It gives me great pleasure to introduce this debate today. It will not only draw attention to the important issue of maintaining balanced communities in our university cities, but it will recognise the fact that we now have a new all-party group that lobbies for small but important changes in legislation on housing and neighbourhood management to bring balanced communities into being. The debate will include consideration of what has come to be termed “studentification” and issues arising from a high concentration of students living in a particular area.

I wish to stress at the outset that the debate goes wider than that to encompass private renting more generally and the need to have balanced communities where there are households of different types. The desirability of that is reflected in the Government’s revised planning policy statement 3, which states that one of

“the specific outcomes that the planning system should deliver”

is:

“A mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price, to support a wide variety of households in all areas, both urban and rural.”

That sets a framework that we wish to see applied locally.

I hope that my hon. Friends and other members of the all-party group will agree that we do not wish to demonstrate or to whip up anti-student sentiment. Our aim is quite the reverse. We value the life, vitality and talent that students and universities bring to our areas. Indeed, it is because we want a strong town-gown relationship to flourish that we think that the Government need to look again at the housing and planning legislative framework on the matter.

To that end, I am pleased to welcome a recent report from the National Union of Students, which is titled “Students in the Community Working Together to Achieve Harmony”. The report is helpful in a number of ways. It highlights the positive impacts that students can have in their communities through participation in community activities and voluntary action, although it recognises that a small minority of students cause problems, particularly those of noise nuisance, disrespect for local residents and, on the odd occasion, antisocial behaviour. The overall flavour of the report rightly emphasises the positive contribution that students can make in an area, and it is right to assert that many of the issues thrown up by studentification emerge because of the poor behaviour of landlords, poor communication and poor management, rather than because of student behaviour per se.

I might like to have a debate with the NUS on limiting the number of houses in multiple occupation in a particular area, which it argues is not a way forward. It argues that we should concentrate on accreditation to regulate landlords and make use of existing legislation on HMO licensing, the housing health and safety rating system, environmental protection, pub licensing and so on. I agree with that and I have some sympathy with the view that applying limits on HMOs in a defined area might be difficult. Indeed, it might not tackle the problems at all because many student houses are private rented dwellings and, for licensing purposes, fall outside the definition of an HMO both in planning law and in the Housing Act 2004. If we are to support more harmonious and balanced communities, we will need to change the legislation. It might be that only a small change is needed, but it is important to do so to address some of the issues that we face.

At present, the planning law definition of an HMO requires a change of use class when a property houses more than six people not in a single household. That is not the same definition as that used in the 2004 Act, under which HMOs are subject to mandatory licensing. An HMO that is subject to mandatory licensing is defined by the Act as a house of which any part comprises three storeys or more and is occupied by five persons or more forming two or more households. Mandatory licensing means that a house would have to meet minimum standards on the number of bathrooms, provision of cookery and laundry facilities, and so on. Crucially, the local authority would need to be satisfied that the dwelling is managed by a person who is fit and competent to do so. Indeed, the local authority is required to give support to that end.

An already complicated situation is complicated further because local authorities have other types of licensing available. The Act allows additional licensing, so authorities can choose to introduce licensing of other types of HMOs that are not subject to mandatory licensing, but they must consult local landlords before so doing. They may also introduce another type, known as selective licensing, in areas where there is low demand or significant antisocial behaviour. In such areas, the houses do not have to be HMOs. Already, we have quite a confused situation.

I wrote to the Minister last May and asked whether the Department for Communities and Local Government had any plans to bring in a uniform definition in housing and planning law. My letter acknowledged that planning law only applied to HMOs in use classes, so it was disappointing to get a lengthy reply that pointed that out to me, but which did not actually deal with the issue that I raised, which was the need to align housing and planning law on such matters in order to simplify it. I am having another go and today I ask the Minister to look at the issue again.

I have received no sensible explanation as to why anyone planning to shift a house from the category of single-family dwelling to that of multi-household dwelling should have to get planning permission only if there are more than six people living in house and not as a single household. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) outlined the matter in the excellent ten-minute Bill he introduced to the House on 22 May which, I hope, he will have the opportunity to talk about later. The Bill deals with the point that the current definition simply excludes most households in multiple occupation in our communities. He suggests that the threshold for change of use should be triggered by more than four people living in a house not as a single household, rather than the current six people. That would have the advantage of being roughly but not exactly the same as the mandatory licensing category in housing law, and it would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction. Indeed, there might be an argument for lowering the threshold further by employing a definition for HMOs to be applied to houses of three or more people, but that is an matter for discussion.

A better or additional way forward might be for all private rented dwellings of more than one household to be subject to mandatory licensing, especially because it appears that non-mandatory schemes are not being used as extensively as they could be by local authorities. That way, a change in planning regulations covering use classes may be useful as a limiting mechanism and may deal with land use issues, rather than being a proxy tracking system for HMO concentration—it is often relied upon for that at present, especially as regarding larger households.

It is necessary to ensure that licensing and planning deal with the ramifications for a community of having too many HMOs in one area. In such areas, there are a lot of to-let boards at certain times. There might be poor physical upkeep of properties, or unsightly extensions. The point is that that can apply to small houses in multiple occupation as well as to larger houses. All need to be subject to regulation, but regulation and proper management of individual properties will not necessarily tackle urban blight, which leaves many streets abandoned for parts of the year. I should emphasise that that is not good for students, because there is additional crime risk in those areas, especially if students have left their belongings in a house over a vacation. Also, it is often very unpleasant for the few residents who are left living in such areas.

We come back to the question of limits. If use class regulations were changed, it might be possible to exercise greater control over numbers in a given area. However, cities such as Glasgow have experimented with placing limits on the number of HMOs in an area. At the very least, the Government should seek an evaluation of such schemes, including a full evaluation of how the general issue of limiting the concentration of private renting is dealt with in Northern Ireland.

