|
Leeds HMO Lobby
Home
What is a HMO?
The Lobby
Origins
Aims
Constitution
Members
Reports
Publications
Local Action
Developments
Policy Papers
Studentification in Leeds
National Action
Developments
Representations
Use Classes Order
HMO Licensing
Students & Community
National HMO Lobby
Contact
Leeds HMO Lobby
Links
|
|
University of Leeds
Housing Strategy
The University of Leeds published a Draft Housing
Strategy for consultation on 14 March 2003. The response
by Leeds HMO Lobby is reproduced below. Subsequent to the consultation,
a revised draft was prepared, which was presented to the Student
Housing Project Group on 8 December 2003, and again, Leeds HMO Lobby
responded. The University's Housing
Strategy 2003/04-2007/08 was finally published on 23 March
2004: the Lobby's response is below. On 26 June
2007, the University published a Housing
Strategy Update Report May 2007, which addressed most of the
issues previously raised by the Lobby.
Leeds HMO Lobby
Response to Draft Housing Strategy 7 April 2003
1 Welcome Leeds HMO Lobby welcomes the University of Leeds'
Consultation Document Draft Housing Strategy.
1.1 Especially, of course, the Lobby welcomes the University's
new commitment to a policy for housing its students.
1.2 Also, the Lobby welcomes the commitment to consultation, and
looks forward to beginning a constructive dialogue with the University.
2 Strategy Though the Housing Strategy is very welcome,
the Lobby sees the Draft as limited. A strategy is usually understood
as 'a set of plans to resolve a problem or achieve an objective.'
2.1 Problem: It is surprising that little reference is made to the
report on the student housing
market in Leeds, commissioned from Dr Darren Smith by the University.
In particular, in Processes of Studentification in Leeds,
Dr Smith coins the concept of 'studentification' (by analogy with
gentrification) to characterise the impact on a community of intensive
development of student accommodation. The first paragraph of the
Draft in fact suggests a basic misunderstanding of the issue: the
problem is not how students are accommodated (university
or private provision0, but where they are accommodated. Demographics
is not mentioned: there is no account of the numbers of students
in Leeds, and where they are located. All other interested parties
recognise that 'studentification' is the imperative which lies behind
plans to manage the issue of student housing.
2.2 Objectives
2.2.1 The Consultation Document nowhere identifies the objective
of the Housing Strategy. To be sure, it is implied in paragraphs
which refer to 'dispersal'. But the Strategy would be more promising
if it began with an explicit statement of the outcomes it was intended
to achieve.
2.2.2 Furthermore, it would be useful to know what specific plans
were envisaged to achieve these, who exactly takes responsibility
for their implementation, and within what timeframes. [LMU's Transport
Strategy (May 2002) and LCC's Housing
Strategy (2002) make interesting comparisons.]
2.2.3 The aim of the Strategy might be: to develop the accommodation
of higher education students in Leeds to the best advantage both
of the students themselves and of theirhost communities. The
objectives might then be: (a) to reduce the pressure of demand for
accommodation by the University's students; (b) to establish minimum
accommodation standards in University and private provision; (c)
to resist concentrations of student accommodation in any one area
of the city; (d) to develop student accommodation throughout Leeds;
(e) to address problems arising from studentification; (f) to exploit
the regenerative potential of student housing developments; and
so on.
2.3 Evaluation: One advantage of clear objectives is that progress
towards their achievement can be evaluated. We welcome the intention
of an annual review. But this will require an evaluation plan to
identify what needs changing and why. And this in turn will require
quantification, targets and criteria. The Strategy needs measures
of all these.
2.4 Accommodation Plans
2.4.1 The University's accommodation sites do indeed 'stretch from
Clarence Dock ... to Bodington Hall and flats in LS16.' This in
fact is the root of the problem, according to the Smith Report.
University provision is not dispersed at all, it is concentrated
in the A660 corridor, which has the effect of focusing student attention
on Headingley in particular and Leeds 6 in general.
2.4.2 It would be interesting to know how the University's current
expansion of the James Baillie Flats contributes to the Strategy.
The plans were submitted for approval as late as 2001. Is this development
intended as part of the Strategy - or is it a profound error?
2.4.3 The Lobby is pleased that 'the University is keen that future
developments take place outside the LS6 area.' We hope that the
University will go further and repudiate any development of student
accommodation in this and adjacent areas.
2.4.4 Support for regeneration through student housing development
is very welcome. An indication of where and how this will take place
would be helpful.
2.5 Recruitment Plans: One consequence of the lack of clarity of
the Strategy is that it focuses primarily on housing. The root of
the problem that the Strategy needs to address is the sheer weight
of student numbers concentrated in one area of the city, consequent
on the expansion of higher education. One tactic of course is to
disperse these numbers elsewhere. Another is actually to reduce
the numbers. Higher education recruitment can expand without increasing
housing demand in Leeds, if this recruitment is localised. Leeds
is situated in one of the largest conurbations in Western Europe,
and so is well placed for a policy of local recruitment. (Such a
policy could also make a significant contribution to the government's
aim to widen participation in HE. Many other benefits also accrue
from local recruitment.)
2.6 Transport Plans: Wider distribution of student housing around
the city cannot be developed independently of transport provision.
Supertram will pass the University and therefore has implications
for housing development. Meanwhile, existing public transport must
be exploited and developed.
2.7 Other Plans: Another advantage of a clear objective is that
it enables plans to be prioritised. 'Involvement in the community'
is not at all the same as addressing housing issues. (Two of the
schools mentioned as beneficiaries are in fact under threat of closure
as a result of studentification.) The first half of the Consultation
Document is mainly concerned with tackling the symptoms of studentification.
Necessary though this is, the principle objective must be to address
its causes.
3 Consultation The Consultation Document's commitment to
just that is very welcome. It is indeed an assumption of Leeds City
Council's Shared Housing
Action Plan that addressing the issue of student housing
must necessarily be a multi-agency initiative. It would be encouraging
to see the University's commitment informing the Draft Strategy.
3.1 Commitment: One measure of an institution's commitment to a
policy is the level of managerial participation. The Lobby hopes
that the University's Strategy will be pursued with the same seriousness
as is accorded its involvement with Unipol. Hitherto, this has not
been the case.
3.2 Past Consultation: The Lobby hopes that the University's history
of consultation is not a guide to its future. For instance, problems
arising from the intake in 2002 were not shared with other stakeholders,
to the detriment of the Shared Housing Action Plan. The only
positive contribution made by the University's representative to
the Student Housing Project Group was the unilateral announcement
of the expansion of the James Baillie Flats.
3.3 Current Consultation: It is not encouraging that the Student
Housing Project Group is mentioned only in a footnote. The Consultation
Document reiterates a few of the action points of the Shared Housing
Action Plan, managed by this Group. But it gives no indication of
the University's response to current policies emerging from that
Plan. What is the University's position on the following proposals?
3.3.1 Government Policies: The draft Housing Bill, for which
both Council and community have lobbied, proposes definition of
HMO and mandatory licensing.
3.3.2 Council Policies (a) The UDP
Review proposes an Action Area in Headingley on student
(HMO) housing. (b) Leeds' Landlord Accreditation Scheme is also
introducing a Tenant Accreditation Scheme.
3.3.3 Community Policies: On behalf of its constituent members,
Leeds HMO Lobby has put a number of policy proposals to the Student
Housing Project Group (a) A Grand
Strategy proposes a threefold multi-agency approach to concentrations
of shared housing. (b) SHAPE (Shared
Housing Action Plan Enterprise) proposes a joint planning-housing
initiative to control shared housing in and around Headingley. (c)
Student Settlements
proposes a multi-agency approach to the development of student housing
in other areas of the city. (d) Campus
by Bus proposes a multi-agency approach to public transport
in Leeds, to facilitate city-wide access to the universities.
3.4 Future Consultation: Would it not be useful to liaise with LMU?
As by far the largest HEI in Leeds, it would be encouraging to see
the University taking the initiative in co-ordinating the action
of the HEIs, who ultimately bear responsibility for the rise of
the problems associated with studentification.
4 In conclusion, the University's commitment to consultation over
a strategy for the housing of its students is encouraging. Leeds
HMO Lobby looks forward to the development by the University, in
association with the Shared Housing Action Plan and Leeds Housing
Strategy, of a comprehensive Student Housing Strategy for the city.
Leeds HMO Lobby, 7 April 2003
^Top
9 December 2003
From: Leeds HMO Lobby
To: Dennis Hopper, University of Leeds
Dear Dennis
Thank you for providing the presentation yesterday,
to update us on the University's Housing Strategy. We were pleased
to be informed, and your outline of the intent of the Strategy indicates
that it is moving on productive lines. As always, as Martin would
say, the devil is in the detail. We will be pleased to see the text
of the Strategy in due course. In the mean time, I have a few observations
and questions on behalf of Leeds HMO Lobby (these follow the sequence
of your presentation slides).
Feedback from the initial consultation
The first feedback point is that this should be a strategy. It would
be interesting to know what the objectives are. It was clear from
what you said that you are of course addressing the concerns of
a number of parties, the University itself, your students, and also
externally, the community and the Council. The external concerns
are to do with the impact of concentrations of student housing in
'ASHORE' [the inverted commas indicate the reservations we discussed
over its boundaries]. (These concerns were well summarised in an
article in Leeds Student on 21 November.)
Will the Strategy call a spade a spade, and adopt as one of its
aspirations a redress of the housing imbalance which has developed
in 'ASHORE'?
Student numbers
Here you indicated a growth of 3000 additional FTEs, mainly overseas
and returning students. You also indicated the sale of some properties.
As you know, the Lobby has advocated the use of restrictive covenants
in pursuit of the aim noted above. We understand that you have to
follow a Best Value policy. But commercial housing developments
in Headingley show that there is no shortage of non-student demand
for housing; and LCC has adopted covenants (for instance, in the
case of Buckingham House).
Will the Strategy consider the adoption of restrictive covenants
in pursuit of its aims?
Students in accommodation
Your figures indicate that the University will require c1300 additional
beds by 2007/8. The implication is getting on for 2000 beds in the
PRS. My concern is with the demand for private accommodation; and
Neil's was with the impact on 'ASHORE'. Both of us would like to
know whether we can anticipate more? the same? or less?
Will the Strategy estimate the potential on-going demand for
non-University accommodation in 'ASHORE' and/or elsewhere?
New developments
Your slide indicates there will be redevelopment, partnerships,
and new developments.
Will the Strategy give details of where, when and what will be
developed?
Working with Leeds Met
It was unfortunate that there was no-one at your presentation representing
Leeds Met. (TASC also has a part to play here.)
Will the Strategy indicate what frameworks for HEI liaison are
proposed?
The University in the community
This is where the aims/objectives of the Strategy again become relevant.
The University's contribution to the community at large is valued,
of course. But much of its involvement in the community is not to
do with the area with which we are concerned. Where it is, it is
mostly concerned with the effects of the concentrations of accommodation
(a 'sidetrack', in HEAL's terms). Very little is directed towards
the problem itself.
Will the Strategy show how the University will engage with the
local community's concerns?
Timetable for publication
You mentioned that a process of review and evaluation is intended.
Will the Strategy include a timetable for on-going review?
Your presentation showed that the Strategy has moved
forward considerably from the first draft. We look forward to the
detail in the final publication early next year. Thanks again for
the discussion.
Best wishes, Richard (for Leeds HMO Lobby)
^Top
Response to
University of Leeds
HOUSING STRATEGY
2003/04 - 2007/08
1 Welcome The community has long anticipated a response
by the University of Leeds to concerns about the impact of its students'
accommodation on the sustainability of the community. This impact
increased steadily throughout the 1990s (about 20% of Headingley
Ward's population was students in 1991; by 2001, this had increased
to 61%). The local community called for action (for instance, with
the founding of HEAL in 1998, and at SHCA's meeting Headingley:
heading where? 1999). Leeds HMO Lobby was founded in 2000, and
proposed a Student Accommodation Strategy.
The following year, Leeds City Council began preparing a Shared
Housing Action Plan, adopted in 2002. Meanwhile, even in 2003-04,
the University was still expanding in Headingley, and re-opened
James Baillie Park with a major increase in bedspaces, adding to
the local imbalance. Leeds HMO Lobby therefore welcomes the University's
Housing Strategy as finally responding to local concerns
about the impact of student housing.
2 Significance In correspondence with the Lobby, both the
DfES and HEFCE have made it clear that student accommodation is
not their problem, let alone its impact on communities. "Higher
Education Institutions are independent, autonomous bodies and as
such there is no obligation on universities to provide student accommodation"
(Elaine Underwood, DfES, 11 March 2004). "Student accommodation
is not something with which the HEFCE can become involved, as it
is not an item covered under the terms of our agreement with institutions"
(Sir Howard Newby, HEFCE, 24 September 2002). Correspondence with
communities in other university towns makes it clear that many HEIs
are only too ready to take DfES and HEFCE at their word. It is very
encouraging to us therefore that the University repudiates this
attitude, and embraces openly its responsibilities, not only to
its students, but also to its local community. The Vice-Chancellor
says "our housing stock has an impact on the social and economic
life of the city" (p02), and the Executive Summary "recognises the
impact which its students have on local communities" (p03); both
universities in Leeds "recognise their responsibilities to the communities
of which their students form a substantial part" (p25). In many
respects, this is the real significance of the Housing Strategy.
We hope that the VC is right that "it will be seen as a landmark
in the development of the University's ... relationship with the
wider community" (p02).
3 Strengths The University's Housing Strategy makes
available some very valuable information. The Community Maps in
Appendix 1 show graphically the present imbalance in the distribution
of student housing across the city. And Table Four (p08) generally
shows a levelling-off in the numbers of University students over
the coming five years. This data sets the parameters in space and
time, as it were, within which the Strategy will operate. In this
context, the aims and objectives of the Housing Strategy
are commendable. They are stated in slightly different forms in
the different sections, 2 Summary, 3 Need, 4 Objectives, 13 Action
Plan and 15 Working with Leeds Met - the last perhaps states them
most systematically. Two aims in particular are welcomed by the
Lobby.
3.1 "To restrict the growth of student housing in
residential areas of Leeds where imbalance has occurred, particularly
in the Headingley and Hyde Park communities" (p25). This is also
noted in section 3, Need: "one of the main aims of the Housing Strategy
is to reduce or slow down the growth of students seeking private
rented accommodation in the particularly affected communities of
Headingley and surrounding areas" (p04). The Lobby is pleased to
see that one of the grounds for rejecting nomination agreements
with private developers is that "they are located within or near
to the communities in Headingley and surrounding areas already affected
by housing imbalance" (p14). It is also reassuring that the proposals
for redeveloping residences in order to provide higher density are
focused on accommodation outside the affected areas (p13). The Executive
Summary states that "the Housing Strategy is aimed at easing symptoms
of demographic imbalance" (p03) - this imbalance can be rectified
only if student housing in and around Headingley is reduced.
3.2 "Promoting student housing developments in new areas
of the city" (p25). This is pointed out in the Summary: "target
new developments in communities away from currently highly-populated
areas" (p03). It is taken up in sections 3, Need (pp04, 05) and
4, Objectives (p06), and in particular, in section 7, Development,
where the proposed new student village at Holbeck Moor in South
Leeds is outlined (pp13-14). The other side of the coin to reducing
student housing in and around Headingley is increasing it elsewhere.
The Holbeck proposal represents a major initiative in this direction.
Hopefully, over time, the Community Maps will demonstrate the success
of this objective (as noted in 6.3, p10).
3.3 These two are the main immediate actions which are
necessary to address the problems which prompted the establishment
of Leeds HMO Lobby in the first place. Other objectives are also
welcome as contributions to alleviating the problems.
3.31 "Develop new accommodation so that we can house
a greater proportion of our students" (p03), and more specifically,
"increasing the proportion of University owned or managed accommodation
available for returning students from c5% to c12.5%" (p06). Measures
to achieve this aim are Priority 1 in section 7, Development (pp13-14).
The higher the proportion of University provision, the lower the
demand for private provision, and hence the less the pressure on
family houses in Headingley. Relatively stable recruitment will
make this feasible.
3.32 "It is expected that a greater proportion of Leeds'
students will, in future, come from local areas (particularly
in light of changing student financial arrangements), which would
reduce the demand for student housing" (p04). An increase in local
study by the University's students will mean a decrease in demand
for accommodation, in the context of relatively stable recruitment.
(Local study also has a number of other benefits.)
3.33 "The Housing Strategy is aimed at easing the symptoms
of demographic imbalance" (p03). The point is reiterated in section
4, Objectives, "addressing problems arising from the housing imbalance
which has developed in Headingley and certain surrounding areas"
(p06). Approaches to this end are outlined in section 8, The University
in the community.
3.34 "Ensuring that liaison between the University
and key partners ... is maintained and focuses on student housing
issues" (p06). It was the lack of liaison which delayed the University's
Housing Strategy. The difference between the first and final drafts
shows how well the University has benefited from liaison. The issue
of student housing in Leeds can only be managed through on-going
liaison between all parties concerned - communities and Council,
HEIs and PRS.
4 Weaknesses From the community's perspective therefore
there are many positive aspects to the University's Housing Strategy.
At the same time, there are a number of elements which could be
developed. The Vice-Chancellor holds that "the Housing Strategy
looks outwards as well as inwards" (p02) - but the weaknesses arise
from the University's difficulty in stepping down from the ivory
tower.
4.1 The Strategy remains a hermetic document. Despite
its commitment to liaison, there is hardly any evidence of this.
The University attends the Private Rented Sector Strategic Working
Group and the Student Housing Project Group (established by the
Council) and the Community & HE Forum (initiated by the community).
All of these are working to the agenda of the Shared Housing Action
Plan. This is noted by the Strategy (p17), but little reference
is made to the action-points in SHAP, nor to how the Strategy helps
achieve these. Also, out of these Groups, a number of initiatives
have emerged (after all, the Holbeck proposal is just what was intended
by the Lobby's paper on Student
Settlements of 2002) - these might be acknowledged. What
is most surprising however is the complete absence of any reference
to the major policy initiative emerging from the SHPG and from SHAP,
namely, the Council's policy on Student Housing, specifically Policies
H15 and H15A and the Area of Housing Restraint (ASHORE), in the
Review of the Leeds Unitary Development
Plan.
4.2 The Strategy is not consistent as a document.
It's clear that the basic aim of any housing strategy is to manage
student accommodation in Leeds to the benefit of the HEIs, the students
and the host community. This emerges perhaps most clearly right
at the end of the document, in the 'Overarching aims' of section
15, Working with Leeds Met. But the aims stated here do not always
follow through other sections. In particular, for instance, the
aim "to restrict the growth of student housing in residential areas
of Leeds where imbalance has occurred" emerges elsewhere (see 3.1
above). But it is not mentioned in the Executive Summary nor the
Objectives, nor does it feature at all in the Action Plan. In general,
the connections are not clear between the overarching Aims, the
Objectives, the Action Plan and (crucially) the Community Maps.
(These are alluded to, but not explicitly, in the Action Plan -
though they are in fact the principal measure of the Strategy's
success as far as community and Council are concerned.) Monitoring
and Review will be difficult without these connections - which actions
will achieve which objectives? More fundamentally, none of the Priorities
in the Action Plan (p22) are concerned with the key issues of concern
to the community, that it, reducing the imbalance towards student
housing in and around Headingley, and reducing the imbalance of
student housing across Leeds.
4.3 Though one of its main aims is "to reduce or slow down
the growth of students seeking private rented accommodation"
(Summary, p03), the Strategy says little about the private rented
sector (PRS). It is primarily concerned with the University's
own provision. Section 3 notes that "such housing [PRS] can positively
influence other sectors of the rental market and benefit the wider
community" (p04; it's not at all clear how). However, Table One
(p05) shows clearly that throughout the period of the Strategy,
the University will rely on the PRS to accommodate two-thirds of
its students. Quantitatively then the PRS dominates student housing
in Leeds. Qualitatively too it dominates the problems generated
by student housing. The fundamental problem in & around Headingley
(as the Strategy recognises) is demographic imbalance. But
the symptoms of this imbalance are aggravated when students are
housed, not in managed, purpose-built accommodation, but in former
family houses amongst the resident community. It is of course much
easier to devise a strategy for the accommodation which the University
owns itself. Nevertheless, any adequate strategy needs also to address
the much less tractable (and larger) problem of the PRS. This is
where the absence of any reference to LCC Planning Policy is remarkable.
4.31 On the one hand, the UDP has always resisted concentrations
of student housing. The current Review proposes ASHORE, and Policy
H15 which resists various forms of new student housing in this Area.
We know that the University supports this policy: "The University
supports in general terms Policy H15 (§1.4) ... There is no problem
in principle with defining an ASHORE (§3.7)" (UoL, Representations
on Leeds UDP Review, 2003). A clear statement of support-in-principle
for the UDP would at least send appropriate messages to the community,
to the Council and to the PRS. With regard to disposing of unsuitable
property (to the PRS), the Lobby appreciates the University's consideration
of restrictive covenants, and understands the difficulties involved
(p15). We hope the University might consider alternatives, such
as long leases with conditions (like the Council), to support the
Council's and the university's policies to restrain student housing
within ASHORE. (Passing reference is made to HMO
legislation [p06] - the implications might be elaborated, given
the significance of HMO licensing for PRS accommodation.)
4.32 On the other hand, the UDP has also always supported
wider dispersal of student housing, and the current Review
reinforces this policy. Again, the University is supportive: "Policy
H15A is also supported in principle (§1.4)" (UoL, Representations
on Leeds UDP Review, 2003). This is not easy to effect. But a lot
more could be done to inform students (and the PRS), and thereby
to widen the choice of PRS accommodation (not all students want
to live in a student ghetto). Section 9 describes Unipol. Its Accommodation
Bureau for instance could be far more proactive in promoting Leeds
as a whole for accommodation (currently, maps in the Bureau and
in published information show only 'The Main Student Areas'). Likewise,
Leeds University Union claims to "encourage students to live outside
LS6" (p21). But in fact, this year's literature (for the first time)
tables pros and cons of living within and without the main student
areas, with no indication of where the latter might be (and LUU
resists promoting any particular location).
4.4 The Strategy seems based on a misunderstanding of the
significance of the University to the community. The community
of course appreciates the University's "aim of 'putting something
back' into the community" (p05). But none of the measures described,
especially in section 8, The University in the community, actually
put back what the University has taken out. The Summary rightly
identifies the key problem as 'demographic imbalance' (p03). Two
consequences follow from this - first, the diversity which enriches
a community is lost (more fundamentally, the children who might
sustain the community are lost); and secondly, when this imbalance
is towards a constantly changing population, the networks which
actually constitute a community are lost. This is apparent first
of all in the operation of the University in the community. On the
whole, there are effectively two parallel operations under way -
students are engaged in one, local residents in the other, with
very little interaction (the employees of local agencies tend to
provide what connection there is). This is not surprising - it reflects
the different orientation of the different populations. And then
again, the operations are not necessarily relevant. Section 8 notes
that 1500 students took part in voluntary projects last session.
These of course are very welcome, especially to the beneficiaries.
But a great many are not relevant at all to the key problem in and
around Headingley. Many do address symptoms of this key problem.
Up Your Street (Case Study 1) is an example - it is concerned
primarily with the effects which follow from the key problem (issues
which wouldn't be there otherwise). But few if any address the
key problem itself. A case in point is Royal Park Primary School,
mentioned on page 17: this school certainly benefited from mentoring
and tutoring; but it is closing down - precisely because of the
local demographic imbalance, the absence of schoolchildren. Ironically,
the volunteers there were themselves the cause of the problem. Another
case in point is crime: it is the very concentration of student
housing which attracts a phenomenally high rate of burglary. Efforts
towards good community relations (the Community Liaison Officer,
the Community Week), efforts to address the effects of imbalance
(the Neighbourhood Helpline, Up Your Street) - these are
certainly appreciated. But to the local community, they remain marginal,
when the community itself is made unsustainable by the impact
of student housing.
5 Prospects Leeds HMO Lobby therefore welcomes the Housing
Strategy. We look forward to development of its weaker elements.
As this happens, its real strengths will clearly make a difference
to "the impact which students have on local communities." We share
the VC's view of the Strategy's potential significance. This significance
will be assessed by what follows. It's clear that housing cannot
be isolated from other aspects of the University's presence in Leeds,
and it is clear therefore that the University's commitment to liaison
is crucial. In this spirit, the Lobby looks forward to further debate
with the University, in the appropriate fora, on other routes to
addressing adverse impacts.
5.1 Recruitment The Lobby supports the University's commitment
to wider participation. We are convinced that local study can make
a significant contribution to achieving this (as well as having
a wide range of other benefits). We hope our forthcoming Discussion
Document Local Study will be helpful.
5.2 Accommodation The biggest problem facing the Housing
Strategy is accommodation in the PRS. We hope that the Lobby's Campus
by Bus proposal and our new proposal Students
in the City can make a contribution to its resolution.
5.3 Discipline The Lobby welcomes the University's commitment
to good community relations. Such relations are especially undermined
by poor behaviour, usually thoughtless (sometimes not). As a positive
contribution towards our mutual objectives, the Lobby has proposed
a simple Community Code.
To complement this, we hope the University can make its disciplinary
processes more transparent.
Leeds HMO Lobby
March 2004
^Top
Leeds HMO Lobby
email: hmolobby@hotmail.com
website: www.hmolobby.org.uk/leeds
|