Accommodation Costs Survey 2009/10

Acknowledgements
We would like to extend our grateful thanks to the institutions and private providers who took part in our online survey, at the very busiest time of the year for accommodation offices. In particular we would like to thank those who took additional time to carry out a pilot survey and give us very comprehensive feedback. These institutions were: Sheffield Hallam University Southampton Solent University University of Leeds University of Liverpool Our thanks also go to a number of individuals who took time to comment on the survey design, drafts of the report, and who provided advice and expertise in a number of areas: Martin Blakey, Chief Executive, Unipol Student Homes Malcolm Brown, Loughborough University Karen Burke, Accommodation Services Manager, Sheffield Hallam University Claire Callender, Professor of Higher Education, Birkbeck College Bryan Carroll, Assistant Director Estates and Facilities, Southampton Solent University Mark Grayling, General Manager, Nottingham Trent Students Union Debbie Grant, Loughborough University Dennis Hopper, Director of Residential and Commercial Services, University of Leeds Ian Humphreys, Liverpool Student Homes Paddy Jackman, Director of Commercial Services, Imperial College London Jovan Luzajic, Universities UK Ed Naylor, Student Accommodation Manager, Liverpool John Moores University Julie Rugg, Senior Research Fellow, University of York Ed Sparkes, Vice President (Housing and Community), University of Birmingham Guild of Students Roland Shanks, Senior Housing Adviser, University of London Housing Services Mark Swales, Deputy Director Estates and Facilities, Sheffield Hallam University Brian Welsh, Head of Operational Strategy, Liberty Living Ben Whittaker, Vice President (Welfare), NUS We would like to thank Martin Rushall for his thorough editing of this report. At NUS, special thanks go to Stephanie Neave for her support throughout the project.

Sarah Wayman NUS

Scott Blakeway Unipol Student Homes

Contents
Acknowledgements Contents Foreword Executive summary
Profile of the sector The cost of accommodation Length of contract Additional costs Regional variation on costs Reasons for rising costs The type of accommodation provided

2 3 5 7
7 7 8 8 8 8 9

Recommendations
Strategic development and planning Student support Transparency Sustainability

10
10 10 10 11

Background
The evolution of accommodation provision in higher education Accommodation in further education Where students live

13
13 13 13

The cost of accommodation

Purpose-built accommodation: rising prices Weekly rents Length of contract Headline rent: what is included and what is not Additional costs Control of accommodation in institutions Changes to the cost of living Affordable rent

15
16 17 17 18 18 20 21 22

Provision and rent: variation across regions and institutions

Regional variation Rents by institution Partnership arrangements with third-party suppliers Purpose-built accommodation and the PRS: comparisons by city

23
23 24 25 27

The changing profile of accommodation

Types of purpose-built accommodation currently provided Specialist housing The balance between institutional and private providers Planned expansion figures Other significant developments shaping the product

34
34 36 37 38 38

Are students getting what they want out of the market?

What do students want, and what are they getting? Value for money Quality A false market? Are students staying at home more? Are more students choosing off-street properties?

40
40 40 41 41 42 42

Looking to the future

Overview Purpose-built accommodation Nomination agreements Low-cost alternatives Short-term accommodation

44
44 44 45 45 46

Data tables
Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: Average weekly rent by category of accommodation Average weekly rent by region Number of bedspaces by category of accommodation Number of bedspaces by region Average length of contract by category of accommodation Average length of contract by region Average deposit Rent inclusion by category of room Rent inclusion base numbers

47
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 54

About the survey

Methodology Alterations Definitions Comparisons Calculations used Abbreviations used Schedule of respondents Schedule of accreditation scheme operators

55
55 55 57 57 57 59 60 61

Foreword
This is the latest NUS/Unipol Accommodation Costs Survey looking at rents charged in student accommodation complexes (more generally known as "halls of residence") by both institutions and the private sector. Accommodation is a major factor in influencing the student experience. In the CUBO "Enhancing the Student Experience" Report 2008, accommodation cost was valued as having the third highest importance in living elements ranging above learning support and employability.i Both cost and quality are important to students and their education institutions. The same survey, however, showed a significant gap between importance and satisfaction in accommodation quality: 78% of students were satisfied on quality but only 52% of students were satisfied with the value of their accommodation. Against this background, many accommodation providers gave us information as part of this survey. Our thanks go to them for their help and co-operation which enables us to put this data in the public arena. These are changing times for student accommodation. Private providers were caught in the 2008 credit crunch storm which was associated with falling property prices. Education institutions themselves are cutting back on their budgets following cuts announced by the Government over the next three years. In this context this report balances some positive developments and raises a number of concerns. The central concern is that affordability is becoming an increasing issue for poorer (or even not-so-poor) students seeking to live away from home. Rents are rising quickly, in both real and percentage terms, and the range of accommodation on offer from institutions is falling. On the up side, rising rents have been accompanied by a transformation over the last decade in the quality of accommodation on offer and much of the accommodation covered here has had a significant effect on driving standards up across the private sector generally. The question now is how high standards and rents go? There is no reason why richer students should not have access to self-contained penthouse-type apartments but, clearly, they are not for everyone. Understandably, as employment prospects become less certain and student debt increases, students and their parents become more cautious about what to rent and how much it costs. In the post-Lehman world we are all more cautious about taking on debt to be paid for by some unspecified highly-paid job later. It would be a mistake for new investors to be attracted to build more high-cost accommodation on the basis that rents always rise. The challenge for future development will be to provide a wider range of new accommodation within a lower-price banding. In the last survey we were concerned about the development of more complex rental structures, often to mask real cost. This survey shows that rental structures have simplified, although they have done so because of the ability to include services within a rising headline rent. Under this system, transparency has improved and recent benchmarking of standards within the sector (either undertaken internally or through the Government-approved UUK and ANUK/Unipol Codes) has kept both physical and management standards high.

Students are seen as demanding customers and student accommodation is a very specific niche market within the property world with high levels of servicing. Let us hope that students are as demanding when they leave student accommodation and can act as drivers in the rest of the private sector where a high-quality housing option is needed to offset the increasingly distant prospect for many young people of moving into owner-occupation. This report highlights the important role that student accommodation plays for both home and international students who move away from home to study and how accommodation must be seen as an integral part of the academic and social life of most of our major education institutions. It is access to the totality of this learning experience that makes the UK higher educational experience unique. Our thanks go to Sarah Wayman, Scott Blakeway and Stephanie Neave for writing this report and managing this project.

Ben Whittaker Vice President (Welfare) NUS

Martin Blakey Chief Executive Unipol Student Homes

Executive summary
The profile of the sector
Accommodation in this survey falls into three broad categories: provided by the institutions themselves in their own buildings provided by others but via an arrangement made through an institution, referred to in this document as a nomination agreement or provided directly by an external private supplier, described in this report as a private provider

Institutionally-owned and managed housing still makes up the vast majority of purpose-built accommodation. In the survey for 2009-10, 78.0% of purpose-built provision fell into this category. A further 12.1% fell under various institutionally-linked nomination agreements and 9.9% was provided and directly let by private suppliers. A wider data set of information is available from the suppliers of the UUK and ANUK/Unipol Codes of Practice which have wide coverage in the sector. Here, 69% of bedspaces are directly provided by institutional suppliers with the remaining 31% being provided by private suppliers.

The cost of accommodation

The latest survey shows that the average cost of a room was 92.90 in 2008-09, rising to 98.99 in 2009-10. The actual increase in cost on the previous survey conducted in 2006-07 is 21.9%. This represents a real increase of 13.0% above inflation.ii The actual increase for private accommodation was the largest at 29.5%: rent rose from 79iii in 2006-07 to 102.28 in 2009-10. The average rent in institutional accommodation in 200910 was 98.43, an actual increase of 20.3% from the 2006-07 survey. Across the same period, the cost of accommodation provided through a nomination agreement grew by a similar amount (20.4%). On average rent per week, the most expensive room type was a double studio flat provided by a private supplier and the cheapest was institutionally provided single self-catered accommodation. Average rents ranged in this survey from 49.00 per week up to 220.06 per week. Rent which includes other services has become more common than it was in the period covered by the last survey, particularly amongst private providers (see page 17). From the 2009-10 data, 95.8% of all respondents included energy in their costs, 81.5% included internet and 68.4% included insurance. Other additions reported were other utilities, gym membership, free car parking and bus passes.

Length of contract
The average length of contract has remained essentially the same at 39.6 weeks for institutional accommodation. Based on the average price of a room, the annual rent a student could expect to pay would be around 3,892.62 for the 2009-10 academic year. For the same year, the contract length in nomination agreement accommodation averages at nearly 43 weeks (42.9). Private providers have the longest average contract length at 44.6 weeks. On the basis of these figures, the annual rents in accommodation provided through a nomination agreement and a private provider for 2009-10 are 4,284.35 and 4,560.02 respectively.

Additional costs
There has been a significant drop in the percentage of suppliers charging a deposit from 79% in 2006-07 (undifferentiated) to 57% of institutions and 62% of private providers. Private providers deposits are covered by the Deposit Protection legislation and abide by the timescales required of the regulations for returning deposits (about 4 weeks). Educational institutions who are outside of the scheme returned their deposits at an average time of 4.8 weeks, although some institutions took as long as 16 weeks.

Regional variation on costs

Predictably, London remains the area with the most expensive rents averaging 125.34 a week across all accommodation in 2009-10. The region with the cheapest rents is Northern Irelandiv with an average rent of 64.17.

Reasons for rising costs

There are several reasons for rents continuing to rise well in excess of inflation: the refurbishment of older stock newer student accommodation being associated with ever higher standards of amenity and service newer buildings tending to be expensive both to manage and to maintain the increase in the provision of ensuite rooms and studio flats the phasing-out of shared cluster flats with shared bathrooms in favour of ensuite provision

Additionally, how institutions and other providers set their rents can be highly complex and may be influenced by other factors, including demand, staffing, subsidising of certain rooms and differential rents for factors such as room size.

