This story reminded me of an article in the Evening Standard yesterday about objections to plans for "affordable" housing in Westminster, near Buckingham Palace.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/k ... 29336.htmlIf there is a proper overlooking issue that could be grounds for refusal. But some appears to be nothing more than snobbishness:
"Mr Goring is also worried about lights from the flats shining into the hotel garden, and even the aesthetics of the curtains or blinds used in the flats. “Things hanging in or from windows can be deeply offensive in a five-star luxury environment,” he explained."
"Neil Maclachlan, who lives nearby, said he understood the need for affordable housing in the area but wanted a ban on the flats housing “lower standard affordable or social housing occupants”. The Victoria Square Residents’ Association accused the Grosvenor Estate of “foisting” inappropriate tenants on the residents."
Now, as someone who earns a good wage but nowhere near enough to live somewhere so centrally, I do sometimes get a little unhappy about provision of social housing in such good areas. But thats to do with problem of the affordability of housing in London more generally and the fact that people like me feel pushed further and further out: there is an issue of whether it is then fair for a lucky subset of low income people to be able to live centrally in subsidised property.
These objections though aren't about housing market affordability. They are just pure snobbishness. And that I can't abide. (In fact I like living in mixed neighbourhoods - in parts of London, social tenants are the only group who stay put and form the core of the 'neighbourhood' as private tenants move all the time, and private owners often use facilities in fancier areas).
Given
Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:31 pm
