Entitlement by proximity (Development in London with fancy swimming pool bridge).

[dowie]

So the BBC posted some footage on Twitter today of a fancy swimming pool at a London development:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1399678383727034369

Picture here:

Now the HuffPo points out that some poorer people living in the social housing part of the development don't have access to it:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/london-floating-pool-nine-elms_uk_60b61404e4b06da8bd7b3914

This is like the previous fuss made over two adjacent developments and a children's play area - In that case IIRC something was worked out, in other cases though when you're talking about expensive facilities then it doesn't necessarily seem feasible.

I'm curious about what people's thoughts are and whether they differ based on proximity - consider a developer wants to build 350 luxury flats with a posh lobby, concierge, private cinema, swimming pool, gym, business centre, rooftop terrace, rooftop resident's lounge, kids play area etc.. to be privately managed by a management company in return for a fat service charge. The developer also needs to build say 150 social housing flats - for a housing association to manage and rent at affordable rates or sell on shared ownership basis.

Scenario 1: All the flats are in the same massive tower block and the developer has decided to create a separate entrance (poor door) for the social housing flats vs a posh lobby and access to all the facilities for the private flats.

Scenario 2: The flats are built on the same site but in different blocks two private blocks with access to the facilities and one social housing block without access to the facilities.

Scenario 3: The private flats are built on one site and the social housing flats are built on another site 2 kilometres away in the same borough, the only thing linking them is the fact they're being built by the same developer and the social housing was a requirement by the borough council to get planning permission for the private housing.

Service charges cost the private residents say £6000 a year each on average to maintain the fancy facilities.

In all of the above scenarios, the private flats and social housing flats are separated, managed by different entities but the proximity differs - does that change your view re: whether the residents of the social housing are entitled to the facilities in the private housing?

Who should pay if the social housing residents are allowed access to the facilities? Are they just subsidised by an effective tax on the private residents? Do they get to cherry-pick and demand they be allowed to pay for say access to the pool/gym only for some low fee but the rest of the overall costs racked up by the private development they want nothing to do with?

 

[dowie]

I thought when a developer builds a property they have to by law include a % of social housing? so if that's the case everyone in the building should have the same rights.

the rich wouldn't be there either if it wasn't for the poor people living there since it would never have been given planning permission?

OK, that answers scenario 1, what about the other questions - scenarios 2 and 3 and if a different answer then why? Also, who pays for it?

I thought poor doors were deemed unfair or whatever and not used anymore? I remember they had a lot of hate in the media.
hardly the same thing is it this pool is pretty much a communal pool

Why do you think they are unfair?

 

[dowie]

anyway still goes without social tenants the place likely would never have been given planning permission.

That is the case in all three scenarios though so isn't a reason for in scenario 1. You haven't specifically answered the other two does that imply you don't agree in those cases?

 

[dowie]

Segregation will happen regardless of what measures are put in place, so the choice is between segregating by building or by neighborhood.

Well, that isn't true the questions are completely open here.

it's all part of the exact same development unless each section were given planning permission separately.

I don;t believe planning permission should be granted based on "we will build poor people housing somewhere else" it should be part of the main development if that is one of the main considerations for planning permission, affordable housing.

everyone living there should be treated as equals or not at all. (I'm not suggesting all apartments be built to the same standard but they should have access to the same communal spaces)

I'm not the one making the decisions and I don't know exactly how's it's decided, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

It's not about whether the three scenarios should occur - the question is given those three scenarios (all of which can and do occur in the UK).

Two of them involve the same site one of which is the same building and the other is separate blocks.

You've already answered that in scenario 1 you want them all to have access so you don't need to reiterate that - the addition question there is who pays for it and whether you see that as different to the other scenarios?

 

[dowie]

and your assuming it's some expensive service charge, most service charges in an apartment are a few pence per month I doubt the pool is hugely expensive

Yes, the assumption of a high service charge is literally in the question: £6000. That is approximately what some residents have apparently been paying in the development in question too, it's not just some random figure though that shouldn't be relevant - are you not capable of answering the question regardless, based on principle alone?

 

[dowie]

I'd stick them all in the same block tho. Let the rich have to gaze upon the poor, and let the poor see how the other half lives. I don't believe in apartheid. We really don't want slum blocks and decent blocks.

I'd be happy for the rich tenants to subsidise essential services for the poor tenants (cleaning, etc), but stuff like a theatre or pool, well it's much harder to make a case for why that should be subsidised.

It isn't always going to be practical to fit them into the same block though, in some cases a high rise won't be approved for whatever reason, the site might have approval for different blocks.

Does paying for cleaning for the poor flats apply in the case where there are different blocks too?

Or how about where the posh development is on one site and the private flats on another - would be a bit weird if you buy a flat and then discover that part of your management fee is being used to pay for some cleaners in another block of flats 2 km away that the original developer happened to build as a planning requirement?

Also, just out of principle, why should the private buyers or indeed buyers later down the line be on the hook for these cleaning fees?

Likewise, supposing one of the shared ownership people eventually pays off all the equity then sells his flat privately - a new tenant moves in who is simply a private tenant now - why do they get subsidized by other private tenants at a different block?

 

[dowie]

Poor people are...? Anti-social? Poor people are bad neighbours? Poor people are dishonest? Aggressive? Loud?

Poor people are...?

You sound like a lovely chap who doesn't generalise people at all.

It's not about generalising for all but rather the risk - if you have say 150 social housing tenants then yes there is a higher risk there, especially if some of the tendencies are simply housing association people with their rent covered. The majority might be lovely neighbours but the obvious risk is obvious.

Yes bankers can do coke etc.. but if you've got some proper smackheads who are in social housing because they can't hold down a job then you've potentially got people who might be up at 4am etc.. don't really care about their surroundings/communal areas etc.. as they don't own the flat.

You have a higher chance of social issues, petty theft etc.. It's not so much that given someone lives in social housing they're definitely going to be a problem it is more that given someone is a complete **** up who commits crime and/or can't hold down a job then there is a very good chance they'll require social housing and given a large pool of social housing there is a good chance you'll have at least a few complete **** ups present.

That isn't snobbery it's just the reality of life in council estates and housing association blocks across the country.

 

[dowie]

They're linked by virtue of the fact that the developer only gained permission to build the luxury flats by agreeing to build the slumdog flats

The alternative is what, btw? Let the slumdog flats crumble and go to ****, let the developer and the posh block sever their ties and wash their hands of it..

The developer has severed their ties regardless, I'm not sure what you mean there. Again the social housing is managed by a social housing company, the private housing is managed by a separate management company (this is a fairly standard set up).

I mean your question is similar btw to "Why should rich people pay tax that gets spent on services they won't use, that only poor people use?" It's a fairly bleak attitude to take regarding providing essential services to the general populace. I have no issue (in general) with the wealthy subsidising essential services for the poor/for everyone.

I appreciate not everybody has the same view

We're not talking about general taxation though, we're talking about specific private individuals. Also who is to say that later on one of the residents in say a shared ownership flat or formerly shared ownership flat that has been sold on isn't wealthy?

Are you not able to answer the questions?

Does paying for cleaning for the poor flats apply in the case where there are different blocks too?

Or how about where the posh development is on one site and the private flats on another - would be a bit weird if you buy a flat and then discover that part of your management fee is being used to pay for some cleaners in another block of flats 2 km away that the original developer happened to build as a planning requirement?

Also, just out of principle, why should the private buyers or indeed buyers later down the line be on the hook for these cleaning fees?

Likewise, supposing one of the shared ownership people eventually pays off all the equity then sells his flat privately - a new tenant moves in who is simply a private tenant now - why do they get subsidized by other private tenants at a different block?

 

[dowie]

I have no objection to people with the means subsidising essential services for people without the means.

But that isn't necessarily the case here, re-read the questions in the previous post and the one beforehand. It isn't much good just giving some vague general principle when it doesn't necessarily apply.

Are you not able to answer or something?

 

[dowie]

"Are you not able to give me the answer I want/ I agree with?"

I've answered the questions, clearly not to your satisfaction, but to mine I wish to add nothing further.

No, you haven't, it isn't about me agreeing or disagreeing with the answers - I put forth some specific questions and you simply didn't answer them.

Some of the premises you've thrown out there are flawed too - for example, why can't someone in who can afford a 500k shared ownership flat pay for the basic costs of cleaning the communal areas, their share of the buildings insurance etc.. themselves?

Not everyone in the social housing part is poor - likewise, flats get sold on etc..

You didn't answer whether you'd change your view based on whether we're talking about the same building or different blocks on the same development or the social housing block being located 2km away.

 

[dowie]

OK, I'll take that as you can't answer...

I would genuinely be interested in any answers from people who are capable of discussing this subject - so far there have been two posters vaguely objecting but also dodging the specific questions...

Anyone else fancy giving their views on this?

 

[dowie]

Do you ever wonder why more people don't engage with you? You have extreme difficulty accepting in good grace anything anyone says that you don't agree with.

I'm sure after our exchange people will be queueing up to hear you pour scorn over their opinions. I mean, who could resist?

I think you're reading too much into it tbh... I know tone is subjective on the internet but I'm interested in people's views here, if you don't want to engage with the questions then that's fine, just replying to a post with a smiley face isn't adding anything here - I've tried to prompt people who have given vague, general answers.

The thread wasn't just asking what are your vague views on this, there were some specifics too to try and challenge people to think a bit about this stuff, is proximity important etc.. and some follow-up questions when people introduced things.

 

[dowie]

People did think about it, but that's not actually what you mean, is it?

"Challenge people" in your mind means, "They should come round to my way of thinking, because my logic is infallible."

Hence whenever somebody disagrees with you you are genuinely surprised/shocked/challenged by their lack of conformity to your ideas.

Nope, again there is no requirement to agree with me here. You're now just throwing in some projection of your own, I've simply asked if you could answer the questions, if you don't want to address the specifics or give any thought to objections then that's up to you, it's not an invitation for you to just start moaning about me personally. If you don't want to engage then don't, the thread is here for discussion - there is no need for you to start trolling by replying to a post with a smiley face or to just moan about me personally - go read some other threads if you're not interested in having a discussion in this one.

 

[dowie]

I did answer the questions. You just didn't like the answers.

No, you didn't, you've given some vague opinions but there were some quite specific questions for example see:

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/forums/posts/34837719/

And again this isn't about whether I like your views, if you don't want to engage then that's fine.

 

[dowie]

I don't doubt it, just humble bragging for shiggles

e: out of interest, what kind of costs are we talking about here, noting that you certainly were not involved in the design/construction/installation/any other related matters to the swimming pool pictured in the OP, any resemblances are coincidental etc etc etc. Give us some numbers!

I don't know about the pool specifically - but service charges for that development have crept up to over 6 grand a year, see article below - ergo in the hypothetical scenario I asked about included a 6k service charge

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...ring-charges-at-luxury-london-homes-1.4509830

I don't think people consider the sort of issues in the article above when they hear about "poor doors" etc... you'd perhaps need to plan bigger facilities too if it were known in advance that more flats were going to be entitled to use them which might well mean even higher service charges.

And the thing with London is that the private residents aren't necessarily massively wealthy (some are, others might have just bought a studio or small one-bedroom flat in the development etc..) and indeed some of the social housing (in particular the shared ownership residents) aren't necessarily all "poor" either, for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...s-battersea-london-luxury-housing-development

For Iqbal to reach his two-bed flat – valued at £800,000, of which he owns a quarter and pays rent on the rest – he must walk past the grand, hotel-style main entrance to the complex, flanked by supercars with personalised number plates

I don't think someone who can afford to rent an £800k flat is "poor" necessarily. He seems to want to cherry-pick, pay a fee to allow for access to the pool & gym, not sure how feasible that would be given that the management company he is under is presumably a social housing firm so it wouldn't be an optional thing with them, it would be an arrangement with a management company that perhaps has nothing to do with his block and may not want to just allow a "cake and eat it" approach given the other considerable costs.

Of course, a social housing block isn't just shared ownership, locking people into a super high maintenance fee isn't really feasible for "affordable" housing (and probably a non-starter when it comes to some people on housing benefit paying social rents etc..) and having one class of residents who *have* to cough up the management fee vs some other class of residents who have a free option on whether they want to pay an additional management fee or whether they want to sack it off is a potential nightmare.

Say the roof needs some urgent repairs, inc the pool etc.. they've exhausted the reserve fund so all owners now face an additional one-off charge - you don't just get to opt-out of that stuff when you own a place, it's not workable to have some subset of people who can choose to pay/not pay and dodge potentially big bills - "ah I don't fancy paying for the major works so I'l duck out this year but once you've all completed the renovations I want the right to pay a small fee for access again".

I suspect that a fair few objections in general to this sort of thing are simply proximity-based - just being in the same building or within the same development provides for an emotive reaction whereas if the social housing requirements were fulfilled by building a block elsewhere then this sort of stuff becomes much less controversial... I doubt there would be much fuss on Twitter if the story was some bloke in social housing on another development built at the same time around the corner doesn't have access.

 

[dowie]

Proximity is irrelevant it's down to whether they are paying for it or not.

I agree that is what should be the case however it probably is relevant to why some people get emotive about this stuff.

Having a separate entrance is perfectly understandable given that social housing companies perhaps won't want to be liable for a posh lobby and concierge etc... but the idea of the resulting "poor door" when both private and social housing are in the same block is rather more emotive than if they're in separate blocks and it's simply noted that the separate private block has a posh lobby and concierge.

 

[dowie]

one could argue why should someone who never uses the lift pay for it?

Same reason people on the ground floor still have to chip in to say repair the roof. It’s a communal charge and if the building is required to have a lift then those charges are shared by the people in that block/section.

However someone in another block doesn’t need to pay, for example in my development the block I’m in isn’t particularly tall and doesn’t need lifts so that’s one less thing we need worry about. I’m not liable for the lifts in some other block as they’re under a different management company. Likewise there are some social housing blocks around the corner and they don’t have lifts AFAIK and also won’t be liable for the costs of lifts in the blocks that have them or indeed other stuff like automatic gates to underground car parks etc...

All the units on the development are however liable to pay a separate service charge for the overall development too, that covers the gardeners and security but individual blocks are run separately and have separate AGMs. If some block voted to build a pool on the roof or something and they paid for it then I don’t see why anyone else gets to access it simply because we live in a neighbouring block.

 

[dowie]

If I lived in a nice development at a lower than usual cost because of social housing rules, I'd consider that a decent deal in and of itself and wouldn't complain about not using a fancy entrance/swimming pool/etc that I wasn't paying for.

Unless we go full communist and somehow make it work(*), there will be a variation in wealth. I think it's currently too large a variation, but I don't think the problem is that people living in £800K flats don't get the same luxuries as people living in £3M flats who pay a lot per year on top for those extra luxuries.

I agree, if anything they should be grateful. It's not necessarily 3m flats in the private development either - there might well be people in the private development with cheaper 1 bedroom or studio flats vs people on the shared ownership or housing association part with 2 bedroom flats. Perhaps a posh but small 1 bedroom costs 650-750k whereas a shared ownership housing association 2 bed like the one mentioned costs 800k.

I think a lot of it is just people being naive re: how these things tend to work - notions of say the wealthy have to pay for the cleaning bills for the other block etc.. when generally they're managed by completely different entities. Cleaning is perhaps a minor cost, the social housing block will have buildings insurance (or a contribution towards), water, waste collection, general maintenance, a management fee etc.. etc..

It is up to the various managing entity to control costs, decide when to carry out repairs or spend on large projects like say painting all the corridors, they have nothing to do with each other in respect of stuff like that and act autonomously. The housing association probs wants to minimise costs whereas the private management company might have a bunch of demands on stuff that residents want done every AGM.

This gives me flashbacks to the time i lived in one block of flats with no lifts yet still chipped in(Via the service charge) for the lifts for the flats on the other side of the road.

Luckily, 12 years later it doesn't bother me anymore....