The type of accommodation provided

Self-catered accommodationv with ensuite facilities has now overtaken single self-catered provision as the most common room type, accounting for 47.8% of bedspaces in the 2009-10 survey. Broken down, it represents 40.4% of institutional accommodation, 75.5% of rooms offered through nomination arrangements and 71.2% of privately provided accommodation. Single self-catered continues to be a common room type, and, with substantially cheaper rents, remains an integral fixture of student accommodation provision. Catered accommodation has continued to decline steadily but slowly over time. However it may have reached a plateau. It accounts for around 17.7% of institutional accommodation caught by the latest survey, broadly in line with the figure for the previous survey (17.3%). Studio flats have continued to grow in number, but at a much slower rate than ensuite accommodation. It accounts for 2% of accommodation overall. The majority of this growth is in privately supplied accommodation. Indications from the sector are that this type of accommodation will continue to be developed, though the number of students who will be able to afford it is in question. Provision of accommodation suitable for disabled students was high, at 95.7% of institutions and 86.2% of private suppliers, with newer builds capable of ready conversion when needed. The availability of accommodation for students with families is much lower less than a third (32.3%) of institutions and less than a fifth (17.2%) of private suppliers had any such provision. However, this provision is concentrated in a small number of institutions, which may indicate that the need is being met by education providers with a particular student profile.

Recommendations
Strategic development and planning
1. Affordability and choice should be reflected in the development and management of student accommodation provided by institutions or for them through agreements, and a range of rents should be maintained. The dangers of constantly upgrading accommodation to the point where all rents fall within high rental bands should be acknowledged. There should be a good range of accommodation type and cost available to students, allowing for provision of specialist as well as low-cost housing. As a rule of thumb, 25% of all rents charged by (or through) the institution should fall within the bottom quartile of the institution's rent structure. Institutions and private providers should work with students and students unions to assess the housing needs of their students periodically, and regular satisfaction surveys should be undertaken (ideally annually) and the information they generate fed into a strategic assessment. Institutions and private providers should ensure that student representatives are involved in, or consulted on, future developments in accommodation available, including rent-setting, nomination agreements and refurbishments. Institutions should be aware of their wider obligations to maintain and protect housing standards outside their immediate provision by actively supporting accreditation and promoting its benefits to their students and staff.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Student support
6. Institutions should consider current levels of student support within their costings for rents in order to ensure that students who are more dependent on loans and grants are not priced out of accommodation. Institutions should consider accommodation type, cost and location when carrying out impact assessments under equality legislation. The relationship between housing costs, poverty and educational choice is a complex one and further work should be undertaken to explore what support should be available and how this should be administered.

7.

8.

Transparency
9. The costs of student accommodation should be simple and made easy to understand. Contractual and cost obligations should be clearly spelt out to students in advance of them making decisions about what to rent. It is particularly important that good quality and transparent information is available when online booking and renting systems are used.

10

10.

Booking fees taken in advance of forming a tenancy should relate specifically to the additional cost of administration incurred by entering and then withdrawing from the allocation system. Booking fees should not be seen as any form of cancellation charge or payment where no specific room has been reserved. Both the UUK and ANUK/Unipol Codes of Practice now have a four-week period within which a student must receive their deposit back or be given clear reasons for the deposit being withheld. This timeframe mirrors that set down in legislation for students renting outside an institution on an assured shorthold tenancy. No institution should exceed this limit for any reason and students are entitled to get their money back quickly. Those administering the Codes of Practice should closely and specifically monitor the performance of those who have agreed to adhere to these standards and should identify in their annual reports any member who falls short of professional standards in this regard.

11.

12.

Sustainability
13. Sustainability issues are of growing importance. Despite Energy Performance Certificates not being legally required for students renting individual rooms in a complex, all students should have access to this information in the form of, at least, an EPC being displayed prominently in each entry lobby to the building and details being available on the web for students to see prior to renting. Whilst charging energy inclusively within the rent reflects student preferences for an inclusive cost, every effort should be made by accommodation providers to give students information on how much energy their flat is using plus further information to enable them to compare their energy usage with an average use. Incentives should be developed to encourage energy saving

14.

11

12

Background
The evolution of accommodation provision in higher education
Student accommodation in the UK has evolved over centuries, from as early as the twelfth century in Oxford and Cambridge colleges through to the present day. It now houses nearly half a million students. Changes since the introduction of non-institutionally owned or managed accommodation in the early 1990s are of particular note; between 1988 and 1998 student numbers increased by an average of 138% a year.vi This mass expansion in student numbers, as well as other factors, accelerated the erosion of the traditional halls of residence and the paternalistic lines on which they were drawn. Consequently, accommodation began to develop to house higher numbers of students at lower cost. Nonetheless, institutions were poorly positioned to match bedspace provision and student numbers continued to grow. This expansion was compounded by the internationalisation of higher education between 1998 and 2008 international student numbers increased by around 60%.vii The result was a growing default reliance on local housing stock to meet the extra demand. A solution for bridging the gap in bedspaces emerged as private suppliers major commercial property development and management companies together with smaller numbers of charitable housing organisations, entered the market in the 1990s. By the early part of that decade, HE funding councils were actively encouraging universities to explore PFI arrangements to supplement and upgrade their accommodation provision, or to make it financially sustainable.viii Commercial investment in student accommodation brought with it the provision of new services and choices, including ensuite bedrooms, internet access, and gym facilities. Although popular, the enhanced product and add-on services entailed a major hike in costs, the affordability of which is in serious doubt for many students.

Accommodation in further education

Accommodation for higher education institutions makes up the vast majority of the sector. However, there are also around 50 further education colleges around the country which provide accommodation. The rest do not and the vast majority of FE students live at home. Around 1,900 bedspaces are covered by the ANUK/Unipol Code for Large Developments. FECs providing accommodation tend to be small, specialist colleges, and the level of provision is consequently on a smaller scale than in many higher education institutions (HEIs). However, as distinctions between higher and further education continue to blur, this may be an area of growth for student accommodation.

Where students live

Student accommodation continues to house a large proportion of students, 22% of full-time students according to the latest data. This represents a slight decrease on previous years. The largest proportion of students (35%) currently live in the PRS with friends. Financially,

13

living with parents or relatives is an increasingly attractive option. at 23%. Smaller numbers: rent on their own or with a partner (10%) own a property (10%) or live in a house owned by their parents (1%)ix

The figure currently stands

Most institutional bedspaces are filled by first-year full-time undergraduates, but this type of accommodation is also an important service for postgraduate and international students.

14

The cost of accommodation

Purpose-built accommodation: rising prices
The provision surveyed falls into three broad categories accommodation: provided by the institutions themselves in their own buildings provided by others but via an arrangement made through an institution, referred to in this document as a nomination agreement provided directly by an external private supplier

Rent in purpose-built accommodation continues to rise. Between the previous NUS/Unipol Accommodation Costs Survey in 2006-07 and 2009-10 data, there has been a 21.9% actual increase in average rents. Taking inflation into account, this is a real increase of 13.0% over the last three academic years. The average rent increased from 81.18 per week in 2006-07 to 92.90 in 2008-09 and to 98.99 in 2009-10. Whilst we are still seeing rents increasing, however the rate of this growth appears to be slowing. Rents between 2008-09 and 2009-10 increased by 2% above inflation (6.6% actual increase), compared to 5% for the previous year. Broken down by type of supplier, increase in rents was highest in accommodation provided by external private suppliers with a 29.5% actual increase from 79 per week in 2006-07 to 102.28 in 2009-10. The average rent in institutional accommodation in 2009-10 was 98.43, an actual increase of 20.3% from the 2006-07 survey. Across the same period, the cost of accommodation provided through a nomination agreement grew by a similar amount (20.4%), averaging 99.93. There are several reasons for rents continuing to rise well in excess of inflation: the refurbishment of older stock newer student accommodation being associated with ever higher standards of amenity and service newer buildings tending to be expensive both to manage and to maintain the increase in the provision of more expensive ensuite rooms and studio flats and the phasing-out of shared cluster flats with shared bathrooms many suppliers charging rents inclusive of internet and energy costs, which themselves are subject to fluctuation.

Added to this, how institutions and other providers set their rents can be highly complex and may be influenced by other factors. These include demand, staffing, subsidising of certain rooms and differential rent levels for factors such as room and bed size. On the face of it the increases in rent for purpose-built accommodation are relatively modest, but in the context of the economic downturn they are significant. The early indications on rent levels for 2010-11 are that increases in real terms will continue to be a feature of the market at a time when student funding is static and support from parents, themselves under economic

15

pressure, is falling away. Private investment and development are also anticipated to continue in this sector. Comparison with the PRS serves to emphasise the resilience of the purpose-built market. Since the onset of the recession in 2008, prices have substantially dropped in the PRS. As of December 2009, rents for flats and houses in the private sector were 3% lower than in December 2008, as recessionary forces created a renters market.x These forces included: oversupply in the market landlords looking to remain competitive increasingly cost-conscious tenants prepared to shop around current policy drivers to move students away from living in the private rented sector.xi

By contrast, purpose-built accommodation providers appear to be relatively inured against these market shifts, and demand for purpose-built accommodation public and private remains strong as student numbers stay buoyant. This is particularly worthy of remark in the context of the current policy drivers to shift student living out of converted off-street properties through tighter planning restrictions in key student areas.xii . This is not to say, however, that private suppliers, and to some extent the institutions themselves, are immune to the general economic downturn in the property market. Revaluation of assets has placed a much greater emphasis on the revenue performance of student accommodation rather than on equity appreciation. There is certainly pressure from lenders on private sector providers to improve revenue. Within the educational sector there is encouragement within institutions themselves to ensure that student accommodation budgets not only break even but return a surplus to the core institutional budget. This is certain to increase as institutions' funding from central government is reduced and this is likely to fuel rent increases over the next two years. The continuous rises in student rents do beg the questions "Can rents go on rising in the foreseeable future and Will students and their parents continue to be able to meet these costs?" Elsewhere in this report it is suggested that these real year-on-year increases are beginning to meet some market resistance from consumers and students, particularly in higher-cost areas such as London. Here, students are shopping around to find the cheapest deal. This trend is resulting in increased voids in the higher-priced provision.

Weekly rents
As Figure 1 below illustrates, the average weekly rent for a self-catered single room provided by an institution increased by 14.3% since the last survey (for full definitions of each room category, see page 55). The parallel increase for the product as offered by a private provider is 20.5%. For ensuite rooms the most common category in this survey institutional rent rose by 18.2% over the same period, as compared to a 30.6% increase set by private providers.

