The case for more affordable accommodation at the University of Reading by Reading Students' Union

The case for more affordable accommodation at the University of Reading

A report by Ben Cooper, Community and Development Officer 1

Executive summary Key theme of report: The lack of affordable accommodation. This report highlights the need for more affordable halls at The University of Reading. It explains student cost of living at Reading in each hall in varying loan brackets. It highlights the issues students face, coming to the conclusion that many students simply cannot afford most accommodation options at Reading. It also looks at the future of St Patricks hall and recommends that the redevelopment provides a budget range of rooms to increase the amount the University currently has. Please read full report for all statistics and breakdown of costs. What’s the problem?    

The percentage of budget hall accommodation at Reading is constantly falling. Without parental contribution premium (upper) halls are unaffordable. High contact courses restrict students’ ability to have part time work, limiting options further. Less budget accommodation options limit the University’s strategy to widen participation.

What’s the solution? 



UPPs contract requires equal splits between budget, standard and premium accommodation. Create a scenario where this can happen through building the new St Patricks hall as budget accommodation, which rebalances the affordability brackets. Creating an Accommodation Committee that will facilitate strategic planning and ensure student input.

Key items from report: University of Reading accommodation statistics illustrate the lack of affordable accommodation and the problems it causes. (See full report for more explanation) RUSU has defined the following brackets of accommodation costs in consultation with the University (before catering): • • •

Lower (budget): Up to £128 per week Medium (standard): £128-£145 per week Upper (premium): £145 and above per week

Within this framework the amount of rooms in each bracket is as follows based on 2015-16 rent: 

Lower (budget): 1,038 (21.7%)



Medium (standard): 1,524 (31.9%)



Upper (premium): 2,211 (46.4%)

Minimum to maximum loan break down: •

The tables located in Appendix B show the cost of each Reading accommodation option and the cost of student life; against loans, grants, parental contribution and personal income. (Please read full report for more information)

St Patrick’s Development Plans: 

Any plans put forward for St Patricks hall redevelopment must take into consideration affordability as its key concept. (Table below shows the issue)

Student opinion:  

Change It: The winning idea is ‘Stop increasing the Price of Halls’. Throughout this paper are current student testimonials (highlighted in boxes), which show some interesting viewpoints and feelings on the topic.

Key recommendations:  

Increase the stock of affordable accommodation at Reading through the St Patricks development. Create an accommodation committee within the committee structure of the University.

(Table showing worst case scenario, effect of St Patricks development if more premium was built) Building additional premium rooms at St Patricks would worsen the disparity

3500

3000

Number of Rooms

2500

2000

The loss of 300 rooms at St Patricks during the replacement result in <15% of accommodation being budget stock

UPP Contract states that there should be an equal third of hall prices between the lower, medium and upper price bands

1500

1000

500

0 Budget

Existing Stock*

Medium

*Existing St Patricks Hall

Premium

UPP Contract Target Split

Contents 1.0 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

2.0 Breakdown of current Halls of Residence costs …………………………………………….... 5

3.0 NUS Data (‘Accommodation Cost Survey 2014-16’, 2015, Unipol) …………………… 6 3.1 Average weekly costs UK vs (Reading) costs by accommodation type 2015-16 …. 7 4.0 University of Reading Accommodation Statistics …………………………………………….. 9 4.1 Minimum loan breakdown: £3731 …………………………………………………………………… 10 4.2 Medium loan breakdown: £5269 …………………………………………………………………….. 10 4.3 Maximum loan with grant: £7434 ……………………………………………………………………. 10 4.4 Widening participation ……………………………………………………………………………………. 12 4.5 High contact hours …………………………………………………………………………………………. 12 5.0 St Patricks Development Plans ……………………………………………………………………….. 12 5.1 Student Opinion: Change It Vote ……………………………………………………………………... 13 5.2 Hotel overspill issue………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14 5.3 External halls in Reading ………………………………………………………………………………….. 14 6.0 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 15 7.0 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………….… 16 8.0 Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16 8.1 Appendix A: Student Testimonials ……………………………………………………………………. 16 8.2 Appendix B: Tables of Student costs in Reading ……………………………………………….. 22 8.3 Results of student survey on halls costs…………………………………………………………… 25

1.0 Introduction Key issue: The lack of affordable accommodation. There are many great halls of residence at the University, and the majority of students enjoy their stay in them. However, it has become apparent that the increasing price and amount of ‘premium’ rooms, combined with the lack of affordable rooms is creating an issue that students and RUSU find troubling. This report aims to highlight that affordability must be a key concept with any new development, such as St Patricks Hall. Further to this, hall prices have increased each year. In terms of increasing utility bills, catering and inflation, this is understandable, however, anymore than this is simply unjustified. Students are concerned that they are paying more for the same service year on year. “I am currently living at Wantage for my third year. This year I am in exactly the same room as last year. However, this year I am paying over £200 more for my room. I have seen no improvement for this increase in price. The room is exactly the same as last year, including the stain on the carpet”. With an ever increasing cost of living for students, comes an ever increasing burden, which needs to be filled by part time work, financial support from family and so on. However this is not always possible. This report shall present student testimonials and examples of why we need more affordable accommodation at the University to cater for all budgets.

2.0 Breakdown of current Halls of Residence costs Currently halls prices range from, £99.89 per week up to £206.22 per week for self-catered accommodation, and from £137.39 up to £175.75 per week for catered accommodation, at residency periods of 40 or 51 weeks. This is a wide range of accommodation prices, however as stated in the contract the University has with UPP, there should be an equal third of hall prices between lower (budget) medium (standard) and upper price bands (premium), this is currently not the case. RUSU has defined the following brackets of accommodation costs in consultation with the University (before catering): 

Lower (budget): Up to £128 per week



Medium (standard): £128-£145 per week



Upper (premium): £145 and above per week

Within this framework the amount of rooms in each bracket is as follows based on 2015-16 rent: 

Lower (budget): 1,038 (21.7%) This is reduced to 908 with the rent increase of Dunsden Crescent in 2016/17 rent.



Medium (standard): 1,524 (31.9%)



Upper (premium): 2,211 (46.4%)

This clearly shows that the split of accommodation is heavily skewed towards premium rooms (46.4%). There may seem to be a demand for premium rooms, but this obvious imbalance does not adhere to the University contract. The fact is that many students cannot afford the premium rooms, thus numerous students and RUSU would like to see more affordable options. It is important to create more affordable options in the bracket of ‘up to £128 per week’, whilst ensuring a good amount of accommodation is below this figure. We want to see an increase from the 21.7% already provided in this bracket, which are of a good standard but without the glamour and price tag of the ensuite and premium accommodation currently offered, which consists of 46.4% of the overall portfolio.

3.0 NUS Data (‘Accommodation Cost Survey 2014-16’, 2015, Unipol) This data shall provide some background to student cost of living and explain why Reading needs more affordable accommodation. Potential income from loans and funding each academic year is up to £18,497 for England (excluding London) (NUS suggest the ‘average’ student gets £14,370). This is made up of: 

Tuition fee loan (up to £9,000 per annum, depending on the cost of your course, paid direct to student finance thus cannot be seen as part of a student’s income).



Maintenance grants (up to £3,250 per annum, depending on your household income – £934 for the ‘average’ student). Grants are being scrapped and being replaced by loans increasing student debt for those that cannot already afford higher education.



Loan for living costs (up to £5,740 per annum for England outside of London- £4,335 for the ‘average’ student).

An ‘average’ student’s income from loans and funding each academic year, not including tuition fees is £5,269. This will vary depending on family income, however it does not take into consideration how much a family can contribute due to other commitments such as debt, siblings etc. Since the last NUS survey in 2012-13 the cost of student accommodation has on average gone up by 18.4%. As the student loan has not increased in line with this, students are more than ever feeling the squeeze. One downside is that the increasing burden of higher debt faced by students will inevitably have a negative effect on some groups of applicants. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has estimated that the poorest 40% of students in receipt of the enhanced loans would leave University with debts of £53,000. The increasing debt makes the situation worse, at a time when the availability of affordable accommodation is also being reduced. Furthermore, it is often the case that even though these students have this huge sum of debt it still does not cover all the cost of higher education, including accommodation. Many students are faced with a situation where University is not affordable and for some even when taking part time jobs, the costs are still too high. One third of the people surveyed by the NUS across the UK between 2011 and 2014 said that they had seriously considered leaving their course, and half of those students said it was because of financial difficulties (NUS, Hidden costs. #CutTheCosts Campaign Pack 2015).

3.1 Average weekly costs UK vs (Reading) costs by accommodation type 2015-16: Using the data from the NUS Accommodation Costs survey (Unipol, 2015) referenced above we shall now look at how it applies to halls of residence at Reading. The first figure is from the survey and the second is (current UPP pricing at Reading). Catered ensuite: UK average: £174.63 vs (Reading: Dunsden- £175.75) Catered non-ensuite: UK average: £150.23 vs (Reading: Wantage/Windsor- £146.27, St Patricks- £142.29) Self-catered ensuite: UK average: £136.32 vs (Reading: Premium Childs, Stenton, Mackinder and Bridges- £159.60, Benyon, Sherfield, St Georges, Greenow &McCombie - £139.02) Self-catered non-ensuite: 7

UK average: £117.71 vs (Reading: Townhouses - £146.51, Bridges £130.62, Wessex upgraded £110.39, Wessex and St George’s washbasin - £99.89) The figures presented in this report show that whilst Reading does have a wide range of prices, almost half of halls places are in the top bracket £145+ and above the sector average £138. Also there is limited choice in the lower budget bracket, which is our main issue. Halls such as Wessex currently offer cheaper accommodation but the amount of places in these halls are limited and tiny in comparison to the 2,211 rooms in the premium bracket of £145 plus. The issue for students of only offering expensive accommodation is as follows: The average student receives £4,335; the maximum loan is £5,740. But if their parental income is below £25,000, they receive an added maintenance grant to their loan, totalling £7,434 from student finance and the government. In all of these cases the total amount received does not cover most of the accommodation available at Reading once catering and living costs are added. The lowest loan a student can receive is £3,731. This means unless their parents are willing and in a financial situation to help pay (Government expected parental contribution: £2,009) for the rising cost of higher education and accommodation, many students are facing impossible costs and huge financial burdens. For example, a Park Group premium en-suite room currently cost £6,384.00 for a 40 week contract. This means that a student who receives the lowest loan must find £2,654 before other costs such as food and books. “The cost of halls already outweighs my student loan and even though I have a summer job, I still find it challenging to afford food for myself after paying for hall”. “I am in Sherfield so pay just shy of £140 a week, for an en suite self-catered room. I receive £6834 in total in maintenance loan/grant, so towards the top end of student finance support, but following my first two payments of rent I am left with just £40, I'm fortunate that my mum can afford to give me £20-25 per week for food etc. but lots of students aren't that fortunate”. Rents cannot go on rising indefinitely at the rates seen in previous years. It may seem more rewarding to build halls with an interior ‘wow factor’, but developing the lower budget range is significantly overdue, in a sector that has become fixated on development in the upper premium cost bracket of student accommodation. There is a perception that there is something inherently unappealing about developing the student equivalent of a ‘Travelodge product’ – but that is where future developments will need to concentrate. Affordability is the primary concern, UOR and UPP must cater for the whole market and not just the niche, premium top end. 8

“I myself do not get enough student loan to cover the price of my Halls, and am constantly in my overdraft. My parents have agreed to give me some money towards it, but I feel guilty for having to ask and would like to be able to cover the costs on my own, and know many other people who are in a similar situation”. “Not only are we being ripped off by the Uni by fees, but we're being ripped off by private companies exploiting vulnerable students, and ignoring those from poorer backgrounds”.

4.0 University of Reading Accommodation Statistics The tables located in Appendix B show the cost of each Reading accommodation option and cost of student life; compared to loans, grants, parental contribution and personal income. The tables contained in Appendix B highlight the issues students face with rising costs and show that many need affordable options in order to have enough money to simply go to University, with all of the loans taken into account. Cost explanation calculator used in tables to create figures: (Please refer to this when looking at the tables) 

Catering cost: 31 weeks at £61.67= £1,911.77 (61.67x31) (UPP catering allocated cost)



Working hours of students: 16 hours a week x40 weeks at £5.30 an hour= £3,393 annually (16x40=640x£5.30) (University guidelines on working hours x minimum wage)



Reading other costs: £75 per week x 40 weeks= £3000 (£75x40) (Reading University estimated student costs: Travel, entertainment, books and equipment, clothing and personal items, etc)



Parental contribution: Income of £25000-£42,875= £0 Income of £62,143 or above= £2009. (Government loan structure)

Costs and incomes are worked out using official data from the Reading University website (2016). Below are conclusions for the minimum, average and maximum loan scales. For the full table please refer to Appendix B.

4.1 Minimum loan breakdown: £3,731: 

If a student’s parental income is £62,143 or above then the government expected parental contribution is £2,009.



Students in this bracket, without any personal income, thus have £5,740. This means that after catering and other costs are added in none of the hall options in Reading are affordable.



However, if students have a part time job and earn £3,392 over 40 weeks this adds up to £9,132. Only St Patricks, Wantage, Windsor and almost Wessex are affordable at this level of loan and parental contribution. The issue is these are the halls with the least amount of rooms in comparison to the upper (premium) numbers.



Without more parental support, which is not often possible as parents have other children, commitments and debt to pay for, all other halls are not affordable.

4.2 Medium loan breakdown: £5,269: 

If a student’s parental income is £42,875 - £45,000 there is no government expected contribution and no maintenance grant.



Students in this bracket, without any personal income, thus have £5,269. This means that after catering and other costs are added in none of the hall options at Reading are affordable.



However, if students have a part time job and earn £3,392 over 40 weeks this adds up to £8,661. Only Windsor is affordable with St Patricks and Wantage almost being affordable.



Without parental support, which is not often possible as parents have other children, commitments and debt to pay for, all other halls are not affordable.

4.3 Maximum loan with grant: £7,434: 

If a student’s parental income is £25,000 or below then the loan and grant received is £7,434 with no parental contribution.



Students in this bracket, without any personal income, thus have £7,434. This means that after catering and other costs are added in none of the hall options at Reading are affordable.



However if students have a part time job and earn £3,392 over 40 weeks this adds up to £10,826. Most halls are affordable at this level apart from park group ensuite and townhouses.

The findings above show that unless students are in a situation where they work the maximum hours allowed whilst studying and their parents, in most cases apart from the highest loan bracket, help them out with parental contributions of well over £2,500, nearly all the accommodation options are not affordable. The accommodation that is affordable is the budget bracket. If Reading could offer modern, lower cost accommodation this would be of benefit for widening participation, the University’s image and decreasing the gap in the lower end market we currently have. It is obvious from the data concluded from the tables in Appendix B that our ensuite self-catered accommodation is unaffordable for a vast amount of the student population. A student who receives the minimum loan of £3,731 needs to find £4,637.57 to pay for the deficit of accommodation and food costs for the 40 week period. And £7,637.57 with all other student costs added in. This for many students who cannot rely on parental help is not a situation they can afford. Even with a personal income of £3,392 they are still faced with a deficit of £4,245.57 per year based on current figures. However it is true that students with the smaller loans will generally have higher parental support meaning that for many the premium accommodation is affordable, this is definitely not the case for everyone. With 46.4% of accommodation at Reading in this bracket it is not this style of accommodation we need more of. Students who receive the average loan of £5,269, whose parents are less likely to be in a position to financially, support them would need to find £6,099.57 to be able to live in premium ensuite accommodation, when including all other costs of living. Hall Mobility Full personal financial support - Parental contribution to meet Hall of choice and other needs - May not take student loan - May or may not work Affordable Halls: All

These boxes show how different family incomes affect students ability to pick halls.

Higher income parents - Parents only contribute expected Government amount - Basic Student Loan - Works Affordable Halls: Budget only

Medium income parents - No expected parental contribution - Medium Student Loan - Works Affordable Halls: Budget only

Low income parents - No expected parental contribution - High Student Loan - Works Affordable Halls: All expect Premium

Very High Will find money to meet preferences

High May find money from alternative sources to take higher cost accommodation

Low May take additional borrowings to take higher cost accommodation

Affordability is a particular problem for insurance/clearing applicants, when limited accommodation is available

Very Low Very few options other than Budget / Standard Halls

The image above shows different ‘made up’ students with varying parental support and loans; it explains simply what different groups can afford any why many struggle to pay for the premium bracket of accommodation. Hall mobility means how far a student can change what accommodation they will live in depending on funds available.

4.5 Widening participation Less budget accommodation limits the university’s strategy to widen participation. Students whose families earn less than £25,000 annually will most definitely not provide any financial help. Even though these students are mostly entitled to the maximum loan of £7,434, this means they are still often short of money on a daily basis, after all costs are taken into account. Using the data collected in the spreadsheets, located in the Appendix B, and given the lack of affordable accommodation, it is logical to conclude that increasing the amount of affordable accommodation available, would appeal to widening participation groups, thus fulfil this target better.

4.6 High contact hour courses The demand of high contact hour courses can vastly reduce the amount of time students can work. This means that students who cannot engage in part time work need to ensure they can afford the costs of University, relying on financial support from family and their loan. This can also limit students to the cheaper hall options. Creating a cheaper, modern hall would cater for this group of people as well.

5.0 St Patrick’s Development Plans Any plans put forward for St Patricks hall redevelopment must take into consideration affordability as its key concept. St Patricks is currently in the lower (budget) bracket of cost, and is the most affordable catered hall; which also has a great student atmosphere, that is important to maintain. If St Patricks hall was to be redeveloped the consequence would be the loss of 300 rooms from this budget bracket. We would like to see, in any new development, that the proposals cater for increasing the amount of lower (budget) accommodation on offer not decreasing it. We need more affordable accommodation, not simply another Park Group clone with premium ensuite rooms. It is

imperative to ensure the range in the lower bracket is diverse and can cater for a wider pool of budgets, as well as increasing the amount of affordable accommodation. The possibility of losing even more rooms from the bottom end of the lower budget means that the new development is of key consequence in this report. It is one of the driving forces for why we have written this report. We recommend the increase of lower budget rooms through this development be its overall aim. “Thankfully I managed to get into Pats – if I hadn’t then I wouldn’t have been able to afford to come to Reading University. Even with a large student loan, I can barely afford to live in halls here”. “The continued building of halls like Bridges means that many students are unable to afford to live in hall, which is a shame as every student should feel like they can live in university halls if they want to”. “Although the newer rooms will get great feedback, in reality, many people can't afford to live in them. “Many of my friends are struggling to make ends meet in Stenton Town Houses and the new Childs, having failed to secure a place in the coveted older halls”.

5.1 Student Opinion: Change It Vote Throughout this paper are student testimonials which show some interesting viewpoints and feelings collected from current students. They all share a similar theme that halls accommodation is firstly expensive and secondly there is not enough in the lower (budget) bracket. Further to this, in our most recent round of Change It! (Our democratic platform from which students can vote and propose ideas that matter to them) the winning idea was ‘Stop increasing the Price of Halls’. This idea received 392 votes in a five day long voting period. This shows the significant depth of student feeling that is present. (For more testimonials please see Appendix A). This report has come about as a result of students contacting RUSU in reference to the cost of living and accommodation prices. We have spoken with many students, some of whom have written testimonials, who all recognise the need for more accommodation in the affordable lower bracket. Because of this keen interest from students, we at RUSU have taken it upon ourselves to investigate this student feeling and the data below explains why students are feeling the pinch when it comes to costs. 13

Additionally we have conducted a small survey with 39 students on halls cost. (See appendix 7.3 for more information) We asked what type of accommodation you think Reading needs more of? 

33 people said more affordable, cheap, budget halls (84%)

Our overall conclusions from this survey are: 

5.2 Hotel overspill issue One unique issue that insurance students face when coming to University is the potential not to get a hall place. These students, who are put on a waiting list for halls, are told they must take the first available room. Returners also can apply for halls which takes away 15% of spaces from first years (20% returner rate set in contract with UPP, negotiated down to 15% this year). With the lack of accommodation, especially in the budget bracket, reducing the returner quota further could be a good option to ensure more first years get the peace of mind and halls experience they deserve. This shall also stop the University losing valuable students who decline applications to study, due to not having a halls place. This issue going forward needs greater consideration to ensure any students who do not have a hall place can get accommodation quickly. Ensuring they do not miss out on the new student experience and making friends during the first few days. Beyond this we need to ensure that when students without accommodation are offered places, they can afford them. A student with a budget of £120 a week for everything will not be able to afford en-suite Park Group prices, thus offering them these rooms is not appropriate, whilst offering them nothing is not acceptable. RUSU wishes to open this conversation up with UPP and the University to ensure this problem is handled as smoothly as possible. The strategic management of this process needs to be controlled and monitored to ensure students are getting the best deal and the University’s reputation is not tarnished.

5.3 External halls in Reading One other issue to note is that the external halls in Reading (not UPP) are all in the premium bracket thus only further extend the amount of unaffordable rooms available to students.

6.0 Conclusion Students are not just figures on a page, with an unlimited ability to rack up debt. The loans do not cover the costs and the ever increasing need for students to find work in order to pay for accommodation is a concern. Furthermore as this report highlights hall prices need to reflect the facts; a wide range of prices to suit all budgets. The new development is a chance to ensure Reading can offer this. It is often assumed that the market demand is for ensuite, high quality rooms. There is demand for them but at Reading the student demand is for affordable accommodation, as we already have large proportion of ensuite, high quality rooms in the accommodation portfolio. The gap in the Reading accommodation portfolio is very obviously highlighted by the above (for more confirmation of this, please see Appendix B). There is a real opportunity to make Reading even more attractive to a wider range of prospective students, from various backgrounds and make our wonderful University more affordable for the general student populous, whilst filling the gaps in the accommodation portfolio.

3500

3000

Providing 700 additional budget rather than premium rooms would significantly improve the disparity

No of Rooms

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Budget

Existing Stock

Medium

Proposed Net Additional Stock (St Patricks)

Premium

UPP Contract Target

(Table shows the split of accommodation if all of St Patricks development is built in the budget bracket)

The above table shows our preferable choice going forward for St Patricks development as it goes a long way to rebalancing the accommodation portfolio.

7.0 Recommendations 1. Increase the stock of affordable accommodation at Reading through the St Patricks development. Taking away the 300 hundred rooms St Patricks provides in the budget bracket, brings that number down to below 700, which is reduced further with the price of inflation of Dunsden Crescent in the 2016/17 rent review, to less than 600. The new development thus needs to fill this large gap in the Reading accommodation portfolio and RUSU wish to work with the university and UPP to make this happen. 2. Create an accommodation committee within the committee structure of the University. This committee should look at all matters arising; from rent setting to the hotel issues we encounter each year. The University does not currently have a committee that works on the strategic planning of accommodation. Further to this we have no student input into accommodation at Reading, a committee could provide this. This committee should involve RUSU, key Estate and Facilities staff, relevant key University and UPP members and possible student membership. 3. Any future rent increases outside of inflation and rising costs, should be limited and done in consultation with RUSU and the student populous, through the accommodation committee stated above.

8.0 Appendices Below are examples of student testimonials followed by the full detail tables for the data in this report. 8.1 Appendix A: Student Testimonials Statement 1: I am currently living at Wantage for my third year. This year I am in exactly the same room as last year. However, this year I am paying over £200 more for my room. I have seen no improvement for this increase in price. The room is exactly the same as last year (including the stain on the carpet), the postal situation is less than ideal and the catering is more expensive than ever. I chose to stay in Halls because I enjoy the community feel of them, the bills are all included and it just seemed easier. I know this is the same for many returners. However, the price of Halls is very high, which makes it difficult, and there are not many cheaper options than Wantage. At Reading Uni, there are only two halls which offer rooms for less than £100 a week (St. Georges and Wessex), which is not much choice for those who can’t afford any more. Although Wantage, Windsor and St. Patrick’s all cost under £100 for rent, there is a compulsory catering package on top of this, which means that it actually costs between £140 and £150 per week.

I decided to stay in Wantage for all three years of my course, as I really enjoyed it in first year. However, it is now very expensive. The price of the rent increases each year, as does the price of catering. Although we are given £61 a week for catering, the prices of food are increasing, without an obvious increase in quality. My younger brother is 17 and is looking at going to Imperial College University. The accommodation he is looking at costs £142 per week (£2 of which is for the ‘Hall Activities Fund’ used for putting on events and social activities), for a premium en-suite room, in London. A premium en-suite room in Reading costs £159.60 per week. Surely rooms in Reading should not cost more than those in London, especially since students in Reading don’t get the higher rate of loan that those in London receive. Another issue with the price of Halls is the difference between room types. In my first year I was in a Wantage non-washbasin room. This year it costs £350 more to have a washbasin room than a nonwashbasin room in Wantage. However, I think that this is unjustified as an estimated Thames Water bill for a single person is just under £200. However, this includes flushing toilets, showering and taking baths, which are things that students with non-washbasin rooms also do. The difference between having a washbasin and not is definitely not worth £350. It is also not possible to have a non-catered non-washbasin room at Reading, which could be an issue for some people. I myself do not get enough student loan to cover the price of my Halls, and am constantly in my overdraft. My parents have agreed to give me some money towards it, but I feel guilty for having to ask and would like to be able to cover the costs on my own, and know many other people who are in a similar situation. Although I am now in my third year and too late for me, it isn’t fair on the next year’s students to be paying such expensive prices for Halls, when the cost of University is already huge. Statement 2: Halls are becoming unaffordable to live in, with yearly price increases and the removal of more affordable halls. The continued building of halls like Bridges means that many students are unable to afford to live in hall, which is a shame as every student should feel like they can live in university halls if they want to. For many returning students it’s a safety net if they cannot find people to live in a house with. Those who suffer from anxiety and need the safer environment halls provides with bills included, are being denied this. Stop reducing the number of affordable halls and spaces for returners. Statement 3: Great halls with really good facilities and security. However the increasing prices are a real shame as it makes going into halls for final year a huge inconvenience. As I am doing a sandwich year placement I will have to go into halls for final year and I dread the debt this will put me in. Cheaper halls would be great and I'm sure it is possible.

Statement 4: Halls are too expensive and for this reason I had to move out to live in a private accommodation. I would really like to live in halls and encourage other students the same thing if the rates become bit affordable Statement 5: As an international student, I find the prices of halls especially unforgiving and unaccommodating. International students often face greater challenges in making uni affordable - they face huge tuition costs and great maintenance fund requirements to meet visa regulations, and the price of halls does not help this. Furthermore, when I first came to Reading, I was quite shocked that the cheapest price for halls was nearly ÂŁ100/week, and this shock was deepened when I moved in to the halls and saw the standard of the facility. It (St. George's Hall Oakhurst, classified as a washbasin room) was definitely liveable, but for the price, I found it bordering on extortionate. Having no clue how to privately rent in the UK (and often facing issues with securing a proper guarantor for a given landlord as I do not have UK contacts and some landlords require this in a guarantor), I had no option but to pay for the cheapest option in halls. For my own comfort, I increased the amount I would be willing to pay for better facilities and lived in the new Bridges Hall in my second year for ÂŁ120/week. However, the price of this accommodation has increased for this year, which given the nature of depreciation, it should not have done. Especially as a real estate student, I find the halls situation at Reading to be incredibly less than forgiving and ideal for new students who don't want to have to worry about secure accommodation in the midst of the challenges starting uni brings. Statement 6: Generally nice, prefer the townhouses because they have a large living space and sofas. All of it is far too expensive. We need a cheaper option. Statement 7: Prices are currently too high especially since not all the flats with premium en suites have a suitable living area. Statement 8: When I applied for halls the sink shared bathrooms rooms were the first ones that went, however when I have just looked online, they have not chosen to rebuild any sink shared bathrooms room which were very popular. Although the newer rooms will get great feedback, in reality, many people can't afford to live in them. Halls including the prices of halls were very important in choosing which Uni I wanted to go to Statement 9: The cost of halls already outweighs my student loan and even though I have a summer job, I still find it challenging to afford food for myself after paying for halls. I really do not think the price of halls should increase any further as it is becoming unaffordable.

It is essential that there is always affordable accommodation for students. It shouldn't be seen as money making scheme, instead as an essential part of the university experience. Many people are deterred from university because of factors such as increased prices, and this should not be the case. Statement 10: Halls prices in Reading are simply too expensive. In 2013/14 I lived in Wessex Hall, at £4,000 per annum this was the cheapest halls but was still nearly £2,000 over the loan I received. I therefore had to take on a part time job to come close to affording my accommodation myself, before having to ask my parents for help. This amount of money would have gotten me a premium ensuite room at other universities, for example the university of Leeds. I understand that Reading is a more expensive area of the country, but the comparison of this extremely basic and outdated accommodation to other opportunities throughout the country is ridiculous. In my time in these halls there were regular problems with drainage which caused awful smells; my room had a water pipe in it that made awful noises throughout the night. These halls desperately need renovation, however based on other halls, the needed work will price people out of accommodation in Reading. Statement 11: I live in Stenton hall. This is too expensive. 159 pounds one week. The equipment is not new and convenient. And the kitchen is too small. The kitchen equipment is not enough for us. Statement 12: I would have dearly loved to have stayed in halls, but given I have a husband; the price of halls was always too expensive. I believe having affordable halls of residence is very important as it provides a safe place to be, when all sorts of other changes are happening around you. Statement 13: Cost: Housing is actually cheaper. Halls is supposed to be somewhere affordable - we are not in London, we don't get extra money to pay for accommodation. The prices of halls are simply not affordable, especially in contrast to what we actually get - Sherfield Halls (which are falling apart, dirty, had problems with heating and water, as well as being infested with silverfish) were priced at the same price as some NEWLY BUILT halls in Bridges last year, and all that's been done in regards to this is put the prices of Bridges halls up. I also think to charge £139 a week to catered students for the quality and price of food that they serve at places like Park Bar etc is ridiculous. It's about £8 per meal, why can't the prices be lower and the amount given to spend on food (currently £60) also be adjusted? Availability: I currently live in a student house and have 3 first years living with me, who a) could not afford accommodation and b) were not given a place in halls. All other Universities I have looked at/heard of/have friends at, GUARANTEE a place in halls for first years. Quality: Unless you can pay £160 a week you're guaranteed to live in rundown halls with broken appliances. The price and quality do not match, and by re-decorating halls and charging more for them, the problem is not being solved.

Statement 14: The halls at Uni of Reading are the worst I have seen for the ridiculous price we are asked to pay. Housing is cheaper and higher quality, and this is not advertised enough by the Uni to first years. Halls are marketed as part of the University experience, and people feel they have no choice but to pay over £5000 to live. Not only are we being ripped off by the Uni by fees, but we're being ripped off by private companies exploiting vulnerable students, and ignoring those from poorer backgrounds. I'm staying at Benyon Hall. The room and the shared kitchen are quite all right, and I have no regrets. However, if compared to the price I am paying I would say it is definitely overpriced. It is not affordable at all. e.g. I am on a full scholarship studying here, and because the rent was so high here I was only given a portion of it and left to basically figure it out. I am seriously considering getting a job in the next term to help pay it. Statement 15: As a first year student currently living in St. Patrick’s Hall, I must say that I am very much enjoying my stay there. Thankfully I managed to get into Pats – if I hadn’t then I wouldn’t have been able to afford to come to Reading University. Even with a large student loan, I can barely afford to live in halls here. There is no way at all that I could have afforded to live in the any of the incredibly overpriced other halls at Reading. So understandably when I found out that there were plans to replace Pats with a high end expensive hall, I was appalled. There is nothing wrong at all with living at St. Pats – apparently it is ‘not suitable for student life’. In response to this I would say that because of the price, the sense of community and the homeliness of it, it is the most suitable for student life. Statement 16: I think the general consensus of halls at Reading is that they are far too expensive; I am in Sherfield so pay just shy of £140 a week, for an en suite self-catered room. I receive £6834 in total in maintenance loan/grant, so towards the top end of student finance support, but following my first two payments of rent I am left with just £40, I'm fortunate that my mum can afford to give me £2025 per week for food etc. but lots of students aren't that fortunate. Sherfield was my 4th choice of accommodation so I did seek cheaper options but didn't get them. My 3rd rent payment will leave me with a surplus of almost £1000, this money will help me in the beginning of 2nd year but I would be far better off throughout my entire first year were I to have access to this money throughout the year, I'm sure that one of the reasons of having the 3rd payment of rent to be the smallest is so that the university have a level of security whereby if someone refuses to pay the final payment they still have the bulk of money, but that strategy is negatively effecting myself and many of my peers financially. As maintenance grants are being cut future students will have access to even less money, will the university change their halls fee's in line with this? Had I chose to defer, or been younger, so only had access to the maintenance loan I would not have been able to come to uni, primarily because of the cost of halls, and that's a very sad situation to be in. Statement 17: I am a 1st-year PhD student at the University of Reading. I've been at Reading for a long time, having studied an undergraduate Master's degree in Chemistry here before embarking on a PhD. In my first year, I stayed in the superb Wessex hall. At that time, Wessex wasn't even the cheapest 20

accommodation going. Open corridors, spacious rooms, and plenty of solid wood storage space made Wessex a fantastic hall, and I'm very glad it has so far escaped major re-working. It has not escaped my notice, as I have progressed through my years at Reading that more and more swanky high-end halls are crowding onto campus. The old Childs and Bridges (down with Bridges) halls are gone and replaced with pastel-coloured blocks of ÂŁ140/week en-suite splendour, and Stenton Hall, Stenton Town Houses, Mackinder, and Dunsden Crescent add to the bountiful new development. The cheaper Bulmershe and Sibley halls are long-gone (Wells had closed before I arrived), whereas Creighton Court, Benyon, and Sherfield, all pricey, remain in use. Such palatial accommodation is all well and good for those who can afford it, but with student living costs skyrocketing (and, remember, Reading students do not benefit from the extra few grand per year you get if you study in London, despite suffering from living costs that are nearly as high), students are overwhelmingly opting, or rather attempting to opt, for the few remaining cheap halls. But with the limited number of places available at Wessex and Windsor, many students are staying in accommodation they can ill-afford. Many of my friends are struggling to make ends meet in Stenton Town Houses and the new Childs, having failed to secure a place in the coveted older halls. Wantage, St. Patrick's, and St. George's halls, in my day a solidly upper-end installation in the halls landscape, are now considered amongst the more affordable of the available options! The essential crux of the matter is this: Had I failed to secure a place in Wessex hall upon my arrival to Reading Uni in 2010, I could have happily lived in one of a handful of other similarly cheap or even cheaper halls. If I attempted to attend Reading as a fresher this year, and failed to get into Wessex (it's only a small hall, and competition is tougher than ever), then I really don't know where I could afford to live. If I found myself, as so many do, unwilling residents of the opulent glory of the Stenton Townhouses, and then I simply cannot fathom how I would budget for the situation. So simplify even further: Things are a lot tougher than they were in my day, and Reading urgently needs thousands of new halls places priced in the Wessex region.

8.2 Appendix B: Tables of Student costs in Reading (Minimum loan table: ÂŁ3731) Red is debt, Blue is surplus Hall En-suite Park group Townhouses Bridges (Shared bathroom) Benyon Dunsden Cresent Greenow McCombie Sherfield St Georges St Patricks Wantage Wessex Windsor

Hall cost before catering (2016/17) 40 weeks Student personal Income 6456.8 5927.6 5283.6 5625.2 5177.2 5625.2 5625.2 5625.2 5625.2 3822 3984.4 4466 3626

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Loans Parental contribution 3731 3731 3731 3731 3731 3731 3731 3731 3731 3731 3731 3731 3731

Hall En-suite Park group Townhouses Bridges (Shared bathroom) Benyon Dunsden Cresent Greenow McCombie Sherfield St Georges St Patricks Wantage Wessex Windsor

Hall cost before catering (2016/17) 40 weeks Student personal Income 6456.8 5927.6 5283.6 5625.2 5177.2 5625.2 5625.2 5625.2 5625.2 3822 3984.4 4466 3626

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Loans Parental contribution Deficit Deficit after catering costs Deficit after other Reading costs 3731 2009 716.8 2628.57 5628.57 3731 2009 187.6 2099.37 5099.37 3731 2009 456.4 1455.37 4455.37 3731 2009 114.8 1796.97 4796.97 3731 2009 562.8 1348.97 4348.97 3731 2009 114.8 1796.97 4796.97 3731 2009 114.8 1796.97 4796.97 3731 2009 114.8 1796.97 4796.97 3731 2009 114.8 1796.97 4796.97 3731 2009 1918 6.23 2993.77 3731 2009 1755.6 156.17 2843.83 3731 2009 1274 637.77 3637.77 3731 2009 2114 202.23 2797.77

Hall En-suite Park group Townhouses Bridges (Shared bathroom) Benyon Dunsden Cresent Greenow McCombie Sherfield St Georges St Patricks Wantage Wessex Windsor

Hall cost before catering (2016/17) 40 weeks Student personal Income Loans Parental contribution 6456.8 3392 3731 5927.6 3392 3731 5283.6 3392 3731 5625.2 3392 3731 5177.2 3392 3731 5625.2 3392 3731 5625.2 3392 3731 5625.2 3392 3731 5625.2 3392 3731 3822 3392 3731 3984.4 3392 3731 4466 3392 3731 3626 3392 3731

Hall En-suite Park group Townhouses Bridges (Shared bathroom) Benyon Dunsden Cresent Greenow McCombie Sherfield St Georges St Patricks Wantage Wessex Windsor

Hall cost before catering (2016/17) 40 weeks Student personal Income Loans Parental contribution Deficit Deficit after catering costs Deficit after other Reading costs 6456.8 3392 3731 2009 2675.2 763.43 2236.57 5927.6 3392 3731 2009 3204.4 1292.63 1707.37 5283.6 3392 3731 2009 3848.4 1936.63 1063.37 5625.2 3392 3731 2009 3506.8 1595.03 1404.97 5177.2 3392 3731 2009 3960.8 2049.03 950.97 5625.2 3392 3731 2009 3506.8 1595.03 1404.97 5625.2 3392 3731 2009 3506.8 1595.03 1404.97 5625.2 3392 3731 2009 3506.8 1595.03 1404.97 5625.2 3392 3731 2009 3506.8 1595.03 1404.97 3822 3392 3731 2009 5,310 3398.23 396.23 3984.4 3392 3731 2009 5147.6 3235.83 235.83 4466 3392 3731 2009 4666 2754.23 245.77 3626 3392 3731 2009 5506 3594.23 594.23

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deficit Deficit after catering costs Deficit after other Reading costs 2725.8 4637.57 7,637.57 2196.6 4108.37 7108.37 1552.6 3464.37 6464.37 1894.2 3805.97 6805.97 1446.2 3357.97 6357.97 1894.2 3805.97 6805.97 1894.2 3805.97 6805.97 1894.2 3805.97 6805.97 1894.2 3805.97 6805.97 91 2002.77 5002.77 253.4 2165.17 5165.17 735 2646.77 5646.77 105 1806.77 4806.77

Deficit Deficit after catering costs Deficit after other Reading costs 666.2 1245.57 4245.57 1195.4 716.37 3716.37 1839.4 72.37 3072.37 1497.8 413.97 3413.97 1945.8 34.03 3034.03 1497.8 413.97 3413.97 1497.8 413.97 3413.97 1497.8 413.97 3413.97 1497.8 413.97 3413.97 3301 1389.23 1610.77 3138.6 1226.83 1773.17 2657 745.23 2254.77 3497 1585.23 1414.77

Hall Hall cost before catering (2016/17) 40 weeks En-suite Park group Townhouses Bridges (Shared bathroom) Benyon Dunsden Cresent Greenow McCombie Sherfield St Georges St Patricks Wantage Wessex Windsor

Student personal Income 6456.8 5927.6 5283.6 5625.2 5177.2 5625.2 5625.2 5625.2 5625.2 3822 3984.4 4466 3626

Loans Parental contribution 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269 0 5269

6456.8 5927.6 5283.6 5625.2 5177.2 5625.2 5625.2 5625.2 5625.2 3822 3984.4 4466 3626

Student personal Income Loans Parental contribution 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269 3392 5269

Deficit Deficit after catering costs (31 weeks) Deficit after other Reading costs 0 1187.8 3099.57 6099.57 0 658.6 2570.37 5570.37 0 14.6 1926.37 4926.37 0 356.2 2267.97 5267.97 0 91.8 1819.97 4819.97 0 356.2 2267.97 5267.97 0 356.2 2267.97 5267.97 0 356.2 2267.97 5267.97 0 356.2 2267.97 5267.97 0 1447 464.77 3464.77 0 1284.6 627.17 3627.17 0 803 1108.77 4108.77 0 1634 268.77 3268.77

Deficit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deficit after catering costs 2204.2 2733.4 3377.4 3035.4 3483.8 3035.4 3035.4 3035.4 3035.4 4839 4676.6 4195 5035

292.43 821.63 1465.63 1123.63 1572.03 1123.63 1123.63 1123.63 1123.63 2927.23 2764.83 2283.23 3123.23

Deficit after other Reading costs 3292.43 2178.37 1534.37 1876.37 1427.97 1876.37 1876.37 1876.37 1876.37 72.77 235.17 716.77 123.23

(Average loan table: ÂŁ5269) Red is debt, blue is surplus 23

(Maximum loan table: ÂŁ7434) Red is debt, Blue is surplus Hall En-suite Park group Townhouses Bridges (Shared bathroom) Benyon Dunsden Cresent Greenow McCombie Sherfield St Georges St Patricks Wantage Wessex Windsor

Hall cost before catering (2016/17) 40 weeks Student personal Income 6456.8 5927.6 5283.6 5625.2 5177.2 5625.2 5625.2 5625.2 5625.2 3822 3984.4 4466 3626

Loans and grants Parental contribution 0 7434 0 7434 0 7434 0 7434 0 7434 0 7434 0 7434 0 7434 0 7434 0 7435 0 7434 0 7434 0 7434

Hall En-suite Park group Townhouses Bridges (Shared bathroom) Benyon Dunsden Cresent Greenow McCombie Sherfield St Georges St Patricks Wantage Wessex Windsor

Hall cost before catering (2016/17) 40 weeks Student personal Income Loans and grants Parental contribution 6456.8 3392 7434 5927.6 3392 7434 5283.6 3392 7434 5625.2 3392 7434 5177.2 3392 7434 5625.2 3392 7434 5625.2 3392 7434 5625.2 3392 7434 5625.2 3392 7434 3822 3392 7434 3984.4 3392 7434 4466 3392 7434 3626 3392 7434

Deficit Deficit after catering costs Deficit after other Reading costs 0 977.2 934.57 3934.57 0 1506.4 405.37 3405.37 0 2150.4 238.63 2761.37 0 2047.43 135.66 2864.34 0 2256.8 345.03 2654.97 0 2047.43 135.66 2864.34 0 2047.43 135.66 2864.34 0 2047.43 135.66 2864.34 0 2047.43 135.66 2864.34 0 3613 1701.23 1298.77 0 3449.6 1537.83 1462.17 0 2968 1056.23 1943.77 0 3808 1896.23 1896.23

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deficit Deficit after catering costs Deficit after other Reading costs 4369.2 2457.43 542.57 4898.4 2986.63 13.37 5542.4 3630.63 630.63 5200.8 3289.03 289.03 5648.8 3737.03 737.03 5200.8 3289.03 289.03 5200.8 3289.03 289.03 5200.8 3289.03 289.03 5200.8 3289.03 289.03 7004 5092.23 2092.23 6841.6 4929.83 1929.83 6360 4448.23 1448.23 7200 5288.23 2288.23

8.3 Results of student survey on halls costs A short survey has been conducted with 39 students who were on campus on Friday 29th January. The results of which show how students afford to live at university in a range of halls. This random survey has been done to gain insight into how Reading students pay for the costs incurred and what halls they would like to see more of. Part time Work:    

12 people work (31%) 5 in the holidays (13%) 17 total who work (44%) 5-20 variety of hours

Parents fill the gap:   

23 people’s parents fill the gap (59%) 6 people’s parents pay for all cost without loan (15%) 29 people have parental contribution (74%)

Personal saving/ work/ other:  

10 people are in this group (26%) 2 people’s loan and grant cover their accommodation but nothing else. (Both St Patricks residents) (Both work to pay for rest of living costs). (5%)

If you could go back, would you still choose this hall? (And why?)    

31 people said yes (79%) 12 people said yes because of cost (All St Patricks and Windsor students, no ensuite residents said this) (31%) 8 people said no (21%) 4 people said no because too expensive (10%)

What type of accommodation do you think Reading needs more of?  

33 people said more affordable, cheap, budget halls (84%) 5 people said explicitly self-catered (13%)

Overall conclusion:   

No one can afford halls and all other living costs without one or a combination of: Personal savings use, large parental contribution and part time work. The vast majority of students recognise the need for more affordable accommodation at Reading This survey provides more evidence of student opinion for more affordable halls and highlights the problem all face.

What hall do you live in? St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks St Patricks Childs Wantage Stenton Stenton Dunsden Crescent Dunsden Crescent Dunsden Crescent Dunsden Crescent Dunsden Crescent Dunsden Crescent Windsor Windsor Windsor Windsor Windsor Windsor Windsor Mackinder Mackinder Mackinder Mackinder Mackinder Mackinder Mackinder

How do you pay for the gap between your loan and accommodation/ living cost? Bursarie from charity at home My loan is my accomodation cost but does not cover everything else Manintance grant and job Savings Parents, Choose St pats because only one I could afford Don’t have aloan, parents pay for accomodation. This is maximum they can afford Financial support from grandparents Parents and overdraft Parents and work Grandparents Loan and grant covers accmodation No loan, parents pay My own money Parents Parents and job Parents Parents Parents: No loan Parents: No loan Parents pag the gap My savings Parents pay for all, no loan Own money to fill the gap Parents Parents Parents Parents Parents Parents Parents Parents Parents No loan, parents pay Savings Parents pay the rest Work during a gap year and job during term time Personal savings and help from my parents Parents and work Job and Parents

Do you have a part time job? No Yes Yes Yes in holidays No No No but I work in the holidays No Yes Yes No but I work in the holidays Holidays yes. No No Yes No No Yes No No No No Looking for one No Looking for one Yes No No No Yes At Home No No No, I want to get one Not currently Yes No Yes Yes

If yes, how many hours do you work a week on average?

If you could go back, would you still choose this hall? (And why?) Yes, cheap and has everything I need 9 Yes, could not afford anything else 10 Yes, good social atmosphere and affordable. No, not very up to date No, not very modern Yes. Affordable and the communal layout and atmosphere Yes, cheapest and social Yes, only halls I can afford 14 Yes, st pats fits my budget 7 Yes, cheap and has food. Community spirt is great yes. Social and cheap, people are great Good hall to live in Yes, social and friendly I didn’t choose to live here but now I would. No, overprices for what it is. Yes, like being catred and historic feel of hall 20 Yes, Ensuite Yes, descent size and double beds Yes, ensuite is what I look for Yes, It feels homely Self catered as food here isnt great and is expensive. No, Don’t like the catered food No, its old No, too expensive 10 Yes, socialble, good location Yes, social, friendly. Cheap, location. Yes, near park bar Yes, Cheaper hall 5 Yes, value for money 10 Yes, social Yes, convenient and catering Yes, its nice. Yes, good size Yes, its nice and good quality 15 Yes, because of quality but the price is too much for what you get Price is expensive but halls are good size and communal 8 Yes, comfortable 15 Yes, because the standard of rooms are fatr better compared to other halls.

What type of accommodation do you think Reading needs more of? Cheap self catered Cheap/ affordable Cost effective, self catered halls Affodable social accomodation Cheap and simple, nothing fancy Communal and affordable (in the student sense not the rich people sense) Cheap, non catered. Affordable accomodation More affordable accomodation. Reading prices not london. More affordable, not luxury. Cheap Affordable, places like park group unaffordasble as they don’t include food Cheap, communal stlye Cheap and communal Affodable ensuite accomodation Afforable and modern Cheap, self catered Budget Affordable and modern On campus accomodation, ensuite Ensuite but cheaper Some halls need upgrading Older buildings need refurbishment. Better catered Ensuite but cheaper Cheap and catered Cheap and catered Cheap and cheerful Modern, affordable, social. Affordable accomodation Cheaper options such as Windsor. On campus Ensuite but cheaper Not sure Non-ensuite, cheaper More shared bathroom and self catered. Self catered, non ensuite, shared bathrooms between two. Cheaper ensuites. Same or similar but more affordable.