That's unfortunate, I guess that's just what happens if it is the same management company - typically fees calculated by sq ft of floor space in your flat.

How do Service Charges work in blocks such as these? Am I correct in thinking for the social housing side this would mostly be absorbed/subsidised by the Housing Association (thus partially wrapped up into the overall "rental" cost), whereas the privately owned side would clearly have two costs (the mortgage (if they have one), and the separate service charge (that presumably would be more subject to price increases as per any contract in place).

Nope, typically 100% of the service charge is paid directly by the shared ownership tenant regardless of the % owned. It's kind of moot really as if they were to say own 25% and then pay 25% the other 75% would just be passed onto them via the rent they pay on the remaining 75%.

I'm assuming the housing association would also have no appetite in being held responsible for a higher service charge for any non-essential parts of the building (and thus can keep the costs they pass on to their tenants at a lower rate), on the basis the aim of the housing association is to provide affordable housing that meets acceptable living standards (and clearly access to a Gym, Pool, Cinema etc. falls well outside of this scope).

Yup, exactly, especially if they don't just have shared ownership tenants but also people paying social rents to the housing association and/or on housing benefit. High service charges simply aren't feasible there and even in the shared ownership case they'd make such schemes unaffordable for most of the people they're aimed at.

 

[dowie]

It would be interesting to compare nature(%HA) of planning permission granted by Burnham / Manchester , do they have a more equitable society - London needs levelling up.

( lol - flats beneath can't lookout at the sky - they have a blue diffused light. )

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...anchester-developers-dodge-affordable-housing

]Of the 61 big residential developments granted planning permission by Manchester city council’s planning committee in 2016 and 2017, not one of the 14,667 planned flats or houses met the government’s definition of affordable, being neither for social rent nor offered at 80% of the market rate.

IIRC he's been in power since 2017 so maybe only some overlap with that.

Mentioned in the article is an example of scenario 3, or perhaps even a 4th scenario if the original developer isn't even involved in this but just paid the money so they could be built:

In 2017 Manchester city council negotiated £1.5m in developer fees, which it says will be used to build more affordable homes. But these will not be in the city centre. They will be in cheaper areas of north Manchester, Clayton and Beswick in the east and Wythenshawe in the south.

Should the people living in those further out places be entitled to access the facilities at the completely separate private residences constructed by the developers who funded them?

I suspect most people would see that as ridiculous.

 

[dowie]

I don't think allowing poor people to achieve a measure of wealth is the gotcha you think it is, tbh.

The issue is that too few people, especially now, simply don't get that opportunity. Particularly with Top-down decisions favouring the already-wealthy at the expense of the less well off, like illustrated in that twitter thread I posted.

They're not necessarily poor, they've simply won the housing lottery and had a council house in a valuable area at the right time. Doesn't seem like a great use of a public resource, frankly building them there in the first place seems rather inefficient or at least would be today.

That Mr. Dikerdem should probably check just how many of those mythical "riverside council homes" are still riverside council homes and how many of them were bought for pennies, flipped for a better part of a million or two and how many of those poor council families that never worked a day in their life consequently retired at the age of 40 with full bank account and a semi detached house in Gillingham to heal the wounds from rubbing their mitts with glee.

I wonder if there is an angle here for the remaining council tenants.

Like presumably there are some who were perma-NEETs or on very variable low income that they simply couldn't get a mortgage to buy even at a huge discount and perhaps others who maybe just didn't fancy it and will retire, die, pass on the lease to a relative.

Ironically subletting a council house (beyond allowing in a lodger) is a criminal offence but there doesn't seem to be anything restricting the way right to buy is financed. There are probably a few elderly holdouts or just people who've never been able to buy and a sneaky speculator could perhaps draw up a contract with them, get them to buy the council flat and immediately sell it for a shared fat profit... assuming there was sufficient discount available. Maybe keep an eye on the obituaries for the elderly holdouts - approach the relatives.

Would be very very sneaky and just highlights how broken this is. IMO prime central London council housing should have the right to buy removed and all be flogged at market rates and the proceeds used to build more further out.