16

Figure 1: Average weekly rent by room type, and change since 2006-07
Average weekly rent by room type Actual increase / decrease 2006-07 to 2009-10 Real increase / decrease (linked to RPI) 2006-07 to 2009-10 +5.9 +9.5

Institutional

2006-07 ()

2008-09 (0.00)

2009-10 (0.00)

Self catering single Self catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double Full-board single Full-board ensuite Part-board single Part-board ensuite Houses Flats Nomination Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double Private supplier Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double

69 86

74.68 95.88

78.84 101.64

+14.3 +18.2

110

118.50 127.63

121.80

130.47 136.93

132.31

+20.3

+11.4

105 128 90 120 76 82

109.89 135.49 101.78 113.54 110.03 119.81

114.29 146.73 105.94 118.38 108.91 126.12

+8.9 +14.6 +17.7 -1.3

+0.9 +6.2 +9.1 -8.6 +32.77% +42.50%

+43.3% +53.8%

77 86 -

76.40 95.64 130.67 137.17

84.02 103.37 147.74 179.25

+9.1 +20.2 -

+1.1 +11.4 -

71 80

76.07 100.29

85.57 104.50

+20.5 +30.6

+11.7 +21.0

114

121.83 142.26

127.61

128.45 143.92

133.19

=16.8

+8.3

Studio flats are another category of room that has seen considerable increases in rents during the past three years. Over that period, rents increased by 20.3% for institutions and by 16.8% for private providers.

17

Catered hall rents have grown overall, though at a slower rate than other in categories, whilst part-board ensuite has actually decreased in cost.

Length of contract
When looking at rent levels, it is important to assess not just weekly rent, but length of contract and additional costs levied by the accommodation provider. Only then can the total cost of a room be accurately assessed and even then, drawing direct comparisons about this information is difficult. Variation occurs by category of accommodation: while a full-board ensuite room is rented for an average of 36 weeks, a student could expect to rent a flat for 46 weeks (see Table 5) Overall, however, the average length of contract for institutional accommodation has essentially remained the same as in 2006-07 (39.3), at 39.6 weeks. Taking the average price of a room, the annual rent a student could expect to pay would be around 3,892.62 for the 2009-10 academic year. The contract length in nomination agreement accommodation averaged at nearly 43 weeks (42.9), whilst private providers have the longest average contract length at just over 44 weeks (44.6). On this basis, the annual rents in accommodation provided through a nomination agreement and a private provider are 4,284.35 and 4,560.02 respectively.

Headline rent: what is included and what is not

Rent inclusions Most institutions set rents to include services and utilities. This trend has gathered momentum across the sector since the 2006-07 survey. Inclusion of internet access within the rent at institutions has increased from 74% to 82.6% in the 2009-10 data. Energy inclusion has increased from 91% to 96.8%. Inclusion of insurance within the rent has increased the most from 56% in 2006-07 to 67.4% in 2009-10. Figure 2: Percentage of respondents including utilities and other services in rent Percentage of respondents including utilities and other services in their rent Institution Internet 2006-07 Energy Insurance Internet 2008-09 Energy Insurance Internet 2009-10 Energy Insurance 74% 91% 56% 80.2% 96.8% 59.4% 82.6% 96.8% 67.4% Nomination 63.57% 95.68% 64.14% 76.43% 96.50% 65.37% Private 17% 55% 83% 68.8% 91.1% 84.9% 79.0% 87.5% 80.5%

18

The 2006-07 survey found that the majority of private providers charged separately for utilities and services. The current survey indicates a dramatic change in this picture. The earlier finding was that under one in five (17%) providers included internet access in 2006-07. Three years on, nearly four in five (79.0%) make this inclusion. Over the same period, the number of respondents including energy costs in rent has increased from 55% to 87.5%. The inclusion of contents insurance has fallen slightly from 83% in 2006-07 to 80.5% in 2009-10. Where institutions did not include internet, energy or insurance in rental fees, they charged on average 92.92, 275.00, and 14.33 a year respectively. The equivalent charges from private suppliers were higher at 141.89 for internet and 295.00 for energy.

Additional costs
This survey examined other charges that were levied by providers in the following three categories: Deposit a fee paid by a student to secure against damage to the property or rent arrears at the end of the tenancy (at which time deduction may be made and the balance returned) Administration fee a fee paid by a student to cover the administration costs of booking a room. It is sometimes referred to as a booking fee and is often nonrefundable Rent payment in advance paid by a student to secure a room at the time of booking and deducted from future rent payments

Deposits Deposit protection does not apply to institutions which do not rent on assured shorthold tenancies. Elsewhere, deposit protection has resulted in a reduction in the number of landlords charging a deposit. Fifty-seven per cent (40) of institutions and 62% (29) of private providers charged a deposit which is held in case of damage or rent arrears. This is a considerable reduction on 2006-07 when 79% (of both institutions and private providers) charged a deposit. Where a deposit is charged, however, the amount has increased from 180 in 2006-07 to 207.73 in 2009-10 for education institutions and from 198 in 2006-07 to 237.93 in 200910 for private providers. The overall average deposit charged in 2009-10 was 220.42. Most private providers who charge deposits fall within the deposit protection legislation, implemented in April 2007. The law now requires compliance with specified timescales for the return of deposits (around four weeks taking into account administrative time). The deposit protection schemes do not apply to education institutions. The average time it takes them to return a deposit stands at 4.8 weeks. However, some institutions took 16 weeks. It should be remembered that many students need the return of their deposit quickly to pass on to their next landlord as a new deposit.

19

Most education institutions are members of two Government-approved Codes of Practice.xiii Currently, the ANUK/Unipol Code, which covers around 20% of the education sector, imposes a four-week deadline for returning deposits. The available evidence suggests this is being met. The UUK Code stipulates no deadline, although it has recently been agreed, subject to Government approval on a revised Code, to add a four-week deadline for returning deposits. Any future survey should reflect a reduction from these long return times to the four-week limit. UUK Code administrators are anticipated to intervene and force change where return times are poor. Administration fees As their use continues to rise, it is important that administration fees are levied fairly. In many cases a "booking fee" does not actually book anything. Whilst it secures a student's place in some subsequent room allocation process, it does not involve the institution contracting to provide the student with a specific room. So, if no actual room is booked and the charge is made simply to cover the administrative cost of entering a student into a system, the question arises: how much does this task really cost? Over a quarter of all respondents used booking fees (28.0%; 19 institutional respondents, and 18 private providers). The average booking fee is 150.79 in institutional accommodation and 135.28 in private supplier accommodation but fees range from 25 to 300.. It would be difficult to defend a charge of 300 without a contract having been formed. The levy of such a high amount for simply entering details onto a computer system (often undertaken online by the student themselves in any case) would seem an excessive administrative cost, if a student subsequently wanted to withdraw from that system. In comparable areas where the Office of Fair Trading has been asked to make an assessment of what is fair, it has generally set the fee at around 35.00. Advance rent Additionally, 15% of institution respondents required their students to pay an average of 304.92 rent in advance. Although advance rent is subsequently deducted from routine rental payments, it can represent a substantial up-front payment, often in the academic year before the student moves in, or before they have received their student support package for the year. A minority of private providers (three) reported that they asked for rent in advance, although where this was the case, it averaged 416.67.

Control of accommodation in institutions

The organisation of the student accommodation function varies from institution to institution, but in recent years there has been a trend to align it with the broader student services function. This pattern follows the increasing emphasis in the sector on the student experience and the recognition that students accommodation is a significant part of that experience. Nearly half (48%) of respondents now organise and treat student accommodation as part of student services.

20

Some education institutions see student accommodation as being essentially about buildings and their maintenance. Amongst respondents 41% of operational managers in student accommodation report to the institutions Director of Estates or equivalent. A small proportion of institutions (11%) reported that student accommodation sat within the managerial compass of the Director of Finance. It is of interest to note that where the line of responsibility is to the Director of Finance, rent was on average 8.98 per week more expensive than accommodation under Estates Directorates, and 6.22 per week more expensive than the average cost of accommodation under Student Services. This perhaps reflects a stronger managerial interest in financial return. Good practice dictates effective management through close collaboration between functions, in particular estates, student services and finance. However, the organisational location of student accommodation can provide a pointer to how an institution perceives its role as an accommodation provider.

Changes to the cost of living

According to the Student Income and Expenditure Survey, in 2007-08 a full-time students average income was 10,425. This was made up of: main sources of student supportxiv other sources of student support paid work support from family and friends benefits other sources of incomexv 4,771 1,025 2,108 2,045 258 219

However, 20% of this total average income (2,237) was paid directly to the institution as tuition fee loans, leaving 8,188. Factoring in inflation,xvi this figure converts to 8,473 for 2009-10. On the basis of the average contract length (40.5) and the overall average weekly rent (98.99), the total expenditure on rent would be 4,003.91 (excluding additional fees and deposit charges). This accounts for nearly half (48.9%) of a students overall average income, and nearly all of that received through loans and grants. It would also exhaust the maximum bursary for a residential FE student from the lowest income bracket (3,458 and 4,079 in London). Commentary within the sector also recognises that these rents implicitly rely on parental support.xvii The SIES 2007-08 found that students who started their course after the changes to student support finance in 2006-07xviii faced a larger net debt than those who started before this date. Unsurprisingly then, over half of all full-time students (53%) in 2007-08 reported doing paid work during term-time, with a third of these stating that this had adversely affected their studies. A further 56% of full-time students felt that financial concerns had weakened their academic performance to some extent.xix

21

Affordable rent
In the context of the evidence of students income continuing to be degraded by rises in rent for purpose-built accommodation and by cost-of-living increases, it is essential that institutions take affordability seriously. Affordable is a word frequently used in relation to accommodation for students. But its meaning is elusive because affordability varies according to the individual students financial circumstances. It is, however, clear that as developers have upgraded the quality and specification of accommodation, students have spent a higher proportion of their available resources on where they live. There is evidence, particularly in London, to suggest that top-end rents for high specification amenity levels may now be exceeding the ability or preparedness of even the wealthier students to pay them.xx It is also important to differentiate between the rooms that are "most popular" at the application stage and those that register the best satisfaction ratings amongst students who are resident. The two things often turn out to be different. Research from Nottinghamxxi shows that for the sample surveyed levels of dissatisfaction were higher in higher-priced properties. This may reflect higher (unmet) expectations of service. Institutions that get this right recognise that satisfaction levels are not straightforwardly a function of the level of amenity. Detailed account must be taken of affordability and value for money if students are to register satisfaction and positive feedback on the quality of their experience. As discussed later in this report, there is substantial evidence to suggest that larger, more communal flats in a middle price band are, once students actually start living in them, a highly popular and successful accommodation option.xxii

22

Provision and rent: variation across regions and institutions

Regional variation
On average cost per bedspace London was still the most expensive area to live with an average rent across institutionally and privately provided accommodation of 125.34 a week in 2009-10 (see table 2a). This represents a rise of 21.2 % on the 2006-07 figure (103.40). The survey data shows that the cheapest place to live during the period was Northern Ireland at 64.17 a week (a decrease of 9.6%), followed by Wales at 79.40 per week (an increase of 18.5%). The overall mean rent for London was 150.99 per week. The lowest overall mean rent was in Northern Ireland at 67.62 per week (see table 2). As rents increase, it is important that rent structures are devised to offer a range of products and costs which reflect the diverse budgets, requirements and preferences of students. Building in low-cost accommodation options is essential to avoid pricing the least well-off students out of the market or forcing them to study from home. As expected, there are significant regional variations in both the cost and ranges of institutionally provided accommodation available: Figure 3: Rental range in university-owned accommodation by region (2008-09)* *East Midlands removed due to incomplete data

The average cost per bedspace across all accommodation surveyed stands at 98.99 per week (see page 15). The table on the following page sets out, by region, the percentage of bedspaces offered by institutions that remain under 90 per week.

23

Figure 4: Percentage of rents in each region under 90 per week Percentage of rents under 90/week Region East of England London N. Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands % under 90 per week 44.9 11.7 99.7 58.1 64.8 48.1 34.3 37.0 88.3 89.1

Rents by institution
Comparing rents at different institutions is complex, with different locations and institutional characteristics leading to widely varied rental structures. A look at a sample of 13 different universities across the UK shows the wide range of rents offered at these institutions.xxiii Figure 5: Rental range in university-owned accommodation at selected institutions

24

Institutions rents fall into between two and all eight bands. For the purposes of this analysis, those which feature fewer than five bands have been classified as having a narrow range, and those with five or more bands have been classified as having a wide range. Seven institutions out of the 13 had a narrow range with five of these having only three rent bandings. As was the case in the 2006-07 survey, Aston and Salford offer the highest proportion of lowend rents, but also have the lowest rental range (two bands). This may be due to a commitment to affordability, older stock, and/or the availability of privately provided accommodation to offer more expensive, high-specification accommodation for students who want it and can afford it. Sheffield Hallam also has a narrow range of bands (three), with no accommodation costing over 100 per week, and none below 70 per week (though the university provides the vast majority of its accommodation through the private sector, as illustrated below). Similarly, the University of Liverpool appears to have fewer rent bands and no very low rents, although almost all of its rooms are under 100. Leeds, St Andrews, Kent and Exeter have put together institutional provision and rental structures which offer significant numbers of bedspaces within seven or all eight rent bands. This gives students genuine choice, which has both breadth and depth.

Partnership arrangements with third-party suppliers

Figure 6: Rental range in nominated accommodation at different institutions

Four of the institutions also have nomination agreements with private providers. These form an integral part of their portfolio. The University of Leeds is one of these institutions. While nomination agreements at Leeds do not produce as wide a range on cost, they do add to bedspace numbers and to the overall range of accommodation. Exeter appears to offer nominated rooms as a more expensive product option. These may be newer stock than their own accommodation or to a higher specification. At the University of Kent most rooms in its nomination schemes fit into the middle of its own rental structure.

25

Sheffield Hallam offers a good example of how working with the private sector can produce purpose-built solutions outside the institutional framework. Most of Hallams accommodation is provided through nomination agreements. In partnership with the private sector, the university is able to offer accommodation with a range of rent choices, including low-cost options.

26

Purpose-built accommodation and the PRS: comparisons by city

The data used in this section was collected in addition to the main survey and is intended to provide an illustration of the pricing structure within different student accommodation rental markets. Because of the nature of the off-street market, accurate data is difficult to come byxxiv, particularly in terms of rent levels. A number of cities have been analysed where there is a central point in the student accommodation market (marked * in figure 7) and data has also been used for cities where a significant amount of work has been done in the local area. Average rents for an off-street property are listed below for a selection of university cities: Figure 7 Average rent per week for an offstreet property City *Nottingham *Leeds Birmingham *London Sheffield *Liverpool *Bradford Rent (to nearest ) 63 63 62 107 61 55 45

In looking at the rental structures in these cities, adjustments have been made so that rents are fully comparable over a 44-week contract. Allowance has been made for inclusivity of insurance (3 per week), utilities (6) and internet (2.88). Some rents will include additional items such as travel cards, Junior Common Room fees, NUS Extra cards and access to fitness facilities, but these are not treated here as core to the accommodation product and are therefore excluded. Shaded columns on the graphs represent different average weekly rents for developments. The comparative rent for an off-street property is indicated in dark on the graph. The horizontal axis represents each development / property; the vertical axis represents the average rent per week.

27

Nottingham Figure 8

In Nottingham there is only one rent option that is cheaper than off-street accommodation. There are a number of private providers active in the Nottingham market. Many of the lowercost rooms have shared bathroom facilities, although some of these rooms have in fact been developed within complexes which also offer higher-grade provision set at a higher rent level. Much of the accommodation between 80 and 100 is ensuite and there are 20 different cost options within this band. Once rents move over the 100 mark, there is a prevalence of studio flats. Although these are likely to represent only a few bedspaces, they are at very high-end rents compared to the rest of the provision.

28

Leeds Figure 9

In Leeds the cheapest rent option, when allowance is made for inclusivity, is a room in an offstreet property. The average cost is 63 per week. There are a number of private providers active in the Leeds market. Some have worked out partnership arrangements with local institutions. The University of Leeds also has a large stock of its own accommodation. Much of the accommodation at the lower end of the rent structure comprises a combination of University stock and rooms with shared bathroom facilities. The middle area of the graph, between 80 and 110 represents a wider range of private providers and is mainly made up of ensuite provision. At the top end of the market, a large number of providers offer small levels of studio accommodation and even penthouses. These range from 120 to around 180 per week.

29

Birmingham Figure 10

In Birmingham the distribution of maximum and minimum rents is set wide. The cheapest rooms are pitched around 50 with the most expensive at just under 200. It is clear from the graph that there is a wide range of rent options suitable for a range of pockets. There are a number of very low rent options, with five coming in at less than a room in an off-street property. There is a noticeable step up in the graph where there are a large number of rooms priced at between 75 and 100 which are mainly, but not exclusively, ensuite. Studios reflect the trends seen in Leeds and Nottingham, as they come out as the most expensive option. The steep rise to the right of the graph represents the premium rent which studio accommodation attracts, comfortably exceeding 150 per week in some cases.

30

London Figure 11

The student accommodation profile for London is unique in the UK sector. There are more not-for-profit providers which make up many of the rental options within the lower end of the market. These organisations, such as Goodenough College and International Student House, consider applications against a range of criteria in order to create and maintain a culturally diverse but balanced residential community. They also aim to set and keep rents at an affordable level. The average rent for a room in a shared property in London is around 100 per week which, though more expensive than elsewhere in the country, is still the third lowest rent option once adjustment is made for inclusivity. Of course, it is a vast city and rents are likely to vary according to proximity to certain institutions or by zone or borough. There is a noticeable rise at 135 where the majority of accommodation becomes en suite and this extends upwards to the most expensive en suite accommodation at 290 per week. The most expensive options are studio flats that extend upwards to 350 a week

31

Sheffield Figure 12

In Sheffield a large proportion of the market is under 100 a week notwithstanding the emergence of more expensive new-build accommodation as a significant feature in recent years. A room in an off-street property is still a competitive rent option only four accommodation types are cheaper. At around the mid-point of the graph, rents are almost exclusively for ensuite rooms. Although rent levels are somewhat lower, the trends are similar to those seen in other cities with a tendency to move from standard wash facilities to ensuite as rents increase. A number of studio rooms are present in the market and again these make up the more expensive rental options.

32

Liverpool Figure 13

Liverpools cheapest rental options are in purpose-built developments, with off-street property being the fifth cheapest option. The graph shows a steady rise in rents, with most falling between 50 and 100. The provision on offer gradually moves from standard wash facilities through to ensuite, which becomes increasingly prominent as rents move above 70. The top end of the rental structure is also characterised by a steady arc. Studio flats are again preponderant in this market segment, although there appear to be fewer studio rent options in Liverpool than in other cities compared here. Conclusions from comparisons As rents increase, it is important that rent structures are devised to offer a range of products and costs which reflect the diverse budgets, requirements and preferences of students. Building in low-cost accommodation options is essential to avoid pricing the least well-off students out of the market or forcing them to study from home. As expected, there are significant regional variations in both the cost and ranges of institutionally provided accommodation available.

33

The changing profile of accommodation

Types of purpose-built accommodation currently provided
Ensuite accommodation The type of student accommodation offered to students has changed dramatically since the first survey undertaken in 1980. The 1990s saw the number of catered halls remain static as new accommodation took the form of shared self-catered cluster flats. During the 2000s ensuite provision was incorporated into the design and development of most new self-catering accommodation. In 2001 only 20% of accommodation was ensuite (up from 6% in the previous decade) but by 2006-07 this number had climbed to 43% and then again by 20092010 to 47.8% of all bedspaces on offer (see figures 14,15,16). Ensuite facilities are now considered the standard for many UK students.xxv This is in contrast to other leading university countries such as the USA where private bathroom facilities remain rare.xxvi
1.2% 0.6% 2.7% 3.2% 7.4% 0.5% 1.2% 33.2%
7.4% 0.4% 1.2% 32.3% 3.7% 1.4%

2.1%

0.6% 2.3%

2.8%

47.9%

47.8%

Figure 14: Bedspaces by category of accommodation, 2008-09

Figure 15: Bedspaces by category of accommodation, 2009-10

Self catering single Studio flat single Full-board single Part-board single Houses

Self catering en-suite Studio flat double Full-board en-suite Part-board en-suite Flats

Significantly higher rent attaches to ensuite accommodation. Figures from 2008-09 and 200910 suggest that provision of an ensuite bathroom adds from 19 to 24 to the average weekly rental (see Figure 1). These higher costs owe something to the fact that most ensuite accommodation has been developed within the last decade. However, it should be remembered that in non-ensuite accommodation a developer would have to provide a minimum ratio of one bathroom to four students (and the amenity levels in the Housing Act 2004 set this standard for HMOs) at a cost estimated to be 50% of ensuite provision.