I am requesting a step up in mandatory licensing, so that all local authorities and other agencies can track changes in neighbourhoods before the adverse effects of an over-concentration of HMOs manifest themselves in problems with parking, noise and so on. Tracking changes in private renting, particularly multiple households, could also flag up emerging issues, such as the need for more affordable housing where exiting stock goes over to non-family rented housing.

The fact that such things creep up on local authorities is obvious in my constituency. Ten years ago, for example, we had two estates—Gilesgate and Whinney Hill—in the city centre, which offered good-quality, family, social rented housing. They were bought by tenants and then sold to landlords, who rented them to students and others. We now have not only a shortage of affordable housing, but changing neighbourhoods that no one has planned for, where no proper management exists and where change was not obvious until problems emerged.

The university, local residents and the students union are working hard to establish positive relationships, and the university has, to its credit, appointed a community liaison officer. Had the area been subject to mandatory licensing, however, good management arrangements could have been implemented many years ago, and the council could have delivered earlier on its affordable housing policy. As things stand, it has not done so for a number of years.

The Government have a golden opportunity to address such issues now through the local development frameworks that all local authorities are putting together to cover their local plans. Those frameworks should be made to include provisions on the concentration of HMOs and private renting in particular areas. Planning legislation is also in the pipeline, which could definitely deal with the change in use class.

Let me turn next to a recent report on this topic by Universities UK, which does two things. First, the fact that such a report was produced at all last year confirms the importance of this issue to the university sector, particularly as the sector responds positively to the Government’s widening participation agenda. Secondly, the report points to the need to support effective management and the integration of students into local communities. It outlines many examples of good practice, including the use of liaison officers, as I suggested, dedicated local authority support and sensible licensing. It also suggests encouraging students to participate in volunteering schemes and to attend residents meetings and encouraging universities to have an effective complaints system. Those are sensible measures, and the all-party group wants to share such good practice across all areas that have to deal with such problems. It is important to stress again that the focus should be on HMOs and private renting, not specifically on students. As we know, many students are not only hard-working, but good citizens and good neighbours.

Let me conclude by returning to the issue at the heart of this agenda: the need for balanced communities. That is what we are trying to achieve. Many city centres have lost too much family housing, and that has a negative impact on schools and shops, many of which are now under threat. That threat has arisen not only because of student housing, but because of the recent building of too many apartments, which are bought for investment and left empty or privately rented. Such properties are just as much of a problem as HMOs in terms of imbalance. I suspect that other areas also have a glut of them and I want the Government to give serious consideration to the incentives that can be put in place to encourage the market to return some of those houses and flats, which are currently let multiply, to single family accommodation.

Balanced communities help everyone, including students, particularly given that many stay on beyond their period of study and therefore form part of the community. All communities need good services, open green spaces, good public transport and good local amenities and facilities, and we need to be in a position to plan for such things, rather than simply responding when things go wrong.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) not only on obtaining the debate but on inaugurating the all-party group. For those of us with university campuses in our constituencies, the issue that she raises is a particular problem, and it has increased over the years.

The world-renowned Brunel university is situated in my constituency. Indeed, I remember the time before the university was there, because I live in the same street where I grew up, and I remember walking around the disused dahlia nursery. I have therefore seen the university grow up, and we have always been immensely proud of the fact that it is situated in Uxbridge. Personally, I think it is a shame that it was not called Uxbridge university, because we could not only have got Uxbridge on the map, but could have got money from American donors who did not get the vowels quite right and thought that they would be making a massive donation to Oxbridge. However, that is the commercial side of me coming up.

For many years, Brunel existed almost literally in my back garden, so I should declare an interest as a local resident, as well as the constituency Member of Parliament. For many years, it has also been regarded as an asset to the local area, although it has been somewhat isolated as a campus university. Its impact did not really filter through into the town of Uxbridge, and the students kept themselves to themselves.

Over the past few years, however, there has been a massive expansion, as the university has sold off some of its other campuses around London and moved on to the Uxbridge site. That is quite exiting, and there are some wonderful sports facilities there; indeed, there is an excellent sports hall, where I was declared the local Member of Parliament for the first time about 10 years ago, in 1997. Brunel is therefore also close to me politically.

However, the university has brought problems, as the hon. Lady said, and I am sure that other hon. Members will say the same. Those problems have come to a head lately and almost led to confrontation between residents and the university, which is of course regrettable, because confrontation is the last thing that we want.

The first and most obvious form of annoyance for many local residents is parking, although the Minister will be delighted to hear that that is well outside the Government’s remit. Uxbridge had pretty good public transport links, but changes have happened for a variety of reasons, and students will not necessarily live on campus, but in private rented accommodation or at home. When I was a student in London, there was no need for a car—I did not want one and I doubt whether any of my fellow students had one—but things seem to have changed, and there is now a huge parking problem. Of course, residential areas in suburbia have parking problems anyway. One morning, after Brunel decided that it would not let students park in the university grounds any more, we found roads blocked. Buses could not get down them. At that time the university said that it was the local authority’s problem, and the local authority said that Brunel was causing it, but it was the local residents and the poor old bus drivers who suffered. That did not do a great deal for good relations.

Over the years we have gone through periods in which the university has taken a more confrontational view of its relations with the local authority and residents. I am pleased to say that we are currently going through a good patch. That is indicated by the minutes of a meeting—I have the minutes, because I could not attend—held on 2 May. The pro-vice-chancellor of Brunel university, Professor Linda Thomas, is in charge of external relations, having taken over from Professor Steve Hodkinson, and a lot of effort is made to work with the local community and get everyone on side. The former vice-chancellor, Professor Steven Schwartz—who may be known to hon. Members, as I think he helped out the Government with some advice—was, I should say, an interesting character, who believed in getting things done in his own way. As we in this House are all consensual in our approach and never resort to anything but debate and good argument to get our ideas through, that came as a bit of a shock to those of us who were more used to a non-American or non-Australian—I do not know which Professor Schwartz claims to be—approach. He is a very interesting man with many good ideas, but I think that he saw people like the residents and me as standing in the way of progress. That era has gone, however, and I hope that we are now in a better period.

The parking problem is quite severe. As many hon. Members know, I was once described as a Dickensian mill owner, and at Christmas, I go to see retired members of staff, to give them Christmas cheer. I found one man, the widower of someone who used to work for us, who wanted to get his guttering fixed, but could not get anything done in his street because none of the local tradesmen could park there. Such problems happen regularly, if not daily, which causes great annoyance. Gradually some problems are being looked at. We now have a parking regime, which again causes a little annoyance, because there never used to be one, and we are all pretty dyed in the wool in Uxbridge—we do not like change. However, that has to be considered.

Another problem occurs when students park their cars all term. They do not make much use of them but park them so that they block streets. There has been some bad parking, too, so that people’s drives are blocked, and so on. However, the university has been helpful, and if incidents are reported, it takes action. I think that the key to handling many of the problems is ensuring that there are good communications between the residents, the local authority and the university.

Houses in multiple occupation are another major problem, which the hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned and which I am sure will be mentioned again—I notice, in fact, that there is a half-hour Westminster Hall debate on it this afternoon. There are a variety of effects, such as the pushing up of prices in the private rented sector. We do not have enough private rented accommodation for those who need it, because there is not enough social housing around. That is obviously good for landlords, but it is not particularly helpful. Communities with a sense of having been established in a place for a long time see it as a problem when quite a large number of transient people move in, with, probably, a slightly different view of the hours of operation of their social lives. I was of course a model student—or I think that that is what I was told. What worries me a great deal is that students are blamed for much more than they are really to blame for, because they are an easy target. There is antisocial behaviour, and students are often blamed for it, when, I am pretty certain, it is not students who are responsible. They may be sitting at home making a bit of noise, but they are certainly not out on the streets causing some of the problems that we have.

The things that I have described are causing people concern. Things have now got to the stage of confrontation. I said that the local authority had organised a positive meeting. Today I received an e-mail from the local residents group, complaining about the university. I shall not go through it, but it involves a planning issue that will have to be dealt with. Much of what the group says is true: the university destroyed an old hedge a couple of years ago, without planning permission, and built on the site. I remember that because I took the matter up and was escorted off the premises by security for daring to photograph what was happening. Also, promises that are made are not always kept. There is a feeling, which I want to make public, that such large institutions must do more than be seen to keep, like everyone else, to the letter of the law on these matters. They should go beyond it, and, to use the current buzz word, be beacons of good behaviour and practice.

Nevertheless, the university provides concerts and culture and all sorts of things for local residents, who do not know about much of what is available to them. I think that is a shame. I suggested a few years ago that a friends of Brunel group should be set up, so that residents could be kept in touch with what was happening on campus, and enjoy it more. The local papers could play more of a role, because little information about what is happening in the university appears in them. As I mentioned, a lot of sport is played at the university, and some of its teams do extremely well. A Brunel team was in the netball premiership, and became so popular that it had to move away and play elsewhere to accommodate more spectators. We should be proud of that. There is still a great desire among residents of Uxbridge and the surrounding area to be proud of Brunel.

I cannot come up with solutions. For once I really just wanted to get the matter off my chest. It is something that concerns many of my constituents—and me, too, on mornings when I am particularly grumpy.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) on obtaining the debate, and on bringing together the all-party group on balanced and sustainable communities.

“I should declare an interest and a history at the outset. The history is that I was a student, and for several years I lived in rented houses.”—[Official Report, 23 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 714.]

Those were the words with which I opened an Adjournment debate on this topic in 1992, and I regret that we are still in the same situation, having failed to grasp, under two different Administrations, this very simple issue, and do something effective about it. Time has now moved on so much that I now have to add that my daughter is a student and will be living in a shared student house next year.

The problem on which I want to concentrate is straightforward and simple and does not involve any objection to students per se. It is the reality that, if there are areas in which the concentration of student housing is very great, there cannot be a balanced and sustainable community. If the great majority of the population changes from one year to the next, the number of settled, long-term residents is too few to sustain, try as people will, the community organisations and sense of neighbourhood—the social capital, as it is called in the academic jargon—that make our communities work. Now that the Department in which my hon. Friend the Minister works is called the Department for Communities and Local Government, it has the responsibility to grasp the nettle.

In my 1992 debate, I called for a change to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, which would have brought houses in multiple occupation into the planning regime. That route, and the route advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), remain the way forward. HMOs have to be brought within the planning regime.

There has been significant improvement in the responses of many authorities in the past 15 years. At a conference of university accommodation officers, 15 years ago, I was told that, if local people did not like having students in their area, they should move out. However, that has not been the attitude of either of the universities in Southampton in the past few years. Within their powers, they treat this issue responsibly, as do the student unions. Liaison between local residents and students and the local night-time economy have improved vastly in the main areas of Southampton that are inhabited by students, so there have been real improvements through people working well together.

Of course, it is the antisocial behaviour of only a minority of students that causes the most extreme problems, but the sheer numbers living in a single area make it impossible to have a strong and vibrant community there. None of the relevant agencies can deal with this matter unless there are planning powers to constrain the spread of HMOs and thus send signals to the housing market that will encourage families back into those areas, over time, to turn rented houses back into family homes.

This issue is not just about students. The great majority of the perhaps 750,000 new migrants from eastern Europe who have moved to this country in the past few years will not have been in a position to buy their own homes or to rent self-contained accommodation. Most of them have been accommodated in HMOs, most of which, I think, although I cannot prove it, have been newly converted from family homes in the buy-to-rent market. I do not make a case for the wider benefits, but also costs, of that migration; this issue is changing the nature of the communities in which people live, and it is a major planning issue.

My hon. Friend the Minister might find, in the notes that have helpfully been provided to him by his civil servants, this comment:

“But the essential point is that the Use Classes Order is concerned only with considerations material to planning. It is the nature of the use of the land which is relevant. Land use is not about social, ethical or moral issues: the age, occupation or social background of residents whether they be students or anyone else, are not material planning considerations.”—[Official Report, 23 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 719.]

I say, in friendship to the Minister, that if he has those words, they did not sound any better in the mouth of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in 1992, than they would today, although he would deliver them perfectly. It is nonsense to say that the change in character of a neighbourhood by a wholesale shift from family housing to shared rented housing, whether by students, migrant workers or whoever, is not a material planning consideration. If we are interested in communities, those are indeed material planning considerations.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham mentioned the high proportion of flats and the redevelopment of family housing for flats as examples of the changes affecting this issue. Such changes are altering the nature of many urban areas in a way that leaves local people feeling that they do not have a stake or a say in what is going on. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that, although Southampton’s population is estimated by the council to be 225,000—about 30,000 more than at the time of my last Adjournment debate on this issue—the city is closing two secondary schools because there are not enough pupils. That shows the scale of the changes in the fabric and nature of not only my city and the city of Durham, but the many other towns and cities in the country with significant new populations or expanding student populations. We have to get a grip on this issue.

In 1992, I aspired to a limit of 10 to 20 per cent. on family homes being converted to HMOs in particular areas. Now, there are several streets in my constituency on which one would be hard pressed to find 10 per cent., let alone 20 per cent., of family housing. All the rest has been lost, and the trend continues. The Government must accept that such a change in the character of a neighbourhood is a planning issue. They have to accept that local authorities must have legal powers to set limits, in their local development plans and policies, on the spread of HMOs in particular areas of towns and cities. That will allow, in the areas in which change has been over-concentrated, an inevitably slow and gradual movement of properties back into the family sector as houses come on to the market, so that we can achieve a wider spread.

Ministers in previous Conservative Administrations and, I am afraid, in my own Government, have repeatedly made two arguments, the first of which is that these issues are not proper planning issues. Without labouring the point, I hope that I have set out why they are planning issues: they affect the nature of our communities and where we live, and they affect the people whom we represent. If planning is not about issues that affect communities, where people live and the nature of the communities in which they live, then I do not know what it is for. These are planning issues, whatever some planning lawyers say.

The second argument that I have come up against is that, if local authorities had such powers, they would use them irresponsibly and say, “We don’t want to accommodate these people, so we’ll send them to the next borough.” But the Minister knows that the overall planning system requires local authorities to come up with plans, whether they be to provide new or affordable housing, that meet certain national criteria as local criteria. If a local authority produced a plan that simply said, “We are not having them here,” it would properly be struck down by an inspector at the local inquiry that always takes place. There is no substantive reason why such a change in planning law cannot be brought about.

I have no intention of being here in 25 years’ time, even if the electorate were willing for that to happen, but I would hate to think that I might be here in 25 or 30 years’ time talking about the issues affecting my grandchildren as students. This problem has been around for far too long, and it should have been addressed much earlier, when the difficulties were becoming evident. Already, it will be a long job to bring balance back to some communities, but we can do enough to ensure that communities remain balanced in the areas that are coming under pressure and restore the balance of others over time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) on securing the debate, and on her initiative in setting up the all-party balanced and sustainable communities group, with which many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I who represent university seats are pleased to help.

Like the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), I have a long interest in this matter, not as a Member of Parliament, but as a local councillor. I was first elected in 1993 to the then Avon county council for Cabot ward. That is the ward for Bristol city centre, which includes the university of Bristol precinct and the residential areas of Kingsdown and Cotham, which have high concentrations of student housing. I have been grappling with the question of how a university and a residential community can coexist in harmony, as well as considering the other pressures created by such institutions around the city centre. I have been the MP for Bristol, West for the past two years, and my constituency probably includes one of the highest student populations in the country. There have been various estimates, but at least 15,000 students from the universities of Bristol and of the West of England live in my constituency.

I welcome the fact that the National Union of Students is now taking this issue seriously. The hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned last year’s report on this issue by Universities UK. Last Friday, I went to speak to the university of Bristol council working group on town and gown issues with the author of the report, Dr. Darren Smith from the university of Brighton, to flesh out some of the issues that affect my constituents. I shall share with colleagues one anecdote that I gave at that meeting to illustrate a point.

I have recently joined one of the new social networking groups called Facebook. I know that various other hon. Members are also members—the hon. Member for City of Durham is nodding. I have a great deal of friends from the university of Bristol Facebook group on it. Through that group, I got an invitation to a post-exam party, which I am sure was sent to many hundreds of students as well. It will take place in the High Kingsdown estate—I shall not say the exact address, just in case anybody might want to turn up—quite near where I live. It is scheduled to start at 7 pm and finish at 11 am the next day, or until the neighbours complain. Anybody can have a party—one does not have to be a student to do so—but that illustrates some of the effects on neighbours of a high concentration of students.

The nature of the High Kingsdown estate leads on to a wider point, however. When it was built in the 1970s, it won awards as model family housing. It featured three and four-bedroomed houses, each with a walled garden, pedestrian access and a garage on the edge of the estate. It was model planning, and one of the few architectural successes that we can name from the 1970s. When I was first elected as a councillor in 1993, the estate was almost entirely inhabited by families, who sent their children to the local school. The associated block of two and three-bedroomed flats, which was also part of the estate, was largely occupied by families as well. Some 14 years on, the situation is quite different: the block of flats more or less resembles a university hall of residence, and of the 101 houses, almost half are occupied as houses in multiple occupation. They are not all occupied by students; some of the occupants are young professional people living together.

There is clearly an effect on the wider community, and not only on the school. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) mentioned parking; the garages that were meant for family houses are now sometimes let out separately from the houses. Bristol perhaps has more affluent students than some other universities, and many of them bring their cars to the city. They do not park in the garages but in the neighbouring streets, which contributes to the congestion in the area. Those are just some of the problems that have manifested themselves as a result of the multiple occupancy of houses and flats that were meant for families.

I am pleased to support the comments of the hon. Member for City of Durham about multiple occupancy houses. I also agree with what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said during the debate on his ten-minute Bill the week before last. Like the hon. Member for City of Durham, I think that there is scope for lowering the six-person limit of HMOs, particularly in the case of flats. A two-bedroomed flat, which is quite obviously designed for a couple, perhaps with a child, might now be occupied by three or four people. The limit for flats—it could be related to the number of bedrooms—should be brought down.

We need to reform the planning use class C3, which covers all domestic properties, to allow for stratification within that class, so that we can distinguish between different types of housing. When I was a councillor, the biggest issue of social change that I had to cope with was the proliferation in the area of bars and nightclubs to serve the new, younger, transient population. At that time, planning use class A3 encompassed everything from a café to a nightclub, so once somebody had planning permission for a café, they could convert it over time to a pub that was entirely different from the kind of place for which they had received the original permission. Owing to a long campaign by residents in Bristol and other cities throughout the country, there is now a class A4, to separate cafés, restaurants and bars. That is an interesting precedent.

It would be better if the Government were to trust local authorities to stratify the use classes themselves. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen said that central Government might not trust local government to do the right thing. We should devolve such issues to local authorities. Stratification might not be appropriate in many parts of the country, but it certainly would be in urban areas, and local government should have the power to stratify within the broad parameters of the use classes set by Parliament. Bristol city council, which was under Liberal Democrat leadership until a week ago, has set up a working group to consider town and gown issues and to appoint a dedicated officer. We have taken the initiative locally and have been working with the university on that front.

The hon. Member for City of Durham made the point, which we need to emphasise, that this is in no way an anti-student discussion. Like the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, I am a Bristol university graduate, and I lived in a shared flat in my third year. My constituency is full of similar people who originally came to the university but decided to settle in their adopted city. They have made it their home, and made it the vibrant place that it is. It is hard to imagine Bristol without either of its universities. The students make an enormously positive contribution to city life, through their charitable work, for instance. Through student community action, thousands of hours of community work are done in the city, which is probably largely unnoticed by the permanent population.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen that we should not delay too much further: it is time for Parliament to change the law to give local councils and universities the powers that they need to work together in harmony.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) on securing this Adjournment debate on this timely issue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said, consideration of this matter is long overdue. As we are declaring such things this morning, I had better add that I was that student: I went to Southampton university and lived in a house of multiple occupation. Indeed, I visited my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen in his house of multiple occupation. I can confirm not only that he was a model student, like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), but that the HMO in which he lived was a model HMO.

As hon. Members have said this morning, the issue is not about driving students out of cities, closing down HMOs or trying to develop some version of happyville-on-sea as an alternative to the reality of life in cities and towns. It is about how the necessary housing types and arrangements can co-exist and contribute positively, rather than negatively as is often the case at present, to the working of cities and towns. HMOs are a necessary part of the landscape not only for students, but for young single people and people in transient occupations.

The irony is that we have an enormous amount of planning guidance about how towns and cities should arrange their domestic and commercial properties and links, and a number of desiderata about how that should be done when various things in those towns and cities are built, but after they have been built, the guidance effectively stops in terms of the traction of those towns and cities to do anything about maintaining balanced and sustainable ways of deploying land use and housing. As hon. Members have mentioned, that is because planning law in no way recognises different uses within the general class of a domestic dwelling. The plain fact is that over time the different uses make an enormous difference to how cities and towns work. I heartily endorse the plea that has been entered this morning. It is important for the future of balanced and sustainable communities that that reality is recognised in the planning system.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen mentioned a paragraph in a document that he had received in 1992. I cannot offer paragraphs from quite such a long time ago, but I wonder whether the Minister has the following paragraph in his folder. It comes from a letter that was sent by the then Minister for Housing and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). It stated:

“Buildings which form houses in multiple occupation…will generally remain outside the scope of the order. Therefore, as a general rule, planning permission will usually be needed before a dwelling house can undergo a change of use to an HMO, otherwise this would be a breach of planning control…The essential element in determining whether a particular premises is an HMO is whether or not there is a single household occupying it. However, where there are seven or more occupants living together in a single household, but not living as a family, this could also be classified as an HMO.”

The curious truth about that statement is that it sets out how things are as far as planning is concerned, but it is diametrically opposed to what happens on the ground. As the test in planning law relates to whether a single household lives in an HMO—indeed, courts have made decisions on that matter—where a house is purchased, without any change having taken place, and it is then inhabited by up to seven people, the local authority cannot go anywhere near that house in terms of any sort of regulation. There are some exceptions to that, and I shall come to them in a moment.

Local authorities cannot go anywhere near such houses in planning terms, so the idea that a local authority can, as the letter suggests,

“determine whether a change of use has occurred on a fact and degree basis”

is incongruent to the reality of how local authorities are able to work. That is because the definition of an HMO in planning terms, such as it is, is a property that is converted into a number of separate flatlets, whereas the vast majority of HMOs fall under the single household definition. Most HMOs simply escape any planning regulation. The desiderata in the planning guidance are simply useless as far as those changes of use are concerned.

The Housing Act 2004 changed the definition of a household as far as the licensing of HMOs was concerned. The definition included people who are living under one roof but are not related to each other. A series of well drafted and well worked out definitions were placed into that housing legislation, which now enables local authorities to undertake a registration and licensing scheme for houses that are already in such a position. The scheme can include those people who are living in an unconverted house apparently, according to planning law, as one household.

What is interesting is that even the 2005 letter that I mentioned accepts that, if numbers go above a certain level, that would be a material factor as far as a change of use is concerned. Again, as hon. Members have mentioned, that is a long way from the reality of the effect that HMOs have on any district or area. Saying that situations where seven or more people are involved should come to the notice of the planning authority, whereas those involving fewer than seven people should not, means that 10 per cent. or less of HMOs are subject to the planning regime.

What is important is that planning law recognises that as a principle. In respect of my recent ten-minute Bill, I have suggested that if the argument is sound for seven people, it ought to be sound for numbers below that in situations where a demonstrable change of planning use has occurred. It may not be arguable in planning law that every single change of use makes a difference, but it is probably clear to all right hon. and hon. Members present that when a small number of people move into an HMO, which could happen for all the reasons that have been outlined, there is a considerable difference in how that HMO affects other houses in the street, the neighbourhood and the community generally.

That is particularly the case where there is an accumulation of HMOs. I have recently mentioned that, in one Southampton street, 49 out of 56 family houses are now HMOs. That accumulation clearly makes a great difference in planning terms, even if the number of individuals in each of those houses is fewer than seven. A distinction can clearly be made, without even changing the nature of the use class orders, simply by reducing the number of people who are defined as making a change in land use terms as far as an HMO is concerned.

It would be ideal to change the housing use class orders. That has been done in Northern Ireland, although it was done on the basis of previous legislation that defined an HMO. It might be difficult to introduce such an approach into legislation in England and Wales, in which case perhaps the far simpler route of introducing a reduction in respect of numbers and a definition of a family—an accurate definition is contained in the 2004 Act—into how an existing use class order works would be an appropriate way forward.

We must recognise one way or another—either by changing the use class order or by redefining it so that it bites as far as planning is concerned—that there are different kinds of domestic dwellings and that who occupies them is a matter not of indifference for the planning system but of important concern for it. It is important to make changes that recognise that and give local authorities the ability to appraise those changes of use when they come up. The system that we have put in place of registering and licensing HMOs is potentially important, but in a sense, it is systematically registering stables after the horses have bolted. It is important for the quality of the stables and for the horses—a bad metaphor that I should not go any further with.

Nevertheless, the system does not gain any traction on the process by which those houses have become HMOs in the first place. The numbers that the housing legislation sets out are five and three storeys. In Committee, assurances were given that those numbers of storeys would be reviewed on the basis of the way in which the licensing worked. Obviously, the legislation is in its early stages, but I hope that it will be kept under review. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said that a more comprehensive licensing system that did not put a distinction on storeys, whereby local authorities would not have to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to make a more general licensing system over and above the statutory system, might be an appropriate development in parallel with the legislation.

The important point is to try to ensure that those two areas of legislation are compatible, so that local authorities can regulate the way in which the environment develops and the changes are made. I hope that the changes will be considered. They are long overdue, and they could be considered on the basis of an hour’s discussion in a room on an upstairs corridor in the House. Neither primary nor extensive legislation would be required. Relatively few words on a piece of paper, regulating the way in which HMOs might work differently over a period, would have an enormous effect on the way in which our communities might develop on a balanced, sustainable and harmonious basis.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) on securing the debate. The issue affects many areas throughout the country, and I am sure that many Members who have not been able to join us today could provide their own stories and evidence about the way in which it affects them.

The hon. Lady opened the debate by talking about studentification. We must acknowledge that, in society, there is a process of studentification, because all the time the number of students is increasing, which we all welcome and support. She made it clear that the issue is about not just HMOs and students, but HMOs and other users, and we must establish the fact that on this issue, we are not uniting against students, because as other Members have said, we welcome the skills that they bring to communities and the investment that universities bring.

In my constituency in Cornwall, we have fought for a long time to get a university, and universities from elsewhere now co-operate to provide higher education in Cornwall, which we welcome. Many areas want to encourage students to stay on once they have finished their studies, and we heard how Members did so themselves. If we want universities to come to our area, we must address the issues; we cannot stand against them.

We heard the hon. Lady discuss the tools that are available. When we write to Ministers and their colleagues, we are all familiar with the reply that the tools already exist, that local authorities should consider their powers and use them more effectively and that there are better ways of dealing with the problems.

We must focus on use classes, which are at the heart of the debate and the restoration of local people’s confidence in the planning system’s ability to plan for a sustainable and balanced community. We heard about the different definitions in planning law and housing law, and my party welcomes the tightening of HMO regulation on the housing side to ensure both that we provide decent accommodation for people and that unscrupulous landlords cannot get away with providing inadequate accommodation.

Drawing the two areas together would help to simplify the process. During the introduction of greater HMO regulation, we heard complaints from landlords organisations, and a unification of planning and housing guidelines would help to simplify the situation. It would send out a clear message about the way in which we as a society would like to deal with the issues.

We also heard a good point about tracking changes and looking at where they occur, so that we can anticipate them instead of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. I shall not go too far into the metaphor that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) created.

The hon. Member for City of Durham was also keen to stress the positive role that the National Union of Students can play in acknowledging and dealing with the issues. It is in the interests of its members—the students—that the services they need are in the community. The services cannot exist if the area’s population falls dramatically during recess. We cannot develop any infrastructure there.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) moved bravely into the area of parking, and we could have had a lengthy debate about the issue, but I am glad that consideration is being given to it in Uxbridge. The hon. Gentleman and other Members, including the hon. Member for City of Durham, stressed the need for strong relations and open communication between the local community and the representative bodies—local government, residents organisations and so on—and the academic institutions.

The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) discussed the importance of balance in sustaining the social infrastructure, and he is absolutely right. Later, I shall turn to an example of the way in which things can move out of kilter in society—albeit in a rural rather than urban context, but there are parallels. The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of migrant workers, whom we increasingly see. I am undertaking a fellowship with the Industry and Parliament Trust, and spending a great deal of time with Waste Recycling Group, one of the larger waste companies in the country. I saw its recycling facility in Luton and worked for only about 10 minutes—fortunately, from my point of view—on the conveyor belt separating the materials that come through the facility. It was wonderful to see the contribution that its workers make to the community in Luton, and to hear from the company what model employees they are. I could not help but wonder about their housing issues, but I did not have time to explore them. I am sure that I would have heard some positive stories, and some negative stories.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to school closures. We should consider health facilities, shops and community facilities, too. In any area where the balance is tilted in favour of one group in the population, all such facilities are going to be under threat.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) outlined his work over several years as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament. He has been assiduous in that work, and I pay tribute to him. He discussed the suitability of housing, and the model estate of High Kingsdown, where family housing has been designed. Owing to studentification, the most appropriate housing for families had been taken away from that sector of the community. Equally, however, the issue is about whether such housing is appropriate for the needs of students. Do students get the best deal on housing? If we do not want them all crammed into HMOs in particular areas, we must look at what we offer them as an alternative. It is another key question, to which I am sure the Minister will want to return when we consider planning.

