You are on page 1of 54

!"#$% '()$*+,$-+"*, .


!"#$%&&%'(& *+'$,

"#$$%&'() "#%&*'+
"#&,-.-/0('#&1 #, 2( 3&./-41 5-1'.-&(1
6',- "#%&*'+
7/-1-/80('#& 9/%1(
:%--&1 ;0/.-&1 < 9-//0*- 5-1'.-&(1= 311#*'0('#&
>01(>&.-/1 5-1'.-&(1= 311#*'0('#&
2(%.-&(1= 311#*'0('#&

The Royal Burgh of St Andrews
Community Council
Submission to The St Andrews Commission on Housing
January 2013

1. In terms of age groups, St Andrews is becoming a town with a hole in the middle. With every passing
year, it fits more closely its caricature as a cross between a student campus and a retirement lounge for
the well-to-do. Many of our own young people move away to jobs elsewhere, and first-time buyers,
whether born here or not, often cannot get a toe on the housing ladder. This also impacts adversely on
existing residents. Quality of life is not improved by creating an increasingly artificial community that
lacks children, young families, and those who might provide some youthful energy in local

2. The current situation is also very bad news for the environment and for would-be residents. Large
numbers of those who work in St Andrews cannot afford to stay here, and have to commute in every
day, many doing so by car. The majority of the children at Madras College stay out of town and are
bussed in, adding further to carbon emissions, wasting hours of their lives, and costing Fife Council
£1million a year.

3. This sorry state of affairs reflects the near-complete failure of planning policy for the town over the
last thirty years. In the 1970s Betts and Wimpey built mixed housing at Bogward with small homes
for first-time buyers and pensioners alongside larger family houses. Nowadays builders appear only
concerned with profit-maximisation, and believe, not always correctly, that they can achieve it by
squeezing as many top-of-the-range five-bedroom houses as possible on to any given plot.

4. In recent times, Planning Departments have been replaced by Development Promotion Departments,
and in some senses that is appropriate. Planning implies a rational approach, in which the desires of
organisations and individuals are steered so that there is a coherent overall approach to land-use and
the goals of the community are achieved. Instead we see the methodology of the mad-house. The
General Register Office for Scotland produces projections that suggest that average household size will
fall to under two. On that basis we calculate housing need and decide how much new housing land is
required. In St Andrews we then allow developers to cater for these households of size two by
building largely five-bedroom houses. The visiting alien might well ask, “Who will sleep in all those
bedrooms? Is this a species totally devoid of reason?”

5. The notion that planning might serve the goals of the community has also gone out of the window. We
have just witnessed a cycle of the Development Plan, and the launch of a TAYPlan, in which, over a
seven year period, the wishes of the people - not just in St Andrews but over the whole of North East
Fife - have starred so low on the priorities of the Fife Council planners as to be almost completely
irrelevant. Strategy in St Andrews has been determined to satisfy the corporate interests of the major
organisations operating in the town.

6. Also ridiculous is the failure of the planning system to impose separate requirements for affordable
housing, which is undoubtedly our greatest housing need in St Andrews. Instead the system
effectively serves as Robin Hood in reverse, exploiting the needs of the less well-off for the benefit of
developers and the well-to-do. The considerable need for affordable housing is thrown into a general
requirement that results in the designation of housing land that is then used for top-of-the-range

7. It is certainly true that Fife Council has made some attempts to address this need, but sadly those
attempts have so far been largely ineffective as far as St Andrews is concerned. Developers have
rapidly become adept at circumventing the requirement that 30% of houses on sites of at least 20 units
should be affordable. We need affordable housing built in St Andrews. Compensating provision
outwith the town or monetary contributions in lieu do not answer the question. It should also not be
forgotten that it was a developer, not the local residents, who opposed affordable housing in Hepburn
Gardens on the grounds that it would cause an “imbalance of the social harmony”!

8. The Community Council believes there is no realistic expectation that these problems will be
meaningfully addressed in the foreseeable future by the existing political and planning structures.
From being a self-governing Burgh in the 1970s, the town’s control over its own affairs has steadily
diminished, as power moved to Cupar and then Glenrothes.

9. We do therefore need to ask whether, out of our own resources, the residents of this town can create an
organisation of some kind designed to tackle these problems. We need a player in the housing market,
with a focus on St Andrews, that does not just aim to line its own pockets. Instead its goals should be
(i) to address local housing need rather than providing expensive houses for incomers;
(ii) to recreate in St Andrews a more natural and rounded community, with more standard
(iii) to cut carbon emissions by (a) letting those who work in St Andrews stay nearer their work;
and (b) enabling more of those with children at a school in St Andrews to stay nearer that school.

10 There is no way that such an organisation can be created overnight, but, if the determination were
there, it just might be possible to build one gradually, setting very limited goals in its early years and
slowly acquiring an asset base. We would need to find the spirit of those who, from very humble
beginnings, started the early building societies, as a form of mutual self-help, but apply that spirit in
the very different ways suitable for the twenty first century. The residents of this town must possess a
wealth of expertise that would be invaluable for getting a project of this nature off the ground. What
we need to create is a vehicle that looks sufficiently viable that those with vision and imagination will
want to participate and contribute whatever expertise they are able to offer. The aim should also be to
co-operate with, and where possible enlist the assistance of, the existing organisations that provide
affordable housing, but to provide the focus on St Andrews, and the determination to solve its
problems, that currently appears to be lacking.

11. If such a vision were judged feasible, the approaches that such an organisation might pursue in the
medium term could include:-
(i) acquiring and creating from the existing housing stock more affordable units for families, perhaps
by sub-dividing properties where appropriate;
(ii) exploring novel construction methods for new eco-friendly units that would be cheap to operate;
(iii) vetting potential tenants and acting as an agency for those whose property might otherwise stand
This would all need to be done respecting the planning principles for the town that the Community
Council, unsuccessfully in recent years, has for long attempted to uphold.

12. At present this proposal is obviously more of a manifesto than a blueprint. More investigation is
needed to sketch out a more detailed route-map. We thus welcome the work that the Housing
Commission is undertaking. Detailed knowledge of the current situation in the town is clearly one
necessary prerequisite. Another is some exploration of the various approaches to self-help housing
provision that have been tried elsewhere with a view to determining the type of model that is most
likely to succeed in the St Andrews context in the twenty-first century.

13 The first steps to acquiring an appropriate asset base and implementing any of the above approaches
would clearly be the hardest ones. If a head of steam could be established, the above activities might
attract funding from a variety of governmental and non-governmental sources, both those with remits
for housing and those addressing climate change. If such an organisation could be seen to contribute
positively to the life of the town, it could also attract donations, including perhaps legacies from those
who remember the pleasure of staying in a town with significant numbers of young families and wish
future generations to gain the same experience.

