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 private aspect wouldn't exist if they hadn't agreed to the original planning conditions which included access for all to this space. It's not about who pays for what now because the very existence of the development at all was based on access to that space - changing the access after its built means they are technically voiding their planning permission, which is a legal issue hence the enforcement action.
You can't get planning permission for one thing then build something different (which is what's happened here swapping public space to private) and expect no consequences. It would be interesting to see what the actual wording of the original permission was.

You can't get planning permission for one thing then build something different

if only that was true!
I know it supposed to be in theory, but let's be honest in real life it's not. Shame.

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

I agree.

Not everything in life is free or accessible to everyone. There will always be differences otherwise no one would try hard with careers etc if it meant no reward,

I live on a shite council estate. High rise with my kids. Overcrowded to a dangerous degree. I would like to use the communal gardens belonging to the various very wealthy neighbours. It would be lovely. I can’t though because I don’t own the gardens. This doesn’t seem unfair to me. If I ever own a garden I will let my children enjoy it. I won’t let random locals in though. Just invited guests. We dream of what we will do when we get a garden. I’ve never felt entitled to other’s property though.

FrauHaribo
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!

Are you responsible for where you grew up or what your parents earned?

This isn't a nearby park. Its the grounds where you live, that in the plans were supposed to be accessible to all tenants.

Advice the communal gardens were not in the original plans for you and the other tenants to use though.

Frau You could say the same about marriage vows. People going back on their vows and their word. I take it you think thats okay too.

This kind of segregation just isn't acceptable. How do you even police it - especially when it comes to kids playing out together?

Anybody who lives in a leasehold house or flat pays service charges.

The social housing tenants pay £200 a month service charge for the building they live in, I’m sure the people in the private building pay the same or more per month.
The service charge for the garden and parking is a separate fee that the social building is not asked to pay because their building does not have access to a garden or parking.

The gardens and parking are private and are communal for the private building,
The article is written as though it is one mixed block of flats with only privately owned residents being allowed access to the communal garden but it’s not it’s a private garden that the people in the private building pay for.

It’s exactly the same as living in a house without a garden and your next door neighbour having a big garden and thinking you have a right to use it.
Or if they have a drive and you don’t you should be entitled to park there.
It’s ludicrous.

It is a private garden for privately owned flats, just because their flats overlook the garden and it is connected to their building doesn’t mean they have any entitlement to use it.

Helena fwiw I agree that if the original agreement said everyone got access it's wrong to then remove it. However, that's only if there was no other change, rather than situations like the housing association trying to negotiate a lower than agreed fee, and giving up that access in return for it.

Protection of private ownership is the principal which often underpins the rule of law in many countries. Its the lack of it which can contribute to anarchy & economic problems in developing countries.

Yes it's hard that some children are poorer than others, due to their parents circumstances. The government already has child tax credits & other benefits trying to reduce the impact of this. Where do we draw the line? If the rich kids parents give him a car for Christmas, must he drive all the poor children to school in it every day?

Private schools, gyms and hospitals do not share their facilities with people who do not pay for access.

Something similar has happened around where I live. Flats are circa £300k for a 2 bedroom place - some private and some housing association. They have 2 separate gardens; the HA one has poorer facilities and it’s separated by a high fence and different entrances. It makes me feel a bit sick really to have a bloody fence in a garden area for small children. It caused a right ruckus on the local FB page with various polarising views. I think people are now agreed the fence will come down and local residents have agreed it’ll be everyone’s responsibility to ensure it doesn’t get ruined and vandalised (like the local parks do) by teenagers. To be honest, the insinuation on FB that the teens living in HA were more likely to be a menace is laughable because the kids who hang around causing trouble where I live come from all backgrounds.

The other problem is that what usually happens if you give access to poorer tenants for free, is with more people using facilities, costs rise, and that bill is only split among the richer owners, who then object to paying a higher amount that necessary (to allow access to others who pay nothing). Subsidisies on that sort of very direct level feel really unfair to people who have worked really hard for everything they have, often at sacrifice of other things like family time.

Inebriati

Are you responsible for where you grew up or what your parents earned?

no, and neither are my kids, can they rock up to Thomas's Battersea school as it's only fair?

@FrauHaribo yep I agree that sometimes people get away with flouting planning rules but sometimes enforcement does come and bite them on the arse (I know of at least two developments torn down because they didn't follow their permission)
and just because some people get away with it doesn't mean we shouldn't have the rules, it means we should campaign for them to be more robustly enforced (budget for enforcement has been completely eroded at most councils due to austerity cuts)
Most developers who get away with things in planning actually do it via technicalities prior to obtaining permission and these loopholes should also be closed and robustly however short staffed planning departments are up against well paid planning consultants whose sole purpose is to exploit these routes to making their clients short term profits rather than actually building developments that will last the test of time and contribute to communities.
Big housing developers currently have an undue influence on planning policy in this country and it will be to the long term detriment of communities of all backgrounds.

"Subsidisies on that sort of very direct level feel really unfair to people who have worked really hard for everything they have, often at sacrifice of other things like family time"

Two of my exes also lived in social housing.

One was a hospital porter who worked long hard shifts,

The other was a delivery driver who did 12 hour days for minimum wage.

Social housing does have many people who do jobs like this.

Including the couple in the next block along. Im in North Essex and after my neighbour had finished working nights which also involved working away he drove back at night and went to bed around 7am. Our housing officer saw fit to visit unannounced and then insisted he get up out of bed to tell him he wasnt allowed to store mats outside the flat door anymore.

So its all very well to assume that no social housing tenants work but many do despite the housing sector making it an uphill struggle for them to do so

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

What a ridiculous statement to make. They are paying. It isn't free. It's an AFFORDABLE amount to them, whilst there are some tenants in council housing who have benefits pay for it all, there are plenty of very hard workers on a low wage. Which is what council housing was originally designed for! Low income working families. They're paying, but at cheaper rents because it's what they can afford.

And it's children having access to a garden, in what twisted world do you think that could make a child entitled? Getting everything they wanted or free phones/laptops/other luxuries, yes that would make a child entitled. But access to a shared garden??

Surely believing those poorer but working just as hard or harder don't deserve access to a shared garden because they live in housing which is affordable to them is what would make a child entitled... They're still working hard, just not as fortunate to have a high paying job.

The plans were approved for everyone to enjoy a shared garden, a place for a child to run about in.

They often get developers to provide play equipment locally & % of build to be social housing in order for planning permission to be granted.

I think such obvious segregation causes problems rather than builds a community that will all care about the area. I find it sad as only really effects the children and old style social housing projects usually had play areas included.
While I can see the unfairness of not all residents footing the bills I think that should've been resolved by developer/housing association, not make the HA residents with no choices the unworthy.

It’s really shitty .

Some of the attitudes on here probably explain why the Tories get into power.

Poor people don't work hard enough you see, so they don't deserve even a decent standard of life.

Space to play and to feel part of your local community, is a decent standard of life. They are not luxuries in a rich country like this.

Thanks all, OP here, I've read the whole thread. An interesting discussion.

@dodgeballchamp

Here is an effing great big spoon for you to stir with OP

"Here is an effing great big spoon for you to stir with OP"

👍

I agree with both sets of Comments here actually
However putting aside gyms and parking .

The concept of a playground that everyone could acess would be a kind one really .

Putting all logic aside the idea of a playground that only one set of small
Children can acess feels obscene

It's social apartheid and it makes my blood boil.