Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Loose Women-DC in social housing banned from "Rich kids playground"

46 replies

HJWT · 28/03/2019 21:35

AIBU to think these women can be absolutely VILE... I LOVEEE how they assume that everyone living in a housing association or council property has their rent paid by the council Confused

Carol McGiffin, Jane Moore and Nadia Sawalha all argued that separate play areas for children in a council block versus children in private housing is just 'the way of the world'.

And Carol outraged viewers by saying she thought the poorer children were 'lucky to live' in the council flat.

Jane told the panel: 'It's a bit like being on holiday in two seperate hotels and your hotel is a 3 star and your holiday is a 5 star.

All this over a bit of grass! Such a sad sad world we live in.... should we also divide them in the school playground and at restaurants ?

Loose Women-DC in social housing banned from "Rich kids playground"
OP posts:
HotpotLawyer · 29/03/2019 07:16

Tne scheme got planning permission as a whole, was built as a whole and as such, the developers have to provide a certain amount of play space / public realm.

Once built the management company changed the layout and blocked off the play area that had been provided, within the planning permission for the scheme as a whole, denying access to social housing tenants.

anniehm · 29/03/2019 07:22

The issue was mostly of design, the poor kids flats overlooked the rich kids play area. But the housing association wasn't contributing to the upkeep of the playground because the site had essentially been segregated hence no access. I think we could do better than forcing developers to shoehorn in cheap spec residences on smaller high end developments - on large scale developments it makes sense but for smaller ones why can't they develop a separate block where there's no controversies like poor doors, lack of access to amenities etc. as long as it's within a set area.

HotpotLawyer · 29/03/2019 07:23

The attitudes on this thread show exactly why the developers thought they would get higher prices for their flats by flouting the planning permission and segregating the Tenants.

As it happens residents in the private as well as social housing were protesting the change.

HotpotLawyer · 29/03/2019 07:35

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

NB the correction at the bottom of the article which clarified that the council did not approve the change to block off the play area.

Developers make millions out of these schemes. Section 106 ibligedcthem to provide amenities in the area from which they profit. That includes play areas etc. I don’t specifically know whether the play area was S106 or just the normal provision of play / public realm that all developers have to build in.

Social cohesion is being torn apart by house prices in London, with polarisation between those that can pay £600k for a 2 bed flat and those that can’t.

People can work together as a society, or gate themselves in behind ever higher barriers screeching mine , mine MINE, and expect riots.

Queenunikitty · 29/03/2019 16:13

I know the area where this development is very well and there is no way I would have bought there. You can’t insulate yourself from reality in that part of South London unless you have millions to spend. Haven’t the developers now said they would grant access to all?

MadameAnchou · 29/03/2019 16:19

I'm amazed Loose Women is allowed to be on telly still. They've always been a load of cunts.

SimonJT · 29/03/2019 16:31

This is common, I live in a rented flat that comes with access to private gardens, despite paying a service charge I can’t use the private gardens as only owner occupiers are allowed. I do have a small private garden though.

The flat I’m in the process of buying has communal gardens which can be accessed by renters, but the gym is buyers only unless renters pay a monthly fee to use it.

HotpotLawyer · 29/03/2019 18:27

Yes, the developers have now said they will grant access to all - honouring the planning permission and the requirement to provide play space and public space within the development as a whole!

And people wishing to 'insulate themselves from reality' are driving gentrification and feeding greedy developers.

HeronLanyon · 31/03/2019 00:38

It’s not like strangers using your garden or other comments above.

The developers were granted planning permission for the development which included provisions for all residents To use the garden. Residents from the ‘affordable’ flats and the more expensive flats.
The plans included a gate into the garden which all residents were able to use.
During construction the developers planted hedging around the garden rather than a gate which meant those from the affordable flats simply could not physically get to the garden but everyone else could.

It is completely outrageous. Not a surprise. Really crap. It’s being challenged - the local authority are involved etc.
Hope develooers are required to comply with the plans.

changingmyname2019 · 31/03/2019 00:58

I live in a town that built a housing development 15 years ago. The houses are half-owned, half council. It is a square design with a park in the middle. When the development was built, the houses were about 150k. Today, they are valued at 100k, but almost-always sell for less.

The park in the middle is known for drugs, prostitution, unruly teens, and so forth. It's so bad that the police have refused to go out there on occasion.

For some reason, the council put lots of problem families in the development when it opened. There have been social problems from day one. Everyone I've known who has lived there has been desperate to move. Not one person I've known has used that park, even the ones with kids.

Based on my experience, I would want the park to stay private, or I wouldn't buy there.

HeronLanyon · 31/03/2019 02:20

This garden was/is private to the development. Trouble is they’ve said only some can use it contravening undertakings during planning.

gamerchick · 31/03/2019 18:05

I LOVEEE how they assume that everyone living in a housing association or council property has their rent paid by the council confused

There are plenty of people on here who think that as well. People are a bit dim in general.

AuntieCJ · 31/03/2019 18:18

I hope they stop charging some residents for the maintenance, if it is opened up to all.

Cel982 · 31/03/2019 18:20

It's awful. The whole point of mixed housing developments is to prevent the development of ghettos. Isolating less well-off families and forcibly preventing the mixing of children from different backgrounds is really regressive.

HelenaDove · 31/03/2019 18:26

By the 2030s our society will have come full circle.

Lalalalalalalalaland · 31/03/2019 18:30

Madness. Most of the HA houses in our estate are lived in by working people. Nurses, TAs, bookkeepers, chefs etc.

But the assumption always is that people living in HA are some sort of scumbags.

I would be up in arms if the children from the HA houses were not allowed to use the park created by the developers.

HelenaDove · 12/04/2019 16:24

amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/12/social-housing-tenant-punished-speaking-guardian?__twitter_impression=true

"Social tenant says he is being punished for speaking to the Guardian

Thomas Reames says Southern Housing extended probation period after he discussed segregated facilities

A social housing tenant with a heavily pregnant wife who spoke to the Guardian about segregated facilities in his block has said he’s being punished by his housing provider for doing so.

Thomas Reames, 42, was to sign a five-year tenancy agreement with social housing provider Southern Housing but days after the Guardian highlighted social tenants had no access to lifts in his block, he was told his probation period would have to be extended.

A housing officer from Southern Housing told Reames he would not be able to sign his tenancy agreement for his home in Legacy House, Hackney Wick, as expected because of separate allegations that were brought forward after he spoke to the Guardian. Reames said that the housing officer warned he and his family would be monitored over the next six months to see if he continues to follow the agreement in his tenancy but that if the provider was still unsatisfied he could lose his home

Reames said the sudden change came as a huge shock to him and his wife, who are expecting their fourth child. “All the indications before that was that we were signing that tenancy agreement, but that’s suddenly changed,” he said. “It’s a huge shock to us and it’s upsetting as this comes at a time when I’m expecting my fourth child in a few weeks.”

On 1 April, Reames told the Guardian that pregnant and disabled social housing tenants in his block, which is dominated by privately owned flats, are forced to use stairs to access their floor because the lift was designed to stop only on private floors.

London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), the planning authority, confirmed that after residents campaigned it is taking enforcement action over social tenants’ access to the lift.

Shortly after the Guardian article was published, Reames received an email that said due to a number of issues in the previous year, Southern Housing would be extending his probation period. Reames said the housing provider had not raised any issues with them in the previous 12 months

In the same email, Reames and his wife Taslima were told: “Please can you also ensure that your conduct over social media in regards to Legacy House matters is deemed as appropriate.”

Reames said residents have been trying to make Southern Housing aware of the developer’s planning breaches, the most significant being the lack of access to lifts for social housing tenants, but failed to get any support.

He added: “There now appears to be a campaign to attempt to bully residents into silence or encourage us to not chase up on these breaches or highlight them. Since the Guardian article on 1 April 2019, SHG [Southern Housing Group] commented to me on 3 April 2019 they are aware of the article and then on 9 April they instructed me not to talk about the breaches on social media, which quite frankly is disgusting.

Taslima Reames said: “As far as I was aware, I was expecting to sign this five-year tenancy agreement with Southern Housing, but after the article we were suddenly told about these complaints. It just feels like they are making something up to extend our probation period.

“I’m due to give birth in seven weeks and I don’t need this stress.”

Southern Housing is a major housing provider in Tower Hamlets, but the council declined to provide comment on the case.

Rabina Khan, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Tower Hamlets, said: “Who do Southern Housing think they are? The thought police? A social housing tenant exercises his democratic right to speak to the press about the social housing block he lives in then suddenly gets an email from his landlord informing him that he is being investigated for those comments?

She added: “What makes Southern Housing think they have any control whatsoever over what one of their tenants can say? Thomas has the right to speak to the press or anyone else for that matter.”

Chris Harris, executive director, customer services at Southern Housing, said: “It would not be right to discuss the specific details of a customer’s tenancy account. However, we can assure you that our communication with Mr Reames and Mrs Reames, which has been ongoing for some weeks, has nothing at all to do with any contact that Mr Reames may have had with the press.”

Harris added: “As an organisation, from time to time we remind residents that comments on social media should always be considerate as they are subject to the same laws that govern other forms of public behaviour. Southern Housing Group understands that frustrations about housing, neighbours and similar issues do sometimes boil over onto social media.

“We offer this advice as a matter of support and goodwill, although we recognise that it is not always perceived this way and perhaps we could phrase it better."

Londonmummy66 · 14/04/2019 13:32

Without wanting to out myself I know a lot about that development and I think that people are being a bit disingenuous all round. The developers shouldn't have changed the design BUT there is an adventure playscheme opposite on a very quiet cul de sac which is more attractive and so the preferred place for a lot of the children to play.

www.lollardstplay.org.uk/

Also the tennis courts and sports pitches that the Guardian article carefully mentions as not being part of the housing development are in fact part of a community trust offering lots of free activities to residents of the complex and the wider estate in which it sits - timetable here

blackprincetrust.org.uk/timetable/

Obviously I'm glad that all the children can play freely on all areas of that complex- the original sports facilities there were set up by Sport England and were free of charge to all comers and it is good to see that ethos as returned.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread