to think that this has no place in this country

[brizzlemint]

www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/25/too-poor-to-play-children-in-social-housing-blocked-from-communal-playground

At least one multimillion-pound housing development in London is segregating the children of less well-off tenants from those of wealthier homebuyers by blocking them from some communal play areas.

Guardian Cities has discovered that developer Henley Homes has blocked social housing residents from using shared play spaces at its Baylis Old School complex on Lollard Street, south London. The development was required to include a mix of “affordable” and social rental units in order to gain planning permission.

I just read this story - it's so depressing. Absolutely awful. What kind of horrible shit of a person makes that decision?

Bastards

This is awful. I don't know how those people in the "posh" flats will be able to live with themselves! It will also cause massive divides within the community as people in the social housing will (rightly) feel very aggrieved. So in the end nobody wins.

Is anyone else imagining one single solitary rich kid being pushed by his nanny in an empty park, looking enviously through the hedge at all the games going on in the overcrowded affordable housing playground?

I understand that the privately owned houses are paying for the upkeep of the play area. But this feels very different to privately owned homes having access to a swimming pool or concierge when social housing doesn't. This is because having private play areas is not the norm. Having segregated play areas is not the norm. Children playing with other children in a playground is a lovely way for neighbours to form relationships, and this makes it impossible.

It's in Lambeth. I can see their point with the swimming pool and the gym because they are facilities that anybody would expect to pay for and those on lower incomes can get discounted membership at the pools under contract from local authorities so they have an alternative but children's play areas should be free for all children to play in.

Children shouldn't be unable to mix with other children because they don't have the money, all playgrounds should be accessible to all children.

This is a difficult one. Amongst the home owners paying the ground fee, there will be families who were able to buy because they got inheritance or parents paying à huge deposit for them. There will also be families where both adults work FT whilst raising little kids and got there because they did without any luxuries for many years.

Amongst those there under social housing will be families who are disabled or on very low income despite working FT. There will also be families who will not work and doing much to get a job or only work a fewest possible whilst claiming UC to make up the difference even though they could work FT.

It's understandable that the owners working FT without any luxuries would resent paying for those who do similar jobs but only part time, when in the end, their disposable income might not be far off and having to pay ground rent for the other family to also enjoy the same things they get for the price.

That's the problem, you can't pick and chose who is worthy and who isn't. The hard working FT families will focus on the part timers or those out of work when they could work. The disabled will fo us on those who bought their house with inheritance and who are therefore just lucky.

It does seem very mean to include a playground in facilities that residents who don't pay service charges can't use. Other facilities such as gym/concierge/pool are fair enough. Service charges are often very hefty.

Gym, pool, fine. But to dangle a playground right in front of children and then basically say 'No sorry, it's too nice for the likes of you, here is a really shit little one that you can use' is just cruel, imo.

It is difficult. I think all kids should be allowed, but maybe they're worried about teens? I heard that many new builds won't even build playgrounds anymore, because supposedly they attract teens that just want to drink and get violent. I'm not sure how much of that is true though. Perhaps they could give keys to the play area to all residents (including social) and just make sure only they have access?

Absolutely disgusting that they are allowed to get away with this.

Meh you get what you pay for. I’d take a place in a new development with a sparce play area then the grotty mould ridden HA property me and my kids currently live in.

That's the problem, you can't pick and chose who is worthy and who isn't.

It's about the children, not the parents. Why should the children be penalised because their parents may not be 'worthy'?

If I was living in the 'posh' flats I'd be lobbying for the playground to be opened up to all kids, and I'd be happy for my service charge to be paying for it.

So much of the problem with young people in London is due to relative deprivation. This sort of thing should be outlawed.

There should be no question of “worthiness” - it’s over 100 years since Queen Victoria died ffs. The planning permission was given on the basis of one thing and the developers have done something completely different. Lambeth Council should make tubem take that hedge up and put in the gate permission was granted for.

The payment situation is ludicrous. If you pay a high band of council tax you’re paying a lot more for your local amenities, does that give you the right to exclude people who pay little or nothing?

Someone further up got it right - this is what happens when social housing is provided as an offshoot of a development rather than having councils or housing associations given the cash to build it themselves. It is also what happens when local authorities are cut to the bone and don't want to provide playgrounds themselves.

Essentially it is two different developments, built at the same time. The social housing block lease will have been transferred to a housing association who pay for the maintenance of that block and the small social housing playground.

The private developer and those that big leases from it pay for the maintenance of their block and whatever facilities are contained within it, gym, bike storage, parking spaces, concierge, playground etc- including insurance in case a kid is injured in the private playground. So legally it's not different from the car parking spaces or conceierge.

