First ever housing only for women

Just as a point of information
https://www.lqgroup.org.uk/media-centre/news/uks-first-women-only-housing-development-officially-opens-in-acton

I think it’s near Holly Lodge but not Holly Lodge, but I could be wrong. And Octavia rings a bell. I think they’re white.
And I’m almost certain a female (!) friend of a friend was living there for years, got pregnant, had a son, and had to leave because of the no males rule.

You've partly answered my question, Camdenish -

I have very vague recollection of hearing about women-only housing near Hampstead Heath from a woman who used to live there when it was women-only, and was angry when that was changed.
It was set up specifically as housing for women [possibly by Octavia Hill?]. Then totally against not just the wishes, but the clear instructions of the founder, and the women living there at the time, the trust decided to let men in, for no good reason except 'because men'.

Does anybody know anything less vague about this? Holly Lodge rings bells but I'm not sure.

Well hopefully the sensible women now have the legal means to deal with this.

Just reviving this zombie thread because I can't sleep and came across this article

https://harrowonline.org/2025/06/13/uks-first-women-only-housing-estate-to-open-in-ealing-amid-rising-demand/

I had a fairly quick look at the website for WPH and could find no mention of tw. I don't know if I missed it, if they've carried out a clean up or if all the mentions of 'woman/women' of course automatically include men who claim ladybrain.

Since the SC confirmed the common sense reading of the EA I don't believe including tw but excluding other men can possibly be legal. I don't know where this leaves any tw who may currently be tenants or tm who weren't even permitted to apply.

Mhm. Isn't this going to fall foul of the whole 'some male people can live here with vulnerable women but other male people can't' discrimination issue?

A non TQ+ identified male has an obvious case for being treated less favourably on the grounds of gender identity/belief.

And yes to the 'lets put male people with boundary problems in a building with vulnerable women, that's not going to be a problem' thing. The obvious answer, as with refuges, is to designate some mixed sex 'women' identity provision and some single sex female only provision. Female type women then can make informed and consenting decisions about whether they are able to live alongside male people with no gaslighting involved.

The problem is in fact created by the EA because it had to include men who have transitioned as being equally protected as biological females,

It has been established in the courts that the comparator for a man with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but no GRC is another man. The FWS case also confirmed that a transwoman without a GRC is legally a man.

Sounds like a convent.

So not read the whole thread, but what is the legal basis for this? There is no basis for having single ‘gender’ accommodation in the Equality Act. If transmen are not allowed then that is direct discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. If some men (transwomen) but not others are allowed then that is also discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4870514-working-class-women-and-dv-kids-removed-celebrities-and-people-with-money-no-involvement?page=1

I rent from this landlord. I agree that it seems painfully disconnected from its early vision. I feel that I'm paying out an ever-rising rent to fund the employees' ambitions and hefty wages, self-justified by their weird, insulting narrative that women rent because we are "vulnerable". 🤦 As you know, in central London there's literally nowhere affordable for single average earners to move to, so doubtless women will quickly fill the new tower block, but I don't envy them.

This looks at the proposal for the block from another angle. That the design is really bad, and being allowed as it is "only catering to women".

Upon closer scrutiny of the planning drawings, it transpires that the benevolent agenda obscures a bog-standard design which doesn’t propose anything beyond the bare minimum. The press release points out the flats are specially designed for women, with details such as lower kitchen countertops and enhanced ventilation to ensure comfort for menopausal women.

In the grand scheme of things, these design features sound insignificant and reactionary. Cross-ventilation, where windows are placed on opposite walls of a room is the best way to ensure fresh air flow but this isn’t present in the proposal, which is filled with small, hotel-like, corner units. Lowered countertops, while a reasonable addition, highlight the lack of larger-scale, architectural responses to the brief.

Bar the rooftop garden, the housing block does not offer any flexible rooms or communal facilities. The scheme is a collection of run-of-the-mill, individual flats, which gives no opportunity to create solidarity among the residents, such as opportunities of sharing domestic work or socialising, or even a little extra circulation space that could facilitate moments of respite and interaction. It’s the same basic housing product, repackaged in pink.
Underprivileged women deserve a better solution to the systemic problems affecting them; a solution rooted in urban planning, bolder briefs and more ambitious architecture. The new Brook House is a desperate measure for desperate times, not a long-term solution for a truly feminist city.

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-uks-first-women-only-tower-block-is-a-desperate-measure-for-desperate-times

Without asking you to specify which almshouse charity your mother is accommodated by, all I can say is that it sounds most unusual for someone living in an almshouse to have a tenancy. The general model is to provide licences to occupy charity owned accommodation.

The recognised definition of an almshouse is:

An almshouse is a unit of residential accommodation (usually a house or flat) which belongs to a charity, is provided exclusively to meet the charity’s purposes (for example, the relief of financial need or infirmity) and is occupied or is available for occupation under a licence by a qualified beneficiary.

An almshouse charity is typically a charity which is established for purposes which are to be furthered by the provision of one or more almshouses.

An almshouse charity is usually a charity for the relief of financial hardship by the provision of housing and associated services or benefits which must (or is authorised to) provide its primary benefit by the grant of a licence to occupy the accommodation that it owns to its beneficiaries.

https://www.almshouses.org/what-is-an-almshouse/

Can you provide a link to any almshouse charity that provides proper tenancies?

Lots of almshouses do provide sheltered accommodation, i.e. independent living with a warden on site, hence the bit that alarmed you in the guardian article about pressing a green buzzer in the morning to check in. Almost all almshouse accommodation is aimed at older residents. According to your second Guardian article, 'residents typically move into almshouses in their early 70s'.

I can see that the almshouse movement is keen to expand its offer as an alternative to social housing for residents of all ages but currently it's almost all retirement (over 50's) or sheltered accommodation.

Yes, I am well aware that this is not the same as exempt 'supported accommodation' but the bottom looks about ready to fall out of that particular model. Meanwhile the entire rental market continues to spiral round the plug hole with LL selling up and rents skyrocketing.

It's a piece of piss for wealthy 'benefactors' to set up 'charities' to provide housing. Why wouldn't dodgy investors move their money into this field as other fields collapse? Why wouldn't the government also exempt this kind of propert if they provide 'services'?

Residents do not have a tenancy

You have said this previously, and I replied at the time that my mother was in an Alms House and did have a tenancy.

Clearly it depends on the Alms House and how it is legally structured.

Secondly Alms Houses are not supported accommodation, their purpose is to allow people to live independently, quite often later in life when financial circumstances mean they cannot afford to house themselves and dont want to be an intruder in a family home. They are there to provide independence and dignity.

Again this has been said before.

And also exempt housing has nothing whatsoever to do with Alms Houses, they are a terrible solution to homelessness and children in care, and worse still now used by some councils for victims of DV.

I dont understand why you keep muddling them up and are so insistance that Alms Houses are some sort of devilish plot.

I am sure there are some that are still run on some old fashioned paternalistic grace and favour basis, but many aren't.

Almshouses have a reputation for providing excellent sheltered accommodation but they are NOT the answer to general housing needs. Residents do not have a tenancy they have a licence to occupy which affords far fewer housing rights.

I find it quite alarming that this model is being touted as a solution to the housing crisis.

The government is at last waking up to the shitshow that is 'supported accomodation':

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/17/levelling-up-housing-and-communities-committee/news/173906/exempt-housing-and-support-services-are-a-complete-mess-says-committee/

The last thing we need now is for almshouses to become the next gravy train.

Just came across these two articles about Alms Houses being the future.

Was disturbed that the one they wrote about implied that they had to check in in the morning ie that it was some how sheltered housing.

But then I thought, if it is mainly individuals living on their own who dont have friends or family near by, maybe this is a good way, that isn't intrusive to let those in charge of the housing that you are okay.

I have had talks with friends, many now on their own, if we shouldn't have a system or checking in on each other.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/22/affordable-and-stress-free-how-almshouses-are-the-unsung-heroes-of-uk-social-housing

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/22/almshouse-residents-may-live-up-to-two-and-a-half-years-longer-study-finds

(I think the photo is really sweet, but in fact many Alms Houses aren't this type of picture postcard variety!)

Huh?
What are you on about @JenniferBooth ?

The problem is in fact created by the EA because it had to include men who have transitioned as being equally protected as biological females, and then had to provide this tiny loop hole, the exemptions, that means truely women only is only for "vulnerable" women.

I think many women at different stages of their life would feel more comfortable if living alone to know that neighbours were only other women.

But again it is the politics that if messing this up. How come you can have LGB only housing but not women only housing for those who want it. Or are LGB all considered to be "vulnerable".

What this is about really is that the more hoops and hurdles governments can put up the less money they have to provide for housing.

If housing was properly funded, you could design any number of different types of communities.

Needless to say women aren't allowed that right.

The real worry is that this acception of compromise by WPH may impact on existing tenants who already have lease which they took on the understanding that their flat was part of a women only situation.

Money talks louders than values.

However, I also noted it said that violent men would be excluded....

There's a huge spectrum of intimidating, predatory, boundary-crossing behaviour that isn't necessarily categorised as violent.

I read this sentence and felt almost certain that the journalist had used 'transgender women' and 'transgender men' the wrong way round - otherwise the sentence makes no sense at all surely?! I think a large proportion of the population could probably also make this error.

That would make more sense - and I do genuinely think that some pollsters wanting to 'find' a certain kind of result deliberately capitalise on people's understandable confusion.

However, when it says "anyone with a known history of male violence against women or children will not", they clearly aren't thinking of women who have a history of perpetrating 'male violence'! That clause alone makes it clear that males who do not have a (known/acknowledged/recorded) history of violence against women WILL be allowed. It would be as silly as having a 'children only' facility and feeling the need to 'clarify' that 'children' over the age of 18 will not be allowed!

Going back to social housing. when my satnav diverted my from the South Circular, I became aware of the extent of council housing in South London, built between and after the Wars. They were proper houses, and built with respect for the people who were to live in them. Shame on the Tories who wrecked that with their contempt for their constituents.

Comments are closed and holey.

Another article about this in the Guardian. I've only read a few of the comments but many seem quite terfy. I expect the mods will wise up and it'll be gone or full of holes soon.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/04/women-only-housing-britain-handmaids-social-london

Yes to single sex accommodation in hotels etc..

I can remember when young, if a woman was travelling say for a job interview or even a holiday, the ideal was to get a room in a YWCA. Parents would often insist.

I think that for some reason this fell out of fashion, although YMCAs did seem to last longer.