Apartheid UK: How a controversial law to integrate social housing in new developments is creating mini-ghettos.

By Tom Rawstorne 01st August 2008
From the outside, if nothing else, The Hamptons is a haven of tranquillity.
Built on the site of a former sewage works in Worcester Park, Surrey,the 400-odd homes that lie at the heart of this new-build development have been constructed with a New England feel about them.
They are clad in timber, painted in muted tones and boast verandas, colonnades and stone chimneys.
There is plenty of open space as well as large water features around which some of the homes are built.
Here, people from all walks of life will live in harmony in 'a relaxed sense of neighbourliness' - or that was what residents were promised when they moved into the multi-million-pound project.
Unfortunately, its developers seem to have forgotten one unpredictablefactor - human nature.

For it is here, among the leafy open spaces and pastel-coloured homes, that a distinctly unneighbourly turf war has taken root.

On one side, are the affluent middle-class families who paid up to £800,000 for the development's most desirable detached clapboard-fronted properties.

On the other, are the residents of the adjacent flats and terrace houses which were sold at a discounted price to a social housing project - the Thames Valley Housing Association (TVHA) - which is now responsible for filling and administering them.

Inevitably, these rental properties have been used to house people deemed most in need - often families or single mothers with more than one child. All well and good, in theory.

Except that a series of recent incidents at The Hamptons - petty vandalism, rowdy behaviour and the like - has been blamed exclusively on the TVHA tenants.

The result? In a deeply controversial and divisive edict, the children
of the social housing families have now been made the subject of a 9pm
curfew, banning them from the communal areas after dark, while the
offspring of their better-off neighbours are allowed to roam free.

The result, say critics, is tantamount to social apartheid.

'We're treated like second-class citizens,' moans one young single mum,
whose rent on her three-bedroom home is covered by benefits.

'It's like living in prison,' blasts another, furious that children
living in the 'poor' end of the estate should be treated differently.

'They have no freedom just because we can't afford to buy a house. We
suffer because the estate management are worried about upsetting rich
house owners.'

The affluent Hamptons homeowners are equally forthright in defending the
terms of the curfew.

'What do they expect?' asks one such resident, 'an open invite to a
cheese-and-wine party?

'No one's saying that the people in the social housing are to blame for
all the trouble around here, but if certain standards aren't maintained
then we're all going to suffer.'

The result is a tribal turf war - albeit one that owes more to the
suburban snobbery of Hyacinth Bucket in Keeping Up Appearances than to
the seething tensions rife in some of Britain's inner cities.

But while it's tempting to dismiss The Hamptons' conflict as an isolated
problem, there's no doubt echoes of it are being heard the length and
breadth of Britain.

For, under controversial planning laws introduced 15 years ago, local
authorities can demand that all developments like The Hamptons include a
generous proportion of social housing.

The idea is two-fold: first, to increase the stock of social housing at
a time when councils have all but given up constructing new properties;
second, to tackle the problem of council estates where almost every
inhabitant is out of work or on benefits.

The hope was that by placing different elements of society side-by-side,
these new developments would avoid the problems of crime, alienation and
hopelessness so often associated with sink estates.

But as the class conflict at The Hamptons amply demonstrates, real life
is seldom so straightforward.

For starters, private buyers splashing out hundreds of thousands of
pounds on a new property might not necessarily choose to have an
unemployed single mother with three teenage kids as a neighbour.

At the same time, that single mum might not feel particularly disposed
to integrate in that new community if the property she is given is
governed by diktats that serve only to highlight her 'second-class'
status.

'What's been going on is social engineering, pure and simple,' says one
developer who, understandably, asked not to be named.

'It can work well and the results can be great. But, where it doesn't
work, it can cause a very expensive headache.'

At the centre of The Hamptons lies a faux 'town hall', Maple Lodge,
which was designed to be the hub for the whole community.

'It is a public space where the Residents' Association can meet to
discuss issues that affect everyone,' states the website of developers,
St James Homes.

'Community events can be organised: for example, a summer tennis
tournament or barbecue, amateur dramatics in The Hamptons' own outdoor
amphitheatre, or fireworks and Christmas events later in the year.'

It all sounds terribly nice, terribly middle-class. And it is.

The residents of the social housing units would be forgiven for scoffing
at this vision of suburban utopia.

For in sharp contrast to the picturesque clapboard homes of their more
affluent neighbours, their homes are tucked away on a corner of the
site, are built mainly of red brick and can be reached only from the
main area by negotiating a footpath with locked gates at either end to
prevent vehicular access.

These properties were also built by St James Homes after an agreement
was reached at the planning stage with the local authority that roughly
a third of the properties constructed would be social or affordable
housing.

And far from indulging in tennis tournaments or amateur dramatics, their
inhabitants have been blamed for a sequence of rather less respectable
pastimes.

In a spate of petty vandalism, communal bins and a shed have been set
alight and empty bottles of alcoholic drink have been found littered
across the green expanses.

While it is impossible to say for certain who is responsible, TVHA,
which manages The Hamptons' social housing properties, has responded by
asking its tenants to sign an agreement ensuring that children are not
allowed out after 9pm.

TVHA insist that it is a voluntary scheme. But that hasn't stopped
resentment festering.
Of course, it would be wrong to say that everyone in the social housing
sector objects to the curfew - indeed, many are supportive - but some
most certainly do.

'It's very divisive,' one outraged mother says. 'All the rich kids are
allowed to come over here if they want but mine can't go over there.

'They've asked me why that is and it's difficult to explain in a way
that doesn't sound like they've done something wrong.'