Ian Goudie
ConIederation oI St Andrews Residents Associations (CSARA)
Consultation Response to the St Andrews Town Commission on Housing
1. CSARA was Iounded in 2005 to represent the interests oI three town centre residents associations. The
constituent associations were the 'East Enders¨, Queens Gardens / Queens Terrace and Hope Street /
Howard Place. It extended its scope when the Hepburn Gardens Area Residents Association joined the
2. The precipitating Iactor Ior the Iormation oI CSARA was a developing concern Ior the erosion oI
community liIe caused by an exponential rise in the number oI houses in multiple occupation (HMOs),
an accommodation type which by this time had come to dominate the town centre. Scottish Government
Planning Circular 2/2012 states;
'2. There is a steady demand Ior HMOs in many parts oI Scotland. HMOs have tended to be
used mainly by students, and there are well-established concentrations oI HMOs close to
many higher and Iurther education institutions. Rising student numbers have intensiIied
demand in these areas, and are creating demand in other areas. More recently, other groups
have started seeking HMO accommodation, particularly migrant workers and young
proIessionals. These trends have resulted in an overall increase in the number oI HMOs, as
well as the Iormation oI HMOs in areas and towns where there have previously been very
3. High concentrations oI HMOs can lead to a range oI cultural, social, physical and economic
changes in a community. Such changes may be positive or negative, and may be perceived
diIIerently Irom community to community. Some oI these changes, particularly regarding the
behaviour oI HMO tenants, are not matters Ior planning authorities. However, planning
authorities may wish to adopt policies to limit HMO concentrations where the residential
amenity oI a community is already adversely aIIected by high concentrations oI HMOs, or in
areas where it is likely that this may happen in the Iuture.
4. The range oI potential problems associated with high concentrations oI HMOs can include:
changes in demand Ior services, altering the availability and nature oI services provided;
increased competition Ior private houses, consequential rises in house prices, and reduced
availability Ior non-HMO residents; areas oI high HMO concentrations can become
unpopular with non-HMO residents, altering the community;
potential physical deterioration caused by lack oI investment by absentee landlords;
increased population density, resulting in increased demand on services, inIrastructure and
on-street parking provision;
a high number oI transient residents leading to less community cohesion.¨
All these adverse social and environmental eIIects can be observed in St Andrews.
3. During its liIetime, CSARA has campaigned on many 'quality oI liIe¨ issues aIIecting all who live,
study in and visit the town. It has successIully sought improvements which encourage the provision oI
suitable student accommodation, one example being the inclusion in Scottish Planning Policy oI a
requirement Ior local authorities to consider the need Ior student accommodation when Iormulating their
Housing Needs Requirement.
As reported in: (a) Department Ior Communities and Local Government, Evidence Gathering - Housing in Multiple Occupation
and possible planning responses: Final Report (2008);
(b)Universities UK, StudentiIication`
4. CSARA has also joined with other community organisations in Scotland to seek changes to primary
housing legislation. Representations by Sustainable Communities (Scotland) |SUSCOMS| to the
Scottish Parliament resulted in the inclusion in the Private Rented Sector (Scotland) Act 2011 oI three
signiIicant amendments. These were incorporated in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 as Section 129A
and 131A. A key change gave powers to local authorities not to consider an application Ior an HMO
licence iI this would result in a breach oI planning policy. Previously, an HMO could be legal under one
statutory regime and unlawIul under the other.
5. Another consequence oI these amendments was to empower local authorities to consider the need Ior
HMOs in the context oI all housing need in an area. The amended Act also gave authority to local
councils to reIuse an application Ior an HMO licence iI this would result in over-provision. Local
authorities were given powers to have regard to proposals to subdivide rooms and relocate the normally
stacked` water and sewage services in tenement properties when considering new applications Ior
HMO licences. Subdivision oIten resulted in poor natural light and sub-optimal living space Ior HMO
tenants, while shiIting the position oI toilets, showers, etc. could result in Ilooding oI living rooms and
bedrooms in lower Ilats. This problem had become so Irequent in some properties that the owners or
tenants Iound that they were uninsurable.
6. These legislative changes (mostly powers rather than duties) have been partially implemented by FiIe
Council, the over-provision clause being the main exception at present. This is due to be rectiIied when
the planning and licensing computer systems can communicate with each other. A similar arrangement
which allows co-ordination between planning and licensing decisions is already in operation in Dundee.
7. CSARA has since its inception recognised and promoted the need Ior students studying in the town to
have saIe and suitable accommodation. The University directly provides approximately 50° oI the
accommodation required Ior the student body, which is said to be the highest proportion in Scotland. It
should be noted, however, that there is a Iinite number oI domestic properties in the town (just over
6,500) and that pressure on the housing stock to accommodate students has exacerbated the scarcity oI
(mainly) aIIordable houses and raised house prices generally.
8. HMOs are proIit generating businesses which can attract interest-only buy-to-let mortgages which are
tax-deductible, as are maintenance costs and other business expenses. The generous income which
ownership oI HMOs produce is augmented by an expectation oI capital appreciation Ior business
premises which do not carry the burden oI council or business tax iI students are accommodated.
9. Annexe 1 shows the annual Iinancial rewards which can be derived Irom purpose-built student
accommodation, with an average Ior the sector oI 12°. Conversion oI mainstream housing to meet
minimal HMO standards is likely to generate even higher returns. This has tended to increase the cost
oI domestic properties capable oI being operated as HMOs. Families and private individuals Iind it
diIIicult to compete in a housing market which is distorted by such Iactors and the result is that many are
priced out.
10. A letter Irom FiIe Council dated 25
October 2010 (Annexe 2) provides useIul inIormation on some
aspects oI housing usage in St Andrews. This shows that HMOs located in Iormer council houses are
not currently captured in housing statistics. While students are not the only occupants oI HMOs, in St
Andrews they are by Iar the principal group catered Ior in this accommodation type. Annexe 3 provides
a (probably incomplete) list oI Iormer council houses which have been converted to HMOs, derived
Irom the public HMO register. Former social housing owned by buy-to-let-landlords, with Iewer than
the HMO licensing threshold oI 3 or more unrelated tenants will increase the amount oI such housing
occupied by members oI the student population. While St Andrews is now a designated area oI housing
pressure and restrictions have been placed on the right-to-buy, this will only apply to new council and
housing association tenants and some attrition oI this otherwise aIIordable housing stock is likely to
11. A review oI new licences granted recorded in the HMO Public Register shows that historically more
houses (oI all tenure types) have been converted Ior HMO use in St Andrews use each year than are
proposed to be built in accordance with the Development Plan (50 per year until 2026). Thirty per cent
oI these are required to be 'aIIordable¨. The rate oI conversion oI social housing to HMOs may
however negate this attempt to improve the overall availability oI mainstream and aIIordable housing in
St Andrews. The FiIe Housing Needs Assessment which inIorms the Development Plan has not yet
incorporated a process to assess the need Ior student accommodation. Clearly, this situation is
unsustainable iI the housing land supply is to reIlect actual need and a viable resident population is to be
12. It is generally recognised, given the commercial pressures and other Iactors noted above that a Iree
housing market ensures that student housing needs are adequately catered Ior, although some students
may experience anxiety about Iinding their ideal accommodation Ior the start oI each term (see Courier`
report, Annexe 4). St Andrews is the most pressured area in FiIe Ior general and special needs housing
as the extract Irom the St Andrews Housing proIile (Annexe 5) demonstrates. The number oI
individuals / Iamilies recorded as homeless is notable. It is considered that apart Irom the homeless
Iigure which is said to have reduced, the general picture is not too diIIerent Irom these 2007 Iigures.
13. FiIe Council states in the St Andrews and North East FiIe Local Plan 2012 that the population oI St
Andrews, including students, is 16,351. This is based on projections Irom the GRO 2001 Census
returns. The University has provided student numbers Ior undergraduates and post-graduates showing a
total oI 7,750 in 2012. These may be Iull time equivalents rather than actual numbers. HESA Iigures
show the total student numbers attending St Andrews as being 9538 in March 2012. In 1991 there were
approximately 4,000 students in a total population oI 14,000. There is doubt about the accuracy oI the
current St Andrews population Iigure but the GRO has acknowledged that iI their current Iigures are
correct the permanent population oI St Andrews has reduced as the student population has increased.
14. While the University has stated that it does not intend to increase undergraduate numbers and envisages
only a small increase in postgraduate numbers, this does not seem to have aIIected the ambitions oI buy-
to-let landlords to acquire more property in the town. A Scottish Government assessment oI the proIile
oI the average buy-to-let landlord (Private Rented Sector Forum) is oI a person with one or two
properties who is investing as an alternative to a private pension, not a person who has a major interest
in managing residential property. This has produced signiIicant diIIiculties in regard to encouraging the
development oI property management skills, or oI making the private rented sector a viable alternative
to the diminishing public sector. CSARA supports the provision oI purpose-built student
accommodation providing a choice oI diIIerent levels oI service. It considers that these should not be
built in the town centre as this would use land that could otherwise be used to improve the balance oI the
community by building aIIordable, special needs and mainline Ilats and houses.
15. In St Andrews, the poor maintenance and external appearance oI rented accommodation in the town
centre has been noticeable. This is commented upon in the FiIe Council St Andrews Design Guidelines
(Annexe 6) and Conservation Area Appraisal (Annexe 7). The student body also appear to share this
view as reported in the independent St Andrews Town Audit and Action Plan, Jura Associates, 2006
(Annexe 8).
16. This has a relationship to the pride oI place` issues mentioned earlier, and the concept oI a tipping point
at which the viability oI a resident community comes under threat iI temporary, seasonal residents
become the predominant population. The average tenancy oI an HMO occupant is ten months. In most
oI the central area oI the town, student Ilats are estimated to account Ior 85° oI the population. This
Iigure excludes students in town centre university halls oI residence. It has been calculated that the
number oI children living in the town centre is ·2°. In response to concerns about the balance oI the
community in the historic core, FiIe Council introduced a moratorium on Iurther HMOs in the Central
Conservation Area in June 2011. It is the view oI CSARA that iI the moratorium had not been
introduced, the historic core would have become almost exclusively a retail centre and residential
annexe to the University. This policy has been criticised as being social engineering` but this epitaph
can be applied equally to any social policy. A sustainable community will Ieature a balanced mix oI
ages, social class, and tenure.
17. There is evidence that the moratorium has inhibited Iurther HMOs being established in the Central
Conservation Area but it has not aIIected the historic position to any extent. The St Andrews
Conservation Area policy, policy, now incorporated in the Local Plan, and endorsed by Government
Reporters, can only be regarded as a stop-gap measure, preventing Iurther erosion oI the resident
community until a more eIIective long term policy can be developed. There have been no indications
that the policy has caused problems Ior students seeking accommodation and it has been reported that
some HMO Ilats have been leIt without tenants in the town centre during the 2012/2013 term.
18. A more general planning policy covering HMOs generally in FiIe was implemented by the Council
some years ago but this is so weak that it has not been known to prevent any new HMOs being
established (92° oI FiIe HMOs are in St Andrews). Some councils such as Newcastle and Leeds have
developed strategies intended to reverse the adverse social and environmental eIIects oI concentrations
oI HMOs and restore aIIected residential areas to more mixed, sustainable communities.
19. Illegal HMOs have been an enduring problem in St Andrews and elsewhere since the mandatory
licensing scheme was introduced over twelve years ago in response to saIety concerns Iollowing a Iatal
Iire in a student Ilat in Glasgow. It can be seen as perverse that saIety issues are managed by an
oIIicially encouraged light touch` enIorcement regime where the most common approach to illegally
operating landlords when detected is to encourage them to obtain a licence. A Iurther problem is that
the licensing scheme requires being selI-Iinancing, so eIIective enIorcement can only be resourced by
increasing the licensing Iee Ior law-abiding landlords.
20. It has been suggested that landlords oI illegal HMOs will attempt to circumvent the Conservation Area
HMO policy by dividing their properties to provide selI-contained accommodation Ior Iewer than three
people. This is acknowledged as a potential issue, but not all properties will be suitable Ior this
approach. There will be planning obstacles to internal alterations to listed buildings (St Andrews has
300 oI which 30 are A` listed), and not all buy-to-let landlords will be willing to expend the capital
sums required to carry out such extensive work. Operation oI an illegal HMO, a criminal oIIence, can
be considered as rendering an owner as being an unsuitable person to become a registered landlord. All
landlords now require to be registered and Iailure to do so is a criminal oIIence attracting a potential Iine
oI £50,000.
21. The quality oI university-provided student accommodation in St Andrews is generally good although
some built in the sixties and seventies is now in need oI renovation. Privately managed accommodation
is very variable in quality and amenity. Licensing requirements include minimum standards, but
conventional homes adapted Ior multiple occupation, oIten housing more adults than they were designed
Ior, do not always provide optimal accommodation Ior young people during their studies. The deIinition
oI HMO accommodation is that there are shared Iacilities, such as bathrooms and kitchens, and there is
no requirement Ior communal space. Nevertheless, living in the community, particularly the town
centre is popular with students, perhaps because oI the sense Ireedom such accommodation represents.
Annexe 9 shows student addresses by postcode area.
22. Rents Ior private HMOs are high when it is considered that £450 per month is the typical rent Ior a
single bedroom with shared toilet / bathroom and kitchen. The rental cost seems to be related to the cost
Ior un-catered university residences rather than any more objective measure. These rents are not
regulated in any way. University accommodation generally has on-costs which arise Irom cleaning,
janitorial and warden services which are not borne by private landlords. It has been noted that HMOs
housing students are exempt Irom council tax, but it is believed that university residences pay Ior some
council services such as reIuse collection and lighting. Research by the Scottish Federation oI Housing
shows that in the past ten years the cost oI housing beneIit spent on private tenants across
the UK has increased 153 per cent, compared to a 21 per cent increase Ior council and housing
association tenants. This raises the issue as to whether the Private Rented Sector is the best option to
provide economically Ior the accommodation needs oI students and other accommodation seekers.
23. While these rental levels provide a generous income Ior most HMO landlords, they demonstrate why it
would be very diIIicult Ior an average Iamily to compete in buying a property. HMOs also distort the
rental market as a three bedroom Ilat (with the lounge also serving as a bedroom) can attract a rent oI
between £1,600 and £1,800 per month, a sum beyond the reach oI most Iamilies.
24. These Iigures invite the question oI whether students obtain good value Ior money when renting in the
private sector. With a duopoly oI accommodation options, the market provides only limited choice.
Missing Irom the accommodation mix Ior students in St Andrews (and most other universities) are
innovative options such as co-operative housing and shared equity schemes. For instance, Glasgow
University has contracted with a social landlord to provide student accommodation. While the housing
association provides day to day services, the ethos oI the establishment is the responsibility oI the
25. FiIe Council policy exempts providers oI purpose-built student accommodation Irom an obligation to
provide housing at a ratio oI 70° mainstream to 30° aIIordable (i.e., they would normally provide land
or a Iinancial contribution Ior the aIIordable housing). A local eIIect oI this policy has been that land
identiIied Ior residential development in St Andrews has been proposed instead Ior student housing as
this provides not only better returns, but a perverse incentive to avoid the aIIordable housing levy.
26. Research by Universities UK
has predicted that undergraduate enrolments could Iall overall by 6.5°
until 2027. Such demographic projections should be used as a basis Ior planning decisions about the
need, and means oI providing Ior, new student accommodation in St Andrews through discussion
between the University and FiIe Council as planning authority. The Iirst version oI the Strategic
Agreement between the Council and the University proposed such joint planning and this is supported
by Scottish Government Policy.
27. When it is considered that a student (or his / her parents) will expend as much as £16,000 on
accommodation during their Iour year stay, it is regrettable that there is no option to build equity during
their time at university. However, it should be noted that some wealthy parents buy property Ior their
sons / daughters during their stay, and some continue to operate these houses or Ilats as HMOs when
their children graduate.
28. For children growing up in St Andrews, opportunities to continue to live in the town when they grow are
limited or virtually non-existent. Unless they are Iortunate to inherit the parental home they will be
obliged to make their contribution to society elsewhere. This emphasises the unsustainable nature oI
present trends in the town, with a distorted population proIile composed mainly oI young people
attending university and a growing number oI elderly people. The mixed sustainable community which
is the objective oI Scottish Planning Policy is a diminishing prospect, and the issues need to be tackled
now iI the trends are to be reversed beIore the situation becomes irretrievable.
CSARA submits that there are certain actions which can be taken to improve the housing situation in St
Andrews and provides the Iollowing suggestions Ior consideration.
1) The current development plan requirement on developers to provide Ior 30° aIIordable housing
should be maintained. There are indications that this requirement may be diluted.
2) Surplus council land should be retained Ior aIIordable housing and all aIIordable housing should
remain so in perpetuity.
3) The building by the University oI student accommodation should be welcomed. This should be
supported by the Local Development Plan which should take student needs into account. In order to
help redress the balance oI the population in the town centre, this accommodation should be built on
university-owned land.
4) Consideration oI any increase in student numbers should have regard to the balance oI population in
the town and the eIIects on physical and social inIrastructure. The University should see the
provision oI student accommodation as an essential component oI the total experience they oIIer to
students and plan accordingly.
5) Co-operative and shared ownership schemes should be developed Ior students.
6) Private purpose-built student accommodation should, when shown to be needed, be allowed in
suitable locations outwith the town centre Ior the reasons given in (3). As there is no evidence that
exemption Irom the aIIordable housing levy reduces costs Ior tenants oI such property, developers
should not be given a perverse incentive to build this type oI accommodation by subsidising it in
this way.
7) Planning applications Ior purpose-built student accommodation should be assessed against the
needs Ior such accommodation and identiIied in the Development Plan Housing Needs Assessment.
8) A more eIIective and pro-active HMO planning policy should be adopted in order to avoid Iuture
concentrations oI HMOs. Glasgow has such a policy and Edinburgh has 'Areas oI Restraint¨.
These policies have, however, generally been implemented too late when matters have reached
crises proportions. Early warning systems should be adopted and Iull use made oI the legislative
power to co-ordinate planning and licensing decisions. Such policies should seek to ensure that a
balance is maintained in all communities and that commercial pressures do not distort the housing
market and invalidate Housing Needs Assessments to the extent this has occurred in St Andrews.
9) EnIorcement action on illegal (and potentially unsaIe) HMOs should be intensiIied.
10) Consideration should be given to policies designed to return areas overwhelmed by HMOs to more
balanced communities. Headingley and other areas oI Leeds are beginning to beneIit.
David Middleton Ior CSARA
January 2013
$%&' )* +,,-.-&
1. Private Student Housing Property Report
2. Letter Irom FiIe Council dated 25
October 2010
3. List oI Houses in Multiple Occupation in Former Social Housing
4. Courier Report September 2012 - 'Housing Vacancies at Uni¨
5. St Andrews Housing ProIile 2007
6. St Andrews Design Guidelines (extract)
7. St Andrews Conservation Area Appraisal (extract)
8. Student Views oI Houses in Multiple Occupation
9. Students Addresses by Postcode Area
Susan Bradley
08451 555555 ext. 44 11 72
Your Ref:
Our Ref: ELlSB/FOI/441
Date: 25 October 2010
I refer to your letter dated 11 October 2010 and received 12 October 2010; our reference
H/441. I am pleased to enclose the information you requested and trust that it meets your
1. Private owned homes
The total number of HMOs in St Andrews is 1015, of these 666 are privately owned.
2. Private owned homes that were former Council houses
The total ~umber of privately owned homes Jh~t 'Yere former Council houses ,in St ". /'
Andrews IS 24, of these none are HMOs.* ~\~ \c.:.. \\ttLONaeJ . ~ C.\~~ ~\p(
\-WV\O is \Oc:e\~ ,\A- ~WWJv c.o~\
3. Total number of homes in St Andrews - VlI9 u.:'.lJ21-1 \V\ ~ C\\;l.Q\v'Qt,~s:. \I
The total numberof properties in St Andrews is 6470.
If you are not satisfied with the way we have handled your request, you have the right to
request a review of the decision. Please write to: Chief Legal Officer, Legal Services,
Performance & Organisational Support, Fife House, North Street, Glenrothes, KY7 5LT or
e-mail us at; within 3 calendar months of receipt of our decision. If
this fails to resolve the matter to your complete satisfaction, you have the right to apply to
the Scottish Information Commissioner for a decision.
Susan Bradley
Business Support & Administration Lead Officer
CHRIS BROOME, Senior Resources Manager
Fife Council, Rothesay House, Rothesay Place,
Glenrothes Fife KY75PQ
TELEPHONE 08451 550000
FACSIMILE 01592583234
129 Lamond Drive StAndrews
70 Watson Avenue, St Andrews
1 Auldburn Road, St Andrews
73 Scooniehill Road, St.Andrews, KY16 8HZ
18 James Robb Avenue, St Andrews
10 Wallace Street, St Andrews
6 Clatto Place, St Andrews
83 Boase Avenue, St Andrews
113 Broomfaulds Avenue, St Andrews, KY16 8RH
166 Lamond Drive, St Andrews KY16 8JP
4 Auldburn Road, St Andrews KY16 9TL
236 Auldburn Park, St Andrews
8 Auldburn Park, St Andrews
259 Lamond Drive, St Andrews
6 James Robb A venue
12 Wallace Street, St Andrews
3 Fraser Avenue, St Andrews
30 Lamond Drive, St Andrews
6 Sloan Street, St Andrews
34 Lamond Drive, StAndrews
60 Auldburn Park, St Andrews
26 Tom Morris Drive, St Andrews
60 Pipeland Road, St Andrews
52 Auldburn Park St Andrews
46 Roundhill Road, St Andrews
16 Hutchison Court, St Andrews
125 Lamond Drive St Andrews
3 Roundhill Road, St Andrews
197 Lamond Drive,St Andrews
26 Lamond Drive, St Andrews
3 Auldburn Road, St Andrews
46 Woodburn Terrace, St Andrews
120 Lamond Drive, St Andrews, KY16
57 Churchill Crescent, St Andrews
55 Tom Morris Drive, St Andrews
19 Fraser Avenue, St Andrews
17 Lamond Drive, St Andrews
23 Chamberlain Street, St Andrews
15 Woodburn Terrace St Andrews
48 Scooniehill Road, St Andrews
52 Jamie Anderson Place, St Andrews
128 Scooniehill Road, St Andrews
69 Roundhill Road, St Andrews
71 Watson Avenue, St Andrews
41 Lamond Drive, St Andrews, KY16
220 Lamond Drive, St Andrews, KY16
25 Sloan Street, St Andrews, KY16 BAW
14 Wallace Street, St Andrews, KY16 BAN
13 Woodburn Terrace, St Andrews
247 Lamond Drive, St Andrews, KY16
9 Gourlay Wynd, St Andrews
4 Boase Avenue, St Andrews, KY16
49 Boase Avenue, Sf. Andrews
47 Boase Avenue, St Andrews, KY16 BBX
79 Tom Morris Drive,St Andrews, KY16
71 Roundhill Road, St Andrews, KY16
4 Lamond Drive, St Andrews, KY16
157 Lamond Drive St Andrews, KY16 BDA
159 Lamond Drive, St Andrews
3 Sloan Street, St Andrews
60 Total (This may be an underestimate as it does not include HMOs
operating without a licence). Date of information is May 2010. In the last
two years, approximately 146 new HMOs have been granted a licence
· . .
," ....•.
.". -.' . . -.
bMfchael ~adei' ... ~ityhit.lls~'anincre¥oflS5 onthe unWersityh~idb3ck'~nie,accOmmodation to inform us that university l'6omS are still .
'. ~. '. numberS:who faced a problem at the same toetJSl.J.l'e we would meetour long-standing available for the upcon'lingsession, despite gr,
STANDREWStJN1VER.sITYisconfldei1t . time last year. , .guarahfue'to ho~ allf'lfSt-yearentrants. . the uproar earlier this yeatw~enitwasclear DI
that aU of its students have found orwill.· A oontinualshortage ofaceommodation' '~The<unoertain recruitment environ- that many returningstud~nts woUldnot be' Fi1
rmd accommodation this academic year In the StAnd.¢ws private sector, the high, mentiS something that was common to made offers..' ',.. . . th
- despite fears from 'some students and prices of rents JtHb:e town:,overiill and a . all UK, univet"sities .this year, although "I was verydisappointedto hearthis~Not . frc
staff that the UIiiversio/ was facing an perceived lack of fm:ancialsupportto off~<in St'Andrews our entrant numbers have just because the retUrning students~'t ac
accommodation crisis. ,. 'set theb~en of hoUsing costsbavecaused '.-remainedthe same atapproximately 1600?'been able telget the rooms they Were after, wi
Whilst many pOstgraduate studeritsbave increasing frustration among StAndtews ThespokeSntan added: "We continue but because this surplUS ofreturnerroOillS' de
not yetanived back for the new semester, .students. .... . .' .... . . '.. to lOokatoptfons locally, however, for was largely created by selfish' students co
a university .spokesman told The Courier' ··,The prospect of the largest-ever oVerall adding to or expanding our existing univer- holding two offers of accominodation. tOI
yesterday that for the ftrsttime ill many num~er of applications to St Andrews sity.owned ormanaged accommodation in "With the university offer as a back-up, re:
years the universitycUrrentlyhas'~sOI11e' University fot tbis,year,'- a~tiseofJ7%' the longer.term. . . this meant that promises were broken and·
vacancies" in theresidenee system. , .····_···.·hadalsosparkedfearssttident hoUSing "Proportionately, St Andrews houses students .wholictually. needed the roomsthl
Theupdatefollowscommentbythtmewpressureswereonlygoingtogefworse. . more students in university residences than wereforcedtolooke.ffiewhefe. .'. ..... vr
presidentoftheStAndrewsUniversity Stu-Butthe university spokesman said: "The anyotherSCottishuniversity." "Residential Busm¢ss Services, .who·. 'all
dentAssociatioriwhobasblamedanumber vacancies are partly because a number of Last week, StAndrew$ Student run the accommodati9n,at.theuniversityi
of "selfish" students for aggravating the returning students accepted our offers of Association president Freddie fforde work enormouslYhardtotryartd finhelJ
accommodation situation in the town. accommodation but subsequently haven't bloggedhis vieWson the accommodation requirements ~ther. . • • 11
As reported by The Courier in March, taken them up in favour of acconunoda- situation - and blamed a number- of ''Whilst we are all capable ofifuproving,
the ~ersity authorities conflrmed they tion elsewhere intown or further afield, and "selfish" students for aggrl:lvatingthe Iwant to highlight that the holding of two .(
had initially been unable to accommodate because earlier in the year in response. to acconunodatio!,!situation. offers' directly impacts on the availability :f11
~35students who had applied to return to an uncertain recruitment environment, the He said: "We received an email this week made to students." nCl
- ~~ - ~- ~
- -;St Antl.·c" s Housing~List -- ~-~~
-- - -- ~ - - ~
Timcscalc 111l1l1~kss '\\'aitmg TI,\IlSr~1 S Total
30-Jun-07 47 10.61% 302 68.17% 94
31-Mar-07 42 9.88% 286 67.29% 97 22.82% 425
31-Dec-06 45 11.36%
269 67.93% 82 20.71% 396
30-Sep-06 41
246 67.21% 79 21.58%
30-Jun-06 64 11.76%
392 72.06% 88 16.18% 544
31-Mar-06 70 11.80%
434 73.19% 89 15.01% 593
31-Dec-05 63 10.57% 438
95 15.94% 596
30-Sep-05 60 10.22% 430 73.25% 97 16.52%
30-Jun-05 67 11.88%
71.63% 93 16.49% 564
31-Mar-05 75 13.66% 383 69.76% 91 16.58% 549
31-Dec-04 92 15.44% 408
68.46% 96 16.11% 596
30-Sep-04 84 14.02% 403 67.28% 112 18.70% 599
[.. ·.....• i..i.•. i •..•••.•••••• StA1ldr~-Wsa.reaClc>es.haveatil\lchl1igherh61I1etessl1essratiooIlthe
·.a.llocationslist where 8tAn. drews averages 12%to.the6.5%av.eragefor Fi.fe.,l1early.
. .. . " - , ,......... . ,.. , "", _._.,' _,- .. . .. .
p()yblythYl'ifea\'erag~. Although that gap does appear to be closing as can be seen
from the figures for July 06 to June 07, 8t Andrews still continues to have a higher
ratio ofhomelessness on the allocations list than the rest of Fife.
Further analysis was carried out to assess the number, size and type of dwellings
required in the 8t Andrews area, shown as follows:
Housc T~pc I Numbcr of BcdnHlIlls Numbc.· By Sizc (Bcdrooms)
One Two Three Four Four + Total
Wheelchair 3 9 4 1
Without Stairs 25 79 34 10
Other Barrier Free 13 43 19 5
General Needs 64 298 305 98 12 777
Total 105 429 362 114 12 1022
The further analysis indicated a potential shortfall of 1022 affordable housing units
in the 8t~drews area, three quart~rs'of:which are required to meet General.Needs
It is estimated that around 17 households in the 8t Andrews area have a person with a
severe physical disability requiring wheelchair standard housing
There is a need for around 228 properties on a level access or built to a 'barrier free'
housing standard (potentially a reflection of the needs of Older People and People with a
Physical Disability living in inappropriate accommodation)
page 44 I Buildings
5.6 Maintenance work is required to properties
throughout the town centre and should be regular
and ongoing. Problems due to lack of maintenance
are particularly noticeable above ground floor
level and in HMO (Housing in Multiple Occupancy)
properties, usually rented out to students. The
most common issues involve paintwork (especially
to windows and rainwater goods), plumbing
(blocked drains and leaking pipes) and the use
of sub-standard replacement materials eg UPVC
windows for timber, plastic rainwater goods for
cast iron, machine made pantiles for handmade~
5.7 A rich variety of stone has been used to
construct the central core and this gives a pleasing
variation in the colour and texture of many
buildings. Stones and mortar should be matched
in any repair. The painting of previously unpainted
stone is believed to lead to long term degradation
of the stone, and becomes an additional
maintenance burden. Similarly, stone cleaning by
any means can cause damage and should not be
permitted other than to lessen the effect of severe
staining or to remove graffiti.
terials, and lettering are important, as is
:able lighting.
)se shop fronts which are designed in
ation, or which clash with the style of their
Idings or relate poorly to their surroundings
,to be discouraged. A-boards and corporate
;igns should also be discouraged.
:litionally the historic shop fronts from the
orgian, Victorian and Edwardian periods add
nificant character to the Conservation Area
:I should be enhanced where possible.
are also more attractive and are better at
protecting buildings if applied correctly.
The use of uPVC windows and doors should
be discouraged in listed buildings and in
Conservation Areas. They are inappropriate
alterations to the historical character of the
building because they are man-made materials
and the desigl10~igoes not simulate the
craftsmanship J?.f0J"oihers. Timber sash and
case window?,J-_§".nd doors are more in keeping
with theQl)araoter of the Conservation Area
and shoql~3be r~taIO~.dwhere possible.
,PROPOSAL 11\:~~~;_, ,
Specific' design "guiOelinel;.;JWL ,
;;'i~t~:~~~~~l~{ , ~frontsia~~X;?~~n.s, in',
1.7 Use of traditional mCit~rials
le Sf.. AndteVv§ ,Design G}!i.delines (2007)
'ovide good guid?Qce on Jf§ditional materials
hich should be" used in. the Conservation
rea. The emphasis6ri natural and good
Jality materials is important in order to
lhance a townscape and streetscape.
he use of concrete render and pointing
lroughout the town is unattractive and
amaging to buildings and walls in the long
lrm. Lime mortars and renders allow
uildings to breathe as they should, and reduce
Ie deterioration of masonry; the lime renders
occupancy houses
maintenance to buildings and
gardens of multiple occupancy housing within
the Conservation Area is not only unattractive
is promoting deterioration. Internal
and features are damaged
as a result of subdivision of
The policy on multiple occupancy housing
within the Conserv~tion Area should be
reviewed, particularly to listed buildings. The
numbers need to be managed and controlled,
as do the changes to the historic fab~ic of
buildings and riggs. '
. PROPOS " , .
. An·. annu In enanceprogram·
and bud . the memorials and
the82:6Hstand~Will be established.
6.1.9 Maintenance of memorials
The Martyrs' Memorial on Bow Butts and the
Playfair Memorial on Golf Place both need
urgent conservation repairs and treatment. It is
important that an Accredited Stone
Conservator or a qualified stone mason with
experience in working on historic buildings be
engaged to make urgent repairs. The d$~.iQfa
suitable lime for repairs is crucial and8'8vice
should be taken from the Scottish Lime Centre .
in Charlestown. They can provide the corr~ct
specifications for the memQrials.".which woLlIel.
take into account the vu!n~fa51e'~pgsition and .S:2.1BoIJndary refinement
the salt attack to the pointing and_ma:§Q!1ry. The original Conservation Area was designated
. _. in 1971. Since then the Hepburn Gardens area
The bronze fixtures¢I1.Jhe PlayfairsMemorial . has been made a separate Conservation Area
also require conservation.. wor~?'--frqrIli"an .c-i
1993 in recognition of the town's
Accredited Metal Conservator:t8'';r~neW'jts architectural legacy of Victorian and Edwardian
patina. ......~: ... . . housing.
The<b~l1dstand n~~fby, re~Ui'r~s annual
mairiten.i3nce to protect the'rTn:~talwori<Jromsalt
. "..... "'.",,',
It is impo~antto consider ~~intaining these
three public mobtll11ents oq'c3A annual basis
due to their his{q.[iSC3li
Ppt'tance but also
because of their vUln~ri3bleposition beside the
sea. The deterioration of these will be
accelerated beyond normal rates as a result.
/26.2 Planlling Action Opportunities
In,order t()(;gbtinue to protect al"l(lenhance the
··chClract~r/~bd appearance of the Conservation
Areci;'§fjd St. Andrews as a whole, it is
impdrtal1t to review the current planning
framelJli6tKJor St. Andrews and to recommend
action. .-
As apart of this current appraisal
recommendations have been made by Historic
Scofland to extend the boundary to include the
following area:-
• Fleming Place & Park Street
Historic Scotland's report includes the following
"The buildings in this area date from the late
century to the early 19
century and are
associated with a flax spinning mill that once
occupied the site. Subsequently the site was
purchased by John Fleming, a china and
stoneware merchant, in 1849 who converted
the buildings on the site into flats bearing his
name. Park Street has a row of 8 cottages that
can be dated to 1906-7 and are designed by
Public agencies, in particular Fife Council, are not positively regarded. St Andrews World Class is
regarded as self appointed and is either in the pay of
• The council as an unelected, undemocratic agent of delivery or
• The businesses as an unelected, undemocratic agent of delivery
Getting to the real issues with the residents groups was a real challenge. There is a lot of "political"
background and issues which the study team picked up and had to cut a way through in order to
focus on the areas where a difference could be made. There are some residents for whom nothing
will ever be right. Others wish to see the town pickled in a time warp with nothing done to it at all
other than bringing back a myriad of small shops which have long since disappeared. By contrast
there are others who wish to see the town move forward and want to be involved in its future and in
a positive way.
The residents groups thus yielded some useful indicators for the future, most of which have been
incorporated into the action plan.
• Students do not regard themselves as residents, they are temporary "guests" in the town
• They have a differing pe'rception of "residents" and "locals" - the former are the
acceptable element -long term residents and "wee old ladies", the latter are trouble
makers who see the student population as an opportunity to "have a go" and cause
• They regard the town as a great place to study and like:
• The beach
• The fact that it is cheaper than, e.g. London or Edinburgh
• The "community" feel to the university
St Andrews Town Audit and Action Plan
• Many bring cars with them to arrive and leave the town but walk everywhere or cycle once
they are here. Their cars seldom move other than to make an occasional trip to a
supermarket or for a day trip elsewhere
• Students are concerned about the lack of control exerted by the university over
unscrupulous owners of HMOs who they feel are charging them very high rental rates and
who fail to maintain the standards of properties
• The University should "vet" and licences all owners of HMOs before they are allowed to
offer their properties to the student market
• The town needs somewhere for socialising late into the evening - not a nightclub but
something more akin to a late night coffee shop.
• Shopping facilities are poor - there are too many chains and not enough small specialist
shops offering what students need - e.g. sports shops that cater for the types of interest
the students have. There is a big rugby interest in the University but no sports shop to
cater from this.
• There are too many second-rate sandwich bars and fast food outlets, often of the
"Subway" type.
• The students are aware of the pressure they exert on local health services and believe
that the University needs to develop a student health service to cater for their needs and
to relieve pressure on the local services.
• Students seldom interact with any of the visitor attractions or golf activities around the
• Some of them knew little about St Andrews before opting to study in the town - even the
town's role as a major golf centre is not important in making the study location decision.
Difficulties in convening formal focus groups, due to non-response of businesses to the invitations
issued to attend the focus groups, meant that the process of garnering business views was done
through face-to-face interviews with businesses that are generally:
• Visitor attractions
• Hoteliers
• Retailers
• The non response of businesses to our invitations to participate in the focus groups
gives a very strong indication that businesses are either unconcerned about taking
things forward in St Andrews or they are doing so well they are happy to just carry on as
they are.
• The lack of a labour pool locally means that many businesses have to look further afield
in Fife, Dundee or indeed to migrant labour to fill posts. This is not necessarily a major
Student Type FTE %
Undergraduate Full Time 5944.958 81.90%
Part Time 6.75 0.09%
Postgraduate Full Time 1277.15 17.59%
Part Time 29.75
Grand Total 7258.608 100.00%
Tenn time Postcode HE %
KY16 Postcode (St Andrews and local area) 6537.771 90%
Other Fife Postcode 187.59 3%
Other 439.248 6%
Not known 93.999 1%
Grand Total 7258.608 100%
Source: SITS (30101/09)
Includes students actively and physically studying within St Andrews
KY16 postcodes include St Andrews and the surrounding local area ( including strathkinness, Leuchars, Orumoig)
Other Fife Postcodes includes all KY· postcodes and 006*. Excludes KY16.
Other - is all other UK postcodes.
InIormation Requested FiIe Council Response
FiIe Council Policy
1. Re item 4 oI the Notes (N4) - is this scheme
being seriously considered, rather than
merely possible`?
FiIe Council`s AIIordable Housing Policy (AH SPG) provides details oI a range oI aIIordable tenures that could be
used to meet the requirements oI the policy. This includes discounted sale where a home is sold at a price below the
Iull market value. In this case the Council would ask the developer to enter into a planning agreement to ensure Iuture
sales continue to be aIIordable through a resale price covenant scheme`. This mechanism has been used in FiIe and
elsewhere in Scotland (although not in large numbers) and is acceptable to the Council oI Mortgage Lenders. It should
protect the interests oI all parties including developers, in particular avoiding a situation where the original home
buyer makes a higher return on sale by selling a home bought at a discount at Iull market value.
In theory the Council could also seek to include an option Ior Iirst reIusal` on Iuture re-sales in this agreement
however this has not been done to date. This would depend on available budget in the Iuture and the Council (or other
party) wanting to take the built product which may not meet current design expectations. Given Iinite budgets Ior
aIIordable housing, FiIe Council would generally target Iunding Ior social or mid-market rent at the outset oI the
development / agreement rather than seeking to enter into an agreement Ior buy-backs. Discounted sale is generally
used on smaller sites which are not viable Ior providing social rented homes due to space limitations.
2. Re N5, please provide Iurther inIormation on
Homeshare` / Homestake`. Also, iI the
developer buys the property back, would the
property have to be sold on again at the same
valuation price?
Homestake was launched under a previous Scottish Executive administration ending in April 2007 and was part oI the
LIFT scheme (Low-cost Initiatives Ior First-time buyers). One part oI Homestake was grant Iunding allowing RSLs to
build and sell homes under a shared equity model. Generally the equity was to be between 60-80° oI Iull market
value with 80° being the maximum discount. The option Ior a golden share to be retained was also available but FiIe
Council is not aware oI this having been done to date in FiIe (you may wish to check with the Scottish Government
which operated the scheme). The golden share would be held in perpetuity rather than this being sold or bought back.
Since the credit crunch oI 2008 generally the number oI Homestake schemes being completed by RSLs in FiIe and the
rest oI Scotland has reduced, iI not stopped altogether. Restricted access to mortgages has meant that schemes have a
greater level oI risk attached to sales. Very Iew shared equity units through Homestake have been completed in FiIe
Ior a number oI years now.
The Scottish Government continues to operate two shared equity schemes 1) New Supply Shared Equity which is Ior
developers oI new build housing to bid Ior proposing units and 2) Open Market Shared Equity which supports
households seeking to buy properties in the second-hand` housing market.
InIormation Requested FiIe Council Response
3. Re N32, St Andrews is a housing pressured
area`, much oI the pressure coming Irom the
presence oI students who make up around
50° oI the population. We are aware oI
other councils where a student needs
assessment appears to have been done,
arising Irom the high numbers oI students in
a particular area. We understand this has not
been done Ior St Andrews, and ask Ior
clariIication as why not. We acknowledge
the needs assessment (or some oI this) may
be undertaken through the current research
oI the Strategic Housing Working Group, but
remain unclear as why it has not been done
much earlier.
There is a statutory requirement placed upon FiIe Council to assess housing needs, demands and conditions and to
develop a strategy Ior improvement. The expectation oI Scottish Government guidance is that this assessment is
carried out at the housing market area level. There is no requirement to assess housing needs in speciIic settlements
and, Ior the most part, there is diIIiculty in accessing robust data to support such studies.
Student housing needs have been taken into account within previous housing needs assessments, the student
population outwith halls oI residence having been surveyed as part oI a general survey oI population carried out in
2004/05. This is appropriate in that student halls have a nil impact on satisIying the housing requirements oI the
general population. At that time St Andrews was reported to have the highest housing needs in FiIe as a proportion oI
households in the area. There was no separate reporting Ior students, the Iocus oI the study being on the needs oI the
population as a whole.
As stated, there is a joint-study currently underway examining the housing needs oI post-graduate researchers,
although related needs within the wider community are also being examined.
4. Students are currently not included as among
those qualiIying Ior aIIordable housing. Is
this a Scottish Parliament issue or a FiIe
Council issue? We are thinking, especially,
oI post-graduate students (with or without
Iamilies) Ior whom Iinding accommodation
can be very diIIicult.
The AIIordable Housing Policy has been inIormed by Scottish Government guidance within SPP and PAN 2/2010
(and PAN 74 beIore that). These documents have not identiIied students as having a speciIic requirement Ior
aIIordable housing beyond that oI the general population. Purpose built student accommodation is not eligible Ior
Scottish Government grant, nor is it considered as an acceptable Iorm oI aIIordable housing provision under the policy
as it does not provide permanent residence. However, development oI this Iorm oI housing is exempt Irom the
AIIordable Housing Policy, and developer contributions Ior aIIordable housing are not required Irom such schemes.
Post-graduate students can apply Ior aIIordable housing through the FiIe Housing Register or other schemes operated
by local partners. Social rented housing is allocated on the basis oI housing need.
5. For second homes, Council Tax is paid at
95°. Is this a limit set by FiIe Council and
can it be varied?
Guidance is set by the Scottish Government through statute. Currently it gives Councils the power to vary the second-
homes Council Tax discount to a minimum oI 5° iI required.
6. Social Housing can occur in perpetuity; can
low-cost rented or bought houses also
remain low-cost in perpetuity?
ReIer to answer under point 1 above.
FiIe Council Targets
1. Re N8 - are any oI these to be within (and
where?) the St Andrews Settlement or the
wider St Andrews Local Housing Strategy
In total around 85 units are proposed and under detailed investigation by FiIe Council and the FiIe Housing
Association Alliance, to be delivered by 2014/15 in the St Andrews LHS area, oI which around 29 units are within St
Andrews. These units are in various stages oI development although some are still subject to statutory approvals and
an assessment oI viability.
A Iurther 51 units are in a pipeline programme and may be brought Iorward, subject to additional Iunding. This will
be planned Ior Iuture delivery through the next Strategic Local Programme 2015/16 - 2017/18. The Council and its
partners continually seek land and development opportunities Ior aIIordable housing within the St Andrews LHS area.
InIormation Requested FiIe Council Response
FiIe Council Provision
1. Following a comment by Derek Muir, may
we enquire about land availability / land-
banks (public and private) / price oI etc., and
the way these restrict / constrain housing
development? Do some landowners or
developers have large land-banks around or
in St Andrews, and in the current economic
crisis, is there a Council perception that
landowners or developers are holding back
on seeking to develop land, waiting Ior the
market to recover? Also what brownIield
sites in St Andrews town are held by FiIe
The main point about land values is that an aIIordable housing development would not be viable or deemed value Ior
money iI land had to be bought at Iull market value. One oI the main purposes oI the AIIordable Housing Policy is to
inIluence land values ensuring that land is available at an appropriate price reIlecting the end use Ior aIIordable
housing. Generally, the Council and partners would seek to develop on sites with an AIIordable Housing Policy
The Council would consider that the adopted St Andrews & East FiIe Local Plan has allocated suIIicient land Ior new
housing, education and commercial development in St Andrews, in particular through the St Andrews West Strategic
Land Allocation. There is no doubt however that in the current economic climate development has become more
challenging with the issue oI Iinancing oI necessary inIrastructure a particular hurdle. Sites are likely to be developed
over a longer timescale, based on slower housing sales.
The challenge Ior the Council and its partners, when working with developers to build aIIordable housing on private
sites, is being able to programme delivery oI aIIordable housing which may be impacted by these constraints delaying
delivery. The Council has had, and will continue, discussions with developers oI the St Andrews SLA, Ior example
through encouraging early delivery oI aIIordable housing on SLAs.
Other Council and public sector land in the settlement is limited but the Council continues to review opportunities. II
land is not in Council ownership, other public agencies are required to seek a Iull market value Ior disposal oI any
assets, meaning that the Council would again seek to negotiate around the AIIordable Housing Policy requirement.
2. Re N12 - in the light oI the costs oI land in
St Andrews, what is the realistic likelihood
in percentage terms Ior any developments
Ior (a) social rented housing, (b) mid-market
rent properties, (c) mid-market properties
oIIered Ior sale?
It is not possible to estimate a percentage with any accuracy due to a range oI variables. Based on HNDA evidence
however the Council does seek to implement a broad policy FiIe wide Ior new aIIordable housing oI 65° Ior social
rent and 35° other intermediate tenures although this varies Irom site to site. The Council has an AIIordable Housing
Policy which is by now well-established having been introduced in 2005. The requirement in St Andrews Local
Housing Strategy area is 30° oI aIIordable housing provision within larger developments. One oI the main purposes
oI the AIIordable Housing Policy is to inIluence land values ensuring that land is available at an appropriate price
reIlecting the end use Ior aIIordable housing.
As indicated above the challenge at the moment is speed and timing oI development in the current economic climate
with sites likely to be built out over a longer timescale based on slower housing sales. This is particularly challenging
Ior the Council and RSL partners in working with developers to build aIIordable housing on private sites. The Council
has had and will continue discussions with developers oI the St Andrews SLA, Ior example in encouraging early
delivery oI aIIordable housing on the SLA.
InIormation Requested FiIe Council Response
1. Re N20 - is there any additional inIormation
