The University's Negative Impact Upon Hatfield

                                 __________________________
 

By Trekbat

Rather surprisingly – given that UH is probably their biggest advertiser – the Welwyn Hatfield Times (WHT) recently (24/10/12, pg.6-7) ran an article highlighting crimes reported on UH campuses. It probably wasn't a surprise to many as locals employed there have been relating horror stories of what goes on in this supposed seat of learning for years.

According to the table, based on a FOI request, from September 2011-October 2012 there were:

34 Assault
12 Burglary
116 Theft
25 Drug
8 Criminal damage under £5,000
3 Racial / Religious aggravated assault
7 Fraud
1 Communicate a grossly offensive / obscene / indecent message
3 Public order offences
2 Obstruct a police officer
4 Sexual assault (including rape)
1 Firearms
1 Hoax bomb threat
1 Robbery

The article also later appeared in their online edition.

However, it wasn't long before this major player in the fortunes of the town appeared to have flexed their muscles, and the online article was quickly pulled:

... been reported at The University of Hertfordshire in the past 12 months. ... of crimes alleged to have been committed at the Hatfield campuses ...
http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/hundreds_of_crimes_recorded_at_the_university_of_hertfordshire_campuses_shock_figures_reveal_1_1671875

The following week's edition carried a similar-length, angry rebuttal from the UH Vice Chancellor (31/10/12 pg. 10) which started: "SIR – It was shocking to see distorted crime figures for the University of Hertfordshire...".

His statement is worth a closer and more critical examination than it was given in an apparently cowed WHT.

"The article is not just damaging for the university, but for Hatfield as a whole...this article painted a very unhappy picture of the town in which we live and work...This year, the University of Hertfordshire celebrates its 60th anniversary and it is interesting to reflect upon the role our institution has played within our Hatfield community since it was established in 1952. Our graduates make a positive contribution to our communities and to our economies...The university remains an integral and important part of the wider Hatfield community..."

He quotes Inspector Ian Grout: "...details of crimes that were reported to have taken place at the university, but it should be made clear that the campus, in particular The Forum, is also heavily used by members of the public. Therefore it would be unfair to give the impression that all the crimes related directly to students or the university."

UH Vice Chancellor Quintin McKellar later on says: "As an institution, the university has always prided itself on its role within the community. We have not always got this right but over the last few years we have made a real investment to ensure that our contribution to Hatfield is a positive one. The university's Community Partnership Office has a visible presence in the community...But we will not be complacent and we will continue to build on the positive impact that the University has in the local area and listen and respond any issues that we may create..."

He refers to international students over the next few paragraphs.

"Not only has Hatfield attracted international students, it has attracted international businesses. In recent years, Eisai has made Hatfield its European headquarters - a clear indication of the attractiveness of our town. The proposed investments in our railway station and our town centre are all positive developments that will enhance the reputation and standing of Hatfield. We should be representing Hatfield as a positive place, not denigrating its institutions and its residents..."

Although not reproduced here in full, the key planks of his rebuttal appear to be an attempt to deflect the blame (on to the general public), and to portray a critical article about his own institution as an attack on Hatfield. Given the conduct of the UH under his and his predecessor's stewardship and that of at least some of the student body some may consider that to be rather rich and not without a certain amount of hypocrisy.

Quite frankly, the often repeated assertions that the Uni is a partner of the town seem hypocritical and offensive in the light of their actions and the detrimental effect – directly and indirectly – that the University of Hertfordshire has had on the town.

That is not saying everything about the development of UH is completely negative. They host a number of music events and acts. Sponsor the South Hatfield Fete (itself organised by a former student). More crucially than this one day event, Professor Paul Zukowskyj has done sterling work in the fight against the Herts County Council (HCC) – Veolia incinerator. However, given that he was asked to make it clear at an HAI public meeting that he was acting as private individual and did not reflect the views of the Uni, they can hardly claim any credit for his actions.
In fact, the incinerator is a good starting point for showing the negative impact of UH on Hatfield:

1. The UH for all its protestations of solidarity has been conspicuously absent from the fight against the incinerator. Which begs the question why? Their annual report indicates that they were hoping to bid for two additional bus routes (for which they get paid), and apply for other forms of public funding (like a grant for encouraging students to take part in physical activities) in addition to the monies they get for accepting local students may be contributory factors. Plus, they have other financial / business interests – like a move into primary and secondary education in which HCC is likely to be an important player. In short, it looks like they have put their financial interests above all else.

This is unlikely to come as a surprise to many as for a number of years there have been tales from people working there of students being accepted without so much as a solitary 'O' level. They'll probably claim they were offering them access opportunities, others may see this as more of a cynical ploy to fill their classes and grab more taxpayers' cash to fund their expansion.
 

2. The growth of the UH has led to an increase in the number of Houses in Multiple Occupation often owned by greedy landlords who do not live here and whose only interest is in maximising their returns. As a direct result the town has seen a loss of green verges to make way for additional on street parking (as there are often several vehicles per HMO); noise and litter has gone up; and the value of neighbouring residential properties have gone down (as HMOs are often characterised by badly - if at all - maintained houses and gardens); residents' quality of life have suffered and many families have moved away - only for their properties to be bought by buy-to-let investors as young professionals and families are unlikely to want to buy a property next to or overlooking one of these eyesore properties. Hence the problem has multiplied to the extent that certain parts of Hatfield have over 50 per cent HMOs – in short, a growing population of short-term residents with no long term interest in the town.

3. It is worth noting that according to Veolia’s Health Impact Assessment (Point 4.2.7) Hatfield South ward is “almost fifteen times more densely populated than the surrounding wards and the national average and six times more densely populated than Welwyn Hatfield Borough and Hertfordshire County.” While the population profile (p.30) indicates that South Hatfield ward has a larger proportion of non-Christians, non-working households, and a lower than the national average level of home ownership – a depiction which was perhaps calculated to favourably dispose Conservative-controlled local authorities to granting planning permission for the incinerator.

4. Also according to Veolia’s Health Impact Assessment (p.36) there is already a higher than the national average number of road traffic accidents – most likely due to the high number of young, inexperienced drivers resident in south Hatfield – often driving late at night and after being at a nightclub or pub.

5. For all its claims of being 'green' UH was highlighted in a ENDS special report in December 2011 as being No.14 out of 20 of the highest carbon emitting universities in the country.

6. Curiously, even though there was a National Union of Students national campaign against Veolia, the student body has played little or no effort in the campaign against the incinerator – with over 24,000 students they could have easily brought the number of objections up to five figures – if they had been the partners they like to claim they are.
 

7. UH built The Forum following their own widely publicised research that entertainment facilities ranked highly in students' evaluation of which university to attend. It is open to the general public but that is perhaps more because of their desire to recoup their investment than anything else. In any case, they are responsible for what goes on in their premises (and / or spilling over into the surroundings) whether it is by students or anyone else. It is also worth noting that some of the 'general public' using this facility are friends and acquaintances of students ie. not Hatfield residents.

8. Negative perceptions about Hatfield (including because of it being seen to be a 'uni town') discourages some professionals from moving here even though it has a great location in between London and Cambridge with excellent road and rail links. This reduces the pool of people with a long term interest in the town - and the pool of potential candidates to represent the town at local elections. It also discourages investment in the town – as we have seen from the stalled town centre and Hilltop redevelopment projects.

9. Many of the negative comments on Hatfield appear to be by either students or former students (see Hatfield's entry under Chav Towns - often written in such poor English and showing such an appalling lack of analytical thinking that it suggests that they did not have a half decent secondary education. If they are graduates then it suggests a devaluing of the degree system and of British education in general).

10. It also reflects badly on Hatfield when many crimes carried out by students are reported in the press (usually the WHT) as being by individuals 'from Hatfield'. It is also clear from some of the crimes reported that UH's international student recruitment (historically they pay around three times more than local students) is being used as a way into the UK by at least some unscrupulous / criminal elements.

11. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the crime figures, if anything, are grossly under reported as many incidents are not reported to the Police.
 

12. The figures reported for criminal damage and public order seem very low compared to the number of complaints about student behaviour made in letters pages and on local forums, which suggests crimes committed off campus by students are not taken into consideration and / or people are reluctant to avoid reporting them.

13. It would be interesting to know how many local Fire and Ambulance call outs and the costs (including those by the NHS in treating them) are incurred by students in halls and living in HMOs – and paid for by Herts taxpayers.

14. It would also be interesting to know the cost to taxpayers for damage, vandalism and theft of street furniture (like street signs) and public property caused by students.

It is also worth noting that Hatfield is used as a residential base by students from other establishments in the area (including as far away as Luton). Ironically, a clash between what was most probably rival student groups - given the time and locations involved (travelling from one campus to the other in the early hours) – was portrayed in the press as ‘innocent’ UH students being assaulted by 'Hatfield' thugs.

15. It is also worth noting that although UH is in receipt of substantial amounts of public funds it, as an educational establishment, it does not pay corporate tax on profits from its commercial operations (like the Uno bus service which recently expanded to provide services for the University of Northampton).

16. Given UH runs its own shop, pharmacy, bars (NUS) and cafes it's questionable as to how much money it actually contributes to the Hatfield economy given its size and impact.

17. For 12 years until recently, community group Sport Hatfield, tried hard to secure a permanent home ground for Hatfield Town Football Club. They had close dealings with the University over Angerland Common playing fields – previously a home ground for the present nomadic club. Historically, an agreement for joint use was created between HCC (landlords), the then Hatfield Polytechnic, and Welwyn Hatfield Council in 1977 - although around 1993 title was transferred by HCC to the newly created University of Herts - but the joint-use remained.  In around 2001, during the course of negotiating a plot of land to build a modest football stadium at Angerland, Sport Hatfield alerted the UH to the potential of building a Park & Ride there and showed them original development plans pertaining to the Joint-Use agreement they had with the WHBC which would  support this facility.  The UH were immediately interested and promised to provide a peppercorn lease for the stadium. They then acknowledged their support for it in their Masterplan of November 2002 and later provided  a draft 50-year peppercorn lease which would be signed shortly after planning permission was gained for the stadium.  But when the application was approved, the  University of Hertfordshire did not sign the lease. In preparation to build their 800-space Park & Ride, UH closed down Angerland playing fields in 2004. However, they had a Section 106 obligation to re-open it and build new facilities.  Eight years on these remain unfulfilled (in fact, in 2012, the limited public access via the footpath by the lawn cemetery ceased when this was fenced off). Clearly, the 'ambitious and enterprising' UH understands the value and potential of this piece of real estate and are in no hurry to relinquish or share it. In the meantime, Hatfield football teams are paying out money to Gosling Stadium in WGC as they have no grounds in Hatfield. 

A newspaper article from the Welwyn & Hatfield Review (p5 Thursday, 22 January 2004), headlined ‘Club And University On The Ball’: "The Conservative Party spokesman for culture, media and sport Julie Kirkbride has backed a campaign to provide Hatfield Football Club with its own stadium. The shadow minister was part of a group at the Angerland Common Sports Ground this week to mark a unique partnership between the football club and the University of Hertfordshire...Plans are now afoot to build a new 450 seater stadium at the university owned sports ground close to Junction 2 of the A1(M). As part of the deal the football club would share the site with the university which plans to set up a park and ride scheme...The stadium would include a brand new clubhouse and changing rooms. Welwyn Garden City architect firm ASE Partnership has already helped to draw up plans with view to submitting an application soon."
 

18. UH were invited to create a new website for Hatfield Town Council – a good CV project for one or more of their new media students but they declined.

19. It was suggested to them that it would benefit town and gown and provide valuable experience and income if their international students operated a food fair in Hatfield. Nothing came off it – although the much smaller Smallford College did manage to do just that in WGC.

20. At least one person close to drug company Eisai suggests that their prime motivation for relocating to Hatfield was because of the expectation it was going to be home to a major hospital. Other considerations included that it was conveniently placed between London and Cambridge which meant it was easier to recruit staff (and London is where all new drugs in the UK have  their reams of paperwork and documentation submitted for approval and registration). So UH cannot claim the credit for it bringing it here.

21. Similarly, the announced investment in upgrading (or given that Hatfield did have a much larger station) – restoring Hatfield railway station is largely down to the campaigning efforts of Lord Salisbury's planned redevelopment of Old Hatfield (although student traffic is likely to be a contributory factor).

22. There have been a number of unwanted and unwelcome attempted and actual property developments – mainly aimed at the student market. Residents in Chantry Lane had to fend off repeated attempts by developers to build there. More recently, the art deco cinema on The Common (part of the 'Galleria' of the Thirties) has been demolished to make way for student accommodation (another piece of Hatfield's architectural and cultural history lost).

23. UH apparently did not actively campaign to keep the Central Resources Library in Hatfield - even though it (and the much smaller Hatfield town centre library) is used by their students. This invaluable collection of knowledge would have been a useful resource for students of law, history, art...As a result, Hatfield's public library provision will be cut by some 75 per cent. Possibly a reason for their silence was they were 'partners' in the 'Free' School on Briars Lane. In short, for all their claims of solidarity UH appears only interested in their own financial well-being and reputation – regardless of how much damage the former Hatfield Polytechnic does to the town of its birth. What should be a symbiotic relationship has become a parasitic one – and UH has shown itself to be a cuckoo in the Hatfield nest.