Another added: 'We are all charged the same council tax so I don't
understand why we don't all have to abide by one rule. We are treated
differently here; they haven't even bothered to spell the road sign
correctly.'

She's right. The sign for one of the roads reads 'Parkview Cresent' -
the second 'c' is missing.

It's only a minor thing, but add in the fact that they can't join the
private gym in Maple Lodge, can't use the tennis courts and aren't even
really meant to use the green and open spaces, and it's hardly
surprising that the local newspaper website and community forums are
bubbling over with ill-feeling - much of it directed at the 'snooty'
residents who live in the affluent sector.

'If they want a gated, locked environment, with a moat, let them have
it,' writes one outraged social housing tenant.

'We can change the name to The Lunatic Asylum, because you need to be a
looney to have bought one of those houses.'

Another nearby resident notes: 'My garden was once a peaceful haven
until The Hamptons appeared.

'Even the occasional whiff of the sewage works was more bearable than
the smell of sushi and sashimi that floats over their fences.

'And how much nicer to listen to a songbird than to hear the braying for
Max and Tristram to come in for their supper?'

Perhaps inevitably, the Hyacinth Bucket brigade has not taken such
comments lightly, firing off equally provocative responses.

'You people who live outside The Hamptons should feel bloody lucky that
you have these calibre of people living there (not being snobby), but it
will benefit you in the long run with house prices, etc. etc.

'Here we are also trying our hardest to integrate with the local
community by opening up our private tennis courts to 'outsiders' for
your use as well as ours, but that opportunity has been ruined by people
who misuse them.'

Others are more caustic: 'I understand that the social housing folk of
The Hamptons are not happy with one allocated parking space each, so
they are parking on other people's private property.

'Surely one allocated parking space per household is more than enough,
especially for those who supposedly can't afford to rent/buy.

'I'm also of the understanding that many people there drive new cars.

'While people are struggling to pay mortgages and making do with ten-
year-old hatchbacks, others are getting subsidised/free housing and
blowing any cash on tattoos, fags, even more extra-large clothing and
flash cars.'

The insults flying back and forth may seem petty enough, but such local
rivalries are set to become increasingly widespread.

Every year, some 45,000 new social housing homes are built in Britain, a
figure that is expected to increase to 70,000 by 2012.

Of that number, 60 per cent are built by developers as part of private
housing projects.

A typical deal works as follows: a developer applies to build 100 houses
and the local planning authority agrees - but only on condition that 30
per cent of the properties are social housing.

A legally-binding agreement, known as a Section 106 agreement, is drawn
up and construction starts.

While 70 houses will be sold on the open market, the remaining 30 social
housing properties will be sold for 50 to 70 per cent of their market
value to a housing association. Once completed, they will be filled with
tenants from the local authority's housing list.

Alas, problems can arise immediately.

Statistically, owner-occupiers tend to under-fill properties - an
affluent, childless or retired couple may buy a three-bedroom house to
give themselves more space.

The opposite is true for tenants of social housing, who often have more
family members than bedrooms.

So while they may occupy only 30 per cent of the total number of
properties on a site, it is not unusual for them to account for 70 per
cent of the total number of children in a new development.

Inevitably, that can lead to tensions between the two groups.

Of course, the bottom line is whether the arrangement works. On the
record, property developers insist that it generally does - providing
the social housing is well-managed.

But off the record, many warn that there is a real danger of problems
arising where councils insist on hitting pre-set percentage targets in
inappropriate locations.

This applies particularly in the centre of London and other densely-
populated areas.

There, for example, the riverside and dockland developments that are
favoured by building firms are unlikely to offer the sort of family-
friendly amenities - outside space and communal areas - that tenants of
social housing with children require.

'The more exclusive the developments are, the more difficult it is to
make those integrations,' explains Michael Ball, director of the
Waterloo Community Development Group, a charity that supports local
residents on planning issues in London.

'Although none admit it, developers perceive it [social housing] brings
down the value of their properties, and the less of it they are required
to build the better.'

As a result, there is a danger that, far from integrating, the social
housing tenants will actually be marginalised.

'There is a 200-metre tower block at Vauxhall and the affordable housing
has basically just been placed in an outhouse beside it,' says Mr Ball.
'It is far from ideal.'

A spokesman for the National Housing Federation, which represents
housing associations, adds: 'Where the social housing element in a new
development ends up being built is largely dictated by the planning
authority. . . some allow them to be built on the corners and on the
fringes of a site.

'When that happens, they are not fighting ghetto-isation but actually
creating mini-ghettos.'

Back to The Hamptons, and John Baldwin, director of housing and
neighbourhood services for TVHA, insists that the social housing there
is proving popular.

He points out that certain design specifications for these 'public
sector' houses are actually more generous than for the privately sold
properties.

For example, the bedrooms and kitchen/dining areas have to be larger.

But what about these inter-class spats?

'What you get is a bit of snobbery,' he admits.

'The private owners look down a bit at the shared-equity owners, and the
shared-equity owners look down a bit on the rental tenants.

'There is a kind of hierarchy that goes on, but it reflects what is in
society at large. We certainly haven't had terrible problems with
different groups falling out.'

It's early days at The Hamptons, of course, and everyone clearly has to
find their feet.

But with the arrival of the school holidays and a string of balmy,
summer nights, it will be fascinating to see just how 'relaxed' the
residents' sense of neighbourliness turns out to be.

And not just there - but also in the ever-growing number of similar
developments up and down the country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1040709/Apartheid-UK-How-
controversial-law-integrate-social-housing-new-developments-creating-
mini-ghettos.html