Manchester's Student Buildings.

[flange]

Originally Posted by jrb

Marcus Worthington plans 614-bed student block

18th May 2011

By James Graham - Business Correspondent

PRESTON developer Marcus Worthington has submitted plans for a £37m, 614-bedroom student block close to the University of Manchester.

It wants to build a three to nine-storey, 215,000 sq ft block on the site of the former Ducie Court, next to Whitworth Park on Denmark Street.

In March Worthington arranged an £18.6m refinancing with the Co-operative Bank, moving from Santander, and raised new capital which was used to acquire the Denmark Street plot from a Jersey-based trust.

The previous owner won planning permission for the block but Worthington has submitted new plans with changes that should improve the building's environmental performance.

Development director Russell Worthington said: "It's the same height, density and massing which was granted permission in Febuary but changes have been made to improve the environmental performance of the building. It should be determined in the coming weeks and delivered in 2012-13 on a phased basis."

The business has already started work on a £22m, 416-bedroom block on the other side of the park at Moss Lane East which is due for completion next year.

Mr Worthington added: "We're very bullish about the student market in terms of what Manchester can offer and the quality of schemes that can be provided."

With the residential property market still in the doldrums several developers have started focusing on student accommodation in Greater Manchester, attracted by the guaranteed flow of thousands of under-graduates to the city every year.

In recent weeks Hull-based Manor Property Group has submitted two applications, one for an eight-storey, 676-bedroom block in Hulme and another for 1,000 bedrooms at a scheme called Manor Wharf on Adelphi Street in Salford.

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/

[flange]

Jabez Clegg revamp approved

24 May 2011, 09:53

Michael Hunt



Manchester City Council has granted planning permission to the owners of the nightclub, located off Oxford Road in the city centre, to be refurbished for student accommodation.

Hale Leisure plans to create 60 en-suite student units across three floors above the Jabez Clegg bar, including the first floor previously used for the nightclub, and add an extension to the building to include a further 19 units across four floors.

The ground level bar will be maintained and refurbished as well as extended to provide a coffee shop facing onto Brighton Place.

Aiden Clancy, director of Hale Leisure, said: "The redevelopment will cost between £5.5m and £6m. Work could start in June next year and it will take 14 to 15 months at most, so it could be completed by September 2013."

"The redevelopment will offer 79 boutique en-suite apartments right in the heart of the University of Mancahester campus, so it is ideally located."

Designed by Didsbury-based Space Architecture, the new extension will double the floorspace area from 14,000 sq ft to 28,000 sq ft.

A study undertaken by Steve Levrant Heritage Architecture was carried out to find out whether the former Church Hall building, originally designed by architect Edmund Kirby in 1892, was eligible for listing status.

The building is located next to the Grade 2-listed Presbytery and the Grade 1-listed Holy Name Church on Portsmouth Street.

Space concluded that the building would be considered listed by attachment to the Presbytery, but said its attachment may be removed with minimal damage.

Space also investigated the age and rarity of the Jabez and added it would also not be listed on this basis because it would not attract any "special interest".

Hale Leisure was established by Clancy and his business partner Eamonn Dwyer in 1991.

http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news...-approved.html

Jabez Clegg 2 Portsmouth Street Manchester M13 9GB

Proposed development for 68 student accommodation units plus 2 cluster units with ancillary support services and cafe bar, including conversion and new building following partial demolition of the existing building

http://pa.manchester.gov.uk/online-a...tion=firstPage

[Irish Blood English Heart]

Is Jabez shut? I had some good times in there, usually gigs (saw the Arctic Monkeys in there twice!) or pre-gig at the Academy meets rather than their vomit inducing student nights but still will be slightly sad to see it go.

[jrb]

PNW.

Jabez Clegg revamp approved

24 May 2011, 09:53

Michael Hunt


Manchester City Council has granted planning permission to the owners of the nightclub, located off Oxford Road in the city centre, to be refurbished for student accommodation.

Hale Leisure plans to create 60 en-suite student units across three floors above the Jabez Clegg bar, including the first floor previously used for the nightclub, and add an extension to the building to include a further 19 units across four floors.

The ground level bar will be maintained and refurbished as well as extended to provide a coffee shop facing onto Brighton Place.

Aiden Clancy, director of Hale Leisure, said: "The redevelopment will cost between £5.5m and £6m. Work could start in June next year and it will take 14 to 15 months at most, so it could be completed by September 2013."

"The redevelopment will offer 79 boutique en-suite apartments right in the heart of the University of Mancahester campus, so it is ideally located."

Designed by Didsbury-based Space Architecture, the new extension will double the floorspace area from 14,000 sq ft to 28,000 sq ft.

A study undertaken by Steve Levrant Heritage Architecture was carried out to find out whether the former Church Hall building, originally designed by architect Edmund Kirby in 1892, was eligible for listing status.

The building is located next to the Grade 2-listed Presbytery and the Grade 1-listed Holy Name Church on Portsmouth Street.

Space concluded that the building would be considered listed by attachment to the Presbytery, but said its attachment may be removed with minimal damage.

Space also investigated the age and rarity of the Jabez and added it would also not be listed on this basis because it would not attract any "special interest".

Hale Leisure was established by Clancy and his business partner Eamonn Dwyer in 1991.

[flange]

Fresh Start Living enters student market

8 Jun 2011, 15:53



The Salford-based property developer has acquired Montgomery House in Whalley Range in Manchester with plans to convert the art-deco building into student accommodation.

The building is located on Demense Road, overlooking Alexandra Park, and was previously owned by Manchester Metropolitan University and the YMCA.

The four-storey building will comprise 240 student flats, with each unit measuring 129 sq ft. A new communal living space including kitchen, dining and living space will be created for each unit, which will house approximately 200 students. Secure parking and cycle housing will also be available.

Fresh Start Living said 190 units have already been reserved by investor landlords. The apartments are available from £24,000, with anticipated rents of £85/week.

The company expects to start on site on the £7.8m scheme in June this year, which will be delivered over the next year.

Stuart Cook, acquisitions manager at Fresh Start Living, said: "This is Fresh Start's first foray into student accommodation, which is an asset class that rarely becomes available to individual investors.

"Student rentals have remained robust with a recorded yearly growth of 5% over the past six years.

"The University of Manchester is the UK's most popular university and with the booming market, high rental yields and a long-standing management company in place, Montgomery House represents a great hands-off, hassle free investment opportunity that easily out performs and savings bank."

The Salford-based company specialises in refurbishing empty properties and has completed the refurbishment of two former local authority tower blocks, Madison Court in Salford and Bispham House in Liverpool, and is currently developing Trafford Press on Chester Road and Empress Mill on Empress Road, both in Old Trafford, Manchester.

Fresh Start Living was established in February 2009 and has refurbished 200 residential properties across the North West to the private rental market, mainly situated in or close to prime city centre locations in cities such as Liverpool and Manchester.

http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news...nt-market.html

[Slow Burn]

New student blocks on Heald Grove next to Whitworth Park. These are coming along quickly and fill a gap. Can't the render unfortunately but I remember thinking they didn't look too bad.



Pretty much the whole area bounded by Moss Lane East, Wilmslow Road, Upper Lloyd Street and Great Weston Street is now student accommodation. Add to that the Wilmslow Park blocks and the old ones where McColls is (can't remember the name) this is quite a high density student area.

And also Worthington Properties also announced this week that they are going to start work on new student blocks on this land on Denmark Road...



See Flange's post a couple up from this for render and info

[nq]

MEN article on the outline Salford Uni accomodation app that goes to committee this week,

Second phase of Salford University's 20-year revamp plan includes £30m student village

Pictured top middle here,



Noticed another app recently, seemingly an attempt to tie-in the with the Salford Uni scheme, for a scrap metal site just over the Irwell, but its since been removed from view on SCC planning???

