Is this a fair policy or not?

  oresome 08:16 01 Nov 2018

House builders have to provide a percentage of 'affordable' homes in any new development and this is the case at Royal Wharf in London.

However the subsidised tenants are excluded from some of the facilities available to private tenants, such as a swimming pool, gymnasium and clubhouse despite the developer's marketing literature describing the facilities as a perfect place to bring people together.


click here

  Quickbeam 09:17 01 Nov 2018

Well it is the housing that's subsidised with tax money not the facilities. There is no doubt a premium cost involved in having access to the facilities.

Regarding the claim of social exclusion, try joining a golf club or a round table group if your not considered the 'right sort'.

Life's full of social unfairness!

  HondaMan 09:39 01 Nov 2018

Unless the subsidised tenants were mis-sold then it is fair or at least not provably unfair. They are paying less rent therefore have less facilities available.

  Belatucadrus 12:12 01 Nov 2018

Is this a fair policy or not?

To my mind yes, they don't get the extras as they aren't paying for them.

  Forum Editor 13:49 01 Nov 2018

It's perfectly fair.

  caccy 16:41 01 Nov 2018

Any property that is sold whether it's price is £50,000 or £20M is affordable!

  oresome 17:55 01 Nov 2018


Affordable in this context has a defined meaning relating to average income and outgoings in the area concerned.


click here

  LastChip 11:17 02 Nov 2018

Perfectly fair - you get what you pay for.

  oresome 14:05 02 Nov 2018

There seems a consensus in the forum that the policy is fair.

Perhaps I can ask another question.

Should we intentionally mix different social groups? Will it not breed discontent with the have nots seeing the life style of their neighbours at close hand.

  caccy 15:43 02 Nov 2018


Thanks for the info. I stand corrected.

  LastChip 21:41 02 Nov 2018

The whole concept of affordable housing is flawed. You cannot expect commercial developers to subsidise social housing.

The truth is, government, whether it be national or local need to start putting their hands in their pockets and build what was known as council houses.

To say they haven't got the money is not a commercial problem, it's a problem with government. I would argue, they have got the money if they stopped wasting it on ego boosting schemes that the majority of their constituents don't want. My own local council has wasted millions on such schemes and could have provided (probably a few thousand) houses instead. Multiply that up throughout the country and you start to make a dent in the hosing problem.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Razer Blade Pro 17 review

Enter graphic design heaven with these vintage Japanese posters

What is Apple Card and Daily Cash?

Les meilleures applications pour Android (2019)