 Jun 14

Zeta Function says...

Shipping crates. Or temporary structures that can be dismantled and moved!
Shipping crates. Or temporary structures that can be dismantled and moved! Zeta Function
  • Score: 1

7:06am Thu 26 Jun 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

There are two student houses directly opposite me. Students stay in halls for their first year and then move into the community taking houses which were once occupied by families for the following two years.
Both houses are rented to three people but one house has five in it as two partners have also moved in. This year out of the eight living in the two houses four cars have arrived.
So we have eight people in two houses supposedly rented for six people with four cars and neither property paying council tax.
The cars are all new and not old bangers so please stop being under the illusion that all students are poor. Some are wealthy and could contribute council tax. No doubt the cars are registered at parents' homes so will not get picked up as being part of the city's increasing car population. Why would a city want so many non contributors. And before anyone says they spend money in shops, most of that money is borrowed and may never be paid back and is a future debt.
Also families are the biggest spending group as they make the biggest purchases when they buy their first homes ie furniture, white goods etc
The Labour group did nothing to resolve the anti social issues around the growth of what is a teenage population, the Greens rely in their vote so also have failed to tackle issues and the Tories make no mention at any point.
So more cars, fewer homes available to families, less council tax.
Why would any city not take this issue up the agenda to manage more robustly?
There are two student houses directly opposite me. Students stay in halls for their first year and then move into the community taking houses which were once occupied by families for the following two years. Both houses are rented to three people but one house has five in it as two partners have also moved in. This year out of the eight living in the two houses four cars have arrived. So we have eight people in two houses supposedly rented for six people with four cars and neither property paying council tax. The cars are all new and not old bangers so please stop being under the illusion that all students are poor. Some are wealthy and could contribute council tax. No doubt the cars are registered at parents' homes so will not get picked up as being part of the city's increasing car population. Why would a city want so many non contributors. And before anyone says they spend money in shops, most of that money is borrowed and may never be paid back and is a future debt. Also families are the biggest spending group as they make the biggest purchases when they buy their first homes ie furniture, white goods etc The Labour group did nothing to resolve the anti social issues around the growth of what is a teenage population, the Greens rely in their vote so also have failed to tackle issues and the Tories make no mention at any point. So more cars, fewer homes available to families, less council tax. Why would any city not take this issue up the agenda to manage more robustly? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 25

9:49am Thu 26 Jun 14

Max Ripple says...

Excellent quote Maxwell. Have to agree on all levels. Both of our universities seem to think that certain areas of our city are only suitable to be converted into surrogate campuses. Hanover, Elm Grove, Moulsecombe, Bevendean, Coombes Road, Coldean - all areas that suffer from a massive glut of student HMOs. All areas which have lost large numbers of long term residents and families due to this studentification. They don't give a ****. Ask any of the university big wigs if they live any any of those areas and the answer will always be NO. I know, I've tried it.
Excellent quote Maxwell. Have to agree on all levels. Both of our universities seem to think that certain areas of our city are only suitable to be converted into surrogate campuses. Hanover, Elm Grove, Moulsecombe, Bevendean, Coombes Road, Coldean - all areas that suffer from a massive glut of student HMOs. All areas which have lost large numbers of long term residents and families due to this studentification. They don't give a ****. Ask any of the university big wigs if they live any any of those areas and the answer will always be NO. I know, I've tried it. Max Ripple
  • Score: 9

10:13am Thu 26 Jun 14

Dominic Guzman says...

Blocking more accommodation on campus simply means more students will have to live in central Brighton, causing even greater demand on housing stock there. Very short-sighted decision.
Blocking more accommodation on campus simply means more students will have to live in central Brighton, causing even greater demand on housing stock there. Very short-sighted decision. Dominic Guzman
  • Score: -3

10:30am Thu 26 Jun 14

Valerie Paynter says...

HJarrs wrote:
The university will be back with another plan. It is now primarily a large quasi-private business first and education establishment second, it will always push for expansion.

In the meantime, there are at least 2000 student residences opening over the next couple of years, so it looks like the city's housing stock may have a little relief.
The university only houses first year students. Their on site and satellite thousands then move "inland" to city housing.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The university will be back with another plan. It is now primarily a large quasi-private business first and education establishment second, it will always push for expansion. In the meantime, there are at least 2000 student residences opening over the next couple of years, so it looks like the city's housing stock may have a little relief.[/p][/quote]The university only houses first year students. Their on site and satellite thousands then move "inland" to city housing. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 6

10:32am Thu 26 Jun 14

Dominic Guzman says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
There are two student houses directly opposite me. Students stay in halls for their first year and then move into the community taking houses which were once occupied by families for the following two years.
Both houses are rented to three people but one house has five in it as two partners have also moved in. This year out of the eight living in the two houses four cars have arrived.
So we have eight people in two houses supposedly rented for six people with four cars and neither property paying council tax.
The cars are all new and not old bangers so please stop being under the illusion that all students are poor. Some are wealthy and could contribute council tax. No doubt the cars are registered at parents' homes so will not get picked up as being part of the city's increasing car population. Why would a city want so many non contributors. And before anyone says they spend money in shops, most of that money is borrowed and may never be paid back and is a future debt.
Also families are the biggest spending group as they make the biggest purchases when they buy their first homes ie furniture, white goods etc
The Labour group did nothing to resolve the anti social issues around the growth of what is a teenage population, the Greens rely in their vote so also have failed to tackle issues and the Tories make no mention at any point.
So more cars, fewer homes available to families, less council tax.
Why would any city not take this issue up the agenda to manage more robustly?
More accommodation on campus would help alleviate such problems, but the proposals have been blocked by the Council; no doubt the Greens played a major role in this decision. I can't wait for them to get booted out next year.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: There are two student houses directly opposite me. Students stay in halls for their first year and then move into the community taking houses which were once occupied by families for the following two years. Both houses are rented to three people but one house has five in it as two partners have also moved in. This year out of the eight living in the two houses four cars have arrived. So we have eight people in two houses supposedly rented for six people with four cars and neither property paying council tax. The cars are all new and not old bangers so please stop being under the illusion that all students are poor. Some are wealthy and could contribute council tax. No doubt the cars are registered at parents' homes so will not get picked up as being part of the city's increasing car population. Why would a city want so many non contributors. And before anyone says they spend money in shops, most of that money is borrowed and may never be paid back and is a future debt. Also families are the biggest spending group as they make the biggest purchases when they buy their first homes ie furniture, white goods etc The Labour group did nothing to resolve the anti social issues around the growth of what is a teenage population, the Greens rely in their vote so also have failed to tackle issues and the Tories make no mention at any point. So more cars, fewer homes available to families, less council tax. Why would any city not take this issue up the agenda to manage more robustly?[/p][/quote]More accommodation on campus would help alleviate such problems, but the proposals have been blocked by the Council; no doubt the Greens played a major role in this decision. I can't wait for them to get booted out next year. Dominic Guzman
  • Score: -6

11:33am Thu 26 Jun 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
rolivan wrote:
Why try and stop the Juggernaut now ,that side of the A27 might as well be used.As to how it can have a negative impact on housing stock in the City only they know. When there is more to follow will that be anytime Soon?
Thought you lived in France?
I was born and raised in Brighton and have spent over half my life in and around the City. My Mother's side of the Family have been residents for over a hundred and fifty years . I still visit family and friends regularly and Pay Tax in England . How long have you been in Brighton ? Long enough to destroy the fabric of it with your Green Friends it would seem.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: Why try and stop the Juggernaut now ,that side of the A27 might as well be used.As to how it can have a negative impact on housing stock in the City only they know. When there is more to follow will that be anytime Soon?[/p][/quote]Thought you lived in France?[/p][/quote]I was born and raised in Brighton and have spent over half my life in and around the City. My Mother's side of the Family have been residents for over a hundred and fifty years . I still visit family and friends regularly and Pay Tax in England . How long have you been in Brighton ? Long enough to destroy the fabric of it with your Green Friends it would seem. rolivan
  • Score: 4

11:37am Thu 26 Jun 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I believe the accommodation will provide halls for the increase in student numbers being planned. 5,000 extra students. The plans do not state that the 5,000 will remain in halls for three years. Perhaps the
Argus can confirm this.
I believe the accommodation will provide halls for the increase in student numbers being planned. 5,000 extra students. The plans do not state that the 5,000 will remain in halls for three years. Perhaps the Argus can confirm this. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 2

11:43am Thu 26 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Max Ripple wrote:
Excellent quote Maxwell. Have to agree on all levels. Both of our universities seem to think that certain areas of our city are only suitable to be converted into surrogate campuses. Hanover, Elm Grove, Moulsecombe, Bevendean, Coombes Road, Coldean - all areas that suffer from a massive glut of student HMOs. All areas which have lost large numbers of long term residents and families due to this studentification. They don't give a ****. Ask any of the university big wigs if they live any any of those areas and the answer will always be NO. I know, I've tried it.
All of those areas were at one time Social Housing then were bought when right to buy came in then sold on for huge profits or rented out which afforded the owners to buy another property . There in lies the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Max Ripple[/bold] wrote: Excellent quote Maxwell. Have to agree on all levels. Both of our universities seem to think that certain areas of our city are only suitable to be converted into surrogate campuses. Hanover, Elm Grove, Moulsecombe, Bevendean, Coombes Road, Coldean - all areas that suffer from a massive glut of student HMOs. All areas which have lost large numbers of long term residents and families due to this studentification. They don't give a ****. Ask any of the university big wigs if they live any any of those areas and the answer will always be NO. I know, I've tried it.[/p][/quote]All of those areas were at one time Social Housing then were bought when right to buy came in then sold on for huge profits or rented out which afforded the owners to buy another property . There in lies the problem. rolivan
  • Score: 0

11:44am Thu 26 Jun 14

mrpurplestorm says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
There are two student houses directly opposite me. Students stay in halls for their first year and then move into the community taking houses which were once occupied by families for the following two years.
Both houses are rented to three people but one house has five in it as two partners have also moved in. This year out of the eight living in the two houses four cars have arrived.
So we have eight people in two houses supposedly rented for six people with four cars and neither property paying council tax.
The cars are all new and not old bangers so please stop being under the illusion that all students are poor. Some are wealthy and could contribute council tax. No doubt the cars are registered at parents' homes so will not get picked up as being part of the city's increasing car population. Why would a city want so many non contributors. And before anyone says they spend money in shops, most of that money is borrowed and may never be paid back and is a future debt.
Also families are the biggest spending group as they make the biggest purchases when they buy their first homes ie furniture, white goods etc
The Labour group did nothing to resolve the anti social issues around the growth of what is a teenage population, the Greens rely in their vote so also have failed to tackle issues and the Tories make no mention at any point.
So more cars, fewer homes available to families, less council tax.
Why would any city not take this issue up the agenda to manage more robustly?
Do you really think that students have paid for these cars all by themselves? Mum and dad.....?
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: There are two student houses directly opposite me. Students stay in halls for their first year and then move into the community taking houses which were once occupied by families for the following two years. Both houses are rented to three people but one house has five in it as two partners have also moved in. This year out of the eight living in the two houses four cars have arrived. So we have eight people in two houses supposedly rented for six people with four cars and neither property paying council tax. The cars are all new and not old bangers so please stop being under the illusion that all students are poor. Some are wealthy and could contribute council tax. No doubt the cars are registered at parents' homes so will not get picked up as being part of the city's increasing car population. Why would a city want so many non contributors. And before anyone says they spend money in shops, most of that money is borrowed and may never be paid back and is a future debt. Also families are the biggest spending group as they make the biggest purchases when they buy their first homes ie furniture, white goods etc The Labour group did nothing to resolve the anti social issues around the growth of what is a teenage population, the Greens rely in their vote so also have failed to tackle issues and the Tories make no mention at any point. So more cars, fewer homes available to families, less council tax. Why would any city not take this issue up the agenda to manage more robustly?[/p][/quote]Do you really think that students have paid for these cars all by themselves? Mum and dad.....? mrpurplestorm
  • Score: 2

11:45am Thu 26 Jun 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
I believe the accommodation will provide halls for the increase in student numbers being planned. 5,000 extra students. The plans do not state that the 5,000 will remain in halls for three years. Perhaps the
Argus can confirm this.
I think there must be a way for the govt to stop them expanding. Overtrading is a fact and someone somewhere has the power to stop them. Universities always offer accommodation to first year students but are not always able to provide it even to them.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: I believe the accommodation will provide halls for the increase in student numbers being planned. 5,000 extra students. The plans do not state that the 5,000 will remain in halls for three years. Perhaps the Argus can confirm this.[/p][/quote]I think there must be a way for the govt to stop them expanding. Overtrading is a fact and someone somewhere has the power to stop them. Universities always offer accommodation to first year students but are not always able to provide it even to them. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 2

12:49pm Thu 26 Jun 14

itmeansnothingtome says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
I believe the accommodation will provide halls for the increase in student numbers being planned. 5,000 extra students. The plans do not state that the 5,000 will remain in halls for three years. Perhaps the
Argus can confirm this.
I think there must be a way for the govt to stop them expanding. Overtrading is a fact and someone somewhere has the power to stop them. Universities always offer accommodation to first year students but are not always able to provide it even to them.
There were very strict quotas on students for each University, any University that over subscribed was heavily fine (in fact this was often a real challenge for Universities as they offer places to students before knowing their grades, if too many got the grades they expected they had too many students and were fined a sum many times more than there student fees).

However the current Government has removed all restrictions on Universities.
As it happens Sussex is a relatively small University at the moment, I'd say many cities have it as bad, if not worse.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: I believe the accommodation will provide halls for the increase in student numbers being planned. 5,000 extra students. The plans do not state that the 5,000 will remain in halls for three years. Perhaps the Argus can confirm this.[/p][/quote]I think there must be a way for the govt to stop them expanding. Overtrading is a fact and someone somewhere has the power to stop them. Universities always offer accommodation to first year students but are not always able to provide it even to them.[/p][/quote]There were very strict quotas on students for each University, any University that over subscribed was heavily fine (in fact this was often a real challenge for Universities as they offer places to students before knowing their grades, if too many got the grades they expected they had too many students and were fined a sum many times more than there student fees). However the current Government has removed all restrictions on Universities. As it happens Sussex is a relatively small University at the moment, I'd say many cities have it as bad, if not worse. itmeansnothingtome
  • Score: 3

6:46pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Maybe it's time the universities began to supply all necessary additional infrastructure and support services ie doctors as the additional students are just adding to already overburdened health facilities.
Maybe it's time the universities began to supply all necessary additional infrastructure and support services ie doctors as the additional students are just adding to already overburdened health facilities. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 2

11:14pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Max Ripple says...

rolivan wrote:
Max Ripple wrote:
Excellent quote Maxwell. Have to agree on all levels. Both of our universities seem to think that certain areas of our city are only suitable to be converted into surrogate campuses. Hanover, Elm Grove, Moulsecombe, Bevendean, Coombes Road, Coldean - all areas that suffer from a massive glut of student HMOs. All areas which have lost large numbers of long term residents and families due to this studentification. They don't give a ****. Ask any of the university big wigs if they live any any of those areas and the answer will always be NO. I know, I've tried it.
All of those areas were at one time Social Housing then were bought when right to buy came in then sold on for huge profits or rented out which afforded the owners to buy another property . There in lies the problem.
Er, I'm sorry but Hanover, Elm Grove, Coombe Rd were never areas of social housing. They were all privately owned and/or rented housing. Right back to 1822 when the first houses in Hanover were built. Moulsecombe and Bevendean, yes, I agree. A large part of the problem in our area now is home owners getting fed up with the students, moving out but keeping their houses on and renting them to students. And speculators buying up the rest. To be honest, I can't blame some of them although it hurts me to say so. Hanover is now one big campus. I've heard students refer to it as such.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Ripple[/bold] wrote: Excellent quote Maxwell. Have to agree on all levels. Both of our universities seem to think that certain areas of our city are only suitable to be converted into surrogate campuses. Hanover, Elm Grove, Moulsecombe, Bevendean, Coombes Road, Coldean - all areas that suffer from a massive glut of student HMOs. All areas which have lost large numbers of long term residents and families due to this studentification. They don't give a ****. Ask any of the university big wigs if they live any any of those areas and the answer will always be NO. I know, I've tried it.[/p][/quote]All of those areas were at one time Social Housing then were bought when right to buy came in then sold on for huge profits or rented out which afforded the owners to buy another property . There in lies the problem.[/p][/quote]Er, I'm sorry but Hanover, Elm Grove, Coombe Rd were never areas of social housing. They were all privately owned and/or rented housing. Right back to 1822 when the first houses in Hanover were built. Moulsecombe and Bevendean, yes, I agree. A large part of the problem in our area now is home owners getting fed up with the students, moving out but keeping their houses on and renting them to students. And speculators buying up the rest. To be honest, I can't blame some of them although it hurts me to say so. Hanover is now one big campus. I've heard students refer to it as such. Max Ripple
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree