[matt-p]

The problem is worse outside London, hotels in conservation areas that get planning for health clubs on the basis that locals can buy memberships too, then quietly withdrawn. A car park that should be open for public paid parking becomes private.

It's a fantastic idea, but enforcement sucks on intangible things like this. In a few years time I'm sure it will be 'closed for maintenance' then never reopen to the public or a nice restaurant will go up there and suddenly you'll need a restaurant booking to use the lift.

[sumo89]

Same with the "affordable housing" criteria of new build housing developments. They'll accidentally forget to build the affordable part then get a slap on the wrist afterwards, or build much fewer than were in the plans, or build whatever they want then apply to regularisation afterwards.

[vladvasiliu]

Apart from the "maintenance" thing, how are these "untangible"? Needing a restaurant reservation or whatever is not free.

This shouldn't be hard to enforce.

[matt-p]

Perhaps "non-physical" would have been a better term to use. The problem is that these obligations are often secured through planning conditions or AT BEST Section 106 agreements. While planning departments are well equipped to enforce whether a building is the correct height or has a window in the wrong place, they are generally much less effective at monitoring and enforcing operational obligations years later. Ensuring that a gym membership scheme remains available, or that a publicly accessible facility continues to operate as promised, is realistically not going to get policed 10 or 15 years after a building has been completed.

[sandworm101]

They become locations to film movies and tv shows. Conveniant views of london without need to close off a "public" area.