I’m on her side – this park was likely built as a S106 planning obligation and to then try and limit the use of it to those on the new estate makes a mockery of the use of planning obligations.
But it’s a private playground paid for by the residents… Such flawed logic, I can’t just go in someone else’s swimming pool and when they complain say it’s fine because I can’t afford one myself.
I’m not a fan of any of these housing estates where dues need to be paid to a company for road and amenity upkeep. That should be the sole responsibility of the council. It reeks of Americanism, HOAs and the like.
Kids don’t care who’s rich and who’s poor unless they’re taught to, and this is exactly how you teach them they’re better than others because their parents have money.
Whatever you think about this sort of residents-only deal, it is *clearly* not correct to label it as “banning poorer children”. It is banning non-residents, the same way residents-only parking does. Bill Gates is equally banned from using this play area. No matter how much he might bitch and moan about wanting to go on the swings.
Not just the article but u/tilman2015 considered and apparently well informed comments show how important this actually is, its like the first steps in a new enclosures movement.
I live on an “estate” like this which is more of a street. We pay service charges for the upkeep of the buildings, street, gardens etc which is a huge pain.
Any time anything is broken whether it be from use or vandalism we have to pay for it. Service charges are not cheap and seem to go up every year and are already people struggle to pay for them. We have a gate that really any member of the public can use to access a park from our estate and it is constantly broken – we just had a bill for £3000 for it that residents have to pay. It’s gotten to the point we just want to rip the stupid thing out but it does give us security from the park at night (where there have been muggings..)
We don’t have a playground and I wouldn’t necessarily be against “outside” kids playing on it if we did but I can totally see why an RMC might not like non-residents to use it if it causes additional wear/tear and upkeep.
Where I live we’re all first time buyers, many of who struggled to afford to live here in the first place. We’re not millionaires with heaps to spare.
—
Edit just to say but – if the playground was to allow non -residents to use it then it shouldn’t be up to residents to pay for the upkeep of it. It should become a public park and paid for by taxes like any other park.
Private park on private land to be used by those who pay for it….shocker.
Fuckit. Use the park. Whose going to know whether you’re resident, or an invitee of a resident?
Unless there is an influx of children from miles around, breaking some sort of capacity limit, there is absolutely no reason for this kind of petty minded snobbery. I personally wouldn’t care if I was privileged enough to live there, that other people came and used the park, cos I’m not a spiteful, selfish bell end who values their boner for perceived ownership more than a child’s right to play.
My housing estate has a playground that is supposedly for “us” to use and no one else. We also have a football pitch. *Everyone* is welcome to use it. We even took the land management company to court to force them to stop sending us letters threatening to take us to court because, shock horror, we refused to stop letting local kids use the facilities.
The local kids, btw, have no playground or any open area where they can run around and, well, be kids. It’s nice seeing everyone using the facilities. (And yes, we’ve approached the council about taking over, but we’re worried that they won’t keep things up to standard and most of “us” like pissing off the management company by phoning them to tell them that X or Y needs replaced and yes, we know this wouldn’t happen if we let them put up “proper fencing” (but that’d be anti-social, my darlings, wouldn’t it?))
Not trying to go into the weeds on this cos fundimetally I agree with you that they should have access, but legally speaking is a park an “informal recreation area”?
My complete laymen’s opinion is that would be a pretty formalised, with permanent structures and gates and fences etc designed for recreation. I’d say a bit of open grass would be an informal recreation area.
It’s private property, maintained and paid for by private residences. Just because it looks like a publicly funded park doesn’t mean that it is.
Private property is easy. Would she allow people to come and stop at her house uninvited?
Who pays for the maintenance?
We must uphold the class system! What else do we have to create certain lines of decency if we cannot shame the poors! :/
My new build estate is a wannabe of this.
On the Facebook group it’s constantly “loads of kids from outside the estate heading to *our* park. They shouldn’t be allowed in here!”
They seriously think we should be a gated community.
As if living in an expensive neighbourhood (which isn’t even the most expensive in the area)makes you better than others.
It sounds like it belongs to the homeowners in that area and is not considered public property. Nobody should feel entitled to someone else’s property. The real issue seems to be a lack of equivalent public facilities. I’m not sure how local government works in the UK, but would it be possible to petition to have the local government pay for a park if that area is in need of one?
Well she is a counciller, if the council reached out to the people on the estate asked to adopt the land and offered to take the estate management fee off them I bet the residents would jump at the opportunity.
The media loves to use the word ‘slams’. No one uses it in real life.
It’s private and says nothing about being poor. Does she want to use the local golf club for free as well?
It’s on private property lol
Wait, regardless of housing cost, residents are paying maintenance fees to keep the park. She wants to use it for free. Why? How is that different than any other facility which costs money and (unfortunately) not everyone can afford?
There are many private parks like this in London. Usually the rich folk have keys to give them access. Keeps the homeless and the council estate dwellers out.
Chelsea and Westminster is probably the worst offender. But even progressive areas like Hackney have them.
The “random mother” in this article is a politician. She drove 10 miles to the other side of town to this estate to “discover” this “horrific” sign on private land.
She doesn’t even live near this estate 😂
Oh look, more entitlement.
That bloke opposite has a tesla, I should be able to use it too, even though he’s paying for it.
And its not banning poor people, thick twat, sign would still apply if meghan and Harry rocked up with their kids.
And comments above about signs going missing and vandalism, pretty much justifies limiting access to families who pay and therefore would treat it with respect.
