The Students Association would like to see no restrictions on more family homes being turned into HMOs. This despite the information before the decision-making committee that showed student accommodation requirements were more than adequately met and the pressing need in St Andrews was for more affordable homes, especially social housing.

It has long been a shibboleth of student politics that student digs should be prioritised over all other needs. Students have taken over the town’s housing to the extent that residents are now a minority. Less than a tenth of students responded to the consultation on the HMO over-provision policy, despite receiving an email from the student president encouraging them to vote against it. This would seem to indicate that the vast majority of students do not share the aspirations of candidates for election for posts in the Students Association. Many better informed students take a more balanced view of the needs of others in the town.

While one may interpret the Student Association view as being a result of youthful enthusiasm, it is more difficult to understand why the University management should support student politics to the extent it does. Its contribution to the debate was a research paper, delivered at the last moment to Fife Council, which was described in the Committee meeting as being academically inadequate. The paper’s main finding was that 145 present student digs could be used more effectively if locked or underutilised rooms, alleged to be put out of use by the existing policy, could be opened up to house more students. Unfortunately, the data supplied did not support this contention.

The University is also quoted as saying that it was “very doubtful that a cap on HMOs “would allow it to “play our part in sustaining a balanced and fair community in St Andrews”. As the University is significantly responsible for the present serious population imbalance and is the main driver for St Andrews becoming an unsustainable community, the logic of this statement is hard to fathom.

The University also boasts that it provides more accommodation per head in its own residences than any other university. This may be true, but not many universities are located in communities where the students population of over 9000 outnumbers the resident population and more than half occupy former family homes. Universities such as Glasgow, traditionally recruit large numbers of its students from its home city, and the student community is a much smaller proportion of the local population.

It would seem that the PR function of the University does not operate with the same academic rigour as the University expects from its students. The University’s oft repeated statement about the major contribution it makes to the local economy is not in doubt. But this does not give it licence to pursue policies which are seriously damaging to the social fabric of St Andrews- the attraction of this unique town being a major selling point when recruiting prospective students.

In an impassioned plea to committee members, Councillor Jane Ann Liston, described those wishing to restrict HMOs as “a few town residents who would rather not have student neighbours”. This is both factually and arithmetically incorrect. Each household had only one vote, while each student had an individual vote. Nevertheless, 1663 households responded to the consultation with 78% opting for a nil increase in HMOs. It is deeply disturbing that a councillor elected to serve the whole community should characterise so many of her constituents as being motivated by nimbyism, rather than a concern for a sustainable future for the town.

The policy restricting further HMOs has been described in the press as being controversial. In fact, the zero growth policy was approved unanimously by the Communities and Housing Committee composed of members of all political allegiances and representing all parts of Fife.