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'm glad someone started a thread on this. I found it really upsetting.

If anyone wants to do something, I could suggest emailing your MP if you are in an area with lots of new housing developments and letting them know how horrible you find it.

Surely you simply say to the prospective home owners, you pay ground rent (or whatever it’s called) which covers the cost of maintaining the play area, the social tenants don’t. It they can still use it, if you don’t like that don’t buy a property here.

I can’t see the problem with this. I assume in London, as there is where I am in Edinburgh, there are a whole load of gated parks which aren’t open to the public, only to wealthier residents in the area? Why is this different?

Our last house was in quite a small new development with a bizarrely large public area, something to do with the planning decision. Residents paid for the upkeep of the public area and we got an itemised bill with “extras” Every month there was an addition for cleaning up excessive dog mess, and fixing items in the play park. The area was listed online as a great place to walk dogs and so we had a very large number of people using the space, and we were paying extra because of it. It was very irritating so I can see why the developers choose to do this if the residents are paying for that facility. I don’t see it as different from a gym or pool.

If we don’t want this to happen, then we need to stop relying on commercial development companies to provide social / affordable housing. They are always going to operate on this basis: big money, high level facilities etc for better off private buyers, and minimal outlay in the social housing that they are forced to include in these developments.
This is the point. Without these developments there wouldn’t be any social housing. If we want to change this scenario, we’d need to change the system.

Oh Lambeth, they are corrupt. That doesn't shock me.

@yabbers

It’s not that the ‘posh’ flats are in one area with its own playground, it is all one development where they have social housing in one block and private in another. That’s how I read it anyway.

Yanbu op. I just don’t really understand why they thought this was necessary tbh.

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.

A private school round from us has a playground with play equipment for the infant school. Should it be open to all?

The upper school has playing fields. Should they be open to all?

There is inequality in society. How far should the private sector be held responsible for the fact their services might not be accessed by all?

It’s not that the ‘posh’ flats are in one area with its own playground, it is all one development where they have social housing in one block and private in another. That’s how I read it anyway.

Still two separate sections, both of which have playground provision.

But it’s all on the same development yabbers. Not the school round the corner.

Two separate blocks in the same development, which the builders never mentioned would have to have separate access to facilities in the planning application based on their tenure.

If people can’t bear to mix with ‘poor people’ on housing developments, they shouldn’t buy a flat on a housing development where there is social housing.

It's private property and is common in other cities and other countries. There's plenty of private communal green space in London which is restricted to a certain category of residents only. The only difference here is the cheek by jowl proximity which highlights the haves and the have nots which makes the general public uncomfortable.

I'm torn on this. On the face of it, it does appear to be unfair. However, on our new build estate, the children from the social housing end dominate the other children and ds2 couldn't play out due to him being bullied and physically attacked. I did feel resentful about it.

‘But the designs were altered after planning permission was granted to block the social housing tenants from accessing the communal play areas‘.

Why is this allowed? I am sick of these private developers grudgingly including affordable housing to get planning permission and then trying to wrangle of their obligations afterwards. They should be ashamed.

However, on our new build estate, the children from the social housing end dominate the other children and ds2 couldn't play out due to him being bullied and physically attacked
Yup, all that housing tenant dross, thugs and bullies the lot of them. Perhaps we could build a high wall around them all so thry can't come near the nice children.

I am sorry that happened to you and your son, but tarring all social tenant kids with the same brush is unfair. And making it clear to a certain group of kids that they're different and inferior only breeds these kinds of issues

the children from the social housing end

This is exactly the problem. The Social Housing is ghettoised, instead of being fully integrated.

I didn't realise that there are 100+ private garden squares in London alone and not all are grandiose. e.g Fassett Square, Hackney. I have family who live nearby who would love to be able to access this on a daily basis. I have another friend who lives near Cleveland Square in Bayswater which is another private oasis.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-45437843

this thread reminded me of this.

@LaurieFairyCake Tue 26-Mar-19 09:22:05
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

Just because some of those people have bought doesn't mean they aren't working all hours but are still on the breadline. They won't get the concessions that the people in the social housing may get, possibly leaving them worse off than them, financially.

Why should those people then get free reign of the facilities that the homeowners are paying for?

DarkDarkNight Tue 26-Mar-19 10:43:36
the children from the social housing end

This is exactly the problem. The Social Housing is ghettoised, instead of being fully integrated.

Is it fair though that people work and save and scrimp and go without, possibly for years, to save a deposit to get somewhere nice to live and then end up with neighbours next door in an identical house that pay next to nothing for it?

I don't think that is fair at all.

What are the concessions that those in new build housing associations get then Eliza?

Samcro there are some real pockets of poverty in Oxford and some estates do feel very ghettoised.

This is appalling. I'm very much in favour of planning permission being legally binding i.e. what is proposed cannot then be changed by the developers at a later date for their own needs. A development near us has recently made changes to their plans in order to benefit some of the residents and it has infuriated the local community, who didn't really want this development in the first place.

Isn't it the equivalent of a garden? It looks like it. Some of the flats have a shared garden, they have a higher price as a result. In order to fit more social housing in they couldn't allocate a large area for a playground.

Should people with swings or climbing frames in their garden have to let any nearby children in?

We live in a flat, we don't go and sit in the house next doors' lovely garden because it's their property. If DD wants to go on the swings we walk to the council maintained park.

Eliza

"Those people"

Because they're children! It's much less to do with the income of the people in the flats than the perceived inequality by small children.

The gap between rich and poor is far too big in London. It's fine if you can't afford stuff, it's NOT fine to be 6 years old and staring at a playpark outside your window that you can't access but your best mate in the same block can!

They will likely all be at the same school, can you even imagine the children making sense of this without coming away with the idea they're 'better' or 'worse' than the other children.

It's fine to explain that you can't go swimming or to Legoland but to actually say you can't play in this park outside your window when your friends can is a step TOO FAR.

Our grandchildren attend the local state school, with which we are very happy; the playground equipment is typically basic. They live next door to large private school with extensive grounds and facilities. There is no way I would expect our kids to be allowed to use their gardens or sports equipment. If I were one of the fee paying parents I would be very annoyed if they did.

All those posters saying all kids should be allowed in those 'posh' sections of garden, do you leave your garden gates open for all and sundry to come and play with your kids'
swings etc? No, thought not.

I’m not surprised at all. There’s a council owned playground near my home in central London but the council have negotiated a long lease with a very expensive local school who don’t have their own playground. This means none of the local residents can use this playground and there aren’t many others nearby.

If people can’t bear to mix with ‘poor people’ on housing developments, they shouldn’t buy a flat on a housing development where there is social housing
You could argue this statement applies the other way around: if you can't bear mixing with people who can afford to own their house and ground rent to get facilities only available to them, don't move on a housing development where this is thearrangement.