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.

The article mentions that there is a separate play area for the social housing tenants, so it's not as if there is no area at all for their children to play in. As the two blocks of flats are totally separate, I don't see a problem with the separate outside spaces. It's pretty much like wanting to use your neighbour's garden just because you can see it.

His neighbour Ahmed Ali has been complaining for several months to Westminster council, Redrow, Pinnacle and Octavia about the segregation

This is the father who is having to struggle the long way round with his disabled child in the rain. He has a life threatening condition.

What annoys me the most about this, is that the private owners have access to the social tenants areas.

They should be built as two separate developments, or share facilities. Not allow one group of people full access and not the others. It is not ok.

It says in the article that they don’t have access to all of the communal areas of the development because the housing association didn’t want them to be burdened by the higher service charge. I’m not opposed to them having access if they do want to pay the higher service charge but I don’t see why you should get access to a private area that others are paying for. It’s not the same as a public park as it’s a private area that others had to pay for access to. Same with parking. Lots of developments have allocated spaces only for some residents who pay, because parking is at a premium in London. That’s life

Tbh you’ve won a watch getting social housing in that area anyway.

It’s shameful. Management companies are ridiculously overpriced. If the tenants took control and sublet the contract out, everyone could play in the space.

It’s a poor excuse to say they don’t want to impose higher fees on social tenants. The reality is, as we all know, they want to sell the premium properties with the social tenants segregated.

The reality is that children don’t give a shit if their little friend is an owner or a social tenant.

New laws need to be passed, it’s not South Africa!

I used to live in the area and I would guess that a much larger proportion of the social housing tenants are from an ethic minority (possibly North African or African Caribbean). DH is North African and there is a very large mosque about 5 mins away and a smaller one almost opposite. The property is less than 5mins from the the Notting Hill Carnival route.

Across the road you start to get into the more expensive bits of Maida Vale. I imagine the developers have been pitching the Maida Vale upmarket aspect not the diversity route.

ethnic

pumpkinspice that is not the fault of social housing tenants. This is a very common scenario on this board. Homeless people are used as a stick to beat social housing tenants with.

But if/when a homeless person gets a housing association place the "care" shown on these threads will turn on a hair and they will also be treated with the same disdain.

We see you.

You have to question why are the developers building these developments that include social housing on one side and very expensive properties on the other. They havent just decided to do this - there is obviously a benefit to them, either the granting of planning permission that they would not otherwise get or tax breaks ect.

They should be forced to provide gardens (kids probably are not interested in formal gardens as much as a play area!) to all residents of the development. However, they could provide different areas for children for example as long as they accommodate all residents.

I am sorry I don't accept the service charge argument, the developers are getting tax breaks and everyone pays taxes one way or another.
Also, they have stated they are paying £200 per month.

It would be reasonable to have a no kids area if kids were provided with designated area .

@SoupDragon you don’t pay for it you can’t use it applies to all private goods. I can’t come into your house and use your electricity. Or park on your driveway. Or come and take your clothes.

Some people don’t contribute to public goods either, yes. But they are there for everyone to use. This is private gardens and parking spaces.

You have to question why are the developers building these developments that include social housing on one side and very expensive properties on the other.

It's a condition of their planning consent (I think it used to be called a s.54 agreement?).

The fact that there are people living in b and bs is because of past housing polices and ideologies and regenaration schemes. In many regeneration schemes the social housing that was lost was replaced with much less.

Your ire is misdirected.

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?

Yes, actually. As a non social housing family, I’d happily pay a little extra per year to make the playground open to all residents. I don’t really understand people who wouldn’t.

zsa zsa its not the same thing As a PP has explained well upthread.

helena One set of my grandparents lived in social housing all their lives, or council housing as it was then. I loved them and their house. They worked and worked hard all of their lives.
I worked for years as a front line child protection social worker. And yes I think that the public funds we have need to spent with reasonable focus of greatest need.
If these tenants wish to pay for access to this part of the estate they should be given every opportunity to do so.
I don't know what you think you see but I think things that aren't there.

Money talks. Always been that way. We’re in the top percentage etc. However I would never want to live where children with poorer parents wouldn’t be able to play. I wouldn’t have w problem paying for them either.

zsa zsa its not the same thing As a PP has explained well upthread.

Hi Helena, I missed this, and I'm interested. Could you flag?

(You mean that these gardens should not be regarded as private property?)

The problem is that the service charges are really high for the flats so they charge less for the social housing but they get less facilities, it seems mean but the flip side is why should a family who work hard to pay their mortgage pay 4x a family not working to use the same facilities? It's really tough and I think these mixed blocks don't really work, better that they build good social housing developments

Really? Balfron Tower? West Hendon estate? John Boughtons book is about the history of council/social housing. It tells us how we have got here and does all the number crunching. Housing was for everyone. Housing estates wernt seen as short term hostels. Im not seeing things which arent there. As previous threads show and my own personal experiences prove.

@stucknoue who is to say they aren't working just as hard or harder but on a low paid job? The amounts are affordable to those who need affordable accommodation.

@Iggly I think you read implication where there is none 🙄

@ReanimatedSGB posted

"even when the site they are building on is one which formerly had social housing on it"

i rest my case.

More social housing lost through regeneration.

@HelenaDove yes it's dire. Housing is an issue that has not been addressed properly for several decades. Perhaps we should all write to our MPs asking for this to be raised as an issue in the next general election.

Helena I don't think people using social housing are a problem.
I don't think people using social housing have created a shortage in housing or created the situation of bed and breakfast accommodation for families.
I have no feelings of ire towards people in social housing.
I don't think that public money should be given to private playgrounds. Public money should go towards public playgrounds.
I have no issues with people in social housing paying for their private playgrounds.

Seing things that arent there? Really. Interesting because when tenants have posted on here about problem neighbours in some cases involving drugs weed etc, they have been told they are overeacting.

Yet when a potential buyer posts asking if they should buy a home next to a social housing estate there is big resounding NO from most posters. I had a downstairs neighbour who smoked weed all day long and threatened DH when he (the neighbour) was on a comedown. He really needed to be in supported housing but there has been ideological change there too which has a knock on effect elsewhere.