Rehousing issue for Grenfell Towers survivors

People are people, dj wherever they live. The difference is that London is the centre of the world while Aberfan is "in the sticks" and that Aberfan was not in an area dominated by a politically unpopular LA, so did not provide quite the same opportunity for campaigning.

Showing your feelings again, petra.
Annie, you must agree that Aberfan is completely different to London.

Well said, Annie
The trouble now is that we have lawyers that some refer to as 'ambulance chasers'. Leading people to believe they can have everything they want, when, in fact, it's just not possible.

The victims of the Aberfan disaster who lost their homes had to move into caravans over a mile from their village . Those who lived near the school , their houses not destroyed , their children had died ,had to look at the ruins every day .

Yes, trisher, those are all very valid reasons and those people should have everything possible offered to help them rebuild in the locality.
Some, however, may have only recently been housed here, maybe they have only recently entered the country, maybe don't have children, maybe don't work, so it seems strange they are making a stance.

Yes, jen, I heard that several of them never wanted to live in North Kensington in the first place, so all the more reason to make the change if it's offered now? I guess it depends whether location or the type of dwelling offered is your main priority, it's not always possible to have both. School, work and family are priority to remain in K&C, I'm less sure about some of the others.
As paddyann says, this will need to be looked at case by case, need by need, and could take ages.

There may also be issues about the position they would have as regards social housing in other boroughs Lillie. Many people fear the unknown and the unexpected. If you have built a support network in your area which enables you to get your kids to school, look after an elderly parent and/or get to work as well just a single slip can bring that network tumbling down. Trying to rebuild it after a disaster like this means sticking as closely as possible to what was there before.

But that was your choice, Lillie.
They chose to live in North Kensington. In fact many of them didn't, but have lived there for years, made friends, have work and school in the borough.
Maybe their finances do not allow for travel costs after the year is up.
Everyone should be allowed to choose what they want to do in these circumstances.
Some want to move as far away as possible; others want to live in the borough but not in sight of Grenfell.
I can't understand how anyone would think it acceptable to offer someone a flat overlooking Grenfell.
Whoever it was must have no heart.

I agree, Paddyann, that that is a very valid reason for refusing a flat offered, as is wanting to be in the same school catchment area. What does niggle me, speaking as a born and bred and working Londoner, is that some people won't accept a flat 20 minutes away, which is nothing in terms of the journey many of us make every day in the capital. It's not unusual to cross 3 boroughs (60 minutes), to get to work, it's not unusual to have to journey 20 - 30 minutes to catch up with friends and family. People very rarely need to stick within a square mile of their existing home. I haven't checked the figures, but surely some of the survivors could accept accommodation which has been offered them in Brent or Hammersmith. London is London, and unless there are very valid reasons not to, moving up the road is quite feasible, especially with the brilliant transport links.

I heard someone say today that one family refused the flat they were offered because it overlooked Grenfell Tower and they had family/friends who were still in the building and didn't want to have to see it every day .I understand that ,I think it would be a nightmare inducing scenario who woulld be able to live with themselves looking at the place where the bodies of friends and neighbours still lie .Maybe the powers that be need to look at each case with a large dose of compassion

There are a number of flats which are social housing in the nearby development - I thought they were going to be used for some of the residents - there are not as many flats as those destroyed but quite a few to make a start for some families. I read they were going to work on getting them completed within a couple of months.

I agree there, trisher.

If the local authority plan to redevelop roads or the government decide to build a railway through your house they can compulsorily purchase your property. I see no reason (in fact it makes absolute sense to me) that if a property is unoccupied and has been so for some considerable time the local authority should be able to compulsorily purchase it, provided that it is to be used for social housing. Housing people seems to me to be a much better reason for using such powers than road or rail developments.

Three years, and if you haven't started by then, you will have to reapply.

If planning permission is for homes and the houses are not anyone's homes, there could be a possible lever. I suspect it could be difficult retrospectively, and cost quite a bit in compensation. It could stop future speculation though.

I always thought that was the idea, GracesGran.
I am sure planning permission runs out if you haven't used it within a certain number of years.
Perhaps the councils will tighten up on that loophole.

I think it would be a good idea if Kensington bought flats that are on the market to rent to Grenfell tenants. I don't think many of them will want to live in highrise blocks again.

I don't like the idea that the state can requisition private property. It is nothing to do with supporting the rich against the poor, it includes compulsory purchase of ordinary homes too.

Planning permission is given to build homes, not capital assets or land-banking. Maybe this could be withdrawn retrospectively and the houses that are not being lived in demolished and the land they are on and the land-banked land given planning permission for affordable housing only. This could also include second homes. Obviously if you believe in unfettered capitalism you will not agree with any such proposition - but they you are obviously very capital rich or you would see what the disproportion capital owned by some, just because they had capital in the first place is doing to our country.

From the end of the war the tax system was used to even up the playing field that capital had called its own. It is, without doubt, time to think about doing that again.

This may be the catalyst that sets it in motion, rosesarered. That would be a positive result.

This is a chance now to make sure that housing bought will be lived in.It may end property speculation in some areas.

Some residents are requesting a move away from London, others will be housed as near as possible to where they used to live, but yes Petra it may well be the case that some will have to live in another borough.

I support making it very uncomfortable for speculators to sit on a landbank of unoccupied housing in the first place - if it were uncomfortable enough (financially and/or otherwise) the government or local authority could make them an offer they can't refuse - "We'll take this liability off your hands for £X and use it for rental to those on our housing list." Future speculators would think twice if they saw others not making any money out of it.

While it pays, someone will do it. If not the current owners, then somone else. Make it an unpopular choice.

Elegran I entirely agree with your posts.

Since the Government have openly stated that all the residents will be re-housed I find the topic of requisitioning empty but 'owned by somebody ' flats and houses a bit surplus to the discussion.Unless, of course, some are doubting this will happen?
If so, are they doubting it simply because it's a Conservative Government.

Let's just suppose that K&C council say: ok, here's all the money you need to rehouse you all.
We hear that most of the residents want to stay together.
We are also told that they won't live in another high rise.
People have jobs and children in schools in the area, so want to stay in that area.
Where are the houses/ maisonettes going to be built?
Land is something that you just can't conjure up .

'On Friday, the Times reported that Jeremy Corbyn had an alternative solution. “Corbyn: seize properties of the rich for Grenfell homeless” ran its above-the-fold headline (£). This was not, of course, what Corbyn had actually proposed, as the article itself revealed. In a parliamentary debate, the Labour leader had suggested that “Properties must be found, requisitioned if necessary, to make sure those residents do get rehoused locally… It cannot be acceptable that in London you have luxury buildings and flats kept as land banking for the future while the homeless and the poor look for somewhere to live.”

Not quite the State appropriation of private property conveyed by the sub-editor’s fevered headline, then – but a proposal for making better use of empty housing which happens to be supported by 59% of the British public, according to YouGov.'

The majority of yougov responders support making better use of empty housing. So do I.

Eleothan, thank you, I agree with you on buying properties it's the - we should just take them off those who bought them, I cannot agree with this.