My hon. Friend also raised the pertinent example of the way in which a change in use class orders has led to progress on a particular issue: the difference with licensed premises. It is a good example for the Government to pick up on. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test again highlighted the gap between HMO planning theory and community reality, and there was consensus in the Chamber about the need to consider the way in which use class orders can be changed.

As a constituency Member, I am affected by the second homes issue, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for City of Durham and her colleagues have set up a group to consider balanced and sustainable communities, because there is a chance for those of us who have been working on the second homes issue to contribute to the debate. My hon. Friends and I have been arguing for many years that a change in use class orders would allow second homes to be classified differently, and we could consider the issue of ghost towns in our coastal communities, too.

I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is a member of the all-party group, too. He has drawn to my attention the fact that there have been good student relationships in Bath and that, just as in Bristol, the local authority has established a body to deal with that. However, my hon. Friend has been saddened by the fact that the minority Conservative administration has decided to end that and to stop the progress being made, which is obviously a retrograde step.

To sum up, one final point to mention is the progress made on the Sustainable Communities Bill, which is dear to the Minister’s heart. He and I have both served on the Committee on that Bill. One issue that he raised in replying to a point that I had made about second homes is that there is real scope for looking at what tools local authorities and local communities need to meet local problems. I hope that, through the progress of the Bill, we will start to get some of those tools and to empower local authorities and local communities to take decisions—in this case on planning orders, in others on spending commitments—to address the specific problems that they face in their local areas.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) on securing this excellent debate and on speaking forensically and with real authority about an issue that affects not only her constituency but, as has been made clear in the debate, constituencies up and down the country.

Since the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) instituted the practice of declaring interests in the debate, I should declare that I was a resident in an HMO when I was a student at the London School of Economics. I have been part of the phenomenon, although I hope that I did not cause too many problems for the neighbours.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) recalled how it might have been useful for people to mistake the name of his constituency. He called to my mind the time I was at sixth-form college, when I went to see the teacher responsible for university admissions and said, “I’ve been reading a lot about this university of Oxbridge and thought it might be a good place to apply to,” so I recognise what he said.

The hon. Member for City of Durham was one of the signatories to my early-day motion on changing to a different planning definition to help to preserve family homes with back gardens, and I could not help noticing during the debate that there are some parallels between the issues. At their heart, they come down to the same problem. People love their neighbourhoods; they have a great deal of affection towards them and they feel disempowered, frustrated and thwarted when their neighbourhoods change before their eyes through events over which they have no control. Some of the details are quite striking. We see residential neighbourhoods changing beyond all recognition in a short space of time—in the case of this debate, HMOs replacing ordinary houses; in the case of gardens, blocks of flats replacing ordinary houses.

In both cases, we see family homes being squeezed out of what were often family neighbourhoods. HMOs rarely cater for families—indeed, they are totally unsuitable for that purpose. As several hon. Members have made clear, there is a domino effect. Once a house is converted into an HMO, neighbours sell up—sometimes reasonably, although sometimes they panic and take flight. Roads change in character in a short space of time. We see that with gardens and we see it with HMOs. That puts pressure on affordable housing, because many of the replacements for family homes do not provide affordable housing, whether they are HMOs or other developments.

We also see the impact on social capital. Sustainable communities are so important—the hon. Lady is to be congratulated on using the term in calling this debate—and require that we build on and cherish the social capital that exists and the links between neighbours and fellow residents. We have a planning system that is often precise about quantities but remarkably vague about the quality of the planning decisions taken. The hon. Lady has done the House a service in bringing the qualitative aspect to bear in this debate.

The term “studentification” has been used—it is probably one of the ugliest terms in the English language and it is unfortunate that we have to use it, but it captures a phenomenon that we recognise. The problems are fivefold. First, where a family home is occupied by five, six or more people, the high density of residents brings about pressure on local services such as rubbish collection, policing and parking, as well as noise problems. Secondly, the phenomenon can give rise to quite a narrow community consisting of young adults of a similar age. Dispersed, they might not cause too much of a problem, but the intensity of such people can lead to problems of noise, traffic and waste, which can be difficult for local residents to deal with.

Thirdly, such homes often lack what is termed internal management by the excellent Universities UK report, to which the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) referred. When a group of students shares a house, often there is not one person in charge to put the rubbish out on the right day or to call time on a late-night party. That can result in problems. Fourthly, the transience of the population in HMOs can cause what has been described a groundhog day effect. Students are there for a year, beginning in September or October, and might make the effort to get to know their neighbours, who might also make the effort to get to know them. However, by the time the following September arrives, it is groundhog day again and a whole new set of people move in, making it difficult to build those ties and that social capital.

Finally, the seasonal nature of studentification is a problem. The fact that such areas are crowded during term time but can be deserted out of term time causes problems for local residents. They might find that their area has become attractive to burglars, who know that properties are left empty during that time, as several hon. Members have said. That can have the effect of increasing insurance premiums, which have to be paid by people who can perhaps ill afford the cost. Also, retailers struggle to run sustainable businesses throughout the year when the peaks and troughs during term and out of term can be so volatile. The problem is real and has been made evident today.

The parties involved—universities, tenants, landlords, local authorities and the Government—all have a role to play in resolving the problem. I was struck by the remarks that my hon. Friend made about the need for universities to exercise some responsibility and to see themselves as beacons of excellence. I was interested to hear that Brunel university has been going through a positive phase in that respect, on which it is to be congratulated. Loughborough university, which has had problems in the past, has appointed an excellent community liaison officer. Alison Barlow is a point of contact for residents and helps to organise security patrols, which benefit both long-term residents and student residents. Students have a responsibility, too, and I am delighted that the National Union of Students is moving positively to recognise that student leaders can play a role in setting high standards. Local authorities have an important enforcement duty. It is important that they recognise that, if the character of an area changes, their response to enforcement in that area must change accordingly.