beyond what is at
(HMO section), and the list oI publications /
schedules available to download, oI which
we should be aware?
FiIe Direct includes all oI the provisions oI the FiIe HMO licensing scheme to assist potential or actual licensees
manage their licences. The Scottish Government Website is another source oI general inIormation.
2. We understand legislation was enacted
recently at the Scottish Parliament to the
eIIect that limits could be placed on the
number oI HMOs in any one street, and it
was up to each Council to determine the
limit. Has FiIe Council taken a view on this
and set limits as yet, and iI so when might
they come into Iorce?
A local authority has the discretionary power to reIuse an application Ior a HMO licence iI it considers that occupation
oI the accommodation as a HMO would be a breach oI planning control. In addition the local authority has the
discretionary power to grant a HMO Licence iI it considers that there is or that the grant oI a licence would result in,
overprovision oI HMOs in the locality. It is Ior the local authority to determine the locality. (ReI Sections 129A,
131A oI the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 as amended by the Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Act 2011).
FiIe Council has taken the view that Ior new (Iirst time) HMO Applications in the St Andrews Conservation Area it
will not grant a HMO Licence unless the property has Planning Permission as a HMO or has a certiIicate oI lawIul
use. This use oI this discretionary power works alongside with current Planning Policy which it is now under review.
3. This next series oI questions relates to
inspections, housing quality, etc., and we are
seeking to understand the processes involved
in granting and inspecting HMOs.
a) Is every new or renewal applicant`s
property inspected thoroughly?
All HMO Applications (new or renewal) are inspected in terms oI FiIe Council`s HMO Standards which are provided
to ensure that the accommodation provided is saIe, is oI good quality and has suIIicient Iacilities Ior the numbers oI
occupants. HMOs must also meet the Tolerable Standard as deIined by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and amended
by the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 and also comply with the Repairing Standard as deIined by the Housing
(Scotland) Act 2006. HMOs are also inspected by the Fire Service under The Fire SaIety (Scotland) Act 2005 as
amended and The Fire SaIety (Scotland) Regulations 2006.
b) Re N21 we note the inspection on saIety
and installed appliances. Are the properties
also inspected Ior - dampness? mould?,
broken or inadequate Iurnishings?, heating
system eIIectiveness?, leaks?, holes in
Iloors, ceilings and walls?, exterior
windows and gutters?, garden maintenance?
bin management? Please note, these issues
have emerged repeatedly in answers to the
questionnaires distributed to the community.
Please reIer to documents / reIerences detailed in Section 3 (a) above.
c) What Iollow-up occurs when instructions
Ior repair / upkeep / provision are given by
FiIe Council?
Inspection reports contain timescales Ior the carrying out oI works as required and Iollow up is organised by
Enterprise, Planning and Protective Services as appropriate. InIormation Irom inspections Iorms part oI the evidence
as to whether or not to grant / reIuse a Licence. It may also be necessary to carry out enIorcement activity at any stage
in the process oI HMO licensing.
InIormation Requested FiIe Council Response
d) Are suggestions made Ior energy eIIiciency
measures? Are any oI these enIorceable?
The only requirement in respect oI energy eIIiciency is the submission oI an Energy PerIormance CertiIicate at
application stage.
e) In the past 5 years how many renewal
applications have been reIused due to the
state oI the accommodation?
None have been reIused on this basis.
I) In the past 5 years has any landlord / lady /
letting agency been prosecuted?
Two owners have been prosecuted - one individual owner and one company owner.
g) Are there any spot-checks made during the
3-year licence? What monitoring occurs,
apart Irom at the HMO-renewal stage?
Spot checks can be carried out during the three-year Licence over and above the routine HMO inspections (new,
renewals and re-inspections). Reactive investigation oI complaints and HMO enIorcement work is also carried out
across FiIe.
h) What is the process when complaints about
the state oI the properties are made?
The investigating oIIicer would contact the complainant to elicit all the relevant inIormation and a visit would be
carried out as required. The oIIicer would liaise with the owner / managing agent to secure a resolution oI the issue.
Depending on the particular circumstances, enIorcement action could be necessary particularly in respect to serious
complaints. It may also be necessary to contact other partners such as the Fire Service Ior appropriate action as
4. Current FiIe Council policy is that Ior every
housing unit (with, we assume, its own
entrance, bathroom, kitchen) the maximum
residents at an HMO is 1:5 (i.e. 1 entrance
etc to 5 tenants, rather than 1:6 as elsewhere
in Scotland). Please explain the reasoning
behind this as applicable to private landlords
and to registered social landlords /
organisations (Ior instance, it entails the
University having to reduce the provision oI
bedspaces |e.g. FiIe Park|, thereby adding to
housing pressures in the town).
For HMO properties in FiIe, the higher standard oI 1: 5 Ior provision oI kitchen / bathroom Iacilities has been applied
since the inception oI the original licensing scheme in 2001. This was applied to create a higher standard oI licensed
property Ior those using the premises. The Scottish Government 'Licensing oI Houses in Multiple Occupation,
Statutory Guidance Ior Scottish Local Authorities¨ which was developed in response to the new Part V Housing
(Scotland) Act 2006 HMO licensing regime reIers also to 1:5 in respect to the kitchen / bathroom Iacilities provided in
HMO premises.
5. Has there been a move to convert houses /
Ilats with 3 or more bedspaces to 2 or Iewer
bedspaces (thus avoiding the need Ior an
HMO licence), and iI so how many?
HMO OIIicers are aware oI a small number oI properties in St Andrews that have been converted to reduce bed spaces
in order to take the property below the threshold that would require licensing. Also there are a small number oI new
builds designed Ior occupancy beneath the HMO licence threshold.
InIormation Requested FiIe Council Response
HMO Moratorium
1. What conclusions are being drawn thus
Iar, positively or negatively, Irom the
HMO moratorium in the town centre /
conservation area? What evidence is
there Ior these conclusions?
A report is currently being prepared Ior the Executive Committee in August 2013. Evidence is still being gathered Ior a
thorough analysis oI the HMO Moratorium Irom a Planning perspective thereIore no conclusions have yet been drawn.
The conclusions oI the analysis will be made public Iollowing discussion by the Executive Committee.
2. Re N29 - what evidence is there Ior
This is not a correctly recorded statement. The extent to which expanded provision oI University residences could relieve
pressure on demand Ior town centre Ilats is not known. Clearly in an otherwise stable environment the provision oI new
accommodation regardless oI type would be expected to impact on demand Ior existing accommodation. Factors such as
potential University growth would also be a Iactor in understanding impact. It is expected that the connection between one
element oI the University population, University accommodation and related needs and opportunities within the wider
community will be better understood Iollowing conclusion oI the joint study by FiIe Council / St Andrews University into
the housing needs oI post- graduate researchers.
3. Re N31 - please clariIy what is meant.
As previously stated there is a signiIicant need Ior aIIordable housing identiIied Ior the St Andrews area. This assessment
has already included allowance Ior the student housing need. In an environment where need / demand is greater that
supply there will be resultant competition Ior available accommodation.
4. What measures / indicators are being
used to judge the impact oI the
As indicated above, a report is currently being prepared Ior the Executive Committee in August 2013. The report will
present an analysis oI the eIIectiveness oI the HMO Moratorium within the Iollowing parameters:
• Review oI how the Moratorium has been implemented, involving Development Management colleagues and
inIormation on HMO decisions since June 2011; appeal decisions on HMOs and reasons Ior them, including Local
Review Body decisions; and an analysis oI what would have happened had the Moratorium not been in place.
• Taking cognisance oI the issues raised at the 2011 HMO consultation, pre-Moratorium, and collating subsequent input
and views oI key stakeholders across the subject (including FiIe Council Housing & Neighbourhood Services, and
Housing Standards & Domestic Noise teams; CSARA; Royal Burgh oI St Andrews Community Council; University oI
St Andrews; University oI St Andrews Student Association; and public views expressed through the recent FIFEplan
Main Issues Report consultation).
A recommendation as to the way Iorward Ior dealing with the issue oI HMOs will then be made to the Executive
Committee on the basis oI the above analysis.
5. Is there any evidence oI house price
rises during the moratorium?
The Town Commission has been provided with the most up-to-date inIormation around house prices. The Council is not
expecting to receive Iurther data until June / July 2013.
6. Re N26 - as Evaluation and scrutiny is a matter Ior
Planning not Housing Need`, what criteria do / will
Planning use Ior assessing the moratorium?
ReIer to answers under points 1 and 4.
7. Further to 1. above, will, Ior instance, the social impact on
communities (e.g. relatively Iew permanent neighbours) be
part oI any evaluation oI rented properties?
ReIer to answers under points 1 and 4.
8. Is there evidence Ior displacement Irom the town oI non-
student residents, due to students renting properties?
ReIer to answers under points 1 and 4.
InIormation Requested FiIe Council Response
St Andrews West Strategic Land
Allocation (Western Expansion)
1. Will there be a Master Plan Ior this
Discussions are ongoing between FiIe Council and developer interests to progress new housing, education and
commercial development as part oI the St Andrews West Strategic Land Allocation. A Development Framework Ior
St Andrews West is included in the adopted St Andrews & East FiIe Local Plan - the Framework sets out the Council's
view oI where diIIerent types oI land uses might happen within the area allocated Ior strategic development. It is
expected that a master-plan will be prepared Ior St Andrews West. The master-plan will require FiIe Council approval
and the local community will be involved in its preparation. The Development Framework in the adopted Local Plan
details the design principles upon which master-planning will proceed.
2. Re N33 - all development in the Western
Expansion will come under a Master Plan. It
appears that the Knightsbridge development,
while initially supposed to come under a
Master Plan, did not do so. Is there a reason
Ior this, and could there be a similar outcome
in the Western Expansion?
ReIer to answer under point 1.
Developments with Iewer than
20 Housing Units
1. Can FiIe Council insist on 30° aIIordable
housing in any St Andrews town
development with Iewer than 20 houses?
What rules can FiIe Council make Ior itselI
in this area, as distinct Irom Scotland?
Advice and a national Iramework` Ior aIIordable housing was provided by the Scottish Government in Planning
Advice Note (PAN) 74 published in 2005 which was replaced by PAN 2/1010. Both documents provide inIormation
on how the planning system can support the Government`s commitment to increase the supply oI aIIordable housing.
The Council`s AIIordable Housing Policy has been written thereIore based on this national Iramework. To vary too
Iar Irom this guidance without evidence or justiIication would lead to challenge and appeal on applications which
would not promote development oI market housing or aIIordable housing and thereIore not be desirable.
As Iar as on-site threshold the above documents do not go into this level oI detail however. The on-site thresholds Ior
urban (at 20¹ units) and rural (at 15¹ units) areas oI FiIe have been set balancing development economics and value
Ior money Ior public subsidy and ongoing management and maintenance costs Ior the Council or an RSL. In general it
is more economically viable on both oI the above aspects to negotiate and agree larger` developments with
developers. Generally developments oI less than 6-8 units start to become less economic.
InIormation Requested FiIe Council Response
Landlord Registration (properties with
1 or 2 bedspaces) - non-HMOs
1. How many let properties with 1 or 2
bedspaces are there in St Andrews
The private landlord registrations system requires no details oI house types or sizes.
2. Do any inspections occur oI these let, non-
HMO properties?
Only where there have been complaints, usually associated with the alleged contravention oI the Repairing Standard.
3. Re N20, granted that newly adopted
legislation sets out more stringent technical
criteria` Ior HMOs, is any legislation
applicable to properties with 1/2 bedspaces?
The Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Private Rented Sector Housing (Scotland) Act 2011 set out the legislative
requirement and standards Ior the private rented sector. The Tolerable Standard applies to all houses and the
Repairing Standard to most let properties.
4. Has FiIe Council detected a change away
Irom properties with 3¹ bedspaces, to 1/2
bedspaces, thus avoiding HMOs being
ReIer to answer under HMOs (section 5) above.
Community Development
1. Many planning documents emphasise the
need Ior balanced` / mixed` communities -
how does FiIe Council view St Andrews
town (and especially the town centre) in this
It has been made clear through a range oI housing and planning statements that St Andrews is an area oI housing
pressure. The action that FiIe Council is able to take to ensure mixed and balanced communities is outlined in the St
Andrews and East FiIe Local Plan and the Local Housing Strategy. The Council wants to see a mixed community in
terms oI demographics and income distribution, Ior example, and a good range oI housing to match local
2. How many empty properties, and how many
second homes (i.e. not let out), are there in
St Andrews Settlement (or, iI not known at
that level, the St Andrews Local Housing
Strategy Area)?
Empty homes - estimated 94 long term empty homes in St Andrews at 23.04.13
Second homes - estimated 325 second homes in St Andrews at 31.03.13
Date: 9 January 2013 07:58
From: Steven Grimmond
To: St Andrews Housing Commission
FAO Dr Jamie Walker, Chair
St Andrews Town Commission on Housing
Dear Dr Walker
Thank you Ior your letter dated 13 November 2012 addressed to Derek Muir, Head oI Housing and Neighbourhood
Services. I conIirm that this response is being sent on behalI oI the Environment, Enterprise and Communities
Directorate, which includes the planning, housing and economic development Iunctions oI FiIe Council.
I note the Town Commission is undertaking a detailed review oI the current housing situation in St Andrews to identiIy
constructive proposals Ior the Iuture. I would make reIerence to previous work undertaken by FiIe Council in this area,
Iorming the basis oI this submission:
The St Andrews and East FiIe Local Plan (Adopted October 2012)¸WrittenStatement.pdI
FiIe Local Housing Strategy 2010-2015÷÷2864600D-DF4F-18F7-
Detail around housing needs and the plans Ior housing can be Iound within the documents reIerenced above. I also
understand that statistical inIormation relating to housing in St Andrews has been requested Irom Housing and
Neighbourhood Services and this will be provided in due course. ThereIore, the Iollowing presents summary responses
to the questions posed by the Town Commission:
!" #$%& %() &$) *%+, -().),& %,/ 01().))%23) 04&4() $14.+,5 ,))/. %,/ $14.+,5 -()..4(). +, 6& 7,/()8.9
The context Ior housing needs and housing pressures in St Andrews is set by:
• Increasing population within St Andrews Town over the last decade at a rate signiIicantly higher than that oI
FiIe, primarily due to its attractiveness as a place to live, work and study (GRO Scotland).
• Changing age structure with more people aged 60 years and over in line with wider demographic trends, the
increase in the proportion oI people within this age group being less signiIicant in St Andrews than FiIe (GRO
• Increasing numbers oI people aged 16-29 years as proportion oI total population, this increase being more
signiIicant in St Andrews than across FiIe (GRO Scotland).
• Reducing number oI children and people aged 30-59 years, this being a slightly higher rate oI reduction than
the trend Ior FiIe (GRO Scotland).
• Reducing average household size and an increasing household numbers at FiIe level (expected to be conIirmed
through the Census 2011).
The type oI demographic change shown in St Andrews is not unusual. However, a limited capacity Ior expansion
due to its coastal location and topography to the south, allied with a slowdown in housebuilding restricting supply,
has resulted in housing market pressures, evidenced through:
• High demand Ior housing, Ior example the median house price increased at least three-Iold in the decade to
2010 (Registers oI Scotland).
• Imbalanced provision in Iavour oI high-priced executive homes and signiIicantly Iewer homes at the aIIordable
end oI the scale (Registers oI Scotland).
• Average private rents in St Andrews being up to 70° higher than other parts oI FiIe (FiIe Council).
• Restrictive land prices aIIecting the viability oI social housing projects with very Iew social housing
completions as a proportion oI new homes provided (FiIe Council).
In terms oI housing need and the requirement oI aIIordable housing:
• Around 11° oI households within the St Andrews local housing strategy area are assessed as having a housing
need (FiIe Council).
• An indicative 12° oI FiIe`s overall aIIordable housing requirement arises within the St Andrews local housing
strategy area (FiIe Council).
• The FiIe Housing Register contains over 600 households that have applied Ior aIIordable housing in the St
Andrews lettings area`, representing around 4° oI the total households registered across FiIe (FiIe Council).
• At least two decades oI Council house sales through Right-to-Buy have resulted in a signiIicantly lower
proportion oI social housing provision in St Andrews compared to the proportion at FiIe level (FiIe Council).
!: #$%& ,))/. &1 2) /1,); %,/ 2< 8$1*; &1 %33)=+%&) &$).) ,))/. %,/ -()..4().9
FiIe Council is already implementing a range oI measures to ease housing needs in the St Andrews area and other
parts oI FiIe, including:
• Providing a development strategy Ior the expansion oI St Andrews over the next 20 years, balancing the
potential oI tourism and the University as economic drivers Ior FiIe with the need to protect the town`s
• Allowing Ior housing development within the St Andrews` West Strategic Land Allocation, providing
employment land, 1,090 houses and community development over a 20-year period.
• Working with the house building industry to secure aIIordable housing as part oI development proposals Ior
new sites coming Iorward, through implementation oI the AIIordable Housing Policy.
• Actively looking Ior sites Ior social housing to contribute to local needs and contribute to FiIe Council`s target
oI 2,700 new aIIordable homes in FiIe by 2017.
• Maintaining Pressured Area Status` Ior parts oI St Andrews and the surrounding areas, suspending some
tenants` rights to buy their council or housing association home.
• Reducing Council Tax exemptions Ior second homes and empty property and using the income generated to
Iinance new aIIordable housing.
Needs and pressures are also being reduced through addressing issues around the quality and management oI
existing housing in St Andrews, including:
• Meeting housing quality standards including the Scottish Housing Quality Standard and the Tolerable Standard.
• Implementing the Houses in Multiple Occupation Licensing Scheme and private landlord registration in the
private and student sectors.
• Supporting vulnerable households through the Scheme oI Assistance` and a programme oI disability
!> #$%& %() &$) *%?1( 12.&%@3). &1 +*-3)*),&+,5 .134&+1,.9
At present the major obstacles are considered to be a:
• The slow rate oI development activity on sites allocated by the planning system Ior development
• Competition Ior development land in an attractive market when sites become available.
• Development / construction sector severely aIIected by the downturn in the economy, evidenced by a decline in
new homes throughout FiIe.
• Reductions in available public expenditure, including Scottish Government subsidy to support the delivery oI
new aIIordable housing.
• A restrictive lending environment Ior Registered Social Landlords, leading to diIIiculties in accessing
aIIordable Iinance.
FiIe Council is supportive oI the work being undertaken with the community in St Andrews in assessing the opinion oI
local people over a way Iorward in reducing housing pressures within the town. I look Iorward to receiving the results
oI the town survey when published. Yours sincerely, Steve Grimmond
Executive Director, Environment, Enterprise & Communities, FiIe Council
FiIe House, North Street, GLENROTHES KY7 5LT
Fife Council Education Service
Resources | School Estate | Forward Planning
High school rolls per stage from 1979 Madras College
Annual change Staying-on
Num. % S4-S5 S4-S6
1979 305 325 349 333 204 95 1611 - - - -
1980 292 312 323 336 199 98 1560 -51 -3.2% 60% -
1981 356 296 309 322 221 120 1624 64 4.1% 66% 36%
1982 323 362 310 311 217 131 1654 30 1.8% 67% 39%
1983 354 327 373 308 202 128 1692 38 2.3% 65% 40%
1984 334 358 321 384 209 133 1739 47 2.8% 68% 43%
1985 286 331 357 320 260 118 1672 -67 -3.9% 68% 38%
1986 353 276 321 352 204 138 1644 -28 -1.7% 64% 36%
1987 294 347 279 318 219 120 1577 -67 -4.1% 62% 38%
1988 276 283 341 276 233 142 1551 -26 -1.6% 73% 40%
1989 254 278 287 335 202 136 1492 -59 -3.8% 73% 43%
1990 286 260 296 293 270 126 1531 39 2.6% 81% 46%
1991 296 286 266 279 228 158 1513 -18 -1.2% 78% 47%
1992 351 303 306 280 223 150 1613 100 6.6% 80% 51%
1993 343 337 298 312 210 170 1670 57 3.5% 75% 61%
1994 316 341 350 299 259 168 1733 63 3.8% 83% 60%
1995 304 318 344 340 250 174 1730 -3 -0.2% 84% 56%
1996 336 318 319 334 283 178 1768 38 2.2% 83% 60%
1997 319 344 310 316 253 203 1745 -23 -1.3% 76% 60%
1998 342 314 342 313 257 204 1772 27 1.5% 81% 61%
1999 355 351 323 346 262 193 1830 58 3.3% 84% 61%
2000 313 359 352 324 297 194 1839 9 0.5% 86% 62%
2001 324 310 348 350 268 217 1817 -22 -1.2% 83% 63%
2002 319 334 313 353 271 188 1778 -39 -2.1% 77% 58%
2003 306 319 335 305 286 197 1748 -30 -1.7% 81% 56%
2004 310 312 320 334 251 202 1729 -19 -1.1% 82% 57%
2005 279 310 316 326 270 173 1674 -55 -3.2% 81% 57%
2006 321 274 313 309 279 187 1683 9 0.5% 86% 56%
2007 292 319 269 311 259 207 1657 -26 -1.5% 84% 63%
2008 285 297 323 267 265 184 1621 -36 -2.2% 85% 60%
2009 228 276 289 307 220 193 1513 -108 -6.7% 82% 62%
2010 236 229 279 292 261 159 1456 -57 -3.8% 85% 60%
2011 202 241 233 286 250 201 1413 -43 -3.0% 86% 65%
2012 215 202 238 235 264 185 1339 -74 -5.2% 92% 63%
School rolls are from the annual pupil census
All occurrences of the highest and lowest rolls are highlighted above
Highest and lowest rolls
S1 - highest roll was 356 (in 1981); lowest roll was 202 (in 2011)
S2 - highest roll was 362 (in 1982); lowest roll was 202 (in 2012)
S3 - highest roll was 373 (in 1983); lowest roll was 233 (in 2011)
S4 - highest roll was 384 (in 1984); lowest roll was 235 (in 2012)
S5 - highest roll was 297 (in 2000); lowest roll was 199 (in 1980)
S6 - highest roll was 217 (in 2001); lowest roll was 95 (in 1979)
Total - highest roll was 1839 (in 2000); lowest roll was 1339 (in 2012)
Staying-on rate S4-S5 - highest percentage was 92% (in 2012); lowest percentage was 60% (in 1980)
Staying-on rate S4-S6 - highest percentage was 65% (in 2011); lowest percentage was 36% (in 1986)
S5 S6 Total S1 S2 S3 S4
02 High School Rolls 1979-2012, Madras, 11/04/2013 Page 1 of 1
Fife Council Education Service
Resources | School Estate | Forward Planning
High school rolls per stage from 1979 All High Schools
Annual change Staying-on
Num. % S4-S5 S4-S6
1979 5217 5286 5454 5436 2391 917 24701 - - - -
1980 5420 5253 5365 5382 2606 930 24956 255 1.0% 48% -
1981 5298 5613 5447 5559 2885 1127 25929 973 3.9% 54% 21%
1982 5121 5316 5626 5411 3018 1277 25769 -160 -0.6% 54% 24%
1983 5129 5138 5360 5578 2886 1231 25322 -447 -1.7% 53% 22%
1984 4702 5129 5134 5293 3038 1251 24547 -775 -3.1% 54% 23%
1985 4417 4733 5135 5124 3027 1258 23694 -853 -3.5% 57% 23%
1986 4787 4382 4716 5075 2871 1280 23111 -583 -2.5% 56% 24%
1987 4245 4878 4504 4822 2961 1312 22722 -389 -1.7% 58% 26%
1988 4110 4231 4840 4466 2825 1400 21872 -850 -3.7% 59% 28%
1989 3910 4126 4246 4792 2743 1365 21182 -690 -3.2% 61% 28%
1990 4218 3896 4150 4223 3278 1433 21198 16 0.1% 68% 32%
1991 4399 4223 3930 4106 3060 1705 21423 225 1.1% 72% 36%
1992 4568 4408 4256 3915 3011 1649 21807 384 1.8% 73% 39%
1993 4530 4566 4438 4217 2984 1722 22457 650 3.0% 76% 42%
1994 4365 4522 4604 4378 3260 1608 22737 280 1.2% 77% 41%
1995 4236 4369 4523 4568 3402 1882 22980 243 1.1% 78% 45%
1996 4281 4245 4391 4468 3582 1904 22871 -109 -0.5% 78% 43%
1997 4452 4270 4217 4348 3477 1953 22717 -154 -0.7% 78% 43%
1998 4358 4428 4269 4190 3418 1834 22497 -220 -1.0% 79% 41%
1999 4474 4410 4460 4223 3348 1862 22777 280 1.2% 80% 43%
2000 4378 4497 4372 4431 3405 1967 23050 273 1.2% 81% 47%
2001 4274 4398 4521 4364 3411 1910 22878 -172 -0.7% 77% 45%
2002 4319 4235 4357 4453 3275 2090 22729 -149 -0.7% 75% 47%
2003 4376 4362 4275 4382 3349 1957 22701 -28 -0.1% 75% 45%
2004 4234 4368 4361 4244 3235 1977 22419 -282 -1.2% 74% 44%
2005 4255 4236 4402 4327 3084 1909 22213 -206 -0.9% 73% 44%
2006 4184 4271 4284 4353 3223 1736 22051 -162 -0.7% 74% 41%
2007 4046 4195 4275 4261 3182 1836 21795 -256 -1.2% 73% 42%
2008 4029 4070 4218 4193 3224 1836 21570 -225 -1.0% 76% 42%
2009 3877 4023 4108 4090 3158 1980 21236 -334 -1.5% 75% 46%
2010 3873 3881 4068 3981 3195 2029 21027 -209 -1.0% 78% 48%
2011 3702 3880 3909 4005 3248 2100 20844 -183 -0.9% 82% 51%
2012 3656 3699 3898 3848 3322 2118 20541 -303 -1.5% 83% 53%
School rolls are from the annual pupil census
All occurrences of the highest and lowest rolls are highlighted above
Highest and lowest rolls
S1 - highest roll was 5420 (in 1980); lowest roll was 3656 (in 2012)
S2 - highest roll was 5613 (in 1981); lowest roll was 3699 (in 2012)
S3 - highest roll was 5626 (in 1982); lowest roll was 3898 (in 2012)
S4 - highest roll was 5578 (in 1983); lowest roll was 3848 (in 2012)
S5 - highest roll was 3582 (in 1996); lowest roll was 2391 (in 1979)
S6 - highest roll was 2118 (in 2012); lowest roll was 917 (in 1979)
Total - highest roll was 25929 (in 1981); lowest roll was 20541 (in 2012)
Staying-on rate S4-S5 - highest percentage was 83% (in 2012); lowest percentage was 48% (in 1980)
Staying-on rate S4-S6 - highest percentage was 53% (in 2012); lowest percentage was 21% (in 1981)
S5 S6 Total S1 S2 S3 S4
02 High School Rolls 1979-2012, AllHighSchools, 11/04/2013 Page 1 of 1
Fife Council Education and Learning
Resources | School Estate | Forward Planning Canongate Primary School
Incorporating Langlands PS from 2006
Primary school rolls per stage from 1979 to 2012
Part of the Madras College cluster
Stage Annual change
Year P1 P1-P7
1979 48 41 43 35 41 50 45 303 Num. Num. %
1980 51 47 38 46 37 44 48 311 3 8 2.6%
1981 43 51 46 39 47 40 42 308 -8 -3 -1.0%
1982 30 41 51 50 41 48 41 302 -13 -6 -1.9%
1983 39 33 40 56 53 43 50 314 9 12 4.0%
1984 35 41 32 39 54 58 46 305 -4 -9 -2.9%
1985 50 35 37 35 38 52 60 307 15 2 0.7%
1986 50 52 41 37 38 43 50 311 0 4 1.3%
1987 61 48 64 50 44 36 42 345 11 34 10.9%
1988 55 64 50 74 54 48 38 383 -6 38 11.0%
1989 63 54 66 52 66 51 49 401 8 18 4.7%
1990 48 61 55 66 56 62 51 399 -15 -2 -0.5%
1991 55 51 62 55 66 54 63 406 7 7 1.8%
1992 50 56 50 62 60 64 55 397 -5 -9 -2.2%
1993 44 50 51 49 64 57 62 377 -6 -20 -5.0%
1994 49 45 55 54 51 61 61 376 5 -1 -0.3%
1995 45 50 46 57 51 52 63 364 -4 -12 -3.2%
1996 50 47 50 47 59 56 52 361 5 -3 -0.8%
1997 42 46 46 47 44 62 56 343 -8 -18 -5.0%
1998 34 43 41 44 45 43 64 314 -8 -29 -8.5%
1999 43 37 46 44 45 43 41 299 9 -15 -4.8%
2000 30 43 37 41 41 46 43 281 -13 -18 -6.0%
2001 27 32 41 35 44 41 42 262 -3 -19 -6.8%
2002 24 26 30 42 32 44 43 241 -3 -21 -8.0%
2003 19 24 28 32 44 32 44 223 -5 -18 -7.5%
2004 19 20 26 28 31 47 32 203 0 -20 -9.0%
2005 24 20 22 27 31 33 48 205 5 2 1.0%
2006 28 43 31 39 40 45 57 283 4 78 38.0%
2007 27 27 42 25 38 37 39 235 -1 -48 -17.0%
2008 29 27 27 36 22 33 37 211 2 -24 -10.2%
2009 34 27 28 26 37 23 31 206 5 -5 -2.4%
2010 38 37 27 30 25 35 23 215 4 9 4.4%
2011 26 34 39 28 28 26 35 216 -12 1 0.5%
2012 38 27 36 42 29 27 27 226 12 10 4.6%
School rolls are from the annual pupil census
The first year the highest and lowest rolls occurred are reported below
All occurrences of the highest and lowest rolls are highlighted above
Highest and lowest rolls
P1 - highest roll was 63 (in 1989); lowest roll was 19 (in 2003)
P2 - highest roll was 64 (in 1988); lowest roll was 20 (in 2004)
P3 - highest roll was 66 (in 1989); lowest roll was 22 (in 2005)
P4 - highest roll was 74 (in 1988); lowest roll was 25 (in 2007)
P5 - highest roll was 66 (in 1989); lowest roll was 22 (in 2008)
P6 - highest roll was 64 (in 1992); lowest roll was 23 (in 2009)
P7 - highest roll was 64 (in 1998); lowest roll was 23 (in 2010)
Total - highest roll was 406 (in 1991); lowest roll was 203 (in 2004)
Largest P1 increase was 15 (in 1985); largest P1 decrease was -15 (in 1990)
P5 P6 Total P1 P2 P3 P4 P7
01 Primary School Rolls 1979-2012, Pick-A-PS-Summary, 11/04/2013 Page 1 of 1
Fife Council Education and Learning
Resources | School Estate | Forward Planning Greyfriars RC Primary School
School moved site in 2006
Primary school rolls per stage from 1979 to 2012
Part of the St Andrews RC HS cluster
Stage Annual change
Year P1 P1-P7
1979 9 9 8 7 9 16 12 70 Num. Num. %
1980 4 15 9 9 9 8 16 70 -5 0 0.0%
1981 7 7 13 8 9 7 8 59 3 -11 -15.7%
1982 10 7 6 14 12 8 8 65 3 6 10.2%
1983 10 9 6 7 15 14 8 69 0 4 6.2%
1984 7 11 8 6 6 15 14 67 -3 -2 -2.9%
1985 14 9 11 10 11 9 11 75 7 8 11.9%
1986 16 11 11 11 10 12 7 78 2 3 4.0%
1987 12 13 12 14 10 9 13 83 -4 5 6.4%
1988 14 13 17 12 14 10 12 92 2 9 10.8%
1989 24 13 13 15 12 13 13 103 10 11 12.0%
1990 28 26 15 13 17 15 13 127 4 24 23.3%
1991 28 25 28 17 12 18 16 144 0 17 13.4%
1992 25 27 23 27 18 11 20 151 -3 7 4.9%
1993 26 27 29 25 23 15 13 158 1 7 4.6%
1994 21 29 27 25 21 22 18 163 -5 5 3.2%
1995 23 30 30 31 29 22 24 189 2 26 16.0%
1996 19 20 30 29 33 29 23 183 -4 -6 -3.2%
1997 24 21 27 30 27 30 30 189 5 6 3.3%
1998 23 25 24 30 30 28 33 193 -1 4 2.1%
1999 27 19 23 27 28 29 27 180 4 -13 -6.7%
2000 21 24 20 25 22 29 26 167 -6 -13 -7.2%
2001 23 26 27 18 26 23 24 167 2 0 0.0%
2002 26 23 25 29 17 26 21 167 3 0 0.0%
2003 25 27 25 28 33 24 29 191 -1 24 14.4%
2004 29 30 27 28 31 35 24 204 4 13 6.8%
2005 27 23 31 26 24 29 37 197 -2 -7 -3.4%
2006 28 28 24 30 25 27 28 190 1 -7 -3.6%
2007 24 29 29 27 28 25 27 189 -4 -1 -0.5%
2008 25 24 26 31 28 31 25 190 1 1 0.5%
2009 30 24 24 27 33 29 28 195 5 5 2.6%
2010 30 30 26 21 27 32 29 195 0 0 0.0%
2011 24 30 28 26 21 27 33 189 -6 -6 -3.1%
2012 25 25 30 26 27 23 28 184 1 -5 -2.6%
School rolls are from the annual pupil census
The first year the highest and lowest rolls occurred are reported below
All occurrences of the highest and lowest rolls are highlighted above
Highest and lowest rolls
P1 - highest roll was 30 (in 2009); lowest roll was 4 (in 1980)
P2 - highest roll was 30 (in 1995); lowest roll was 7 (in 1981)
P3 - highest roll was 31 (in 2005); lowest roll was 6 (in 1982)
P4 - highest roll was 31 (in 1995); lowest roll was 6 (in 1984)
P5 - highest roll was 33 (in 1996); lowest roll was 6 (in 1984)
P6 - highest roll was 35 (in 2004); lowest roll was 7 (in 1981)
P7 - highest roll was 37 (in 2005); lowest roll was 7 (in 1986)
Total - highest roll was 204 (in 2004); lowest roll was 59 (in 1981)
Largest P1 increase was 10 (in 1989); largest P1 decrease was -6 (in 2000)
P5 P6 Total P1 P2 P3 P4 P7
01 Primary School Rolls 1979-2012, Pick-A-PS-Summary, 11/04/2013 Page 1 of 1
Fife Council Education and Learning
Resources | School Estate | Forward Planning Langlands Primary School
This school closed in 2006
Primary school rolls per stage from 1979 to 2012
Part of the Closed cluster
Stage Annual change
Year P1 P1-P7
1979 63 53 62 68 59 81 73 459 Num. Num. %
1980 66 65 49 63 67 59 81 450 3 -9 -2.0%
1981 42 61 58 50 62 67 57 397 -24 -53 -11.8%
1982 37 41 60 59 51 62 64 374 -5 -23 -5.8%
1983 42 37 41 57 63 49 60 349 5 -25 -6.7%
1984 57 46 40 40 59 60 49 351 15 2 0.6%
1985 45 54 41 42 36 59 57 334 -12 -17 -4.8%
1986 55 38 57 36 37 38 61 322 10 -12 -3.6%
1987 36 52 39 41 32 37 36 273 -19 -49 -15.2%
1988 25 38 51 38 41 31 34 258 -11 -15 -5.5%
1989 27 22 40 46 39 42 32 248 2 -10 -3.9%
1990 23 26 23 41 46 39 43 241 -4 -7 -2.8%
1991 25 23 26 22 41 48 36 221 2 -20 -8.3%
1992 35 29 25 27 21 41 46 224 10 3 1.4%
1993 18 36 31 26 28 20 42 201 -17 -23 -10.3%
1994 26 19 30 29 24 25 21 174 8 -27 -13.4%
1995 28 29 19 36 30 25 26 193 2 19 10.9%
1996 31 28 28 19 35 27 25 193 3 0 0.0%
1997 29 33 27 28 19 35 29 200 -2 7 3.6%
1998 17 23 29 21 26 19 35 170 -12 -30 -15.0%
1999 17 17 25 29 25 26 23 162 0 -8 -4.7%
2000 25 16 16 22 27 20 26 152 8 -10 -6.2%
2001 12 28 16 18 19 29 19 141 -13 -11 -7.2%
2002 16 16 26 17 17 19 30 141 4 0 0.0%
2003 20 14 16 25 19 19 18 131 4 -10 -7.1%
2004 18 18 15 15 26 19 17 128 -2 -3 -2.3%
2005 17 16 15 14 13 25 17 117 -1 -11 -8.6%
2006 - - - - - - - - - - -
2007 - - - - - - - - - - -
2008 - - - - - - - - - - -
2009 - - - - - - - - - - -
2010 - - - - - - - - - - -
2011 - - - - - - - - - - -
2012 - - - - - - - - - - -
School rolls are from the annual pupil census
The first year the highest and lowest rolls occurred are reported below
All occurrences of the highest and lowest rolls are highlighted above
Highest and lowest rolls
P1 - highest roll was 66 (in 1980); lowest roll was 12 (in 2001)
P2 - highest roll was 65 (in 1980); lowest roll was 14 (in 2003)
P3 - highest roll was 62 (in 1979); lowest roll was 15 (in 2004)
P4 - highest roll was 68 (in 1979); lowest roll was 14 (in 2005)
P5 - highest roll was 67 (in 1980); lowest roll was 13 (in 2005)
P6 - highest roll was 81 (in 1979); lowest roll was 19 (in 1998)
P7 - highest roll was 81 (in 1980); lowest roll was 17 (in 2004)
Total - highest roll was 459 (in 1979); lowest roll was 117 (in 2005)
Largest P1 increase was 15 (in 1984); largest P1 decrease was -24 (in 1981)
P5 P6 Total P1 P2 P3 P4 P7
01 Primary School Rolls 1979-2012, Pick-A-PS-Summary, 11/04/2013 Page 1 of 1
Fife Council Education and Learning
Resources | School Estate | Forward Planning Lawhead Primary School
Primary school rolls per stage from 1979 to 2012
Part of the Madras College cluster
Stage Annual change
Year P1 P1-P7
1979 37 36 35 29 30 32 24 223 Num. Num. %
1980 31 37 32 36 28 31 27 222 -6 -1 -0.4%
1981 26 35 39 31 36 30 31 228 -5 6 2.7%
1982 30 25 38 39 30 40 33 235 4 7 3.1%
1983 33 36 27 40 45 31 41 253 3 18 7.7%
1984 20 31 36 27 38 46 31 229 -13 -24 -9.5%
1985 28 22 32 36 32 39 45 234 8 5 2.2%
1986 20 29 24 36 37 36 37 219 -8 -15 -6.4%
1987 30 23 35 27 37 34 36 222 10 3 1.4%
1988 28 28 26 35 27 37 31 212 -2 -10 -4.5%
1989 33 25 28 28 28 26 38 206 5 -6 -2.8%
1990 20 28 28 25 28 25 27 181 -13 -25 -12.1%
1991 28 22 29 34 22 27 25 187 8 6 3.3%
1992 24 31 26 30 38 25 27 201 -4 14 7.5%
1993 23 25 32 26 31 41 29 207 -1 6 3.0%
1994 33 23 26 35 28 32 40 217 10 10 4.8%
1995 23 38 26 29 35 30 34 215 -10 -2 -0.9%
1996 17 22 31 27 29 33 29 188 -6 -27 -12.6%
1997 19 18 27 32 30 30 33 189 2 1 0.5%
1998 18 19 19 23 33 26 32 170 -1 -19 -10.1%
1999 21 14 21 21 18 32 24 151 3 -19 -11.2%
2000 24 21 17 25 23 21 34 165 3 14 9.3%
2001 26 25 23 19 27 25 26 171 2 6 3.6%
2002 27 31 31 21 22 29 29 190 1 19 11.1%
2003 20 25 34 30 22 20 29 180 -7 -10 -5.3%
2004 28 19 27 32 34 19 20 179 8 -1 -0.6%
2005 25 29 19 26 33 35 21 188 -3 9 5.0%
2006 30 23 26 18 23 35 39 194 5 6 3.2%
2007 16 32 24 28 21 26 33 180 -14 -14 -7.2%
2008 28 18 28 24 27 23 23 171 12 -9 -5.0%
2009 25 29 21 29 24 29 23 180 -3 9 5.3%
2010 32 25 27 21 30 26 27 188 7 8 4.4%
2011 18 32 25 28 23 34 28 188 -14 0 0.0%
2012 19 19 35 24 27 24 35 183 1 -5 -2.7%
School rolls are from the annual pupil census
The first year the highest and lowest rolls occurred are reported below
All occurrences of the highest and lowest rolls are highlighted above
Highest and lowest rolls
P1 - highest roll was 37 (in 1979); lowest roll was 16 (in 2007)
P2 - highest roll was 38 (in 1995); lowest roll was 14 (in 1999)
P3 - highest roll was 39 (in 1981); lowest roll was 17 (in 2000)
P4 - highest roll was 40 (in 1983); lowest roll was 18 (in 2006)
P5 - highest roll was 45 (in 1983); lowest roll was 18 (in 1999)
P6 - highest roll was 46 (in 1984); lowest roll was 19 (in 2004)
P7 - highest roll was 45 (in 1985); lowest roll was 20 (in 2004)
Total - highest roll was 253 (in 1983); lowest roll was 151 (in 1999)
Largest P1 increase was 12 (in 2008); largest P1 decrease was -14 (in 2007)
P5 P6 Total P1 P2 P3 P4 P7
01 Primary School Rolls 1979-2012, Pick-A-PS-Summary, 11/04/2013 Page 1 of 1
1. More student accommodation should be provided by the University to meet the rapid increase
in student numbers; the university has adequate land available at Langlands (to the north oI
David Russell Hall). This is currently earmarked Ior research and development Iacilities which
may or may not ever materialise. The area required Ior residential blocks would be a small
percentage oI the total available. The last expansion oI the David Russell complex was claimed
by the University to be selI-Iinancing (i.e. rental levels would cover borrowing and other
maintenance costs). Given the current state oI the construction industry (extremely keen
tenders) and the record low interest rates prevailing, there could not be a more opportune time
to increase the student accommodation estate.
By contrast, however, the University has just applied Ior planning approval to alter 41 student
houses at FiIe Park (adjacent to David Russell) possibly reducing the capacity at this Iacility.
This is a departure Irom the original plan which was to demolish FiIe Park and replace it with
more blocks based on the David Russell design and thus increase the accommodation available.
2. Under-provision oI aIIordable housing, partly due to the above and the resultant demand Ior
HMO`s, but also due to the Iollowing;
A. Insistence by the Council that the only way to generate aIIordable housing is by allowing
developers to build vast quantities oI private (executive) housing in return Ior 30°
aIIordable i.e. Ior every 3 aIIordable houses we will have to accept 7 private houses. These
will be priced at such a level that they will mainly attract older, possibly retired couples
thus adding to the problem oI an ageing population in St Andrews. In other words very Iew
young Iamilies will be able to aIIord the private housing element. The proposal in the latest
Local Plan Ior 1000-plus houses in the 'Western Expansion¨ also contains the highly
unlikely vision oI these houses being in 'a series oI neighbourhoods, each with their own
local shopping and community hubs¨. Strathkinness, with more houses than any oI these
potential 'neighbourhoods¨, could not support a local shop even on a part-time basis!
B. Absence oI any new council housing over the past 20 years or so together with the
misguided policy oI selling council stock at knock down prices, a system which was oIten
abused by the Iamilies oI elderly tenants. The overall result was a severe shortage oI
council housing.
C. Inadequate provision oI Housing Association / Shared Equity type development.
Knightsbridge Homes, however, has just submitted an application Ior 78 'unsubsidised
aIIordable dwellings¨ within the walled garden at Abbey Walk. This is an increase Irom
the original 48.
3. HMO`s; these continue to be an attractive investment and consequently are unlikely to Iall out
oI Iavour, as such, in the Ioreseeable Iuture. The moratorium in the Conservation Area was
certainly a positive step and this will hopeIully continue to be the policy until the next review oI
the Local Plan. One worrying development, however, is the recent increase in planning
applications Ior two bedroom Ilats which, iI absorbed into the buy-to-let market, will not
require an HMO licence.
January 2013
Queen's Gardens
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
3A 02-May
6 25-Aug X
7 05-Aug
11 11-Jul X
12 08-Jul
12A 13-Jan X 24-Aug X
14A 01-Jul X
15 12-Dec X 16-Nov X
17 12-Mar
01-Aug \\ 05-Dec \\
17A split
12-Aug \\
18 21-May
18A 07-Jul
19 09-Jul X
20A 31-Aug
Queen's Terrace
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2A 28-Sep X
4 09-Apr
4A 22-Jun X
15 06-Aug X
18 12-Jul X
\ Became an HMO 12-Dec X Did not become an HMO Introduction oI moratorium
01-Aug \\ Remained an HMO
Property Sales and Outcomes in Queen`s Gardens and Queens Terrace 2002 - 30 November 2012
(18 Properties changed ownership between 2002 and 30th November 2012, oI which 9 became HMOs)
Queen's Gardens
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
3A 02-May
6 25-Aug X
7 05-Aug
11 11-Jul X
12 08-Jul
12A 13-Jan X 24-Aug X
14A 01-Jul X
15 12-Dec X 16-Nov X
17 12-Mar
01-Aug \\ 05-Dec \\
17A split
12-Aug \\
18 21-May
18A 07-Jul
19 09-Jul X
20A 31-Aug
Queen's Terrace
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2A 28-Sep X
4 09-Apr
4A 22-Jun X
15 06-Aug X
18 12-Jul X
\ Became an HMO 12-Dec X Did not become an HMO Introduction oI moratorium
Property Sales and Outcomes in Queen`s Gardens and Queens Terrace 2002 - 30 November 2012
(18 Properties changed ownership between 2002 and 30th November 2012, oI which 9 became HMOs)
01-Aug \\ Remained an HMO
Queen's Gardens
Queen's Terrace
Introduction oI moratorium
Property Sales and Outcomes in Queen`s Gardens and Queens Terrace 2002 - 30 November 2012
18 Properties changed ownership between 2002 and 30th November 2012, oI which 9 became HMOs)
!"#$%&&%'( *' *+, -'.( /'$$%&&%'( '( 0'"&%(1 2,,3&
on behalI oI
4",,(5& 6783,(& 7(3 4",,(5& -,8879, :,&%3,(*& ;&&'9%7*%'( <464-:;=
I am aware that CSARA has made a comprehensive submission to the Town Commission on the issue HMO
proliIeration in the historic centre oI St Andrews and although this is also the main area oI concern Ior
QGQTRA, I have had to think hard about what I could useIully add. What I think I can add is a perspective
based on living Ior some 26 years in the same street in the conservation area, provide a snapshot oI the
change in property ownership over the last 10 years in the area covered by our association (see Appendix),
and rebut some oI the common arguments deployed by those in Iavour oI an unregulated HMO market.
At the outset, I should like to make it clear that we are very much pro-university and pro-student. We
recognise that students contribute in many ways to the community and there is no question that they bring
vitality and diversity to the town. Diversity is, we think, the key issue in this debate and while students
undoubtedly can contribute to diversity, they can also destroy it iI they come to overwhelm particular
residential areas.
When I Iirst came to St Andrews in the 1980`s, students made up approximately 30° oI the Town`s
population. The Iigure now is nearly 50°. Taking Queen`s Gardens as a microcosm oI the Conservation
Area as a whole, 25 years ago there was 1 student Ilat and the students in residential accommodation made
up 10° oI the population. Now there are 13 HMO`s, and students make up 80° oI the population - this is
excluding the 130 or so students in St Regulus Hall. In the Conservation Area as a whole, the best estimate
is that students constitute 85° oI the population in residential accommodation.
Does this matter? We think it does and that a balance oI diIIerent types oI accommodation, owner occupied
and rented, is essential Ior a sustainable balanced community. This cannot be achieved when one sector oI
the housing market comes to dominate, as it has in the Conservation Area, giving rise to a population that is
almost entirely made up oI young adult, transient residents living in rented accommodation controlled by
absentee landlords.
There are a number oI inaccurate assertions Irequently cited by those in Iavour oI a HMO Iree Ior all, but I
shall limit myselI to just 4.
Firstly, the assertion that Conservation Area properties are 'unattractive to Iamilies, since they are in noisy
locations above commercial properties and lack gardens¨. Untrue. The Iacts are that most oI the
Conservation Area is non-commercial and most oI the properties have gardens. (To be convinced oI this you
just need to visit St Andrews Hidden Gardens in June - an event, incidentally, which would not survive
conversion oI the remaining town centre housing stock to HMOs). I can personally vouch Ior the Iact that
there are many positives to bringing up a Iamily in the centre oI town, and it is also an attractive location Ior
Iamilies without children, retired couples and singles. But they are priced out oI the market by HMO
landlords - a Iact recognised in the Scottish Planning Circular 2/2012.
Secondly, 'there is a desperate need Ior more HMOs¨. Again untrue. Although there has recently been a
'bulge¨ oI some 400 extra students passing through the University due to too many places being oIIered in
2008, these have now exited Irom the system. Additionally, the University announced in 2011 that it
intended to reduce Iurther its intake oI students over each oI the Iollowing 4 years, and to build another 250
rooms at FiIe Park by the end 2013. Taking these Iactors together, and assuming that the University adheres
to these commitments, there will by 2014 be very substantial additional student accommodation capacity
compared to the 'bulge years¨.
Thirdly, 'students must live close to university Iacilities and this means living in the Conservation Area¨.
Untrue on 2 counts. The Iirst is that, according to the University Estates Department, places at FiIe Park are
much in demand due to the Iacilities and pastoral care available there. The other point is that, with
increasing development on the North Haugh, the centre oI gravity oI the University has moved away Irom
the centre oI town and closer to the new accommodation being developed by the University.
Fourthly, I think that the notion that Landlords will simply subdivide their properties into 2 bedded Ilats will
not be realised on any scale because oI cost. In most cases it will simply be uneconomic to provide
additional bathrooms and kitchens and, in addition, new planning legislation will limit where these Iacilities
can be located within a property.
Nobody really knows what will happen to rents or house prices in the Conservation Area iI the FiIe Council
utilises the powers granted to local authorities by the amendments to the Private Rented Sector (Scotland)
Act 2011. We believe that both will become more aIIordable. But what is absolutely certain is, that without
any curbs on HMO proliIeration, commercial pressures will ensure that student occupancy oI residential
accommodation in the centre oI town will approach 100° in the next Iew years, making the Conservation
Area a mere extension oI the University campus, and we shall have moved beyond the point oI no return.
!"#$%&' )*+,&
Queens Gardens and Queens Terrace Residents Association
!"#$!%&'(# *'#+&'%$#, -##./+"$+.%
0.%#12$"$+.% *'#3.%#' $. $4'
5$ -%&('6# 7.1#+%8 0.99+##+.%
EastEnders is the residents` association Ior the east end oI the Central St Andrews Conservation Area. Set
up in 2005, it has worked to promote community identity, and it has taken collective action to represent local
interests and improve Iacilities and amenities in collaboration with FiIe Council and other organisations in
the town.
As a constituent member oI CSARA, EastEnders endorses its submission to the Housing Commission. We
set out here to add our particular perspective and views on the housing situation in the centre oI St Andrews.
A small-scale audit oI the East ('narrow¨) Market Street and South Castle Street provides a snapshot, a
microcosmic image oI the wider picture oI the use and occupation oI properties in the 1971 Conservation
Area and oI its current demographics. It produces a Iactual basis Ior our observations on housing issues in
and their social, economic and cultural eIIects.
:#' "%& ;//13"$+.% 51(<'= .> !"#$ ?"(@'$ 5$(''$ "%& 5.1$4 0"#$2' 5$(''$
A"%1"(= BCDE
Market Street Number Estimated Population
Houses / Flats owner occupied 8 12
Houses / Flats absent owner,
occasionally used 7
(Ex-)Council Flats, tenanted or owned 8 10
Tenanted houses / Ilats (non-student) 5 6
Student HMOs* 8 35*
Student Ilats (non-HMO) 17 34
Other** 1 1
54 98
South Castle Street Number Estimated Population
Houses owner occupied 2 3
Houses absent owner,
occasionally used 2
Council Ilats, elderly people 5 7
Tenanted Ilat 1 2
Student HMOs 4 22
Student houses / Ilats (non-HMO) 3 6
17 40
* 34 and 38 Market Street previously had HMO licences but did not show up on the HMO Register when
this was consulted. 38 was extended in 2012, and both houses currently have student tenants. We are
enquiring about their status. 39 Market Street was granted an HMO licence in 2012 but has not Iound
tenants in this academic year and is still to let.
** One student lives in a bed-sit in a private house.
Non-Student Properties 38 (oI these 31 are permanently occupied or let long-term)
Student-Occupied Properties 32 (some also let to summer visitors)
Permanent / Longer-Term
Resident Population* 40
Student Population** 98 (oI these, 57 in HMOs)
* In a Iew cases the Iigures are estimated.
** The Iigures are based on the numbers Ior which HMOs are licensed, and they assume that non-HMO Ilats
and houses are occupied by two students.
1. The nature oI the housing in East Market Street probably makes the ratio oI the HMO to non-HMO
student population somewhat diIIerent Irom that in the Conservation Area as a whole. However the
number oI small properties housing two students is also large in, Ior instance, the Ilats over shops in the
main Market Street and Bell Street. This number is impossible to quantiIy exactly and its signiIicance is
probably underestimated as compared with that oI HMOs. We also know oI a small number oI cases in
the Conservation Area oI guesthouses and private houses in which students rent 'bedsit¨ rooms.
2. The 1997-2010 Labour governments devised the buy-to-let mechanisms, with their generous tax relieIs,
as a way oI easing younger people into the housing market. In St Andrews and other university towns
and cities, however, it proved a highly proIitable Iorm oI property investment and Iuelled rampant
house-price inIlation. Another, not unrelated, phenomenon apparent in our survey is that oI houses
bought as occasional weekend and holiday homes by absent owners, who oIten regard them as parking-
lots Ior spare capital or as components oI a 'pension-pot¨, and who either let them to students Ior Iurther
proIit or leave them unoccupied, relying on inIlation to add value to them. This too has helped drive
prices Ior houses and Ilats in the town centre Iar above the norm and has added to the erosion oI the
permanent community
3. We calculate, on the basis oI the Register in summer 2012, that in the 1971 Conservation Area there are
privately owned HMO properties with up to 1513 places, and University HMOs (residences and their
satellite houses) housing up to 982, in total accommodation Ior 2495 students. There is currently no
veriIiable statistic Ior the resident population in the Conservation Area. But it is selI-evident that
students in HMOs outnumber permanent and long-term residents by a huge margin, and in Iact the
impossibility oI calculating the additional number oI students living in unlicensed Ilats and bedsits (see
point 1) means that any total estimate oI the student population in the Conservation Area will be an
underestimate. There appears to be no policing oI properties which should, but do not, have an HMO
licence other than inIormation supplied by residents. There is recent evidence that attempts are now
being made to evade the HMO policy by the building or conversion oI properties into blocks oI two-
person Ilats.
4. By and large the student majority and the resident minority co-exist with surprisingly little tension.
Anti-social behaviour is relatively rare, though there are issues over late-night noise, parking, waste-
disposal, and the upkeep oI houses which absent owners or their local agents do not adequately monitor.
However there is very little contact between the two social groups and the resident community Ieels
increasingly isolated and at risk.
5. The large expansion in University student numbers since the 1960s has brought a concomitant expansion
oI staII numbers. Although the University is unusual in oIIering residence accommodation to almost
halI its students, it has leIt it entirely to market Iorces to cater Ior the rest, in a town Iar too small to
cope. One result oI house-price inIlation is that very Iew University staII can now aIIord to live in the
town. The paucity oI any residents in the town centre between the age oI 30 and 60, in contrast to past
decades, has also contributed to the hollowing-out oI the resident population.
6. Students have taken to reIerring to 'their¨ St Andrews as 'the bubble¨ or, more recently, 'the campus¨.
The retail and service economy oI the town centre is becoming more and more geared to the needs and
tastes oI students: the proliIeration oI pubs and restaurants, coIIee bars and take-aways, convenience
stores, clothing shops Ior the young and trendy. This does give the centre a certain buzz. But it narrows
