Gardens not accessible to social tenants

[FiddlesticksAkimbo]

Is this sort of thing reasonable?

Social and affordable housing residents are being denied access to the gardens of a multimillion pound West London development despite political promises to ban segregated play areas
www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/27/disabled-children-among-social-tenants-blocked-from-communal-gardens

It seems reasonable to me, on the basis that if you don't pay for it then you can't expect to use it, but I'm interested to see what other people think.

This is such an old story, it came out months ago.....

Situations like this have been publicised in the Guardian before & the management have caved & let the social housing kids in. (In the one I'm thinking of some of the private residents were also cross that they weren't allowed in.)

I hope that happens here too.

I am legally blocked from using the local big houses big garden with play frame on the basis it’s private property and, well not mine... is it an outrage? I can’t walk in their door or park in their driveway either. Woe isn’t meeee

Greenleaveslaughing
This is such an old story, it came out months ago.....

I think this is a different one

It was Lilian Baylis estate in Kennington before

www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/19/london-officials-ban-segregated-play-areas-in-future-housing-developments

1. It says the social housing tenants pay £200/month service charge, so it seems that they do contribute to the cost of the facilities in the development.

1. Even if they didn't, so what? I live in a development with a small gym and underground car park, and I have no idea if the social housing tenants pay towards the cost of maintaining those facilities, but they do have access to them. When I bought my property I agreed to pay a specific share of the maintenance charge, and I don't care where the remainder comes from. These people are my neighbours and frankly I'd be ashamed to look them in the eye and tell them they can't use our shared facilities because they are too poor.

The private side incurs maintenance charges to maintain the gardens / lobbies / pay for security etc - and these can range from hundreds to thousands to hundreds of thousands of pounds per year in London. As social housing tenants / owners don’t pay these fees they can’t be allowed to enjoy the benefits.

Personally in my opinion social and private housing in the same building is a mistake.

Its not the same one This has todays date on it.

It speaks volumes about the way we treat the less wealthy people in our society. It’s shameful.

zsa zsa thats not the same thing and well you know it.

It's the housing association (Octavia) that has decided not to pay the higher service charge which means social tenants are denied access. From what I gather from the article it's Octavia which has put these restrictions on its own service users.

It's nothing to do with the owners of the building or the private tenants wanting "segregation".

It's nothing to do with the owners of the building or the private tenants wanting "segregation".

It would be open to the private leaseholders to agree to bear the cost of the gardens between themselves so that the social tenants didn't have to pay.

If this is a new development where planning permission was only granted on proviso that social housing was included, the developers should make all the public areas accessible to everyone.

@MereDintofPandiculation there isn't a different rate in social care charges for elderly care whether council funded fully, part, or private paid.

The charges are the same it's based on a charge of need higher, medium, and low. The only difference is who pays and what percentage.

I fail to see the distinction between an exclusive private gym and an exclusive private garden. Why is one ok but not the other?

Would like to just post a reminder to say that Grenfell residents wouldnt be living there in the first place if they had been listened to about the safety issues they raised and they hadnt been ignored and legally threatened.

It would seem fair to allow the public housing tenants the same chance to pay the service charge for the garden and receive a fob like the private tenants.
That way if they wanted to pay for a garden they could and if they didn't they weren't forced to.

@Lockheart so Octavia, the Housing Association needs to be named and shamed so that their tenants can pay a contribution to the playground and the children can go into play.

So, not only do the social tenants actually pay a service charge, the gardens were supposed to be communal. From the link:

"Redrow’s original plans for the luxury flats, as approved by Westminster council, appear to show open access to the gardens for all who lived there. The plans are now the subject of an enforcement investigation by council officers."

This is totally unreasonable.

How fortunate the social housing tenants are to be living in a new multimillion pound development. It’s not possible for most of us, however hard we work.

As for one side having bare walls and floor and the other carpets... there is a development near me and shock horror - some of the properties only have concrete walls in shared spaces, several properties to one building, only two bedrooms. Whereas other properties have five bedrooms, private entrance, detached building, garden and garage. The difference between the two is very noticeable (as is the price)

It’s a playground. What possible harm could it do to let all the children play there?
Such a miserable attitude to take.

they're not communal gardens, then, are they? Wouldn't it be much nicer for everyone to have a playground where all the local kids could play. Like in normality (I don't live in London!!)

The Gardens are part of the social amenity that the developers have to pay for to get planning permission. As such they should be open to all.

Some people have private gardens in suburbs that they don't allow other people into. Why is it not possible that people in cities could possibly own land that others are not allowed into?