However, the framework is set by national Government. The hon. Members for City of Durham and for Southampton, Test, and the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen raised the question whether we need a change in the planning arrangements. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what evaluation he has made of the pros and cons of doing so. We have quite rightly expanded the population of students, but we should recognise that they need somewhere to live. There would be no greater disaster than for us to over-regulate the housing market, for the supply of residential accommodation to dry up and for students to be admitted to universities, but with nowhere to live. We must certainly avoid that, so I should be interested to hear what advice the Minister has received on the likely effects of accepting some of the proposals that his right hon. and hon. Friends have made.

Finally, the Sustainable Communities Bill has been mentioned. “Sustainable communities” is part of the title of the debate, and the Minister has been involved in debates on the Bill. What reassurances can he give us that the Government, and he in particular, will support the Bill on Report on 15 June? In particular, can he reassure us that it will not be watered down in any respect? The idea of passing power down to local communities, particularly through the grassroots ability in the Bill for local councils and community groups to influence a national action plan, could be a vehicle to exert some pressure and shape national policies. Can the Minister tell us whether any Government amendments are likely to be proposed to the Bill and, if so, can he reassure us that they will be tabled well in advance of 15 June?

The debate has been excellent. I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken and I will be grateful to hear the Minister’s response to my questions.

It is traditional to congratulate the Member who has secured the debate, but in this case those congratulations are especially deserved because there is clearly a problem. Speeches have been made by Members from across the House and the country, and there is some degree of agreement about the problem and the solution. In a sense, I am grateful that I have only nine minutes to respond, because it means that I will not get to page 13 of my speech, which would have me repeating the words of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I recognise that the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate represent six different universities and represent different political parties.

So, what are we going to do? My colleagues and I have an open mind on the issue. At the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), I visited the Storer and Ashby residents’ group before Christmas and met a delegation from it, and from the district council and the university. Indeed, Alison Barlow, the Loughborough university officer, was there on that occasion. We met to consider the problems raised by the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said that it presents a challenge to my Department as the Department for Communities and Local Government, and he is right. It is not a matter of planning and housing law, but a matter of community policy.

I shall set out my general approach and then try to offer a way forward. Like other hon. Members, I declare an interest. I am a former president of the NUS, and student housing has been close to my heart for many decades. The situation has, of course, changed since my day. The number of students is huge compared with what it was. The problems in Durham and, to some extent, in Southampton that have been described are familiar, although in those days we did not hear about such problems at Brunel, because the numbers were not that great. The town and gown interface has been debated in this country for hundreds of years, but we now face the issue on a different scale because of the number of students. I note that both Opposition parties welcomed the increase in student numbers. Of course, this is nothing to do with student bashing, which can be a serious problem in some towns and cities.

The characterisation of the idea of a student is no longer possible. Two-fifths of UK higher education students study part-time and are already likely to be part of an established community. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency figures for 2003-04, 59 per cent. of students are mature students. One also has to bear in mind—although this point has not been raised—that student households are exempt from council tax. It is testament to residents’ groups and Members of Parliament that that point has not been raised, because it could lead to divisions and problems in communities if that were to be an issue. A student household is exempt from council tax and therefore from the council tax base of a local authority, so in effect others pay for that difference.

We have a number of frameworks that we can use. The first is the code for sustainable homes, which came into effect in April. Any new home can be rated against the code. The second is the proposals in the now-published planning White Paper, which sets out some reforms. The third and most important, which relates to the issue of devolution raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson), is partnership and local area agreements. In all the cases that have been raised, including that of Loughborough, the university is a member of the local area agreement. The possibilities for proactive planning of student accommodation, including directly provided accommodation and private sector flats, as well as the impact on local communities, are now subject to debates, agreements and policies within the local area agreements.

I will not repeat the definition of the problem with HMOs and the use classes order, as that has been well documented. We are debating that issue, and I shall explain where we are going in a minute. My difficulty is about whether that is the route to a solution. We have the proposals from Northern Ireland and are considering researching the policy there. Incidentally, the policy in Northern Ireland was instituted against the independent recommendations and we need to see whether it will achieve the goals that it sets out.

We need to examine the issue and we will do so. Local authorities that recently held a conference on the matter have important points to make as to why they believe that the existing law is not sufficient. It is worth noting that most of the consultation with stakeholders has involved residents. There is clearly a difference of opinion between Government policy and practitioners in local authorities on what the problem is with the legislation. That is another matter that we will consider.

The question is whether amending the use classes order would necessary solve the social and environmental problems that have been attributed to high concentrations of HMOs. The guide that has been referred to noted that in Brighton, Manchester and Salford, those problems do not exist. I would not say that they do not exist at all, but they do not exist as they do in Uxbridge, Bristol, Durham, Southampton and so on. We need to examine why that is so.

Right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the law of unintended consequences is an important consideration. If we were to change the policy, which would not require primary legislation, as has been said, there could be a danger of creating further unintended consequences. That is because the problem is different in different areas. Some significant communities have families made up of two adults and four teenagers—or more—and we need to consider whether there would be unintended consequences in such areas.

In short, more research is required. That is not a holding line. The issue has been raised by Members from across the House, and it is important that we consider it and respond to it. I have some serious concerns about whether the proposals would provide the solution that we are looking for, but it is important that we consider them.

Can my hon. Friend give us some comfort by saying when he expects to receive the results of the research?

I can tell my right hon. Friend that I met the delegation from Loughborough on 8 May, and the issue relates to housing and planning policies. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I, along with the Secretary of State, have to ensure co-ordination of policy based on local area agreements. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen that we are considering the matter urgently. Indeed, by pure coincidence, a meeting is taking place this afternoon that is one of a series to consider the issue.

I hope that, in the short time that I have had to reply to the debate, I have put across the point that we believe that we understand the problem—I believe that I do—and that there are options before us. We are concerned that the options that have been proposed by the campaign might not be the correct ones, but we will give the issue full consideration and report back shortly.