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.

This thread is a depressing read, the fact people are comparing a swing park to hotels/gyms/spas proves it.

When did a set of swings and a slide become something you can segregate. Anyone with a child knows you can not walk past a park without your kid wanting to go play in it "Sorry kid mummy doesn't earn enough as a nurse/childminder for you to mix with them" There should have been one park for everyone to access.

Setting a class divide before their even out of nappies. But its ok because suck it up 3 year old.

Mmh if there is a charge to maintain it then fair enough. People that don’t pay usually tend to take less care (littering, breaking equipment... just look at the council play areas!)

I find some of the views on here baffling. I pay, through income and council tax, for plenty of things that I have been fortunate enough never to need to use. I don’t begrudge that. But apparently it’s fine for the better off to begrudge poorer children using a playground that their parents don’t pay for as they don’t earn enough - though I’ll bet plenty of the less well off are doing far more worthwhile and necessary jobs than the better off.

Why isn’t everybody upset about communal gardens then? Patches of green surrounded by streets (so access is not an issue) but reserved to people living in the surrounding houses.
I don’t have a garden, but my children don’t feel like second class citizens. There are other parks we can go to. The same way there are council play areas available...

I'd be really interested to know how many of the posters in this thread live in Lambeth because some of these posts really don't reflect the views posted by local residents.

There are some depressingly blinkered, ill-informed and self-centred posts on here that (whether wilfully or through ignorance) are missing the bigger picture of why it fundamentally doesn't work to make social housing reliant on developers who have zero interest in social cohesion. Only maximising profit.

There are parts of the country which have very little integration (whether based on race, religion or income) and it doesn't take an anthropologist to see that rarely turns out well.

If you want a safer, happier, fairer society its time to ditch the 'why should I pay for them' attitude.

Quite. I am not in Lambeth but in a neighbouring borough and we have huge issues with housing development being out of the reach of local people - people are being displaced by replacement developments that they can not afford to live in, and which in any rate are all being sold to overseas investors.

And I don’t care for private squares either - but if a square can be used by all residents of that square then it’s not the same situation anyway.

Victoria Derbyshire is covering this today.

It's a few swings and a slide fgs
Does it matter whose child uses it.

I'm disgusted this is allowed to happen. Can you imagine telling your child you can't play on those swings.

Residents will soon rip the hedge down and so they should. Just because someone doesn't earn a huge amount doesn't mean they are not hard working members on society.

Ide be interested to see what happens if a high school student lives on the nice side and their teacher lives in the sh side.

Waves to WeepingWillow who's probably in the same neighbouring borough as me.

I'm not really okay with private garden squares, either - there are quite a few of them in Central London, where I work, and I hate that people have to sit on the pavement outside to eat their lunch, while the garden gates are locked and empty. But in theory all of the surrounding properties can use them. This is more akin to if only the freeholders of those properties were able to use the communal garden, and tenants were barred. That would be discrimination on the grounds of tenure, and it's not okay.

I live in Lambeth on this estate

I regards to management fees, we all in the area pay service charges which is flat rate irrespective of whether ownership of social and in this case if split by the additional households would that not decrease the fee for those who brought?

Waves to Mother I have also worked in a private square in central London and yes, ridiculous that the pavements around the square were cluttered with lunchtime workers eating their sandwiches whilst this beautiful green space was empty.

If you want a safer, happier, fairer society its time to ditch the 'why should I pay for them' attitude

I get the principle but isn't there a question of how far that's taken?

Hopefully we'd all agree with things like education and the NHS being publicly funded for all, but I'm not so sure about private facilities such as this - especially when there's a well regarded play area on a park very close by

Granted it's unfortunate if kids can see the "reserved area" from their homes and maybe it could have been sited better, but in reality there'll always be things they miss because their parents can't pay. We're often told that a stupidly expensive Disney holiday is every child's dream ... should we insist others bankroll that too?

Are they going to start segregating the playground at the local primary school based on whose parents can afford to donate money as well?

Believe it or not, this did actually happen: www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/11/west-midlands-school-accused-of-segregating-children-in-playground

Why cant children living in low income homes, in high rise flats with no garden go and play in the gardens of those lovely Mayfair mansions?

In these mixed developments, if you don't pay the hefty service charge you can't use the facilities. Like the 'poor door' and use of porter.

Update for anyone interested:
Lambeth council have said they are looking into legally possible options to address this. They've also commented on moral responsibilities of those involved.

Henley have said they are looking into it with stakeholders and are committed to social cohesion.

On a lengthy local social media thread only one poster so far has suggested it's reasonable to segregate. Noone has agreed with her.

Love London. Love Lambeth. Don't love segregation.

It’s clear that social housing should not be left to private developers because inevitably they will maximize profits by doing as little as possible for the HA homes they grudgingly include.

but this with bells on

The market will not deliver equality.

Very astute point by a PP. The developers, by default, aren't there to provide for anyone except themselves. One of the many wonderful side-effects of capitalism and a government that won't properly fund social housing.

Thanks for the update, dame. Seems that thanks to the media scrutiny all parties involved are starting to think a little more ethically about this.

Just to make it clear the park is a communal area so isn’t for one side or the other, it’s for all! Social tenants also pay service charge. Original plan was that social had access to all communal areas which is only reason planning permission was granted and then later a wall (not a hedge) was built to block social housing accessing communal areas! This isn’t a them and us, this is children being allowed to play together regardless of housing tenure and the fact most attend the same school makes it ironic!
It was in fact the private mums who instigated this, not the social! Many comments on various outlets have proved exactly what is currently wrong with this country and that is sad, especially as London is supposed to be one of the most socially diverse cities in the world!

I live nearby. Couple of quick things as I don't have time right now to read everything.

Firstly the owners in the private block mainly want all the kids to be able to use it. The campaigning has come from both them and those in the social bit.

Secondly everyone was initially told they could use the playground, but after moving in the social tenants found this was not the case.

Never gonna work I grew up on a council estate with a private park like this and we just trashed a path through the hedge. The private park was also the biggest drug area because it was you know private!

The Guardian is now reporting that the developer has had a change of heart, and that the play areas will be open to everyone.

Excellent news. Pity they had to be shamed into it.

Councils and HAs have a huge amount of power when they are negotiating development agreements with private developers. They could insist that the social tenants have access to the same facilities in the agreements.