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 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.*

Exactly this. Plus as others have said the social housing tenants do pay a service charge.

Posters are making a false equivalence between this and the idea of a private gym or other facilities, when it is not the same.

I've seen similar at Silchester estate where the neighbouring new builds have included a garden which was evidently intended to have been accessible to all, but developers have now put up some ugly wire fencing to keep the riff-raff out. Of course the beautiful gardens at Silchester itself are still accessible to both residents and locals.

Not to mention the completely private gardens nearby which are funded by the council but only accessible to residents of particular roads.

I also can't believe the number of posters who have said the social housing tenants are lucky to live there when it has been stated that some are Grenfell survivors.

Additionally, many of these new developments are built under the guise of "regeneration" which is achieved by demolishing existing social housing, using compulsory purchase orders for those who have bought their homes there but which are paid at a tiny % of the cost of one of the new homes, effectively pricing lifelong residents out of the area.

West London has always been a prime spot for social housing, with some of the most innovative and thoughtful developments built there. Just because the 1% has made it as an area completely unaffordable for most, does not mean social housing should not still have a prominent place there.

It’s not a public park, it’s a private facility.

On the plans it is communal space accessible to all residents.

Have to admit, I'm highly amused by those here who are looking down on the social tenants (implying that they're on benefits, don't work or work hard enough) yet who haven't been able to comprehend the article.

That or they haven't bothered to read it.... Surely not???

Part of the extra cost, as mentioned in the news, is for a parking space. It's totally normal to pay extra for parking - or should that be a free for all as well?

No matter where your morals lie on the social housing debate. This is as a few others have said a planning issue that lies with the original developer.
They were given planning permission with certain conditions and from that basis were allowed to purchase and develop a piece of public land. They knew (through discussions with the local authority) that in order to gain permission (worth millions in profit to them) that they would need to provide the social housing and the gardens with site wide access.
They then built the development, pocketed the profit then changed the access arrangements - this is not acceptable and as such are subject to enforcement action.
The lack of adequate disabled parking is also a red flag in planning terms and should be rectified either through planning enforcement or a legal challenge regarding accessibility.
This is at its heart a developer bending and in this case breaking the rules to make and keep profit - they could have decided the rules were unacceptable and found a different site but they chose this one.

@waterrat I was just commenting on the situation in the link, if I lived where you do I wouldn’t mind sharing the park. It sounds lovely.

What's the problem? Private leaseholders pay service charges for the facilities, social tenants do not

Actually we do.

In general, each affordable housing unit will be provided with its own outside space instead of tenants having access to the communal outside space provided to the private residential units. Provision of some form of outside space to all in a residential development - whether private or affordable tenants - is a policy requirement which developers must meet in seeking planning permission. Developers may provide every resident with access to the same outside space but don’t often do so.

Isn't it sad that we think in terms of small broken up locked gated play and garden area? Children move through space in a far more natural open way - looking for friends from across a neighbourhood. And that used to be how we all lived.

My sons' gym has a large field and play area. Only members of the gym can go there. I am not a member so I couldn't. I don't resent that. I just don't choose to pay for it, just as I don't expectto be allowed into neighbours' gardens which have swimming pools.

As to what should happen here Ihaven't read the case. If the rules say a partk must be built to which anyone can come or to which social and non social housing residents can come then that's fine. It just depends what the rules say.

I don't think it's the same as a parent inviting the child's friends to play at their house who might be from a range of backgrounds because the parent is inviting the child or the child is rather than the state saying you must do XYZ.

I could never afford to live in central London and live in zone 5 which has the added advantage that a lot of people (but not all)( live in a freehold house so don't have shared anythings.

Try reading it before commenting

I think service charges themselves are the problem. Parks etc should come under taxes we already pay. Privatising everything leads to poor people being shafted constantly.

The problem is the plans said one thing - communal for all - then once it was all built the developers moved the goalposts. Then the HA were unwilling to make their tenants pay even more in service charges to access those spaces.
So it's the developers at fault.
We're talking about the HA services charges being £200 which seems high however I'd be interested to see how much the leaseholders pay in service charges. You might find at 'only' £200, the HA has negotiated an incredibly good deal for its tenants.
The disabled parking space is something completely different - it should be offered regardless of service charges & the council should be sorting that out as a priority.
Most modern blocks now have limited parking and spaces have to be leased and a payment made on top of service charges, etc. My local council is planning on building over 1000 new homes in apartment blocks yet only offering 500 parking spaces...

YY OrangeCinnamon. I suspect thats why certain people moan when i copy and paste.

its harder to ignore something to suit an agenda then.

It's the problem with describing something as a "mixed development" when in reality it's not. It's a much cheaper social development, alongside a much smaller private one with the facilities it's residents pay for.

It's very difficult & I don't really like it.... but then I have a big garden. I don't open it up and invite kids from the smaller houses down the road to come & play in it.

FFS thats not the bloody same.

And the social tenants in Kensal House are losing gardens to property developers with rbkc's blessing

So not everybody has access to what is essentially a private facility?

That's .. life - your kids are not welcome in private schools unless you pay the fees, your kids are not allowed to use the sports grounds of private school unless you pay the fees, adults are not allowed to use a swimming pool unless they pay the entrance fee or membership fee. You can carry on all day.

It's exactly the same principle. Can't see the issue.

My step sister lives in a housing development which I won’t name. She paid full price for her two bed apartment and there’s a separate entrance and different facilities for the social housing tenants. She pays nearly £450 a month in service fees, which includes a concierge, gym, onsite car parking, security and an entertainment space (rooftop BBQs, cinema space, etc). Following a fuss, it was agreed to allow the tenants access to the gym and playground/ park. There wasn’t capacity for the car park to be included. In June they got their next years maintenance fees. It’s going up by almost 30% to cover the repeated damages to the park space and the gym. Her neighbour who is on the residents board has seen CCTV showing clearly it is a group of social tenants, including one whose teenage son frequently shits on the playground equipment. Many of the owners kids are too afraid to go into the playground / park now as the tenants kids are thugs in training. She felt sorry for the tenants kids before, but now she feels that if people don’t pay the market price, they don’t appreciate services.

Well unless the private school advertised itself as offering entry to people who didnt pay the fees, and let people show up with their kids on the first day and THEN changed their minds its not the fucking same.

And how come it IS suddenly a mixed development when its vice versa and those in the private developments can wander over to the social housing side should they choose to.

Vile situation. They live on the same estate.

My understanding is that people who buy ex la properties pay a service charge to freeholder (council or ha) and it covers everyone (including the council tenants), surely this should be the same.

I cannot understand the concept of a mixed development like this.

Queen Well that should be reported.

Do remember its what people are voting for,,,,,,,the residulisation and welfarisation of social housing. People wanting housing estates to be like hostels cant see the connection.

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 a shitty attitude to teach children, no wonder they grow up with such an entitled attitude. What if friends just want to play together?
If you want a private gated community then build one, and don't pretend its any sort of social program.

What a shitty attitude to teach children, no wonder they grow up with such an entitled attitude.

I think the opposite is true, teaching children that they can get anything without paying is what make them entitled!