1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Children from social housing not allowed on playground

Discussion in 'Personal' started by bobpite, Mar 26, 2019.

  1. towncryer

    towncryer Senior commenter

    Well certainly the residents interviewed by the papers. We don't know what all the residents think. Anyway if everyone is happy then fine.


    I am,however,wary about certain papers pushing this idea of rich and poor. If you live in a nice house and have a nice garden that makes you rich? Probably half the people in the owned residences are actually skint, paying their mortgages and service charges...so its not good to start defining people as rich and poor,pointing the finger and creating divisions in people's minds. It leads to envy and rich and poor mind-set. Frank may well think it's piffle tosh and nonsense and he's entitled to his opinion but I am wary of what is being pushed here. What next? Poor kids need to share a bedroom while rich kids don't? Let's make housing fairer? Using children to make the point of course triggers an emotional reaction in people. It wouldn't have sounded half as sensational if the article had been about adults.
     
  2. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    Your post is riddled with errors.
    The private tenants pay a maintenance charge that covers the services of an on-site porter/concierge, the care of the communal areas inside their blocks and of outdoor facilities like the car park and gardens.
    The social housing tenants do not rent from the Council. The block is owned and managed by the Guinness Partnership.
    All the blocks of flats and town houses on the 3.2 acre former Lilian Baylis school site share the car park. The development got planning permission based on a certain allocation of affordable housing being included. The approved plans were for two play spaces (one designated for the Under-5s) being accessible to all tenants. The plans show a hedge/fencing dividing the Under 5s play space from the rest of the grounds. Crucially there is a gate in that hedge/fence.
    The developers chose to ignore the communal access and built a hedge/fence with no gate. Thus the toddlers from the private section had no access to the Under 5s play area, and the older children in the social housing had no access to the lawned play area (and the patio play areas) in the main part of the grounds.
    The developers have now said that there was no deliberate attempt to exclude the social tenants from using the main garden area and they will be installing a gate as per the original plans.
    Social tenants will have a maintenance charge for communal areas built into their rents. They will pay less because they have no services from a porter/concierge and fewer indoor facilities to be maintained.
    Some tenants in the Social housing may now have bought leaseholds or be about to under Right To Buy. The Guinness partnership will then be their freeholder and they will pay a separate service charge to them. In the fullness of time (after being a leaseholder for 5 years) former Social tenants will be free to sell their flats on the open market and the Social housing block will have more and more private owners. They will still pay a lower service charge as they will still not have a porter/concierge (and possibly no lifts either).

    My daughter bought a flat in London and has a service charge that is reasonable because there is no lift or concierge. She'd pay at least £1k a year more if the block had those facilities.
     
    monicabilongame and chelsea2 like this.
  3. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    I honestly have no idea why you think what you are saying is different to what I said. You are just being pedantic. What does it matter if someone rents directly from the council, or from someone else that is renting on behalf of the council?
     
  4. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    Does this part not make clear the difference? Especially the part in bold?

     
  5. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    people live in different places, with different benefits, with different costs, with different facilities. In this case simply, a missing gate? non story
     
  6. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter


    WRONG AGAIN. The Council is not associated with any rental of the social housing. It has never been Council property and the Guinness Trust do not rent property out on behalf of the Council .The GT owns and manages a huge portfolio of afforfable housing nationwide (starting back in the late 19th Century with properties in Dublin and London.
     
  7. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    It's not simply a matter of a missing gate. It's a matter of legal access being denied for the 4 or 5 years since the development (one development) was completed.
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  8. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    pedantry.

    non story
     
  9. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    ....on behalf of the council....
     

Share This Page