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.

I’m shocked that so many people think this acceptable. I live on a newish estate which incorporates some social housing, and has a playground. I’m extremely glad we can all use it, especially as DS’s best friend lives in one of the housing association properties. I can’t imagine telling him his friend couldn’t come to the park with us because his parents are poorer.

My abiding memory of the main building is walking past it only to have a young man come belting out at top speed chased by two harassed looking coppers.

What is the extra cost of allowing more children into a garden that has already been paid for? More wear and teat, so slightly hier maintenance charges, but that's about it, isn't it?

You failed to answer who is supposed to be paying these higher maintenance charges 🤔 Or you just expect the non social housing owners to cough up because what’s a couple of extra quid for them, hey?

It seems reasonable to me, on the basis that if you don't pay for it then you can't expect to use it

What else would you apply that to? Some people don't pay any tax for example so they haven't paid for education or the NHS.

No. It's punishing those who are on low incomes. It is called AFFORDABLE housing, meaning it's affordable too that specific family. Council houses were originally designed for low income working families. Is it fair a child is segregated because their family is on a low wage/ income? Can you imagine the shame and embarrassment of a child who can not play with their friends despite living in the same building? It's designed to embarrass and humiliate CHILDREN.
I find it disturbing anything thinks this is acceptable.

YY random Especially on a parenting site.

They (social housing tenants) pay £200 a month in maintenance.

Free access was part of the planning permission.

All tenants in the building should have the opportunity to pay the full service charge to use the facilities.
Given the average service costs on such buildings based my personal experience I'm not sure that many would want to pay that but there should be an opportunity for those who do.

I think there is an element of social engineering going on. This one of those bizarre places in London where you will get £1m flats next to the local community primary school that has 44% FSM and 88% EAL and a Secondary with 65% FSM and 90% EAL (which gets great results).

If you want to sell expensive flats how do you demarcate them from the social housing to justify the price.

Social engineering or a need for essential workers?

A person has accused people on this thread of making derogatory comments regarding social tenants and welfare benefits but those comments do not exist on this thread.
Secondly the social tenants are not leaseholders of the property referred to, they hold assured or secure tenancies and there is a legal difference, between the service charges collected for l/h and those of secure or assured tenants. The leasehold agreements presumably were drawn up between the local authority and the developer. The local authority are the people to whom questions about the planning and subsequent lack of correlation between the use of communal facilities should be directed. The LA have a requirement that developments need to hold a percentage of social housing. As a pp said, without the private l/h development the social housing would not be built because the LAs have been starved of central government funds to carry out building stand alone social housing properties. The fact is the more people who use facilies the more expense is incurred in maintaining those facilities. Most people may hesitate to buy a l/h property where all residents did not have to pay toward them. The social tenants may pay 200 pound per month in service charges but that would be barely enough for the upkeep of their own communal areas and the fabric of the building especially in London where the costs can be huge.

They (social housing tenants) pay £200 a month in maintenance.

This doesn't include the cost of the garden though. I'd agree that they should be given the option to add the garden upkeep cost to their payment, and then have access to it.

This is sickening as are some of the posters on here that agree to segregate CHILDREN because their parents are poor.

If it was a gym inside fair enough, but a playground?

Or maybe it's better that these poor children know their place in society from a young age!!!

What a time to be alive.

Horrible, and so many posters agreeing with as well. These are kids ffs.

Where does it say that, @FiddlesticksAkimbo?

The article implies that it does- hence enforcement action by the council

As I understand it the development has two parts, one half which is privately owned properties and the other more affordable properties and social housing.

In theory, it is fair that those that pay get to play. However, the proximity of the playground to the social housing makes it seem really cruel to prevent children playing. It would be better to not build a playground and garden at all and just have all the children play in a municipal play area.

In addition, it can't really be compared to playing in a privately owned personal garden- because if you owned a garden you could invite your friends from the council estate to play if you wished- but it seems these children can't do that!

YABU

It is better for everyone if there is social integration.

So what the fuck is this then Joe

Charlieiscool Fri 27-Sep-19 17:14:44
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

There’s the implication - the underlying implication - that being in social housing makes you an undesirable. As opposed to an actual human being.

The article implies that it does- hence enforcement action by the council

Good point - it was purely my assumption. If the social tenants are paying the garden-upkeep fee (in which case their rights to use it would be granted in their leases) and are being locked out then that is outrageous.

It really does seem that the issue is in fact dishonesty from teh developers - they were given planning permission on the grounds that they provided amenities for everyone and they have not done so. This is an ongoing issue with housing and development - companies trying everything they can think of to duck out of providing any social housing even when the site they are building on is one which formerly had social housing on it.

What a horrible attitude op. Fyi social housing tenants do pay rent for their accomodation. So they do "pay for it" as your op puts it. Social housing is not free housing. I think you seem like a nasty piece of work.

I hear you, your grace.

How would this be enforced? If the social housing kids managed to sneak in would they be frog marched out by security guards? So so silly. Life is too short for such pettiness.

There are large numbers of dc living in bed and breakfasts, without even their own bedroom let alone a private playground.
I do not this this should be a priority for public money.
There are large numbers of dc in flats who have no private playground from every income background.
There should be public playgrounds for all dc to access regardless of ability to pay or space opportunity.
But as I said I do think tenants should have the opportunity to spend their own money on it if they wish. If they are paying for it already then should obviously already have access.