It is also highly doubtful the council or the housing association actually want or ever wanted for tenants to have access to the playground because they don't want to be lumbered with a 20/30/40 year commitment to paying for it when most councils are cutting public playgrounds.

If the HA has to contribute to the playground costs, it either has to cut its profit margin or charge its tenants more rent. This would have been agreed at the time of the development being planned in the same way paying for shared driveway or access road would have been

So I am not trying to say it's not a bad thing - but don't think the council and housing association did not know about it from the start regardless of the artwork they used when consulting on the development. The legal contracts would have covered what was and wasn't included in any shared costs.

A better option would be councils given cash to properly fund and maintain public access parks perhaps by taxing offshore property developers and owners properly

It's about the children, not the parents. Why should the children be penalised because their parents may not be 'worthy
Ecausexthese children become adults themselves and if they are brought up by a family who work as few hours as they can enjoying a better quality of life as a result and in the end get the same advantages than those who work long hours, they will learn that there is no point aspiring to the latter.

It's the ongoing dilemma of society. How do you balance a fair system that doesn't penalise those who can't better themselves as well as innocent children, whilst teaching that you should aspire to working hard to get what those who don't can't benefit from.

I'm in no way saying that this rule is morally right, but I do believe in encouraging those who make sacrifices by rewarding them above those who don't. Problem as said is that you can't pick and choose.

to think that this has no place in this country

Sadly, I think it does. It's immoral, cruel and shortsighted but if the politics of the day shows us anything, it's that Britain is now a country run for the Haves, whilst screwing over the Have Nots and leaving them to rot.

There seem to be reasons to believe that this is legal, but morally I don't know how anyone can defend it.

If I were a resident I think I would try to set up a group of residents prepared to provide access to the playground via their homes. Presumably visiting friends of resident children are allowed to play there?

Things like this just shouldn't be happening in a supposedly civilised society. I'm appalled that none of the wealthy owners are campaigning against the segregated play area. But in my experience the wealthier the person the more selfish, that's how they maintain their wealth and status for their own children. I remember reading something similar about Grenfel residents being temporarily housed in a block with a gym/pool and the home owners complaining about them using the facilities, with the classic line about how they 'work hard' and therefore shouldn't have to share with people they regard as the underclass. Having been privately educated I have met far too many of these sorts of people, and I certainly don't want my daughter socialising with people who hold such ignorant views.

I can't imagine NOT wanting to pay the £100 so that all the children could have access

Fucking hell, they're CHILDREN - it's the very least I could do to bring about some equality

This is why we have taxes. The more you earn, the more you pay... and public services, including parks and open spaces for families, are provided and maintained by public bodies - not by the individual contributions of wealthier families. Then there is no question about access or who paid individually for what service or facility.

Yet people in the UK vote for the Tories, who are fundamentally opposed to equality, and cut publicly funded services to the bone while cutting taxes.

I live in a big city in France. There are loads of private apartment blocks, which often have a play area or other facilities for residents only. It’s totally normal here, and certainly not reserved for million €€€ developments. At the same time, there are excellent public play areas every few blocks in my city: if you are out with kids, you are never far from a well-maintained open-access play area. That’s because we pay lots of tax and it’s used for projects that benefit everyone, rich and poor.

The market will not deliver equality.

I can understand the argument that they don't pay into the pot to maintain it, therefore the don't get to use it. However as PP have said, the same does not stand for council owned play areas, and nobody seems to object to that.

A big issue for me is that families have chosen to live on that development based on being told they would have access to facilities, which upon moving in they were told otherwise. If I were paying the service charge, I wouldn't care who played there, so long as they didn't cause wilful damage, in which case I'd object top their presence, fee paying or otherwise.

there is always an assumption that people who live in SH don't work hard.this is not always true. they are just most likely on a lower wage,

That's the problem, you can't pick and chose who is worthy and who isn't
Firstly, what does a child have to do to be "worthy" or otherwise? Aren't all children, by default, worthy of a bit of nice play area? So it should be open to all.

Or you really do think the poor kids of lazy parents are unworthy but as you can't pick and choose you open it up to everyone.

I hope someone cuts a hole in their bloody hedge.

It's abhorrent in this day and age.

I can understand the gym and pool, they're paying the hefty fees for this luxury.

But a playground, no just no.

What are we teaching children doing this. That those from a poorer background don't have access to swings and slides right outside their front doors.

Welcome to the uk in the 21st century...