boroughonian wrote:Quite so. Furthermore, is it so absurd to suggest that all should have access to the garden (indeed, to both gardens, in the spirit of equality) but the costs should be borne by the private residents only? From each according to his ability and all that? I really don't follow the "if we let the great unwashed use it (nice front door, garden, whatever) then we would have to charge them an eye-watering fee for the privilege, so really we're just being kind to the poor dears" argument.So this service charge wouldn't have been foreseen in the original planning process?
It seems, yet again, promises are made to placate the people and a smoother ride is had, then, when they have their way, they simply move the goalposts.
sjac wrote:Probably, but variations happen with every development and final service charges certainly wouldn't have been determined (and will continue to vary from year-to-year anyway).
Not sure why that matters anyway. To recap:
- People have amazing homes at social rents
- More amenities make these homes less affordable (social rents do not include service charges, which are added on afterwards)
- For some reason, advocates of affordable housing are insisting that these homes should be made less affordable and are upset at the council and developers for keeping costs down for the tenants (at limited inconvenience given that they already have their own private roof garden)
Can anyone explain what I'm missing here, or is it simply outrage for the sake of outrage?
For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.
7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?
Read the latest issue before signing up