One Tower Bridge

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8077

This is outrageous. Council tenants denied access to residents 'private garden'.
Absolutely dreadful.
Hideous water features. Didn't someone mention that the Thames is on the doorstep?
Hate this development.

southwark residents again benefit from another private luxury development by...not being allowed on 'their' bit of green.

no, really

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8077

I will add my voice to the hopefully growing chorus of disapproval, and disgust. Shocking snobbery. Whatever happened to the "We are all in it together" myth?

Poor doors, spikes, now "You are not posh enough to sit in the garden"

Southwark Council officers should hang their heads in shame letting this happen.

Absolutely disgusting. However, it's not just the officers who should hang their hands in shame but, more importantly, our elected officials - councillors - who voted, unanimously I believe, to sanction this.

Really? Lets try another spin on this:

Developers make homes even more affordable

Developers of the 46 brand-new multi-million pound council homes at Tower Bridge that will be provided to a very fortunate group of people for a tiny fraction of their true value have saved the tenants from potentially escalating costs by removing the requirement that they share upkeep costs for a shared garden.

Resident John Doe stated: "I'm so glad that they've limited our costs by excluding us from this potentially very expensive shared garden. Given that we have our own roof garden anyway we'd probably never use it, and the increased service charges that it would have brought would probably have been a struggle. Did I mention that I pay only £161 per week for my 3-bedroom flat?!? It's incredible, given that the market price would be at least 10 times that. Now that I don't have to pay for the increased service charge my home will remain truly affordable. Thanks Southwark and Berkeley Homes!"

Anyway, whatever your thoughts on the development (hopefully it will look better when it's complete...) I think the outrage on behalf of this group of tenants is rather misplaced.

I am not suprised by this move, it always seemed to be on the books because we have a council that is two faced both in the ruling party and officers. We see the same attitude with "affordable housing" where the tenants would have to use a back or tradesman's entrance so as not to upset the sensitive souls who have purchased their home at an exorbitant and exagerated market price and because that is impracticable no affordable homes are built in the blocks as promised in the original plans.
I believe that such policies are outlined by the developer to the council officers and planners and agreed but never proclaimed and a few councillors are duped but the majority know what is going on and nod through such plans for their new friends.
The planning committee seem to have corrupt policies which they follow to the detriment of the common man.
Southwark Council seem to have exported their Heygate policies to the borough of Barnet which is now trying to socially cleanse a regeneration project ( which has become a redevelopement) of council tenants.
We now have Rachmanisism alive and well in Southwark and led by a Labour council and teaching other councils the tricks of the trade.
Shame on them. Will they never realise the contempt we have for them.

SJAC, I don't at all follow your logic. All that oozes from your vitriol is a wholesale objection against the principle of social housing.

Gavin Smith wrote:

SJAC, I don't at all follow your logic. All that oozes from your vitriol is a wholesale objection against the principle of social housing.

Unfair. Why not address the logic of his/her point instead of calling silly names?

Gavin didn't call anyone names and I don't see anything in the thread outside the normal cut and thrust of reasonable debate.

Gavin Smith, if that was your take then you've simply misread the post.

My point:

- Tenants at Horace Jones House have been provided with amazing homes for true social rents.
- Sharing expensive amenities (such as the podium garden) with the other tenants will push up costs for the social tenants, making these homes less affordable.
- Especially given that they already have a roof garden, keeping the homes more affordable by excluding the podium garden is probably the best result.

This can also apply to separate entrances for developments with both open market and affordable components. A concierge, swimming pool, gym, etc. have very expensive annual costs. If social tenants had to share those costs then rents would no longer be affordable. It's always confused me as to why there is such outrage for these measures.