34

Figure 16: Percentage of bedspaces by category of accommodation

Bedspaces by category of accommodation % % bedspaces Category bedspaces 2006-07* 2008-09 Institution Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio single Studio flat Studio double Full-board single Full-board ensuite Part-board single Part-board ensuite Houses Flats Total Private providers Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double Total Nomination Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double Total 1.8 0.4 1.2 1.9 0.1 100 2 35.9 64.1 22.1 75.8 22.5 75.5 15 81 3 4.8 1.9 19.7 73.5 6.7 4.7 2.1 100 22.0 71.2 6.8 38.53 31.30 1.12 0.6 0.3 9.2 4.0 3.4 0.8 1.5 2.6 100 36.9 40.6 0.9 0.7 0.3 9.4 4.7 2.8 0.8 1.8 3.6 100 35.5 40.4 1.0

% bedspaces 200910

10.30 2.56 2.95 1.12 0.93 3.16 91.97

99

100

100

100

Self-catered cluster accommodation Self-catered single accommodation is the second most common type of student accommodation, making up 33% of bedspaces in 2008-10. This represents a sizeable shift, as this type of accommodation has been the most common throughout all previous surveys. However, there may be a re-emerging demand for this type of high-density/low-cost accommodation. Recently, some non-ensuite "eco" flats have been developed for larger groups of students (10 to 12 sharing) with considerable success at Lancaster University and Leeds Metropolitan University.xxvii

35

Catered accommodation Over the past 15 years, catered accommodation has declined steadily, but slowly. In 1994-95 27% of student accommodation was catered. By 2001 this figure had declined to 21% and dropped further to 19% by 2004-05. By 2006-07 17.3%xxviii of accommodation managed by education establishments was catered. Figures for 2009-10 stand at 17.7%. It may be that the catered halls which have survived will remain in service as an enduring part of the culture of the educational institutions in which they sit. As accommodation continues to be developed, their share of the stock is likely to continue to fall. Shared rooms Shared rooms have always occupied a small minority position in institutional portfolios. Over the last 20 years they have accounted for between 2% and 4% of surveyed bedspaces. International comparisons show that this is in stark contrast to some sectors overseas, where shared rooms are a much more prominent feature.xxix Although this survey only covered single rooms, some respondents did give additional information on twin rooms, which totalled around an extra 1,200 bedspaces. Whilst this type of room has become less common over the years perhaps because of issues around privacy or cultural differences its persistence suggests that for some institutions and some students it is still a viable and lower-cost option. Accommodation providers may return to it in the future. Shared rooms appear to be particularly prominent in London.xxx International Student House, for example, a specialist voluntary sector provider in London, reports that shared rooms for four students prove very popular, offering low-cost accommodation, located, in this case, in central London. The studio flat The studio flat registered as 1% of the total stock in the 2006-07 survey. By 2009-10 this figure has risen to only 2%. What growth has occurred has taken place almost entirely in the private supplier accommodation (see figure 8). There is considerable "hype" around studio flats, routinely described as "luxury", "premium" or "penthouse apartments". Although these high-priced units are increasingly associated with the London market, the data reveals that the 2% level is fairly consistent across the country. Typically, outside London it comprises a small number of units, located on the top floor of higher-priced buildings.

Specialist housing
The 2009-10 survey also looks at the availability of housing for specific groups, in particular for disabled students and student families. Given the stringent requirements under equality legislation,xxxi it was not surprising to see that 95.7% of institutional survey respondents provided accommodation for disabled students. For private providers, this figure stood at 86.2%. This lower figure suggests that newer builds do

36

not have disabled rooms per se, but are more likely to be convertible on request. As one private provider commented in the survey; Although rooms have not been specifically adapted for people with disabilities, all rooms are accessible by wheelchair and adaptations could be made when required. The total proportion of bedspaces for disabled students in the sector across 2008-09 and 2009-10 data is 1.4%. Given that an estimated 7.3%xxxii of students are known to have a disability this would suggest a shortage in provision. However, many disabled students will not have a need for physical changes to their accommodation, and where they do, their accommodation may be provided through the local authority. Numbers of bedspaces ranged from 179 to only one or two rooms in smaller colleges, although those with the highest numbers of rooms for disabled students were not necessarily those with the largest stock of accommodation. In terms of the numbers of bedspaces these percentages equated to 1% of institutional accommodation and just below 4% of privately provided accommodation. Family accommodation is less common in the sector, with only 17% of private providers and 32% of institutional providers making any provision. Numbers of bedspaces ranged from 306 down to five across institutions that did have such provision. Numbers of family accommodation places equated to 0.71% of bedspaces over 2008-09 and 2009-10. Not all families will need accommodation, as many students will be studying at institutions which are a commutable distance from their home. But such low figures would suggest there are students with families struggling to find suitable, affordable accommodation. This shortage may be attributable to family housing often yielding smaller profit margins than other student housing. Institutions or private developers cannot charge rent per room for families as they can with single students, so income is lower. Another possible reason is that family housing rents need to be kept as low as possible, as the Governments periodic Student Income and Expenditure Surveys show that student parents have significantly higher expenditure than most students.xxxiii

The balance between institutional and private providers in purposebuilt student accommodation
Institutionally-owned and managed housing still makes up the vast majority of purpose-built accommodation. In the survey for 2009-10 78% of purpose-built provision fell into this category. A further 12% fell under various institutionally-linked arrangements. Ten per cent was provided and directly let by private suppliers. A wider data set of information is available from the suppliers of the UUK and ANUK/Unipol Codes of Practice which have wide coverage in the sector. Here, 69% of bedspaces are directly provided by institutional suppliers with the remaining 31% being provided by private suppliers. The definitions in this case are different to those in the survey because these figures reflect who "controls and manages" the building. Almost all of these are HEIs. FECs provide only around 0.5% of accommodation. The expansion of privately provided purpose-built accommodation in the last two decades has been rapidxxxiv, but there are real difficulties in determining what counts as "private" and "institutional" when operational links and nomination arrangements through institutions come into play.

37

In the 2003-04 NUS Accommodation Costs Survey, 4.5% of student accommodation was recorded as being private, reaching 19% in the 2006-07 survey.xxxv By 2009-10 it had fallen to 10% but this reflects institutions "buying in" bedspaces which they then recorded as their own. "Buying in" has been much more prevalent over the last three years with the significant increase in student intake and HEIs recognising the competitive advantage of being able to guarantee institutional bedspaces to all new students. On the basis of the survey and the UUK/ANUK data sets, it is reasonable to conclude that private provision currently stands at around 29% of all purpose-built provision still lower than is often thought to be the case. Findings from the sector would appear to corroborate these proportions.xxxvi They estimate that the market nationally is nearer to two thirds institutional and one third private and nomination. A prevalent view has been that private purpose-built student accommodation would become the norm over the last decade. However, there is no doubt that the credit crunch and its knock-on effect on the property market have halted developments outside Londonxxxvii (although those in the pipeline in 2008 continue to come on line). Much of the apparent growth of certain private providers has been achieved by suppliers selling stock between each other.xxxviii

Planned expansion figures

From the respondents to this question, the majority of institutions responding to this question (60%) had no changes in bedspace numbers planned for the coming year, perhaps reflecting the current economic climate. A similar figure (59%) of institutions reported no changes planned for nomination agreements. A quarter of respondents were planning to increase their bedspaces (by a total of 2,988) and a further 12% had more bedspaces planned through nomination agreements (totalling 584). Only 3% of institutions were planning to decrease their own stock and only 5% were planning to decrease bedspaces supplied through nomination agreements. Just over one in ten (12%) did not know what changes would be made to their stock and nearly a quarter (24%) did not know if any changes would be seen in their numbers of nomination agreement bedspaces.

Other significant developments shaping the product

Energy performance The growing popularity of rent inclusions suggests that students prefer the system. But it does raise the possibility that inclusion ill-equips students: to rent in the private rented sector, either during their course or afterwards to be economic in their energy use

Since October 2008 landlords offering property for rent have been required by law to provide prospective tenants with an Energy Performance Certificate for their property. EPCs are prepared by accredited energy assessors and are intended to show prospective tenants the energy performance of the building they are planning to rent. Landlords are required to

38

provide an EPC at the point of marketing to prospective tenants and to tenants when they sign for the property. An EPC is compulsory for all rented accommodation except where parts of a house or flats are let on single tenancy agreements. For the purposes of student lets, this exemption creates a significant gap in the initiative, arguably sufficient to compromise its objectives. As recorded elsewhere in the report, including energy costs in rent helps students to manage their budget. However, it can have the effect of keeping hidden practical issues around energy economy and of dis-incentivising tenants from keeping fuel usage down. In this context, EPCs can be a useful tool in raising awareness of energy consumption. It is therefore of concern that only 15% of major commercial operators and 24% of institutions give this information to students. Twenty-nine per cent of private providers and 18% of institutions did say that they would provide this information on request, which would indicate that this information is available. Projects such as student switch off have proved useful in promoting more energy efficiency in student accommodation and in delivering energy savings.xxxix Unipol offers a pay-as-you-go energy meter, which encourages their tenants to utilise energy responsibly. In some of their newer developments, UPP provides real-time energy monitoring. As environmental concerns grow in the public consciousness, it may be that such green mechanisms are the way of the future. Accreditation Almost all institutions and private providers recognise the importance of voluntarily agreeing to a set of standards and being held accountable to such an agreement through accreditation. After students have lived in institutional accommodation most students choose to live in what are termed off-street properties (smaller houses) in the community. It is important that institutions recognise they have an important role to play in monitoring and promoting both physical and management standards in these properties through the active development and extension of accreditation for their students. Such promotion takes into account the specific needs of student occupants, health and safety considerations for higher density living arrangements and the high levels of supportive management required. It also entails promoting the schemes in partnership with local authorities, local landlords and students' unions. It is pleasing to report that 48% of institutions surveyed ran or were working with an accreditation scheme which acknowledged this wider commitment to housing standards. For a list of those institutions that ran or worked with an accreditation scheme, see page 59.

39

Are students getting what they want out of the market?

It is clear that the student market is shifting, that a new student housing product has been developed, and a new kind of student landlord has emerged. Student housing is becoming very big business but it remains to be seen how far this development serves the interests of students seeking to minimise their accommodation costs and so reduce the level of indebtedness on graduationxl

What do students want, and what are they getting?

The trend to provide a higher specification of accommodation may have acted as a doubleedged sword: improving standards has corresponded with considerable rises in development costs and rents. Housing is a highly complex amenity. Tenant satisfaction levels do not necessarily increase even where providers appear to respond to student need. However, a number of studentfocused surveys highlight some key areas of concern for students regarding their accommodation.

Value for money

Research by CUBO in 2008xli showed that 93% of student respondents rate accommodation cost as very important, and over a third of all undergraduates and postgraduates are dissatisfied with the cost of their accommodation. This suggests that a proportion of students are not happy about what rents they are paying, or they think they are not getting value for money. The cost of living away from home is substantial full-time students reported spending an average of 6,496 on living costsxlii (other than their course and housing) over the academic year 2007-08.xliii Furthermore, students from lower socio-economic groups were reported as having substantially higher living costs.xliv As this survey shows, the vast majority of accommodation is self-catered, and the most common rooms are single, either with shared bathroom facilities or with ensuite. As average rents for ensuite accommodation are 19-24 higher per week than those with shared facilities, there is clearly a tension here. Accommodation now on average accounts for nearly all of an average students income from loans and grants, in some cases exceeding it. Substantial increases in rent have persisted through boom and bust. However rental increases appear to have slowed between 2008-09 and 2009-10, suggesting that students may be resisting ever-increasing rents. This is quite a contrast to other reports on the student housing market: The [student housing] market is now estimated to be worth 6.6bn and we expect it to grow to over 20bn with a further 78,000 bedspaces delivered to the market over the next six years. xlv

40

Quality
Students clearly want accommodation to be affordable. Ninety-one per cent also rated quality of accommodation as very important. This highlights the complex balance between raising accommodation standards without allowing rents to escalate beyond realistic levels of affordability. For example, access to broadband facilities rates consistently as a top priority for students.xlvi However providing good quality accommodation does not necessarily entail the automatic provision of ensuite facilities, double beds and gyms. Quality is about providing a good range of well-managed accommodation in a good state of repair. Indeed, research carried in Nottingham in 2008 highlighted that whilst nearly a third (32%) of first-year students considered ensuite accommodation important, this figure dropped to 15% for returning students.xlvii

A false market?
As this survey has shown, self-catered and self-catered ensuite provision represent the most common types of accommodation. Despite evidence that ensuite accommodation is not the top priority for most students, and decreasingly important to returning students, it appears that ensuite provision is still what is being commissioned despite evidence that it: is not the top priority for most students becomes less and less important for returning students

Whilst there is still a range of accommodation options including shared rooms, catered accommodation and studio flats with only one or two people sharing kitchen, bathroom and living space these are in evidence in much smaller numbers. This is not to say that the addition of ensuite accommodation and enhanced specification are not welcome indeed there is clearly a demand for such housing amongst students. Ensuite accommodation can also be significant in terms of meeting the needs of a diverse student body many students perhaps requiring private bathrooms for a number of reasons. There are a number of factors which may be behind the current preference for developing accommodation with ensuite facilities: marketing through websites and to students on open days parents wanting the best for their children and exerting their influence accordingly better financial returns ensuite accommodation being the newest available

Potentially, a gap is developing in student accommodation between what students need and what is being developed. If student accommodation does not match what students need or can afford, this may cause more students to explore alternatives to purpose-built accommodation, for example staying at home or opting for off-street properties.

41

Are students staying at home more?

The number of students staying at home has increased markedly over time. In the academic year 1984-85, only around 8% of first-year students were living at home whilst studying. By 2006-07 this figure was up to 20%.xlviii However, given the burgeoning student accommodation sector and a shortage of student accommodation, this may suggest that student accommodation is still being filled with students of a certain profile. Traditionally, institutional accommodation was the norm, as discussed earlier in this report. However, the evidence suggests that, for the student body as a whole, this is not the case (although it remains so for first-year students). According to the latest figures, 23% of students are living with parents or relatives. This is 1% more than those who live in halls. One reason for this might be cost research by the UK Youth Parliament shows that over a third of students look for courses closer to home to reduce costs.xlix Research by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and Wales suggests that staying at home appears to be more common amongst certain groups. These include students: from certain Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups from lower socio-economic groups with a disability but not in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) living in Londonl studying subjects allied to medicineli and those living in other areas of the UK such as Scotland lii

Whilst it is not possible here to explore in detail why this might be, it may be that accommodation does not suit certain groups because of location, cost, or design. There are likely to be a number of reasons for the increase in students opting to stay at home during their course. Significant factors in making this choice may be one or more of: family commitments (lack of) financial support differing cultural norms

For some, living at home will be their preferred choice, irrespective of other factorsliii. In any case, this would suggest that the choices of where to study are narrower for some students than for others.

Are more students choosing off-street properties?

Some returning students stay on in purpose-built accommodation because they like what it offers: the level of amenity all-inclusivity being in a student environment safety and security the relatively young age of the stock.liv

42

However, research suggests that most returning students still choose to move into the PRS for the rest of their course.lv The NUS Student Experience research suggested that only 19% of returning students were housed in purpose-built accommodation, compared to 50% of firstyears.lvi This would appear to back up the general assumption that students in the main still leave student accommodation after their first year and move into the private rented sector.

43

Looking to the future

Overview
Predicting changes that may emerge in the sector is difficult, and is made more difficult by: the volatile economic climate cuts to education budgets question marks over the future student contribution to tuition costs a relatively high level of uncertainty from the accommodation sector itself

Notwithstanding this, some assumptions can be made in the context of: the resilience in the growth of student numbers within the sector, particularly international students plans by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for a New University Challenge: Unlocking Britains Talent, an initiative which aims to bring the benefits of local higher education to bear across the country what we know about the accommodation currently on offer

These challenges may elicit a number of responses from the accommodation market and suppliers. A number of prognoses can be constructed which reflect different views of what might happen: education institutions, suffering funding cuts, may turn to a greater extent to the private sector to upgrade and continue developing their accommodation education institutions, suffering funding cuts with stabilising home student intakes, may stop developing their accommodation portfolio the private sector, suffering higher loan gearing as capital asset values have fallen, may cease development until their gearing is reduced, maximising their revenue return (as has been discussed elsewhere), or new developers, unfamiliar with the student market, may see yields within the student private sector as a good investment compared with other commercial property development, and this would see increased speculative development taking place

Not until the next survey in 2013 will these outcomes be clearer. Below, however, are some suggestions of different directions the market may develop in.

Purpose-built accommodation
Purpose-built accommodation currently serves mainly first-year students, together with some returning (often older) and international students. Although there are cities where returning students live in purpose-built complexes (such as Bradford, Manchester and Liverpool), this is still not the norm. In some cities the number of returning students being housed has reduced as the number of first-year students has risen. Recent planning changes, where all HMOs will need planning permission, would seem to indicate a shift of public policy towards discouraging the continued development of off-street housing for students. It might be expected, therefore, that this would result in planning

44

policies that are more favourable to the development of purpose-built complexes, but here planning requirements are also increasing. The London Plan, for example, has recently suggested that various charges should attach under Section 106 arrangements to private student accommodation developments. Overall, the planning environment for both student complexes and off-street properties is becoming more restrictive. This may discourage the high-density development that has been a feature of student accommodation over the last decade. If purpose-built student accommodation is to expand, it will do so either where there are already accommodation shortages and pent-up demand or future supply will need to appeal to a wider group of returning students as a serious accommodation option. To be attractive to returning students a number of issues need to be addressed: where should the developments be located? how will developments interface with existing local provisions? what amenities do students require and want, and how are the demands of returning students different to first-year students? how does this impact on the overall cost of the accommodation? to what standard will the accommodation be managed and maintained?

The higher-priced ensuite development will need to give way to a lower-cost, more communally-shared type of accommodation with larger living spaces that is not associated with first-year students. It will be interesting to see whether the sector can rise to this challenge.

Nomination agreements
In responding to government cuts in HE funding, institutions are likely to require efficiency gains to be made in their student accommodation function. Institutions may conclude that the most cost-effective way to deliver the purpose-built product is through entering into agreements with commercial operators to provide such housing whilst receiving an immediate capital receipt and relief from the future risks of maintenance. In undertaking nominations agreements with suppliers, institutions will also find it important (as many do already) to ensure that the level of service and support students receive is in line with that provided by the institution. It will also be important that institutions guard against significant increases in rents in both the short and long term, and ensure that such arrangements do not restrict the continuing investment in accommodation facilities.

Low-cost alternatives
Unemployment, lack of certainty about future employment as well as other impacts of the economic recession may take their toll on all student housing choices and students or parents who pay rent may opt for more cost-effective accommodation. As a result, developers may have to reassess their models and shift towards building more basic accommodation. These changes may mean:

45

the inclusion of more shared bathroom facilities units housing larger numbers of sharing students the provision of larger communal areas and less circulation space developments which are more compact and environmentally friendly

There may be a tension between this and the pressure to deliver accommodation to a high standard, including expectation around room sizes and ancillary services.

Short-term accommodation
Given the agenda for flexible and blended learning, there may be an increasing demand for short-term lets. At the present time, much of the market is in surplus and so many suppliers are willing to offer short-term lets to fill voids. They would, however, prefer longer lets and, as supply tightens, this relatively new-found flexibility will disappear. It will be interesting to see whether suppliers are confident enough in short lets to develop this as a niche market, charging higher rents over shorter periods and bearing the risk of higher voids.

46

Data tables
Table 1
Average weekly rent by category of accommodation Category 2008-09 (0.00) Institution Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double Full-board single Full-board ensuite Part-board single Part-board ensuite Houses Flats Nomination Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double Private providers Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double 76.07 100.29 121.83 142.26 85.57 104.50 128.45 143.92 76.40 95.64 130.67 137.17 84.02 103.37 147.74 179.25 74.68 95.88 118.50 127.63 109.89 135.49 101.78 113.54 110.03 119.81 78.84 101.64 130.47 136.93 114.29 146.73 105.94 118.38 108.91 126.12

2009-10 (0.00)

47

Table 2 Average weekly rent by region Region 2008-09 (0.00) Institution East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Nomination East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Private provider East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands 87.11 77.67 175.22 94.01 91.96 80.50 103.84 97.58 89.04 110.00 167.91 99.52 105.03 135.33 84.50 117.50 103.71 89.00 148.78 86.11 89.02 77.42 92.25 95.98 72.22 85.00 95.75 163.68 84.80 91.32 87.33 100.88 106.57 77.00 95.25 105.08 89.05 124.16 63.20 90.38 76.49 93.71 104.40 101.96 79.92 90.55 108.35 92.62 129.65 67.62 97.21 80.38 101.13 108.98 107.48 81.53 93.65

2009-10 (0.00)

48

Table 3 Number of bedspaces by category of accommodation Category 2008-09 Institution Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double Full-board single Full-board ensuite Part-board single Part-board ensuite Houses Flats Nomination Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double Private providers Self-catering single Self-catering ensuite Studio flat single Studio flat double 4256 15874 1044 412 4064 13119 869 384 4,251 14,606 347 71 5,045 16,951 417 25 55,580 61,164 907 515 13,893 5,990 5,083 1,177 2,309 3,953 51,531 58,725 990 393 13,665 6,852 4,132 1,167 2,622 5,215

2009-10*

* Numbers decreased between the two years due to some respondents only completing the 2008-09 survey, rather than due to shrinkage of the sector.

49

Table 4 Number of bedspaces by region Region 2008-09 Institution East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Nomination East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Private provider East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands 6,680 370 2,754 3,193 2,984 91 608 2,531 2,209 3,466 87 2,574 3,193 3,226 91 608 2,781 2,143 1,594 182 1,894 4,269 6,471 591 1,473 1,978 741 82 2,001 285 2,774 4,870 6,693 667 1,528 2,092 741 787 12,856 8,221 15,773 2,332 16,314 17,227 14,041 26,360 17,052 12,038 6,055 12,542 4,732 17,439 2,341 15,688 16,727 14,120 23,363 17,338 8,927 9,773

2009-10

50

Table 5 Average length of contract by category of accommodation (number of weeks) Category 2008-09 2009-10 Institution Self-catering single 40 39 Self-catering ensuite 40 40 Studio flat single 43 44 Studio flat double 43 43 Full-board single 37 37 Full-board ensuite 36 36 Part-board single 38 38 Part-board ensuite 37 37 Houses 44 45 Flats 46 45 Nomination Self-catering single 43 42 Self-catering ensuite 43 43 Studio flat single 44 44 Studio flat double 46 44 Private providers Self-catering single 44 44 Self-catering ensuite 44 44 Studio flat single 46 47 Studio flat double 48 49

51

Table 6 Average length of contract by region (number of weeks) Region 2008-09 Institution East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Nomination East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Private provider East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands 43 42 44 44 45 44 47 45 42 42 45 44 46 48 44 47 45 40 42 45 43 42 36 48 43 44 38 40 44 44 42 43 42 45 43 44 42 38 40 41 37 42 41 40 39 40 40 39 38 41 41 37 42 41 40 39 40 40 39

2009-10

52

Table 7 Average deposit Region Institution/Nomination East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Private provider East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Overall East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands 241.67 200.00 244.44 211.11 191.54 230.00 166.67 250.55 220.00 210.50 240.00 200.00 300.00 220.00 230.00 200.00 260.00 212.50 250.00 200.00 216.67 200.00 167.50 237.50 166.67 242.67 220.00 206.50

Deposit (0.00)

53

Table 8 Rent inclusion by category of room (%) 2008-09 Category of accommodation Internet Energy Insurance Internet Institution Self-catering single 76.92 98.21 56.35 77.87 Self-catering ensuite 84.56 98.24 58.20 85.62 Studio flat single 75.44 94.74 57.89 87.50 Studio flat double 88.69 90.48 78.57 92.86 Full-board single 84.21 100.00 68.42 93.75 Full-board ensuite 75.00 100.00 91.67 90.00 Part-board single 83.33 100.00 46.15 77.78 Part-board ensuite 87.50 100.00 50.00 83.33 Houses 42.11 55.26 55.26 62.50 Flats 67.33 58.67 60.00 68.57 Nomination Self-catering single 64.17 99.70 62.86 74.89 Self-catering ensuite 63.16 95.45 63.64 76.27 Studio flat single 72.73 90.91 72.73 100.00 Studio flat double 50.00 75.00 75.00 100.00 Private provider Self-catering single 47.69 76.92 65.38 52.00 Self-catering ensuite 74.29 94.64 89.29 87.50 Studio flat single 70.32 95.24 95.24 71.18 Studio flat double 72.22 91.67 90.91 72.73 Table 9 Number of respondents with services and utilities included in their rent by room type 2008-09 2009-10 Institution Internet Energy Insurance Internet Energy Insurance Single self-catered 65 65 65 57 57 57 Single ensuite 63 63 65 53 53 53 Studio single 19 19 19 16 16 16 Studio double 14 14 14 14 14 14 Full board single 19 19 19 16 16 16 Full board ensuite 12 12 12 10 10 10 Part board single 12 13 13 9 10 10 Part board ensuite 8 8 8 6 6 6 Houses 19 19 19 16 16 16 Flats 15 15 15 14 14 14 Nomination Single self-catered 14 14 14 15 15 14 Single ensuite 23 22 22 22 22 22 Studio single 11 11 11 9 9 9 Studio double 4 4 4 2 2 2 Private Single self-catered 10 10 10 13 13 13 Single ensuite 24 24 24 28 28 28 Studio single 17 17 17 21 21 21 Studio double 11 11 11 11 12 12

2009-10 Energy 99.12 98.11 93.75 85.71 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 59.38 62.86 99.72 95.45 100.00 100.00 65.00 93.75 94.12 90.91

Insurance 64.35 64.94 68.75 85.71 75.00 100.00 60.00 66.67 56.25 71.43 70.00 63.64 77.78 100.00 59.00 86.11 94.12 90.91

54

About the survey

The accommodation costs survey has been undertaken by the National Union of Students periodically since 1980. NUS has undertaken this work in collaboration with Unipol Student Homes, and used an external research company i-graduate to carry out the primary research.

Methodology
The 2009 Accommodation Costs Survey was conducted between July and September 2009, surveying rents and accommodation from both the 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic years. Emails were sent out to institutional accommodation providers, and via networks and mailbases including those of ASRA and CUBO. To maximise response rates, reminder emails were sent and telephone calls made to accommodation offices. Information was also sent to all students unions for them to encourage accommodation offices to complete the survey. The survey was undertaken and data cleaned, collated and averaged by i-graduate. In total, there were valid responses from 85 institutions and 47 private providers. This represented 191, 432 bedspaces from the 2008-09 data, and 186,166 from the 2009-10 data. This accounts for approximately 43% and 41% of estimated total bedspaceslvii in the UK respectively.

Alterations
Some changes were made to the survey this time, including reducing the number of different categories of types of room to simplify the data. These changes were tested in a small pilot of five institutions in June 2009 before final amendments were made to the survey.

Definitions
Type of provider In this survey, we again chose to distinguish institutional, nomination and private provider accommodation. Institutional is accommodation which is covered by the ANUK Code for Larger Developments for Student Accommodation Managed by Educational Establishments or the UUK Code of Practice, or accommodation owned and managed by the institution. Nomination was described as accommodation under agreement with third-party suppliers Private was described as accommodation owned and managed by a non-educational provider, and likely to be signed up to the ANUK Code for Larger Accommodation (non-educational).

55

Regions Regions were designated as: North East North West East Midlands West Midlands East of England London South East South West Wales Northern Ireland Scotland Regions were self-selected by respondents. Room type Eleven separate categories of accommodation have been used for the purposes of this survey. To maximise definitional clarity, the following descriptions were provided with the survey. Other allowed for accommodation types not in these descriptions. It was not included in the quantitative analysis but has been referenced within the document where appropriate to give context. 1. Self-catering single are blocks (or cluster flats) of accommodation containing eight or more students (within the entire block), where each student occupies a single study bedroom. Washing and toilet facilities are not provided within the room. Occupants share kitchen facilities in which they are expected to provide themselves with all meals. 2. Self-catering ensuite are the same as self-catering single except that there are washing and toilet facilities for the exclusive use of the occupant/s of the study bedroom. Occupants share kitchen facilities in which they are expected to provide themselves with all meals. 3. Studio flat single are self-contained apartments or flats containing cooking and washing facilities intended for single occupancy. 4. Studio flat double are self-contained apartments or flats containing cooking and washing facilities intended for double occupancy. 5. Full-board single are rooms designed for one person where at least two meals a day, for between five and seven days a week, are provided. Some may have access to a shared kitchen for the preparation of snacks. 6. Full-board ensuite is the same as full-board single except that accommodation also includes washing and toilet facilities for the exclusive use of the occupant/s of the study bedroom.

56

7. Part-board single are rooms designed for one person where at least one meal a day, for between five and seven days a week, are provided. Some may have access to a shared kitchen for the preparation of snacks. 8. Part-board ensuite is the same as part-board single except that accommodation also includes washing and toilet facilities for the exclusive use of the occupant/s of the study bedroom. 9. Houses are accommodation where a group of between four and seven students occupy a house that belongs to the institution. They have exclusive use of the property and provide their own meals using a shared kitchen. 10.Flats are accommodation where a group of between four and seven students occupy a self-contained unit in which all facilities, including a communal living space, are shared. It differs from a house in that there is at least one other self-contained unit within the same block or complex. It differs from single self-catering because it is not a cluster flat. 11.Other please include any other type of accommodation in this section which does not fall into any of the above categories.

Comparisons
Where possible, findings in this survey between the two data sets have been compared to highlight changes within this period. Comparisons have also been made to previous surveys, since 1994, to allow for some analysis of changes over time.

Calculations used
Average rent per bedspace (for overall rents, and separate institution, nomination and private provider rents) Rentcat1 x number of bedspacescat1 = Z Rentcat2 x number of bedspacescat2 = W (repeated for all categories) (Z+W) = M M / total number of bedspaces = average unit cost Actual percentage increase Average rent 2006-07 = A Average rent 2009-10 = C CA=E (E / A) x 100 = actual increase

57

Real percentage increase RPI 2007 set at 4.3% RPI 2008 set at 4.0% RPI 2009 set at 0.05% [Rent09-10 (Rent06-07 x RPI07 x RPI08 x RPI09)] = real percentage increase (Rent06-07 x RPI07 x RPI08 x RPI09) Average deposit Depositreg1 x number of responsesreg1 = S Depositreg2 x number of responsesreg2 = U (repeated for all regions) (S+U) = Q Q / total number of responses to question = average deposit Average booking fee Institutional booking fee was supplied, private provider booking fee calculated: Booking feereg1 x number of responsesreg1 = T Booking feereg2 x number of responsesreg2 = X (T+X) = R R / total number of responses to question = average booking fee Average rent inclusions (for overall rents, and separate institution, nomination and private provider rents) Inclusion (e.g. internet) x number of bedspaces / total bedspaces Average length of contract Weeks available x bedspaces / total bedspaces

58

Abbreviations used
ANUK Accreditation Network UK ASRA Association of Student Residential Accommodation BIS Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (superseded DIUS in 2009) CUBO Conference of University Business Officers DIUS Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills (superseded by BIS in 2009) EPC Energy Performance Certificate FEC Further Education College HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England and Wales HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency HMO House in Multiple Occupation NUS National Union of Students PFI Private Finance Initiative PRS private rented sector SIES Student Income and Expenditure Survey UUK Universities UK

