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 think in addition developers can pay a large lump sum to local authorities so as not to include social housing when they build private homes which can then be used by the local authority to build or buy homes. That may not apply all over the country but is a different solution.

I live on a private estate (of houses). We have not gates on the estate and anyone can walk up here. I empty one of the bins every week emtpying the rubbish those who use the roads put in there - dog waste, sandwiches, the lot - - no novochock so far....... We paid £60k for replacing a draink this year and we pay to resurface the roads. The residents share those costs but those using the roads from outside pay nothing.

We pay £3600 council tax per house a year so over £300,000 and we do have our bins emptied by the council although it refuses to salt the roads in snowy conditions so we pay for that too. We do not have a play ground. Those residents with swimming pools do not make those available to those walking dogs etc on the roads nor do I let those people either play in my garden or play my piano.

Are children living in the premium properties allowed to invite friends round to play with them outside? Or are they only allowed to invite friends who don't live in social housing?

I live in a private house, with a garden. My children can invite any of their classmates round to play, even those who (shock horror) live in social housing.

If I lived in a multi-million pound London apartment I wouldn't expect them to have restrictions imposed on their choice of friends.

Wow. I saw the thread title and assumed everyone would think this was unreasonable - not allowing children into a small play area because they are poor? I genuinely am amazed and very disheartened to read that so many people think this is ok.

@dippyAvocado this is Mumsnet today.

People are not reading the article even.. just going off about 'private property' in fact OP does not give a full picture of the facts.

I don't see why people have a problem with others paying extra to get something extra. The option should be there for all residents to be able to pay into the fund then everyone who wants to can use it.

IT WAS NOT SUPPOSED to be private Redrow was granted planning permission on the basis that the play areas were not therefore they should have kept the design of the feature that enabled affordable maintenance but they conveniently didn't and I therefore consider they have breached their planning permission.

Can anyone think of a reason WHY that would happen ...just read some of the attitudes on this thread !

On balance, I think YANBU, but that's not without reservation.

I don't agree with posters who have compared this with public services and amenities like roads and the NHS, where not everyone contributes, but all my benefit. This is a private facility which certain tenants pay for and others don't. I don't think the higher payments the private tenants and owners make, should effectively be "redistributed" to cover those who don't pay for that facility. And I think the developers knew that that would put off prospective purchasers, who were looking to buy a property, but not necessarily to contribute to a social fund.

What makes me uncomfortable is that this arrangement, whilst not objectively unreasonable, leaves some children tantalised by a playground they can see but not use. It also highlights the unpalatable truths about the current planning practice of requiring new private developments to include social housing. There is so often (I know, not always) a marked difference in wealth, background and lifestyle between the types of occupant, particularly in London, where you have to be objectively wealthy to buy this sort of property.

Unfortunately, I don't think some posters views that the doors of the expensive garden should be thrown open to all is realistic. It should perhaps be enacted that mixed developments should have no outdoor facilities which are not available to all occupants. The probable result would be that gardens would not be included in future buildings.

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?

This isn’t a fact, it’s an opinion. Calling it a fact closes your mind to real facts and makes you come across as someone who is very full of their own opinion but without the knowledge to back it up.

Redrow have done similar on an estate near where I live. As part of the planning permission they had to put in a play park with equipment. They offloaded responsibility as soon as they could and all the equipment had to be taken away as it deteriorated. If they could have charged for what they no doubt see as just ‘dead space’ I’m sure they would, the rapacious scumbags.

I wonder how many people have experience of living in a block with mixed accommodation (private and council).

It sounds very reasonable that you don’t get what you don’t pay for BUT that is not the real issue. The issue is that planning permissions is granted on the basis of a shared accessible space. Once the developer has that in the pocket, they change the goalposts. To me that is fraudulent behaviour.

I do actually @LordProf but not relevant to this thread which is about a social area for children that was planned for all users which they now can't have access too.

Keeping less privileged kids out of a play area is abhorrent and I’m disgusted anyone thinks this is okay. Shame on you.

I know - it’s part-relevant to the thread - but where can we see why the developers agreed to? I assume there are either financial or planning benefits form agreeing to certain things?

I agree with it, where we live a basic 3 bed is 350k which we can not afford yet single mums with 5 kids from 5 dads get given 700k detached houses and pay no rent. It’s about time people stop having this entitled attitude. Go work to better your life and stop relying on the government to give you everything. Plus I’m sure there are other parks around that you can take your kids too!

I’m sure they pay rent...

i live in an area where there is a mix of social housing and private housing.

We all pay service charges (the same amount each month, whether you live in social housing or private) towards the play park which is on our site.

Children who do not even live on our development are welcome to come and use the park and not one person living on our development has ever complained about this as it's not even an issue.

There is a very poor area about half a mile away from where we live and a lot of the children from that area come and use our park- again they are very welcome to and nobody has an issue with this.

I can't believe people are seriously suggesting that children should be excluded from something due to their social situation.

This is discrimination. It is disgusting and something I thought we'd done away with after Victorian times.

I gladly pay towards the cost of a park where all children can play together freely, it didn't even cross my mind that poorer children shouldn't be there because it's something I pay for and their parents don't.

Absolutely outrageous this thread and the disgusting attitudes.

I despair of where we are heading nowadays, the demonisation of the poor and working classes and the ridiculous assumptions about social tenants.

In our development, just thinking about the social tenants living there- none of them fit into the unemployed stereotypes they are cast as.

One is a nurse, another a chef, another a mental health care assistant, another a gardener, the only one who is not working is a single father who is a full time carer to two disabled children, struggling to cope alone after his wife passed away last year.

Have a word with yourselves, the attitudes I'm seeing on here are depressing.

I thought Mumsnet was more intelligent and thoughtful than this. I'm finding this thread more akin to the unintelligent and uninformed opinions I see on Facebook!

FOr those saying 'go to work'' - the people living in the social housing on this development are working - as are many social housing residents.

We used to build large open estates in this country - where children from an entire area could play freely.

Now we gate estates and lock/ fob access all the different parts so there are tiny squares available and then we dictate by levels of wealth who can and can't use each tiny space.

THis is a sad way to live -children have stopped playing freely outside for lots of reasons, lets not let gates and fobs be another reason.

I see both sides have points, but inclined to agree that they shouldn’t be allowed to use it.

It’s not a public park, it’s a private facility. There is division in life. There are lots of things my kids would love to do but I can’t afford to pay for it for them. Others will have parents who can.

Just to add - another very sad thing about these situations is that the children are aware and understand that they are being divided from their neighbours.

This estate allows private residents to walk their dogs in the social housing play area - but children can't move freely to play in all the gardens.

How can this be fair? This is injustice and is clearly felt as painfully discriminatory by the people living there.

It is problematic that developers build expensive homes and have to include social homes - but only if you think having an expensive home means you never have to meet anyone who isn't just like you.

If we allowed councils the money to build proper council homes independent of developers like Redrow, it would be one way out of this problem

@Thehop the children here actually live on this estate - it's not 'private' in the sense that it belongs to homes they don't live in - they are locked out from gardens they actually overlook and are part of their own development.

I don't believe the cost of maintaining a garden is that high - particularly as it says the SH residents already pay 200 a month service charge!

Social tenants pay service charge aswell. I am currently bidding on homes and the rent is broken down into to rent and service charge. I would be very pissed off if I was paying a service charge and then given the shit play area.

I live on a newly renovated block in Shoreditch, we have a communal garden which has some play equipment for children. All residents are able to access, owners, renters and HA tenants, which is the right and moral thing to do.

I would not have bought this flat if only certain occupiers could use communal areas.

Either the local authority pays for maintenance and everyone gets access or private households pay for it and they get access? I suspect upkeep of playgrounds is expensive as children break things a lot (I live near a popular and good playground). Without maintenance it becomes shoddy and dangerous. Kids graffiti, ropes break etc. And I don’t think replacing them is gonna be Cheap.

Non negotiable grounds maintenance and play equipment charge not an opt in or out should be then covered by HB and UC.
Octavia at fault for not taking on the costs and distributing them amongst tenants rent charges.