the base and the range oI shopping so that, when the Christmas vacation was extended to the end oI
January this year, many businesses closed Ior some weeks or complained that their sales had slumped to
a record low. It is striking too that the plethora oI shops, restaurants and caIes gives employment less to
local young people (who cannot aIIord to live in the town) than to students who need to work in order to
pay rents oI, typically, £450-500 each month.
7. A greatly increased student population puts strain on the town`s inIrastructure, its power and water
consumption, its reIuse and recycling collections, its parking provision (also taxed by the demands oI a
University staII oI which the large majority drives into town Irom outside and is not given parking
places by its employer). Yet housing Ior students is not liable to Council Tax or Water Rate.
8. The erosion oI the resident community and the Iact that University staII do not live in town have both
contributed to a decline in the cultural liIe oI St Andrews. Classical musical concerts have Ior the most
part small and elderly audiences, the surviving cinema is rarely crowded, the Byre Theatre is bankrupt.
The very diIIerent cultural appetites oI the student generation, the electronic media, the relative
accessibility oI rival attractions in Dundee and Edinburgh, Iurther contribute to this crisis oI the rich
cultural provision which ought to be a deIining Ieature oI a university town.
9. The peak oI the threat to the sustainability oI the resident community may have been reached.
University expansion may be slowing down. We now have an HMO planning policy Ior the town
centre. There is reason to think that supply oI student housing may have reached saturation level. But
there is little or no chance oI a retroactive policy that might restore a normal pattern oI housing
provision and demography in the town centre. We look to the Housing Commission to work with the
University and FiIe Council to promote any necessary Iurther student accommodation, aIIordable and
attainable new housing Ior young proIessionals and the young adults oI the town community, outside the
town centre. Even so, it is likely to remain the case that the University will never provide more than
50° at most oI the accommodation required by the students it admits, and will leave it to market Iorces
to provide the remainder, at a terrible cost to the permanent resident community and to the non-student
young who cannot aIIord to live in their native town.
10. The Commission will need to establish much more hard reliable Iactual inIormation about the housing
situation in St Andrews. It will need to persuade the University to take much more responsibility Ior the
consequences oI its expansion and the housing oI its students and its staII. It must persuade FiIe
Council to recognise the damage its "#$%%&' (#$'& approach to planning and development in the town has
done to our community. As residents we look to the Commission to share the results oI its work with
the community, giving us clear Iacts about the realities oI the housing situation and consulting us on
whatever policies and action it proposes Ior the Iuture. We were disappointed to Iind that its initial
consultation exercise merely asked us to react to questions by guesswork, without providing any
inIormation on which to base our responses. Potentially much more valuable will be a questionnaire
presenting an inIormed summary oI the current housing situation and a set oI Iactually based options Ior
a public policy.
JeIIrey AshcroIt
Maries Cassells
Anne Spackman
on behalI oI EastEnders.
St Andrews Town Commission on Housing
Housing Survey
January 2013
Dear Dr Walker
The Students` Association welcomes the opportunity to reply to your Housing Commission and your letter
dated 13
November 2012.
!"#$"%#& () #*%+,%-. /$(0#++ %- 1(2+%-. /$("%+%(-
The Students` Association agree that St Andrews is a unique place to live, work and play and Ior that very
reason is a desirable location Ior individuals to reside and contribute to a vibrant and sustainable community.
There are already existing mechanisms that are coherent and rational inviting all key stakeholders and wider
community to participate in the Iuture oI St Andrews and North FiIe areas through legislation and the
planning process.
The recently adopted St Andrews and East FiIe Local Plan dated October 2012 covering the period 2008-
2022 and the Strategic Development Planning process in place with the TAYPLAN as approved at 8
2012. The review oI the TAYPLAN is scheduled every Iour years Irom 2012 to 2032 with the Iirst review
expected 8
June 2016.
The TAYPLAN document at also identiIies St Andrews as a Tier 2 location that
has potential to make a contribution to the regional economy but will accommodate a smaller share oI the
regional additional development.
1. YES / 9UZ
4. ?
5. N/A
6. N/A
7. N/A
8. N/A
:85;6 <9= !>898!96
32#+,%(- ? @ A(2+# /$%0#+
The Students` Association appreciate that, historically, St Andrews is recognised as a high-market area and
as such property prices reIlect the limited supply oI existing and any Iuture new-build properties.
The area has been identiIied Ior 1,090 new homes in the TAYPLAN although this amount can only be
delivered iI all relevant Iactors are in place to provide this Iigure.
32#+,%(- B @ C#-, 01D$.#+
Students in St Andrews pay a comparatively high-market rent similar to the London / South East areas. The
heated market in St Andrews does inIluence rental charges especially in the private sector as property
purchase costs, mortgage interest, maintenance as well as a percentage oI marginal proIit are built in to the
rental Iigure despite some costs being recoverable through income tax.
There are variants in weekly rental charges per person, per room Irom approximately £80 Ior resident-
landlord property and £100 to £230 Ior private-sector properties. There is a general expectation that rents
should be slightly lower on the perimeter oI St Andrews or within reasonable commuting distance. Students
also have to consider those costs in addition to rental charges.
Students, however, cannot always meet these higher private-accommodation charges. Interim nominal
bursaries are currently limited Ior qualiIying students experiencing accommodation aIIordability.
!/#- ED$F#, D00(EE(GD,%(-
There is a deIinitive market Ior student accommodation and the majority oI landlords will restrict their
business to students solely based on the captured market and generous income stream with guaranteed leases
being joint-and-several over nine to twelve months.
StaII and the general public access open-market properties where rents may be more aIIordable and have
access to welIare beneIit iI appropriate.
Q2#+,%(- H D-G I @ <"D%JDK%J%,L () D))($GDKJ# 1(2+%-.
Low-cost aIIordable housing in St Andrews cannot be replicated to the same provision as past historic
models or scale. The Iormer model was substantially subsidised by the Scottish Government, approximately
around £85,000 per house. This amount has reduced, periodically, to the current subsidy oI £30,000 per
property. The subsidy Iigures can vary between locations, developments, housing needs and overall Iunding
package per development.
High-market areas are Iinancially challenging and can only be addressed with relevant organisations and
private Iinancial partners working eIIectively to deliver low-cost housing.
Government subsidy is inadequate to meet all aIIordable housing needs but resources cannot match national
demands. The balance has to be struck between overall delivery costs and chargeable rents otherwise the
aIIordability without weekly housing beneIit subsidy has to be Iinancially sustainable.
St Andrews is a high-market area with limited brown- or green-Iield sites as identiIied in the TAYPLAN,
thereIore a complex Iinancing model would be required to deliver any type oI aIIordable housing. Section
75 agreements placed on new-build are not popular or sustainable.
Housing associations aIIordable housing programmes have nationally reduced despite some organisations
merging to reduce overhead development management costs. Housing Association Grant (HAG) has been
replaced with Innovation and Investment Funding to assist the delivery oI social aIIordable housing in
Examples oI aIIordable housing models:-
• Mid-market rents in high-density areas and cities;
• Open-market equity schemes;
• Shared-equity schemes;
• Shared-ownerships schemes;
• SelI-build.
61($,D.# () D))($GDKJ# 1(2+%-. M+,2G#-,+ #*#E/, )$(E +(0%DJ 1(2+%-.N
There are various reasons that contribute to a shortage oI aIIordable housing:
• High-market areas such as St Andrews cannot provide large-scale developments;
• New national legislation may be required to restrict sales oI Iuture aIIordable housing as pressured
area status is not guaranteed indeIinitely;
• Restricted new supply due to public-Iunding subsidy regime, as described, is unsustainable;
• The mortgage-banking sector prior to 2008 provided low interest rate Ior buy-to-let products that
attracted non-resident purchasers to buy open- or mid-market properties Ior the student-letting market;
• Private investors and companies have also purchased ex right-to-buy properties with two or three
bedrooms Ior student-letting market as pension schemes were seen as a low return compared to
property investments;
• Limited land and improved building speciIications;
• Scottish Housing Quality Standard and building regulations improved; increased costs to build
aIIordable housing;
• Restriction oI Local Housing Allowances and change in welIare beneIits Ior tenants may aIIect rent
aIIordability Ior low-income or single tenants especially in high-market areas;
• Recent change in priority need Ior persons requesting social aIIordable housing will increase waiting
O(2-0%J 1(2+%-.
There is no doubt that additional aIIordable council housing in St Andrews market area would beneIit
individuals and Iamilies that contribute to servicing the local economy.
FiIe Council, like all authorities, would normally have Iunded new-build through existing tenants` rents,
housing receipts Irom right-to-buy sales and loans. All oI these Iunding streams have been subject to
changes or restraints since 2008.
Local authorities historically addressed and managed their own mortgage deIicit Iigure per property that
would dictate Iuture lending, thereIore the provision oI council housing is a complex Iinancial issue and
addressed internally with the local authority and the Scottish Government.
32#+,%(- P @ >$%"D,#@$#-,#G 1(2+%-. @ AQ!+
HMO properties are normally intended Ior the student market and, as such, are very popular in St Andrews.
The majority oI FiIe Council`s houses in multiple occupation are located in St Andrews with approximately
1,000 licences in the area. The 2011 Supplementary Planning Guidance and review timetabled Ior 2013,
plus the Change oI Use criteria and new applications instead oI renewals may reIlect some changes in the
supply. The cap on new licences has had the eIIect oI displacing many students Irom the historic centre oI
town into the boundary areas traditionally reserved Ior Iamilies. It appears to have had no eIIect on the
popularity oI student occupation oI centre-oI-town properties, other than driving up the cost Ior students.
62//JL () 1(2+#+ %- E2J,%/J# (002/D,%(-
The supply oI private properties Ior students are private purchases controlled by the Iinancial market systems
providing loans, mortgages or capital savings held by individuals. These properties are purchased as a long-
term investment with guaranteed income in comparison to other investments especially since 2008.
8JJ#.DJ JD-GJ($G+ () 1(2+#+ %- E2J,%/J# (002/D,%(- D-G JD-GJ($G $#.%+,$D,%(- /$(/#$,%#+
Landlords who ignore or Iail to register a private-let property are more diIIicult to expose and aIIect the legal
compliant sector despite the possibility oI a £50,000.00 Iine Ior non-compliance.
Students are advised to avoid these landlords at all cost although Iigures Irom September 2010 have
identiIied some 64 landlords (equivalent to 188 bed spaces), who have either let or intended to let to
students. These landlords tarnish the private-letting business sector in St Andrews and undermine the
compliant landlords.
There is a major and on-going concern over enIorcement oI this legislation. Properties are continually Iound
to be in breach oI legislation. We believe that there is a dangerous gap here which is encouraging
irresponsible landlords to the detriment oI saIety, the Iabric oI buildings and overall standards oI what is
considered acceptable treatment oI student housing.
32#+,%(- R
• The quality oI all general open-market properties is not known as the Association only inspect student
properties on request.
• The quality oI social housing must be mixed as there are diIIerent types oI social housing:
(existing social council properties);
(ex right-to-buy properties - sitting tenants);
(ex right-to-buy properties - sold through open market);
(any Housing Association stock).
Regardless what type oI social housing is available, there are various mechanisms and organisations that
provide improvements to properties whether tenanted or owner-occupied. The Scottish Housing Quality
Standard is a benchmark requirement Ior all social housing stock.
C#+%G#-, JD-GJ($G+
This sector relies on the owner oI the property taking responsibility to ensure they provide an adequate
bedroom and living space with appropriate heating and sanitation. There is no Iormal monitoring
mechanism Ior this sector as they do not Iall within Landlord Registration regulations.
5* $%.1,@,(@K2L /$(/#$,%#+ @ +(0%DJ +#0,($
These properties oIten suIIer Irom disrepair and damp due to original poor quality housing build and little or
no improvement works carried out since the date oI purchase. Upgrading oI heating systems, boilers,
bathrooms, insulation and loIt insulation can improve these properties with grants, loans and tax incentives.
Right-to-buy sitting tenants oIten do not have access to available capital Iunds to improve their properties
causing disrepair that can blight an area over time.
6,2G#-, /$%"D,#@+#0,($ /$(/#$,%#+
There are various examples oI good quality housing stock Irom totally reIurbished and partial reIurbishments
that provide an excellent supply oI private properties.
However, some landlords choose not to invest and improve their properties and let in extremely dangerous
conditions. Examples oI wiring and sockets live, gas boilers out oI date, water penetration, damaged rooIs,
broken windows, heating and sanitation problems. Landlords who let such properties to students oIten are
dismissive oI complaints despite charging a high-market rent. There has been little or no attempt to tackle
this problem, an issue which consistently overwhelms what little support the Association is able to oIIer.
32#+,%(- S @ 4-%"#$+%,L@/$("%G#G D00(EE(GD,%(-
The university provides the highest proportion oI university-managed accommodation in the UK, at around
49°. The quality oI housing is generally good to excellent, with the exception oI FiIe Park and Albany
Park, which are in need oI reIurbishment. Demand Ior university-managed accommodation outstrips supply
by a Iactor oI around 1.5 / 1. Its popularity is down to a collection oI Iactors including:
• reliable landlord;
• clean;
• cost eIIective;
• short lease periods;
• catered option;
• hall spirit`.
The Students` Association recently conducted a comprehensive survey oI university-managed
accommodation, the results oI which it has made available to the Commission.
32#+,%(- T @ >$%"D,# D00(EE(GD,%(- )($ +,2G#-,+
See answer at 5.
32#+,%(- U M+## DJ+( RN
The owners oI private-sector properties can be varied Irom resident UK or non-UK residents, sometimes
known as absent` owners, who may or may not use local estate agents Ior day-to-day management.
There is no correlation between the two types oI owners as regards property conditions, as each owner and
agent has diIIerent views oI standards and conditions oI let. This, however, should not detract Irom the legal
requirement oI The Repairing Standard Ior Scotland as introduced at 3
September 2007. The legal duty
attached to the Repairing Standard, unIortunately in some cases, is ignored or not known to the point oI
serious and near Iatal incidents through landlords` Iailure oI care to tenants.
Students generally Ieel, or are expected to be, more tolerant and accepting oI lower standards but in some
cases properties are extremely mismatched with the actual rental charges. This anomaly should not be
tolerated and all properties regardless whether student or open-market should be presented in Repairing
Standard condition.
32#+,%(- ?V
St Andrews has a very particular situation with regards to student accommodation and its eIIect on the wider
population. The main concerns are the quality and quantity oI supply, with the seemingly spiralling cost to
students and permanent residents as the student population grows. Measures that restrict the housing supply,
such as restricting HMO licences, have undesired eIIects, Ielt by students and residents alike. The cap has
displaced students into residential properties; where Iour students might once be housed in one Ilat, they
must now occupy two. The result is to price local Iamilies out oI the market.
This problem is created because purpose-built university accommodation supplies are insuIIicient, creating
an ever-increasing black hole` oI purpose-built residential homes that are being converted to student houses.
The Association is thereIore keen to encourage development oI purpose-built student accommodation in
order to reduce pressure on local housing and to halt the spiralling cost oI student accommodation, which in
turn has a deeply damaging eIIect on the aIIordability oI the university to Iinancially disadvantaged students.
We believe that iI residential housing is to stop being converted Ior student use, public bodies must make an
eIIort to increase the purpose-built housing stock and encourage developments oI this nature.