Sir, I read with a sinking heart the report of the controversy over the granting of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence in King Street, St Andrews, coincidentally just a few yards from my own home.
Some of us warned Fife Council that an effect of imposing a moratorium on HMOs in the town centre would result in such applications moving to the residential areas.
We also feared that, to circumvent the moratorium, property owners might seek to avoid the HMO designation by restricting the number of occupants to two, but with a likely increase in individual rents to compensate.
In the last year or so a significant number of St Andrews students have been identified who are commuting daily to their classes from outwith the town, some from as far afield as Dunfermline and even Edinburgh, because they can’t find suitable affordable accommodation in St Andrews.
This was unheard of just five or six years ago. Could there be a connection with the HMO moratorium?
Although we would all love to see more housing for families in St Andrews, it cannot be denied that many of the town centre properties currently occupied by students have a limited attraction for people with children.
They frequently lack gardens, car-parking and are often only accessible by a flight, or two, of stairs. Such properties would appear ideal for fit, young people without cars, which is a fair description of the typical student.
Unfortunately, if the moratorium is resulting in student accommodation moving out to the residential areas, the chances are that these will be houses with all the amenities attractive to families, forcing them into direct competition.
Such houses are not even particularly convenient for students because they are further away from all the university facilities.
Surely it makes sense to attract students to live in the town centre, not force them further out.
Jane Ann Liston. 5 Whitehill Terrace, Largo Road, St Andrews.
Status quo is not an option
Sir, Eddie Bone, Director, Campaign for an English Parliament makes some interesting points in his letter, View needs to be recognised (September 20).
However, he posits a federation of the UK which, I fear, Westminster will never allow.
David Cameron, with only one Tory MP in Scotland, refused to give us the option of voting for Devolution Max because he knew that most Scots would have supported it and that would have reduced the power of Westminster, something he will not tolerate.
The SNP are to produce their white paper in November at which time Mr Cameron has to come clean and tell us what extra powers he intends to give the Scottish Government in the event of a “no” vote.
Failure to do so will undoubtedly swing the undecided voters in the direction of the “yes” campaign. If the unionists really want to keep Scotland in the union they have to realise that the status quo is not an option.
Scotland needs and deserves something better.
Jim Robertson. 194 High Street, Montrose.
Bizarre SNP stances
Sir, I agree with Mr Provan’s letter (September 21) regarding the Scottish Transport Minister Keith Brown.
Calling on the UK Government to bring high speed rail to Scotland while he and the SNP wish to sever from the United Kingdom next year is as bizarre as First Minister Salmond’s support for Dundee’s bid to be the UK’s City of Culture.
Joan McEwen. King James VI Building, Hospital Street, Perth.
This is ‘housing benefit’ for MPs
Sir, Regarding the so-called bedroom tax. The more I read about this then look at MPs’ expenses on second homes, the more unjust the system appears.
Surely MPs claiming against second homes are, in fact, in receipt of a “housing benefit” and should therefore be governed by the same rules and regulations as everyone else? Perhaps a QC should be appointed to give a ruling on this anomaly. A case of “don’t do as I do, do as I say”?
A Gibson. Brechin.
A compromise is needed
Sir, Wearing the niqab may not be a Koranic necessity but Muslim women of a certain age and religious persuasion rather like the full-face veil and I doubt it is forced on them.
At the same time it makes the western public uneasy as so much of our interaction depends on facial signals and it certainly looks like a statement of separation.
But a formal ban is not the way because, unlike France, we do not impose a particular vision of the state on our citizens so we need to strike a balance: the classic British fudge.
It is surely not beyond Parliament in cooperation with the Islamic community to provide guidelines for the likes of school, medical surgeries, court rooms and passport control.
Thereafter it should be left to the individual since the vast majority prefer the hijab or other less restrictive forms of Islamic dress many of which are stunningly beautiful.
Dr John Cameron. 10 Howard Place, St Andrews.