59

Schedule of respondents
Our thanks go to the institutions and accommodation providers that spent time taking part in this years survey: University of Abertay Anglia Ruskin University University of the Arts London Arts University College at Bournemouth Aston University Bangor University University of Bath University of Birmingham Bishop Grosseteste University College University of Bolton Bradford College University of Bradford University of Brighton University of Bristol Brunel University Buckinghamshire New University Canterbury Christ Church University Cardiff University Carlton (North Wales) Ltd Cass and Claredale Halls of Residence Association Ltd University of Chichester City University Cotton Mills Student Accommodation Coventry University Cranfield University University of Cumbria D&B Property De Montfort University Derwent Living Housing Association Ltd Durham Students' Union University of East Anglia Edge Hill University University of Edinburgh Edinburgh College of Art University of Essex University of Exeter Garden House Developments Ltd University of Glamorgan Glasgow Nautical College University of Gloucestershire Glyndwr University, Wrexham Guildford College Guinness Northern Counties Housing Association Heriot-Watt University University of Hertfordshire University of Hull Imperial College London Jewel & Esk College University of Kent Kingston University University of Central Lancashire Lancaster University University of Leeds Leeds Trinity & All Saints Liberty Living University of Lincoln University of Liverpool Liverpool John Moores University University College London London Metropolitan University London School of Economics London South Bank University Loughborough University Mainstay Student Manchester Metropolitan University The Mansion Group Northumbria University University of Nottingham Nottingham Trent University Opal Student Accommodation University of Oxford Oxford Brookes University Parrish Court Developments Ltd University of Plymouth University College Plymouth St Mark & St John University of Portsmouth Ravensbourne College of Design & Communication Robert Gordon University Roehampton University Royal Northern College Of Music University of St Andrews University of Salford Sanctuary Management Services Servite Houses Sheffield Hallam University SOAS University of Southampton Southampton Solent University Spencer Properties (UK) Ltd Staffordshire University University of Stirling Student Facility Management Ltd University of Surrey University of Sussex Swansea University Teesside University Unipol Student Homes Unite University of Ulster University of Wales Institute, Cardiff University of Wales, Newport University of Westminster University of Wolverhampton University Of York UWE York St John

60

Schedule of accreditation scheme operators

Institutions that operated an accreditation scheme are listed below: Anglia Ruskin University Bishop Grosseteste University College University of Bath University of Birmingham University of Bradford (through Unipol) Bradford College (through Unipol) University of Brighton University of Bristol Canterbury Christ Church University University of Chichester University of Cumbria University of Edinburgh University of Essex University of Glamorgan University of Gloucestershire Glyndwr University Wrexham Herriot-Watt University Imperial College London University of Kent Lancaster University University of Leeds (through Unipol) Leeds Metropolitan University (through Unipol) University of Lincoln Liverpool John Moores University (through Liverpool Student Homes) University College London London Metropolitan University Loughborough Manchester Metropolitan University Nottingham Trent University (through Unipol) University of Nottingham (through Unipol) University of Plymouth University of Portsmouth Robert Gordon University Royal Northern College Of Music Sheffield Hallam University Southampton Solent University University of Southampton Staffordshire University University of Wales Institute, Cardiff University of Wales, Newport University of Wolverhampton University Of York UWE

61

Endnotes
i

CUBO (2008) Enhancing the Student Experience Key Findings, p.6 Rise above inflation calculated at the rise above RPI, for RPI figures, see calculations p.57 iii Prices were rounded up to the nearest whole for the previous survey iv This was from one institution only v The survey asked for information on what types of rooms were available. A full list of categories used in
ii

the survey can be found on p.56. Rugg, J (2000) Students and the private rented market, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, available from //www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/d60.pdf vii From 213,264 students in 1997-98 to 341,790 students in 2007-08 from HESA figures available from http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dataTables/studentsAndQualifiers/download/subject0708.xls?v=1.0 viii See for example http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2000/00_47.htm#fore. There were also Business Expansion Schemes (BES) available at this time ix Claire Johnson et al (2009), Student Income and Expenditure Survey, DIUS, 2007-08 p162. Available from http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/projectinformation.cfm?projectid=15007&results page=1 x Findaproperty Rental Index, December 2009 http://www.findaproperty.com/media/rental-index/FindaProperty_Rental_Index_Dec_09.pdf xi Ministerial announcement John Healey: Local powers for councils to protect communities and improve standards in the private rented sector 27/01/10 http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1447619 xii ibid xiii UUK Code available at http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/PolicyAndResearch/Guidance/AccommodationCodeofPractice/Pages/defa ult.aspx, ANUK Code available at http://www.anuk.org.uk/LargeCode/ xiv Student support through loans and grants xv Johnson et al (2009) SIES p.18 xvi Student support has not increased since 2006-07, except to account for inflation xvii Allan Hinton (2009) The Ethics of the Ensuite p.14 University Business, available from www.universitybusiness.co.uk xviii Maintenance grants were introduced and other changes made to student support to reflect the increase in tuition fees introduced. xix Johnson et al (2009) SIES, p.203 xx Paul Trivett, LSE, Unipol Conference, Housing Students: Lessons from the Summer of 2009. 29/10/2009 xxi Housing preferences for students at Nottingham's Universities (2008) University of Nottingham Survey Unit, Unipol Student Homes and Partners in Nottingham xxii Ibid xxiii They were selected to enable a comparison to be made with the previous survey and to provide a snapshot of a range of universities, from varying regions and university groups. Rent levels have been grouped into eight bands for discussion and analysis. xxiv For further reading on the private rented sector, see Rugg and Rhodes (2008) The Private Rented Sector: Its contribution and its potential xxv See for example, Hubbard, P (2009) Geographies of studentification and purpose-built accommodation, Environment and Planning A, vol. 41, pp1903-1923 or King Sturge, (2007) Student Housing Bulletin, p.9 xxvi Education USA, Campus Housing from http://www.4uth.gov.ua/usa/english/educ/edusa/predepar/housing/campus.htm xxvii See for example http://www.upp-ltd.com/ xxviii Excluding nomination agreement bedspaces xxix Education USA, Campus Housing from http://www.4uth.gov.ua/usa/english/educ/edusa/predepar/housing/campus.htm xxx A number of institutions such as UCL, Imperial and LSE all have shared rooms, as do private providers such as Unite and NIDO. xxxi For example the Disability Discrimination Act, or the Equalities Bill currently going through Parliament. xxxii HESA data 2007-08, available from http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dataTables/studentsAndQualifiers/download/subject0708.xls?v=1.0 xxxiii See for example Student Income and Expenditure Survey 2007/7 and 2004/5 xxxiv King Sturge (2008) UK student accommodation market 2008 available from www.kingsturge.com xxxv NUS (2002) Accommodation Costs Survey 2002, p.8 xxxvi King Sturge (2008) UK student accommodation market 2008. Available from www.kingsturge.com xxxvii See for example Allan Hilton (2009) The ethics of the ensuite, University Business
vi

62

ANUK National Code data See for example http://www.studentswitchoff.org/ xl J Rugg, D Rhodes, (2008), The Private Rented Sector: Its contribution and potential xli CUBO xlii This did not include housing costs, a separate category. xliii Johnson et all, SIES 2007/8, p153 xliv Johnson et al, SIES 2007/8, p155 xlv Savills, (2007), First Class Honours Student housing report http://www.savills.co.uk/PdfStream.aspx?url=http://www.savills.co.uk/cmsoutput/pdfs/uber_research/pd fs/Student%20housing%20report%20Summer%202007.pdf xlvi CUBO, (2008), Enhancing the student experience, p7 xlvii "Housing preferences for students at Nottingham's Universities, University of Nottingham Survey Unit, Unipol Student Homes and Partners in Nottingham, 2008 xlviii HEFCE, (2009) Issues paper Patterns in higher education: Living at home, p11 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/HEFCE/2009/09_20/09_20.pdf xlix UK Youth Parliament, (2009), Access Denied available from http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk/newsroom_site/pages/news/2009/31_03_09_recession.html l 38% of Greater London students studying from home. HEFCE, (2009) Issues paper Patterns in higher education: Living at home, p40 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/HEFCE/2009/09_20/09_20.pdf li HEFCE, (2009) Issues paper Patterns in higher education: Living at home http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/HEFCE/2009/09_20/09_20.pdf lii In Scotland for example 37% of students were living in the parental home, whilst only 39% lived in institution-owned accommodation (HEFCE report). liii Christie H, (2007), Higher education and spatial (im)mobility: nontraditional students and living at home'' Environment and Planning A 39 p2451 liv Hubbard, P (2009) Geographies of studentification and purpose-built accommodation, Environment and Planning A, vol. 41, pp1903-1923 lv NUS, (2008), Student Experience Report available from http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/4017/NUS_StudentExperienceReport.pdf lvi NUS, (2008), Student Experience Report available from http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/4017/NUS_StudentExperienceReport.pdf lvii Estimated at around 450,000 bedspaces see for example, Sturge (2008) UK student accommodation market 2008. Available from www.kingsturge.com
xxxix

xxxviii

63

64

Addendum: Table 2a Average weekly rent by region

Region Institution East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Nomination East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Private provider East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Overall #10 #4 #11 #1 #5 #3 #7 #8 #9 #2 #6 East Midlands East of England London Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands 94.69 68.01 127.17 97.63 91.07 81.73 93.59 92.09 108.69 85.63 115.56 59.28 86.48 79.98 96.35 95.96 96.09 78.60 82.05 93.59 92.75 131.36 102.56 102.20 120.89 85.73 106.36 98.21 112.69 88.79 125.34 64.17 90.39 85.93 102.74 102.90 103.04 79.40 93.09 91.59 133.17 85.46 87.76 76.40 87.34 91.27 74.74 85.00 95.87 145.46 84.52 91.07 86.51 99.70 100.66 79.95 99.25 116.08 86.30 111.42 59.28 84.56 75.15 97.19 96.77 97.02 78.84 78.35 118.05 88.29 121.24 64.17 89.71 80.73 103.39 103.56 102.80 79.37 91.47 2008-09 (0.00) 2009-10 (0.00)

65

Unipol Student Homes is a company limited by guarantee, registered Office: 155/157 Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 3ED. Registered in England and Wales No.3401440. Registered Charity No. 1063492. VAT Registration No. 698 8456 49. Telephone: 0113 205 3404 Fax: 0113 234 3549 Email: conferences@unipol.org.uk Website: http://www.unipol.org.uk/national

National Union of Students 2nd floor, Centro 3 19 Mandela Street London NW1 0DU t. 0871 221 8221 f. 0871 221 8222 w. www.nus.org.uk