Playtime is over

Why did I choose to stay at Clayponds Village, the Imperial postgraduate hall?

Easy: I wanted to socialise and meet people. It’s been great fun so far. Welcome Week was packed with events, introducing me to a new gang of friends. The major parties, such as the recent Chinese New Year, have run smoothly with loads of people attending – a credit to the managers, wardens and student volunteers who made them happen. They’d be impossible without the amenities fund – a central fund which uses 1–3% of the rent from each Hall resident.

Why impossible? It’s a matter of risk. Without a central fund to draw from, events will only ever go ahead if they are zero–risk, like getting together groups for discounts on tickets to a musical. However, a big event might require a marquee, a band, food and drink – paid in advance. What are the chances of getting over a hundred students to throw down a tenner on an event, six weeks ahead, which won’t even go ahead if the numbers don’t add up?

The issue of Hall rents, and measures to bring them down, has cropped up recently, and there’s a review to scrutinise of the funding in the works.

Union president Alex Kendall mentioned in a recent Felix interview that he believes “it is a fundamental principle is that no alcohol should be funded from the amenities fund... the fact that some students are subsidising others to drink alcohol is, I think, quite immoral.”

It’s ridiculous to say that central funds can’t be spent on something if a small number of people choose not to take advantage

Immoral? Really? The choice not to drink is up to an individual; for my own reasons, I didn’t drink until I turned twenty. However, it’s ridiculous to say that central funds can’t be spent on something if a small number of people choose not to take advantage.

Sure, with clubs and societies, grant money should be spent on the specific activity of the club, not booze. However, the specific purpose of an amenities fund is to pay for social amenity in the form of facilities and events, and many people in halls enjoy a drink when they socialise. Should we also make it a fundamental principle that we can’t have karaoke at halls events, in case there are people who don’t sing?

The argument also ignores the fact that hall residents can have an active say in the way the amenities fund is spent. Don’t drink? Fine. Suggest and organise a cheap bowling night or theatre trip. Most subsidised activities at Clayponds are non–drinking; however, some of those with alcohol provided have been the biggest and best attended, by all kinds of residents.

The character and safety of living in a Hall is improved by the social cohesion created when students know each other. That’s facilitated by well–run events which are cheaper and more accessible than those we can organise on our own. When I took up my accommodation offer, I expected that there would be active encouragement of a community environment by the Hall. There has been, and it’s because of the amenities fund, along with a great wardening team.

The issue can be solved with greater transparency, which I hope the review delivers (and who would argue against lower rent?). Why not show a typical full rent breakdown – not just of the ‘non-fundamental’ parts – on the accommodation website? If a student doesn’t want to have £2 per week of their rent going towards a year–long, openly planned social program, they can choose to find accommodation elsewhere.

For me, that £2 has been the best value of my rent package by far. Where is the rest going?