Author: Chris

At a recent residents’ meeting, the developers of Thornhill Park, a proposed apartment complex next door to Thornhill Park and Ride, set out their stall and heard familiar objections from local people. New residents would compete for school places. Newcomers using the Headington roundabout would mean longer queues. Green land paved over would harm our natural resources.

There is some truth in all these concerns. And yet, for the sake of our planet, we say build it.

For what kind of person moves to an apartment next to a Park and Ride site? Most likely, somebody wanting to get into the city centre to work. Somebody who is perhaps currently commuting in, adding to traffic and polluting our air each day. Somebody who will now be able to take the bus or get on their bike with the city close at hand — or even if they drive, at least go one mile not thirty.

Cutting out that commute isn’t the only way the new flats could help us be greener. One of the most energy-intensive things we do each day is heat our homes. Where detached houses and semis lose heat through every face, dense apartment blocks, in this case up to 5 storeys tall, huddle together and conserve the warmth. Combined with modern building standards including efficient heat pumps and rooftop solar panels, each person moving into one of these new homes could put a decent dent in their emissions. A dense block also means less green space turned to grey per person, compared to sprawling detached mansions that treat sparse land as if it were free.

As with every building scheme, there are things to improve: the development’s sparse car parking provisions mean residents must be stopped from using nearby neighbours’ roads as free parking, and the school places issue calls for joined-up action with the Local Education Authority. Responsive City Councillors and local residents can and should work together through the planning process to get this right.

However, some problems come whenever we seek to build anything new: views from back gardens will change; cranes and diggers will make noise; at least one new resident will probably turn out to be an astonishing bore that you just can’t avoid speaking to. If we say that reasons like these are enough to block this new development then they shall block everything, for every new home must have some neighbours.

An Oxford unable to change at all would surely wither, becoming ever more exclusive as jobs are not matched by homes for those who work them. To avoid that fate, and especially for the good of our environment, we say let us greet this project with constructive improvements rather than a blockade.

We applaud the Council’s initiative to take action to protect tenants from landlords who would use the desperate housing shortage in Oxford to take advantage of tenants. However, the city must ensure that the result is not an even greater scarcity of rental accommodation in Oxford than already exists.

A licensing scheme that drives landlords away in Oxford would only further worsen the affordability crisis that has left Oxford as the worst city for income-adjusted housing affordability in the entire country. Oxford’s City Council has wisely recognized this in other contexts, notably in their endorsement of the SMHA’s recommendation that the county add 30,000 new homes in the next 20 years, but unfortunately it is all too easy for seemingly small and reasonable requirements to pile up on top of each other and discourage renting. When there are fewer homes for rent than people who want them, the richest individuals will outbid the rest — thus causing rent to rise for all. When there are more homes than potential tenants, tenants have more power — if a landlord tries to raise their rent or refuses to fix their homes, they can simply threaten to move elsewhere — and that threat will have teeth to it, which it sadly does not in the current situation.

If the Council decides to implement the proposed licensing scheme, they should ensure that it does not prevent potential rental units from coming on to the market. If it does, its effects would run contrary to the purpose of the licensing, which is to protect tenants. Apartments or houses owned by small landlords, who this bill would impact the most, provide a large share of affordable housing for tenants. Licensing should therefore be easy to obtain and affordable. The Council could consider implementing a streamlined version of licensing or creating more straightforward and understandable documents for potential small landlords. 

The Council should also carefully consider its ceiling on HMOs, which are capped at 20% of buildings (although current HMOs are grandfathered in). As part of its reasoning for implementing the HMO licensing scheme, which will be renewed by this proposed bill, the City has written that “HMOs are a major concern in Oxford” and that it “has an unusually high number of HMOs.” As a university town that wishes to attract a young and promising workforce, Oxford’s supposedly high number of HMOs is both unsurprising and even desirable. For young people, who wish to save money in such an expensive rental market, living with roommates is an important and fundamental housing option. Without roommates, many of our signees could not afford to live in Oxford, and this is undoubtedly true of many others. 

Oxford’s commitment to protecting its tenants is admirable. But the government can’t have eyes everywhere at once, and it can’t welcome newcomers who would diversify or participate in Oxford’s growing economy to a community that doesn’t have enough homes for them. The best tool for combatting a bad landlord or predatory rental agents is an adequate supply of safe housing. We urge Oxford City Council to ensure any new licensing scheme does not negatively impact supply of rental housing, including HMOs.