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.

MANY SOCIAL HOUSING TENANTS WORK TOO KLAXON..........and many of those that dont are carers or people with disabilities.

Idk, I'm torn because they pay for it like one would pay for the zoo, or a theme park. You can't just roll in for free because you're poor.

I see it from both sides, the private tenants paid for it so it's kinda like membership (like "friends of kew" you pay annually for access all year) but at the same time, social housing kids should be able to play locally. They're just kids.

Life is unfair. I'm kind of more on the side of you pay for it, you use it and social housing families should maybe have the option to purchase an annual access pass? Let's face it, social housing areas parks are grim, because the kids don't have much respect for it and that's due to parents failing there. I'm sure if you paid for a park and families who didn't pay left a mess, swore, behaved in an unbecoming manner, there'd be a whole angry thread of MC mumsnetters fuming at social housing families.

I think I would let all children play in the playground, I don't see how the extra wear and tear can cost much.

On the other hand, I don't think long-term rights to occupy £750,000 pound flats should be granted to anyone out of social spending, so the situation that in which the problem could exist shouldn't have arisen in the first place.

www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-rise-and-fall-of-council-housing-56139

In the 1980s, residualisation may have been a partly unintended consequence of housing policies pursued with varying ideological intent.

Since 2010, and more so since the return of single-party Conservative government in 2015, we’ve seen something further: welfarisation – ‘a conception of social housing as a very small, highly residualised sector catering only for the very poorest, and those with additional social “vulnerabilities”, on a short-term “ambulance” basis

Plenty on this thread have been happy to buy into this residulisation.

I can’t believe some of the nasty comments on this thread. As far as I can see from the reports in the paper the tenants already pay a service charge. I don’t know why some Mumsnetters assume all social housing tenants are on benefits. What difference does it make if a few extra kids and families make use of the Gardens.

I live near Grenfell and it was exactly this sneering attitude towards social housing tenants, that they were the scum of the earth who had no rights and should shut up, that led to the disaster.

Wow my post was well timed there.

Exactly Wolff Ive kept updating a thread about Grenfell on the news board. Since the fire.

Because i have a sneaking suspicion certain people and organisations will attempt to rewrite history.

Divide and rule eh?

How cruel
All the children should be allowed to play they shouldn’t know there is any difference between them

God this thread is horrendous.

The social tenants pay 35k between them
For service charges, therefore they should be able to use the gardens!!

The developer

1. will very likely only have been able to access the site on the basis that social housing is provided within the scheme
2. may have been able to get subsidy or grants in order to build the social housing making the whole scheme profitable

Ergo - no social housing = no development in the first place
Ergo - developer should have put in place a "dowry" to contribute to the ongoing maintenance in respect of social housing tenants use.

How can anybody defend this?

The social tenants pay a £200 a month service charge.

Planning permission for the development included access for all to the garden.

This is social discrimination.

@Wolfff nobody on this thread has even come close to saying the things you claim to 'repeat' in your thread, neither have comments been made regarding welfare benefits so perhaps you should refrain from making up those comments. And comments on here show a lot of ignorance regarding service charges, and leasehold properties. The fact is that if you pay thousands a year in service charges to maintain gardens, gyms and pools, why should those not party to that contract be able to use them? If they want the use of gyms and pools they can use those that are open to the public. And, there are very many free to the public open green spaces and swimming places that those not party to that contract can use.

@theyvegotme Because plenty of people like having someone they can feel superior to.

Joe someone upthread intimated that social housing tenants dont work. I replied to it in capitals. So dont be so bloody disingenuous.

@Joe2019

Did you read the article? The social tenants do pay a service charge.

@joe19 perhaps you should read the thread and the article referred to.

I think they should allow access to all residents and how they divide the service charge is up to the development management. It seems very divisive to all live in the same place and some have access to the grounds. Also the article states one family has offered to pay a higher service charge and hasn't has a reply.

@Wolff I cannot find the post to which you are referring.

y seven-year-old has a best friend in his class who lives on that private side,” Ali said. “They sit in school together but can’t play together. Private residents have access to everything, they can use all the gates and they walk through our side all the time, they exercise their dogs over here. This is open discrimination. We work, we pay service charges, we pay rent, we don’t deserve to be treated like this.”

Ali’s younger son is seriously ill with a life-threatening condition and Ali has to make regular trips to the local paediatric intensive care unit

I’ve told them about my seriously ill son but Pinnacle [which manages the private side of the development] won’t let me park on site or let me come in the main entrance, which is nearer the street disabled bay. Instead I have to carry my sick child in the rain and cold all the way round the building

And some posters on here are for this. FUCKING HELL

Many people are missing the point here. These kind of developments are only allowed on the proviso that a certain percentage of the dwellings are "affordable" and/or social housing. In London this is really important because property is too expensive for everyone earning under £100k. The developers will have promised various things to get planning permission, such as play areas for the residents. It is very unlikely that planning would have agreed to separate play areas in the same development. They are breaking the rules in order to pander to people who don't want to mix with people they believe are inferior.

I wonder how much the service charge is for the other residents, I don't think its mentioned anywhere?

The site is the old police station so it was a public site rather than a development on a piece of private land.
Octavia are one of the big Charitable social landlords in the area and I am surprised if the agreed to this.
I could have understood if social housing tenants could opt out of the increase service charge and not have a fob but not an outright ban.
It is a very mixed area with stupidly expensive properties and deprivation side by side.

Space to play is essential for child development.

It's not like a private gym or plush carpets, it's more important.

This is a horrible attitude.

The thing is - this is usual whatever the development. I live in a sort of gated private development (very old though not new build). Some is the pockets of the estate have play areas - for which the rest don’t pay service charges - and there are clear signs saying “this area is for the residents of x close only”. It’s not a rich/poor thing - it’s a service charge thing.