London SE1 community website

One Tower Bridge

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 5 of 14
Thursday 5 February 2015 2.35pm
Gavin Smith wrote:
In what does it detract, Marty? Please elaborate.

Marty? How brilliant. The thing is, er, Gav, that's an association that would naturally pop into one's head, but then you would hope something else (an IQ? A nagging inner voice telling you you'll look like a total tw*t?) would stop you before you actually write it once, let alone three times. Ivanhoe's earlier comment about you calling people silly names didn't actually apply to the post in question, but it would seem he was being prescient.


Anyway, to keep it as 'primary school' as I can for you;

My assumption Ė the cost of upkeep of the garden would get added to the total service charge

Your statement - tenants pay their share of that service charge. You know this because you do yourself (you donít say whether youíre a private or council tenant so itís possible this only applies to private tenants)

My conclusion Ė tenantsí service charges (and thus their flat's affordability) will be higher if they are inclusive of garden upkeep charges. This is counter to your argument that having access to the garden would not affect affordability.


Gavin Smith wrote:
Not necessary. You get the point.

Yes, Gavin. You're not good with numbers and/or you're bessie mates with Brian Cox.
Thursday 5 February 2015 2.53pm
Agree completely with Turtmcfly. On a side note, I think more emotions may have been invested by the posters on this thread into this "issue" than the entire (lucky) group of affordable housing residents at One Tower Bridge
Thursday 5 February 2015 3.00pm
shadthamesgal wrote:
Agree completely with Turtmcfly. On a side note, I think more emotions may have been invested by the posters on this thread into this "issue" than the entire (lucky) group of affordable housing residents at One Tower Bridge

That may be true, but it's all part of a bigger issue that causes a large amount of residents a lot of anxiety. If those fears are realised, calling them unlucky as opposed to the lucky residents at OTB would be the ultimate insult. People's homes are at stake.
Thursday 5 February 2015 3.05pm
No, Marty, I was emulating your own facetiousness. I shall obviously bow to your own superior IQ.

In response to the "antis", the key point here is as the title of the SE1 new story says: "Social housing tenants banned from luxury garden". Berkeley Homes has reneged on its promise and has been allowed to by our elected officials. From that has developed, as seems to now be the norm on this site, the usual anti brigade with jealousy as to the "lucky" tenants who occupy.

From the tenor of your posts, in this thread and previously, I doubt you've lived here very long - measured probably in months or years rather than decades - and so won't be aware that there was previously a council estate, the Bethel Estate, which occupied riverside land barely a stone's throw from "One Tower Bridge", long before it was trendy, hip, or cool. That was demolished quite recently (late '80s/early '90s). Bermondsey people whose families have lived here for generations have just as much right, if not more, to have a chance at living in these "apartments" and enjoying this stupid garden. It was what was promised before Berkeley Homes got its hands on the land. Segregation is not the way forward.
Thursday 5 February 2015 3.27pm
Gavin - having defended you from an unfair accusation of name calling yesterday, it's a shame that you have done just that today.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Thursday 5 February 2015 4.12pm
Turtmcfly and James, I sincerely and unreservedly apologise.
Thursday 5 February 2015 4.34pm
Gavin Smith wrote:
Turtmcfly and James, I sincerely and unreservedly apologise.

No problem. You owe me a pint. James will have a daiquiri sent to his sunlounger.
Thursday 5 February 2015 6.35pm
Provision of social housing, great. Mixed social/commercial developments, great. But if the people who pay millions for a flat want to choose to have, and pay for, high-spec very expensive extras then:

- are people saying they shouldn't be able to do this?
- are people saying that the social tenants should pay a share of the costs of those extras (which could easily work out to be equal to/more than their rent)?

...if you press it, they will come.
Thursday 5 February 2015 7.06pm
Depends what you term as "extras".

To the first question you pose, I don't see any problem with them being able to do that.

The second is more difficult. Taking it subjectively, it is hard to see how the cost of maintaining the garden would be so high as to match let alone exceed rent. On the One Tower Bridge website it's not too specific about how many apartments (for some blocks it specifies how many apartments and for others it doesn't), but I've counted 95 privately-owned flats. If you add to that the figure of 46 socially rented properties that has been bandied about, that means that assuming the garden were to be shared, the cost of maintenance would be split proportionately across 141 properties. Even assuming a wildly excessive figure of £1,000 a week to maintain the garden would still only mean each household had to pay £7-odd weekly. In reality, the cost of maintaining the garden is likely to be probably a third of that figure and even that's probably more than the actual cost.
Thursday 5 February 2015 8.14pm
Ivanhoe wrote:
... are people saying they shouldn't be able to do this?

Personally, I wouldn't say that, no - and I don't think that's the point of this thread.

Ivanhoe wrote:
... are people saying that the social tenants should pay a share of the costs of those extras (which could easily work out to be equal to/more than their rent)?
I'd say either:
No, those who are making huge profit from this development should suck up those costs as a more decent course of action than reneging on the commitment they made to secure approval for their venture.
...or, if that's too extreme:
Yes, but the calculation should be based only on on the incremental cost of extending access to the social tenants. I would think this would be modest - unless I'm missing something it would just be a slight increase in maintenance to cater for the potentially increased footfall?
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 5 of 14

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

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

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions