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.

It strikes me as a bit like the beginning of the Rapunzel story, when the young poor couple peer longingly at the perfect vegetable garden belonging to the wicked witch.

Set against that, the affordable housing tenants are incredibly privileged to be living in such a desirable part of London, where most of us could not dream of affording a one bedroom flat. My grandmother was brought up in that area and her forebears had lived there for centuries, but she was priced out and the idea that Kensington had a local population has been completely forgotten.

It’s not regenerations, it’s social cleansing!

Strip out the garden maintenance fees, let the tenants sub let them, make it affordable.

It’s very simple!

I lived in a private block of flats ( many moons ago) and we did this , it halved our fees.

This is a tough one. I lived a development where different zones paid different service charges depending on the services and amenities. The main thing was lifts and underground. Car parking.

We had communal gardens that the general public climbed over the walls to access and it was a nightmare. Very expensive to maintain and I left because I no longer wanted to pay for areas for ransoms to picnic in, litter, graffiti and do other unpleasantness in.

However, while I would probably resent subsidising my social housing neighbours, I would also feel uncomfortable excluding children for a play area.

We see you.

helena I think we have maybe got crossed wires in our posts. My statement about seeing things that weren't there was in relation to your reply to one of my posts which you ended with We see you.
I took that to be a personal comment about myself.
I apologize if it wasn't but was referring to something else. I'm not totally sure what you were seeing in relation to my post?

I don’t see why they don’t let kids play in the gardens. Residents pay service charge (which I assume the council tenants/council don’t) so if you don’t pay you don’t get to use the gym or other goodies (unless you pay like you would a private gym).

The owners will pay thousands on service charge - who pays this on the ‘affordable’ properties? If they don’t then do those who do pay a higher % of the share?

It’s odd I think to have affordable housing in a block where flats are the best part of a million. So what is the value of the ‘affordable’ ones? How can the pieces be justified? London prices are mad anyway.

So let the kids play on a safe space. It’s not hurting anyone is it? If it becomes a case where kids are running wild, teenagers are hanging out and making a nuisance, etc then do what residents committees do - ban then.

We pay a stupid amount for service charge (for little I may add) but I would feel sorry if little kids couldn’t play outside.

Also friend lives on Kew Riverside, "kew riverside residents company" are the main office. Gated community, like literal Gates. Man guarding the gates. There's a spa at the entrance, swimming pool, gym etc. Houses worth millions, and I don't even want to know what they pay for maintenance. There are zero playgrounds for kids, I'm guessing to avoid as said above drama. There's also the corner of the gated community which is social housing, where my friend is. Can she use the pool? No. The gym? No. Do they complain? No lol. Would she complain if she couldn't use a particular area? Probably not, she knows she hit the damn jackpot with her "social housing" where I could only ever dream of ever being able to live. Security, guards move on people destroying the area (rich or poor) and its always well kept. But alas, me, a single mum, in a good postcode but rougher area, where idiots allow their pitbull type dogs in the parks to chew the swings whilst screaming at their kids to stop fighting so others are too scared to enter. Kids can be so feral I'm actually scared of them as a grown woman. I tend to pay for Eddie cats or somewhere where I know it's safer, yet my parents in same postcode in nice area have a lovely park with park guards roaming daily keeping an eye on everything. This is the reality of life.

Central London also has many gardens for residents use only even though they're in the middle of Chelsea with no houses around. Londoners will know what I'm on about. Its hard when there's such extreme differences in income in small spaces. It's probably why I'm not bothered by this and if you pay for it, you get it, and that's kinda normal here.

"We see you" is directed at anyone who might be reading while lurking who is involved in regeneration and the ideology behind whats been happening in housing for a long time.

Its not directed at anyone on the thread personally.

"but rougher area"

And yet people cant see the connection. Isnt this what a lot of people are screaming for. Only rent to those who really really really need it. And then act all surprised.

the guy who was living in our block really needed to be in supported housing. I suspect the HA is renting the flat out at temp accomodation rates.

A good question was actually asked upthread, can these children invite over their classmate who doesn't live at the development, but, say, across the street?
I rented once in a residential block (all private, not sure how this was possible - maybe the rule did not exist back then?), and there were sections with lower charges where owners (or their tenants) did not have access to specific facilities. Not sure about playgrounds, but a part of the garden and the roof terrace was definitely secured off for posher people.

geneviva

I agree.

As far as it goes, I don’t agree with this in principle because it does smack of segregation. Telling children they can’t play together because one of them doesn’t have well of parents is really unpleasant, and don’t get me started on the issue of the ill child.

However, generally the lot of the social tenants living in that block isn’t a terrible plight that I’m getting worked up about. I’ve no issue with them living there - many will work and pay rent, but even those that don’t are entitled to a home and it shouldn’t be a shitty home just because they’re not well off. But there are far worse ills in society than living in a plush new bock in a nice area but the one set of gardens being out of bounds. (The access for disabled people is totally different).

All of that is academic because it was part of the deal that it be open to all so the developers should be held to it.

Step 1. Run an area into the ground/managed decline
Step 2. Rubbish said area in the press (see Aylesbury estate)
Step 3 Release plans for regeneration.

Step 4 Tenants move out to enable this to take place (in some cases being told they can move back in.
Step 5 Replace social rent with affordable rent

Step 6 Build luxury flats where social housing once stood.

Why should they get to use a private space that belongs to and is maintained by others?

Our tiny flat in London had no garden, we went to the park if the DC wanted to play outside. We didn’t demand to use the neighbours’ gardens, however convenient that might be.

@MereDintofPandiculation there isn't a different rate in social care charges for elderly care whether council funded fully, part, or private paid. I didn't say "social care charges", I said "care homes". Councils negotiate discounts on their places, therefore self-funders are paying a higher rate than council funded for the same facilities.

And those self funders are likely being cared for in those homes by care workers who live in social housing.

All those who believe that you shouldn’t have to pay for others to use a resource... I’m childless and I’ve decided I don’t want to pay for all your kids to be educated. That OK?

Course it isn’t. I’m proud to pay tax towards education as I benefit from an educated society. Just like we all benefit from an integrated society in which kids aren’t excluded from going on some swings because of how much rent their parents pay.

I already said I think they should let everyone use the garden but all these analogies with education and public services just don’t work. Taxation to provide for public services is one thing. This isn’t public land or a public service and it is totally different.

What I don't agree with is that private tenants can access SAH area but not vice Versa.

Either have 2 separate developments with separate charges or don't.

I also don't see why the family won't the extremely ill boy can't have access from disabled parking. I'd like to see a charity challenge that under the equality act and reasonable adjustments.

@WhoTellsYourStory I am happy to pay taxes for public playgrounds. I don't think it is fair to pay for tax for a gated playground that the wider community cannot use.
All dc should have access to a playground not just the dc in this particular development.

I think the disabled dc and parking is a completely separate issue that should be looked at by itself. I expect that social housing tenants would also have access to disabled parking if they needed this and would think the law supports this.

I think that access to a playground should be open to all residents. Items like gyms, carparks and other facilities should be user pays.

Why is it when life being unfair is mentioned, it's only ever poorer people who have to accept worse conditions?

Why don't private owners have to accept that the garden is a shared facility and if they don't like it, well life isn't fair?

I also think people don't read these articles - or understand how companies get the right to build a development. They only get the right by building social housing and some kind of facility for the residents.

The parking is a separate issue.
the playground isn’t really communal, its basically fee paying. like many outdoors playareas, or indeed your private garden. just because its there doesn’t mean you can use it. my neighbour has a massive garden with playground equipment. i can’t use it because i didn’t pay for it (the house is a leasehold property)
and keeping up a nice outdoor playground isn’t cheap either, so i get the point

@myself2020

The social tenants pay a £200 a month maintenance fee.

Planning permission was granted on the understanding that the garden would be open to all. Hence enforcement action by the council.

Why do people assume that social tenants are completely welfare dependent and don't pay for anything?

Regrow got their planning approved with the basis of shared access garden thus partly fulfilling the required need of socially aware and sensitive planning with these types of development. The other company 'set' the maintenance fees so high that it seems the HA have been unable to commit to the maintenance fees ...they are challenging. It IS WRONG. The play areas are not some kind of swish indoor pool that was put on the plans as a separate entity to be paid by private residents. FFS