27 comments
I’m on her side – this park was likely built as a S106 planning obligation and to then try and limit the use of it to those on the new estate makes a mockery of the use of planning obligations.
But it’s a private playground paid for by the residents… Such flawed logic, I can’t just go in someone else’s swimming pool and when they complain say it’s fine because I can’t afford one myself.
I’m not a fan of any of these housing estates where dues need to be paid to a company for road and amenity upkeep. That should be the sole responsibility of the council. It reeks of Americanism, HOAs and the like.
Previous instances of it happening:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/30/we-just-play-in-the-carpark-more-segregated-playgrounds-revealed
It’s a park for children. Let them in.
Kids don’t care who’s rich and who’s poor unless they’re taught to, and this is exactly how you teach them they’re better than others because their parents have money.
Whatever you think about this sort of residents-only deal, it is *clearly* not correct to label it as “banning poorer children”. It is banning non-residents, the same way residents-only parking does. Bill Gates is equally banned from using this play area. No matter how much he might bitch and moan about wanting to go on the swings.
Not just the article but u/tilman2015 considered and apparently well informed comments show how important this actually is, its like the first steps in a new enclosures movement.
I live on an “estate” like this which is more of a street. We pay service charges for the upkeep of the buildings, street, gardens etc which is a huge pain.
Any time anything is broken whether it be from use or vandalism we have to pay for it. Service charges are not cheap and seem to go up every year and are already people struggle to pay for them. We have a gate that really any member of the public can use to access a park from our estate and it is constantly broken – we just had a bill for £3000 for it that residents have to pay. It’s gotten to the point we just want to rip the stupid thing out but it does give us security from the park at night (where there have been muggings..)
We don’t have a playground and I wouldn’t necessarily be against “outside” kids playing on it if we did but I can totally see why an RMC might not like non-residents to use it if it causes additional wear/tear and upkeep.
Where I live we’re all first time buyers, many of who struggled to afford to live here in the first place. We’re not millionaires with heaps to spare.
—
Edit just to say but – if the playground was to allow non -residents to use it then it shouldn’t be up to residents to pay for the upkeep of it. It should become a public park and paid for by taxes like any other park.
Private park on private land to be used by those who pay for it….shocker.
Fuckit. Use the park. Whose going to know whether you’re resident, or an invitee of a resident?
Unless there is an influx of children from miles around, breaking some sort of capacity limit, there is absolutely no reason for this kind of petty minded snobbery. I personally wouldn’t care if I was privileged enough to live there, that other people came and used the park, cos I’m not a spiteful, selfish bell end who values their boner for perceived ownership more than a child’s right to play.
My housing estate has a playground that is supposedly for “us” to use and no one else. We also have a football pitch. *Everyone* is welcome to use it. We even took the land management company to court to force them to stop sending us letters threatening to take us to court because, shock horror, we refused to stop letting local kids use the facilities.
The local kids, btw, have no playground or any open area where they can run around and, well, be kids. It’s nice seeing everyone using the facilities. (And yes, we’ve approached the council about taking over, but we’re worried that they won’t keep things up to standard and most of “us” like pissing off the management company by phoning them to tell them that X or Y needs replaced and yes, we know this wouldn’t happen if we let them put up “proper fencing” (but that’d be anti-social, my darlings, wouldn’t it?))
Not trying to go into the weeds on this cos fundimetally I agree with you that they should have access, but legally speaking is a park an “informal recreation area”?
My complete laymen’s opinion is that would be a pretty formalised, with permanent structures and gates and fences etc designed for recreation. I’d say a bit of open grass would be an informal recreation area.
It’s private property, maintained and paid for by private residences. Just because it looks like a publicly funded park doesn’t mean that it is.
Private property is easy. Would she allow people to come and stop at her house uninvited?
Who pays for the maintenance?
We must uphold the class system! What else do we have to create certain lines of decency if we cannot shame the poors! :/
My new build estate is a wannabe of this.
On the Facebook group it’s constantly “loads of kids from outside the estate heading to *our* park. They shouldn’t be allowed in here!”
They seriously think we should be a gated community.
As if living in an expensive neighbourhood (which isn’t even the most expensive in the area)makes you better than others.
It sounds like it belongs to the homeowners in that area and is not considered public property. Nobody should feel entitled to someone else’s property. The real issue seems to be a lack of equivalent public facilities. I’m not sure how local government works in the UK, but would it be possible to petition to have the local government pay for a park if that area is in need of one?
Well she is a counciller, if the council reached out to the people on the estate asked to adopt the land and offered to take the estate management fee off them I bet the residents would jump at the opportunity.
The media loves to use the word ‘slams’. No one uses it in real life.
It’s private and says nothing about being poor. Does she want to use the local golf club for free as well?
It’s on private property lol
Wait, regardless of housing cost, residents are paying maintenance fees to keep the park. She wants to use it for free. Why? How is that different than any other facility which costs money and (unfortunately) not everyone can afford?
There are many private parks like this in London. Usually the rich folk have keys to give them access. Keeps the homeless and the council estate dwellers out.
Chelsea and Westminster is probably the worst offender. But even progressive areas like Hackney have them.
The “random mother” in this article is a politician. She drove 10 miles to the other side of town to this estate to “discover” this “horrific” sign on private land.
She doesn’t even live near this estate 😂
Oh look, more entitlement.
That bloke opposite has a tesla, I should be able to use it too, even though he’s paying for it.
And its not banning poor people, thick twat, sign would still apply if meghan and Harry rocked up with their kids.
And comments above about signs going missing and vandalism, pretty much justifies limiting access to families who pay and therefore would treat it with respect.