11/60561/OUT Manchester Metals & Alloys Meadow Road Salford M7 1PA

Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the erection of a 7 storey building consisting of 496 units for student accomodation together with ancilliary facilities and a convered walkway across the River Irwell

quality render taken from from the docs,



Also, don't think this one was posted,
FreshStart Living buys mill for £12m student scheme


http://www.freshstartliving.com/prop...ment/Ford-Lane

[jrb]

Erection of student accommodation comprising 240 bedrooms with ancillary accommodation including 15 carparking spaces together with associated creation of new vehicular access and alterations to existing vehicular access and landscaping. Variation of condition 12 amended elevations and site layout on planning permision 03/46609/FUL
Former Riverside House 1 St Simon Street Salford M3 7ET

Ref. No: 11/60830/FUL | Received: Tue 30 Aug 2011 | Validated: Tue 30 Aug 2011 | Status: Pending Consideration

http://publicaccess.salford.gov.uk/p...=LQSNPGNP00B00

[jrb]

MEN.

Plans for a 2,000-bed student block at a park made famous by LS Lowry have been given the go-ahead.



Salford University is set to build a £30m student village on the edge of Peel Park.

The public gardens were an inspiration for Lowry, who studied nearby.

University bosses say the proposals, which will mean felling 158 trees, will make the park safer and attract students.

But opponents say the development will complete the university’s ‘takeover’ of the space.

The plans, part of the university’s 20-year masterplan, will see three blocks of flats of up to 10 storeys built alongside and in the park.

They were given the go-ahead at a meeting of Salford planning chiefs.

Planning officer Tim Hart said the park currently feels unsafe due to under-use and thick tree cover.

He added: “I felt I could have been robbed at any minute because you don’t feel secure in the park as you use it.”

But Irwell Riverside councillor Stephen Coen, who objected to the proposals, said urban sprawl was obliterating the scene of Lowry’s 1927 painting, Peel Park. He said: “This is an historic park not just for Salford but for the country. Over the years the park, due to university expansion, has become more enclosed and separate from the community it sits in.”

Planning committee member Norbert Potter added: “You might as well give the university the park and say it’s yours to do what you want with.”

After councillors raised fears over tree loss, the university agreed to replace every one with two more in the Chapel Street area.

The plans were passed by eight to five.

[jrb]

PNW.

Salford Uni seeks developer for student homes

3 Oct 2011, 08:49


Salford University has published a tender for a construction contract for student halls of residence to be built overlooking Peel Park.

Last month, the university secured outline planning approval for up to 2,100 new bedrooms including under croft car parking to be built at its Peel Park campus.

The first phase will comprise of approximately 1,300 bedrooms and is replacing existing accommodation at Castle Irwell. The university added it wishes to retain flexibility in terms of the timing of phase two as this accommodation delivery is interlinked with a proposed development of new sports facilities.

The university anticipates granting a leasehold interest of up to 60 years and is seeking to retain a reversionary interest on a 15.8-acre site.

The £30m development is part of the first phase of a £75m masterplan by Salford University.

Work has already started on a refurbishment of the university's Chapman Building, while planning permission was granted in August for a £38m arts building which will have performance and exhibition spaces for students and the community.

Salford University said it hopes to obtain BREEAM accreditation for the new buildings.

Interested companies have until 28 October to request pre-qualification questionnaires and memorandum of information documents, with deadline for submitting tenders set at 12pm on Monday 31 October.

[BlackFriars]

I wondered why some chaps were tidying up overgrown bushes the other day. We've recieved a letter about student accomodation for 240 bedromoms to be built on the corner of St Simon St and Blackfriars Road. on the land were the River side House used to be. I thought it was planned to house them around Peel Park, not on a council estate and next door to the Young Offenders centre

[jrb]

Hmmm.

095082/FO/2010/S1 | Erection of part 4, part 5, part 6 storey building to form student accommodation comprising of 470 bedrooms together with essential user parking, andscaping and ancillary ground floor facilities | 87 - 89 Coupland Street Hulme Manchester M15 6HP

















Docs. http://www.publicaccess.manchester.g...082/FO/2010/S1

[roverman]

What we see here is the future for student housing. Despite the likely fall in student numbers over the next few years due to demographics and the high cost of education, there will be a need for purpose built housing. A factor driving this will be the new Article 4 powers taken up by Manchester City Council which can restrict (and possibly ban) further conversions of family housing into HMOs (houses in multiple-occupation). This should in time see the balance of population in places like Withington return to a larger proportion of family and older residents, which will be good for those areas and for Manchester as a whole. Too many families and long-term professional residents have been driven out of the inner suburbs by an oversupply of HMOs. Students are good for neighbourhoods in small numbers, where they supplement rather than replace long-term residents. The bulk of the student population is probably better off being together in purpose built housing near campus, where they can enjoy their particular lifestyle without damaging others.

[EverythingButABeach]

Originally Posted by roverman

What we see here is the future for student housing. Despite the likely fall in student numbers over the next few years due to demographics and the high cost of education, there will be a need for purpose built housing. A factor driving this will be the new Article 4 powers taken up by Manchester City Council which can restrict (and possibly ban) further conversions of family housing into HMOs (houses in multiple-occupation). This should in time see the balance of population in places like Withington return to a larger proportion of family and older residents, which will be good for those areas and for Manchester as a whole. Too many families and long-term professional residents have been driven out of the inner suburbs by an oversupply of HMOs. Students are good for neighbourhoods in small numbers, where they supplement rather than replace long-term residents. The bulk of the student population is probably better off being together in purpose built housing near campus, where they can enjoy their particular lifestyle without damaging others.

Sorry I really don't agree and I think it's dangerous nonsense. A lot of the areas that people hark on about being overrun by students are areas which were semi derelict partial no go areas in the 1980s. The students and HMOs saved Fallowfield and parts of Withington and Longsight turning into areas like Gorton/Harphurhey. If you don't agree then just compare areas without the demand generated by HMOs/Students with those that don't. The areas without the HMO demand are at risk of being CPO'd by the council (e.g. under Pathfinder type schemes).

The city with most HMOs is London. I don't see people asking Kensington and Chelsea or Islington or Clapham to ban HMOs despite the fact the whole area is awash with them. I also note these areas haven't exactly gone to the dogs either despite the large numbers of students in them.

People seem to get confused by the student thing as well. HMOs are mainly for NON students. Most of West Didsbury are non student HMOs. Is it really a good idea to turf out all the young professionals in West Didsbury and replace them with inner city families? The houses aren't suitable as they don't have off road parking and decent gardens. That's why they became HMOs in the first place. If you stop market forces from allowing people to live where they want you'll send areas like West Didsbury, Withington and Fallowfield back to the 1980s where they'll turn back into the dangerous shitholes they used to be when I grew up in Manc. You shouldn't try and force people to live in places where they don't want to live and stop others from where they do.

PS The council can try and push water up a hill using Article 4 but then it has to use your council tax to refund the landlords for the losses they will incur by not renting out the property for the higher HMO rate. It'd bankrupt the council. Also the definition of a licenceable HMO has reverted back to 3 stories and 5 plus people again (and not anyone unrelated sharing any house as it was last year).

A more sensible suggestion would be to force all large shared properties e.g. 6 or more people to be converted into proper apartments like in London. Another suggestion would be to ensure a minimum bedroom size in shared houses (e.g 70 plus Sq feet) and to ensure a communal lounge of minimum 100 sq foot in a shared house. They could also insist on decent sound proofing. Anyone who can demonstrate this can rent a house out. That way you'll free up some badly needed housing in the areas people want to live in.

All the council have achieved is to professionalise landlords and encourage them to split up large rooms and cram more people into a property to cover the absurd costs of a HMO licence and subsequent pointless Vogon bureaucracy. A typically British lose/lose situation for all.

[macc]

Originally Posted by EverythingButABeach

Sorry I really don't agree and I think it's dangerous nonsense. A lot of the areas that people hark on about being overrun by students are areas which were semi derelict partial no go areas in the 1980s. The students and HMOs saved Fallowfield and parts of Withington and Longsight turning into areas like Gorton/Harphurhey. If you don't agree then just compare areas without the demand generated by HMOs/Students with those that don't. The areas without the HMO demand are at risk of being CPO'd by the council (e.g. under Pathfinder type schemes).

