London Fire -2

I read a similar article about the removal of cladding, it seems that everyone is in a panic and reacting, without thinking through or checking the consequences.
It also shows that Grenfell was one of about 600 blocks that had this type of modification.

www.24housing.co.uk/news/safety-experts-challenge-government-over-building-regulations/

A letter on here about how the regulations have changed and who is responsible.

www.24housing.co.uk/news/grenfell-blocks-stripped-of-cladding-still-a-fire-risk/

I did wonder if they had thought this through. Stripping blocks of cladding doesn't automatically make them safer. The cladding has to be replaced with something else, and they don't have the money, expertise or workers to do everything at once.

There's a fantastic village built on the outskirts of York by the Rowntree family. Good sized houses, lovely gardens.
It was built for slum clearance in the centre of York where people were dying because of waterborne diseases.

Isn't it amazing that Victorian philanthropists were better at providing social housing for poor families than we are now.How far have we come in the 100 years since those flats were built? We haven't we've gone backwards!

So the proposal is do a quick fix on the flats? If the Grenfell survivors would like one when they're ready, they should have one?

It could be ashort term solution to both problems.
They are not using the survivors.

“RBKC has the powers to force Sutton Trust to re-commission these 159 flats and it should use those powers.

“A crash programme of work should be undertaken without delay. The refurbished units could be offered to the Grenfell Tower fire victims as temporary accommodation."

That's all. It doesn't say they will be forced to take them. It says, " could".

A CPO is in the article too.

I'm no fan of Affinity housing. I have seen the estate myself and although it's very dilapidated inside according to old tenants, it's a superb set of buildings. I like it, for me, it tells a story of social housing built with care and attention to detail. My personal opinion is that it is worth preserving.

The objections to the redevelopment have been a regular item on the local news and it was highly political before Grenfell.

This is not a 'house Grenfell survivors' issue, it's a 'don't pull down the Sutton Estate' issue. I object to them using the survivors in this way.

The idea is not to buy the land but refurbish the flats as they are.
Why should compulsory purchase be needed?

" “RBKC has the powers to force Sutton Trust to re-commission these 159 flats and it should use those powers.

“A crash programme of work should be undertaken without delay. The refurbished units could be offered to the Grenfell Tower fire victims as temporary accommodation.

“If Kensington and Chelsea Council won’t move on this they should be forced to bring back into commission the flats that the Sutton Trust/Affinity Sutton itself broke up after decanting the residents in 2015”

Ian Henderson, chair of the residents’ association at the Sutton Trust Estate said: “On top of the 159 flats that have been emptied, there are flats throughout the estate which are deliberately being left empty including sheltered housing.

Clarion, in their attempt to demolish the estate to be replaced by multi-million pound flats, will be destroying a community, and complicit in the social cleansing of the area."

I don't know if RBKC have enough money to buy the land on a CPO and the article doesn't answer any of my questions, which is why I asked them.

www.24housing.co.uk/news/grenfell-union-challenge-over-offering-empty-flats-to-survivors/

By the way, most of the answers are in the article.

You appear to be arguing for social housing, Primrose.
Do you realise you are actually agreeing with me.
In the meantime, there is likely to be another two years before a decision is made either for or against Sutoon Trust, by which time the buildings will need to be pulled down because they have become so dilapidated.
Why not refurbish quickly now, and put people in them.

(sorry, just realised you've already asked that, primrose) Probably years, so rather too late for the Grenfell tenants.

Just because it didn't meet their needs on one occasion Ana does not mean a different scheme - particularly if they can all be together - may not work for them. It really isn't up to us or anyone else to decide; it is up to those trying to help - in what we know are difficult circumstances - to communicate the possibilities and listen to the answers. If it was to provide an answer I am sure it would have to be made very habitable and very obviously safe. It may not be the answer but that should not stop suggestions being put forward.

And how long's all that going to take?

No idea, but this is what they want to do to the area. The government has given £5 million, £11 million has been collected, K&C had £2.4 million. Enough to bring them back into use, instead of turning the area into another lot of multi-million pound flats that the locals can't afford.

"Clarion, in their attempt to demolish the estate to be replaced by multi-million pound flats, will be destroying a community, and complicit in the social cleansing of the area.

“We call upon the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to serve Affinity Sutton with a Section 215 notice to bring these homes back into use for the residents of Grenfell Tower.

“Or the Council should consider make a Compulsory Purchase order so that blocks can be brought back into use for social housing.”

How much will it cost to reinstate the flats to a level that is fit for human habitation?
How long will that take?
As the flats are not owned by RBKC, how will the housing association repay the money?

You're assuming this has not been thought of, analysed and rejected as a viable option.

RBKC rejected the development plans because of the lack of social housing. They want more social housing on the site.

www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/hlms-chelsea-estate-revamp-rejected-over-social-housing-loss/10014914.article

The reason the flats have been empty for so long is because Kansington and Chelsea want to reduce the number flats in that area by a third. They need more social housing units, not fewer.
Of course the union is involved.
Planning has been refused, and the council are going to object.
This will take a lot of time.
K&C has enough money to reinstate the flats if they wanted to, to help relieve the situation.

Nobody is using the survivors and the dead. They are just thinking of practical ways to help these families in a situation which should never have happened.
Somehow, I don't think the council will be as willing to help as the union. In fact they have shown they are not.

The survivors and the dead are being used

There are no utilities in those flats, they are awaiting demolition and have been empty for a couple of years. This is a small union trying to make a political point with an unrealistic suggestion. I object to them using the survivors as a tool.

But many Grenfell survivors have said they're reluctant to accept certain temporary accommodation in case they're stuck there indefinitely.

I think there's been a fair amount of discussion already about imposing temporary accommodation that others think 'must be OK' onto the survivors.

It makes sense to put every possibility to the survivors. Just because other people have discussed 'imposition' doesn't mean they cannot be told about and asked if this would work surely? I didn't get the sense that this was to be 'imposed'.

I think there's been a fair amount of discussion already about imposing temporary accommodation that others think 'must be OK' onto the survivors.

If you read the article, you will see it is for temporary accommodation for them to start rebuilding their community.
Nobody has asked the Grenfell survivors yet if it would be acceptable to them.
It must be better for many of them than being in hotels or B&Bs.

The trouble is durhamjen those flats are 3.3 miles away from Grenfell. LBKC covers a large area. My understanding is that the residents did not want to move that far away.