The city with most HMOs is London. I don't see people asking Kensington and Chelsea or Islington or Clapham to ban HMOs despite the fact the whole area is awash with them. I also note these areas haven't exactly gone to the dogs either despite the large numbers of students in them.

People seem to get confused by the student thing as well. HMOs are mainly for NON students. Most of West Didsbury are non student HMOs. Is it really a good idea to turf out all the young professionals in West Didsbury and replace them with inner city families? The houses aren't suitable as they don't have off road parking and decent gardens. That's why they became HMOs in the first place. If you stop market forces from allowing people to live where they want you'll send areas like West Didsbury, Withington and Fallowfield back to the 1980s where they'll turn back into the dangerous shitholes they used to be when I grew up in Manc. You shouldn't try and force people to live in places where they don't want to live and stop others from where they do.

PS The council can try and push water up a hill using Article 4 but then it has to use your council tax to refund the landlords for the losses they will incur by not renting out the property for the higher HMO rate. It'd bankrupt the council. Also the definition of a licenceable HMO has reverted back to 3 stories and 5 plus people again (and not anyone unrelated sharing any house as it was last year).

A more sensible suggestion would be to force all large shared properties e.g. 6 or more people to be converted into proper apartments like in London. Another suggestion would be to ensure a minimum bedroom size in shared houses (e.g 70 plus Sq feet) and to ensure a communal lounge of minimum 100 sq foot in a shared house. They could also insist on decent sound proofing. Anyone who can demonstrate this can rent a house out. That way you'll free up some badly needed housing in the areas people want to live in.

All the council have achieved is to professionalise landlords and encourage them to split up large rooms and cram more people into a property to cover the absurd costs of a HMO licence and subsequent pointless Vogon bureaucracy. A typically British lose/lose situation for all.

Good post. I'd agree with pretty much all of that.

I'd say there's a place for small rooms bedrooms though. Some people want box rooms if it saves cash and there's nothing wrong with that. Converting all communal areas other than a kitchen into bedrooms I'm more against.

I've lived in an old house with no living room and whilst squalid considering can be cleaned up, living in a kitchen with three other people is something you shouldn't have to do in this day and age.

EDIT: Setting minimum number of bathrooms per X no. of people is good too.

[roverman]

Originally Posted by EverythingButABeach

Sorry I really don't agree and I think it's dangerous nonsense. A lot of the areas that people hark on about being overrun by students are areas which were semi derelict partial no go areas in the 1980s. The students and HMOs saved Fallowfield and parts of Withington and Longsight turning into areas like Gorton/Harphurhey. If you don't agree then just compare areas without the demand generated by HMOs/Students with those that don't. The areas without the HMO demand are at risk of being CPO'd by the council (e.g. under Pathfinder type schemes).

The city with most HMOs is London. I don't see people asking Kensington and Chelsea or Islington or Clapham to ban HMOs despite the fact the whole area is awash with them. I also note these areas haven't exactly gone to the dogs either despite the large numbers of students in them.

People seem to get confused by the student thing as well. HMOs are mainly for NON students. Most of West Didsbury are non student HMOs. Is it really a good idea to turf out all the young professionals in West Didsbury and replace them with inner city families? The houses aren't suitable as they don't have off road parking and decent gardens. That's why they became HMOs in the first place. If you stop market forces from allowing people to live where they want you'll send areas like West Didsbury, Withington and Fallowfield back to the 1980s where they'll turn back into the dangerous shitholes they used to be when I grew up in Manc. You shouldn't try and force people to live in places where they don't want to live and stop others from where they do.

PS The council can try and push water up a hill using Article 4 but then it has to use your council tax to refund the landlords for the losses they will incur by not renting out the property for the higher HMO rate. It'd bankrupt the council. Also the definition of a licenceable HMO has reverted back to 3 stories and 5 plus people again (and not anyone unrelated sharing any house as it was last year).

A more sensible suggestion would be to force all large shared properties e.g. 6 or more people to be converted into proper apartments like in London. Another suggestion would be to ensure a minimum bedroom size in shared houses (e.g 70 plus Sq feet) and to ensure a communal lounge of minimum 100 sq foot in a shared house. They could also insist on decent sound proofing. Anyone who can demonstrate this can rent a house out. That way you'll free up some badly needed housing in the areas people want to live in.

All the council have achieved is to professionalise landlords and encourage them to split up large rooms and cram more people into a property to cover the absurd costs of a HMO licence and subsequent pointless Vogon bureaucracy. A typically British lose/lose situation for all.

Everything But A Beach,

Taking a few of your points - firstly, I think you may be confusing HMO licensing with planning consent. The Article 4 powers relate to change of use of any dwelling to a HMO, it does not necessarily require the licensing of same, which as you say only applies to 3-storey, 5+ occupants. Landlords will now require planning permission to convert say, a typical 3-bed semi to a HMO.

Secondly, I don't understand the point about compensation. Compensation could only apply retrospectively, it will not apply to HMO applications which are refused henceforth. The only costs a council has to pick up are the processing of the planning application, because it carries no fee.

Thirdly, I know you say you grew up in Manchester, and if you still live here I'm surprised that you think areas like Fallowfield, Withington and West Didsbury are better now than they were in the 1980s. They are certainly a lot more expensive now than they were, mainly due to buy to let landlords pushing prices out of ordinary, full tax-paying, peoples reach. West Dids had a scummy element until the Police finally shut down the Midland Hotel and the drug dealers moved on. That was the problem, not a general malaise. Withington was blighted by CPOs because the Council wanted to demolish the whole village and turn it into a Cumbernauld-style nightmare. That gets professional people moving out who were otherwise happy with their community. The orders were lifted in the late 1980s but serious damage had been done, allowing slum landlords to push the area to the tipping point where decent people do move out.

But it is now the 21st century and there is a huge demand for family housing, because there is next to none being built. Look anywhere in the world - successful cities have professional people living long-term in their inner areas. That means families as well as young single people. Families in the UK need large houses with gardens, and if they are not available in Manchester they move to Cheshire, where they can no longer be part of the city's community.

You cannot compare Manchester with London, which is a giant world city with a huge and diverse population, including some of the wealthiest people on the planet. Such people do not live in Manchester. The fact is, London can accommodate lots of HMOs with students and young professionals yet still have many very desirable and very expensive areas close to the heart of the city. Manchester does not have enough similar areas to be able to squander those it does possess by turning them into young people's ghettos. Some professional families live in flats in London, in part due to costs and in part due to the more metropolitan culture in the capital. Again, this is very rare in Manchester, where professional families look for houses, which have become harder to find as they are snapped up by landlords who then convert them to HMOs and pack them with young, transient, tenants.

The problem is not HMO's per se, it is the concentrations of them and the fact that they have taken up much of the housing stock which is required for families. It is also the fact that HMO's are overwhelmingly populated by young and transient people. These people often have a lifestyle which makes them difficult neighbours for families and older people. In a HMO, there is no 'householder', everyone is responsible for the running of the house and relations with the neighbourhood. In practice, with a house full of young people this unfortunately manifests as no-one taking responsibility. Hence late night noise, refuse and recycling not managed, cars parked all over the place. I know, I live in a Withington street which is 40% owner-occupied, 30% rented flats, and 30% HMOs. Guess which houses create the noise and the rubbish? Yes, it's not the owner-occupiers or the flats.

We need housing for students and we need housing for young people in cities. But sadly, young people forming large households is not a good thing for communities or the environment. Students, in particular - nice people from good homes, most of them - lack the maturity to understand the impact of their lifestyle on others. For this reason, their housing needs to be more closely assigned and managed.

[jrb]

Originally Posted by roverman

What we see here is the future for student housing. Despite the likely fall in student numbers over the next few years due to demographics and the high cost of education, there will be a need for purpose built housing. A factor driving this will be the new Article 4 powers taken up by Manchester City Council which can restrict (and possibly ban) further conversions of family housing into HMOs (houses in multiple-occupation). This should in time see the balance of population in places like Withington return to a larger proportion of family and older residents, which will be good for those areas and for Manchester as a whole. Too many families and long-term professional residents have been driven out of the inner suburbs by an oversupply of HMOs. Students are good for neighbourhoods in small numbers, where they supplement rather than replace long-term residents. The bulk of the student population is probably better off being together in purpose built housing near campus, where they can enjoy their particular lifestyle without damaging others.

That Sir is Brilliant. I agree 101%

[EverythingButABeach]

Originally Posted by jrb

That Sir is Brilliant. I agree 101%

Disagree. It's been demonstrated that people like to live in areas with similar like minded people. It's much more sensible to concentrate the HMOs in certain areas like Fallowfield than to put a HMO or student house in every street. When I was a student I was happy to live next door to other students. Now I'm not a student I'd rather not live next door to them.

The other point is that the property we are talking about (inner city terraces with no parking plus no garden on busy roads) is not particularly suitable for the needs of the modern family. They are great for multiple occupancy though. If you remove the market for them then they will become slums again. Yes this will make them very affordable in the same way you can buy a 3 bed terrace in Gorton/Bradford for 60k. I'm not sure that's a good thing is it? You'll also make all the shops/restaurants/pubs and bars more affordable when they start boarding them up (like the 1970s/1980s when the Wilbraham Road corner of Owens Park was a car scrap yard!).

NB The council would have to pay compensation if it denies landlords the ability to rent their property as a HMO for future losses.
There will also be a lot more students in Manchester in the future than at present. It'll be 'Mickey Mouse' institutions like the Universtity of Kent/Essex/Lampeter/Lincoln/East London etc. that'll get closed down. If anything that'll concentrate the numbers in the major institutions. Manchester Uni and Man Met have the highest number of applicants in the UK and could easily quadruple current numbers if they could fund expansion (and decided to).

BTW Manchester is one of Europe's top 20 cities by size and is a world top 100 international city by GDP. It's currently the UK's fastest growing conurbation (and thus probably Europe) and faces exactly the same issues as London (therefore requiring a lot more HMOs and not less).

PS I'd agree that 5 bed houses need 2 toilets/shower rooms.

[iheartthenew]

Ahem. The University of Essex is certainly not a 'Mickey Mouse' institution. I'm pretty sure Kent isn't either. Both significantly out perform Man Met and Salford. In some league tables (the one in The Guardian) Both Essex and Kent are ranked HIGHER then Manchester!

Bolton. Now that's a Mickey Mouse establishment...

[Pit-yacker]

Originally Posted by EverythingButABeach

The other point is that the property we are talking about (inner city terraces with no parking plus no garden on busy roads) is not particularly suitable for the needs of the modern family. They are great for multiple occupancy though.

Problem is, we aren't just talking about terraces. In my opinion, the big problem is with 3 bed semi type houses in Withington/Didsbury.

There are a couple of problems here:
1. Buy-to-let landlords have pushed the price of these houses through the roof. They dont really have the same considerations as owner/occupiers. As long as they can let the property they can pay the mortgage. This leads to landlords building mini-empires of property buying up any property that becomes available.

2. In a number of cases these 3-bed room properties have been, modified to the point where , in my opinion, they are unsuitable for anything other than student accommodation.

Some of the examples I have seen the makes the word "vandalised" spring to mind - they are monstrosities.

I have seen a number of examples which had huge extensions added - another 2 ground floor bedrooms + 2 more first floor bedrooms.

In cases like this, it is probably necessary to regulate the free market. If only because the free market (ie. students) dont really know what they want. Remember in many cases this is the first time they have lived in a house away from their parents.

In my experience, a good proportion of much smaller student groups end in tears, never mind an 8-bedroom house. Groups of 8, IMO are an almost guaranteed disaster.

If students *really* want an 8-bedroom house, they should perhaps be limited to the existing large house stock - or use some of the newer private halls that are appearing.