General Chat

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-families-to-be-given-68-flats-in-luxury-apartment-complex


Now I may be wrong but if the council have purchased these apartments, which it appears they have, where is the economic sense? How many empty houses (of which there are many) could have been purchased and refurbished for a fraction of the cost?

How much rent are the tenants going to pay? There is not a hope in hell the council can justify this. It's a knee jerk reaction and I can see it coming back to bite them hard.

Please feel free to correct me on any points.

I agree with you. Not much thought has been put into this decision. How many of the residents who have bought their apartments are going to be pleased by this decision. Not many of them would have expected even the affordable homes to go to council tenants I'm sure. Nothing against council tenants but it is more likely to cause friction than harmony.

We bought an ex council house nearly 50 years ago and some people thought it was wrong then.

I hope all of the Grenfell Tower residents are successfully re-housed but if some are given these apartments then I would hope all of the others are given homes of a similar quality - although where the money is coming from I dread to think.

Kath. x

hate to think of the counsel rates they will have to pay. Has anyone asked these people if they want to live in such accomadation and whether they can afford it .As much as i would say wow look at that reality would soon hit home when the media etc have moved on :-(

Thanks for replying Kath and Maddie

I know that included in the building scheme there were to be a number of social housing units.

Common sense tells me that these units would be somewhat separated from the privately owned ones.

The tenants of Grenfell Tower said that they were a community, you will not get the same sense of community in such a high value development.

Of course the tenants should be rehoused but don't shove them somewhere out of their comfort zone. Just how intimated will some of them feel when rubbing alongside wealthy professionals?

i agree with you and what of the long term. Some occupants may wish to move on. Will other "poor" homeless people be offered these flats or will they be sold off.
I hope they don't make tenants feel like fish out of water, i know i would.

They also should at pay the same rent as they were paying in the tower.

Haven't a clue Bro re rents applicable or council tax payable about £2400 p.a. I think.

I am bemused, it seems to be an ill thought out quick remedy.

Of course I don't have a solution but then I'm not a)on the ground b)a person of influence.

Reading the article it seems like it's trying to get people annoyed...in so much as they don't show you where they will be living just hey look at these really expensive places. It's a difficult thing to comment on as we have no idea what's actually being offered whether anyone wants to move to them, how much rent they'll be charged etc etc. Also if they're not being allowed to use everything on offer will they feel bad like second class citizens? It's the old free school lunch kids standing out in the crowd isn't it?

For goodness sake where is your compassion.
:-0 :-0 :-0 :-0

Have you seen some of the other accommodation that these residents people have been offered. It's disgusting the way they have been treated. :-(

I read the same story in a number of different online publications Caroline. Most strike a neutral tone.

Usually in blocks such as this you pay a HUGE annual resident's fee to cover the costs of concierge services, maintenance of public areas, building maintenance and use of all the nice facilities plus private parking if available.

If that was aimed at me Von I never said they shouldn't be allowed there. I was stating I think the article might be trying to get people to say that.
I have no problem at all with them living there, that said if someone is there and has paid the full price they might...even though I'm sure the people moving in will look after the place respectfully and be grateful ect.
I think to be fair to them they will though stand out like a sore thumb, but if that's what it takes to get them housed then so be it.

When, exactly, was 1.5 million ever affordable?

As to whether the people going into these 'affordable' flats should have access to the facilities. Well, I would say that, if anybody deserves access to a pool and spa etc. they o.

No way would I ever live in an apartment
If I had been living there :-D

It would be ground floor or nothing for me :-( :-(

They were already earmarked for social housing before the fire.

This batch of apartments have been bought by the City of London Corp not the Rbkc.

Just like anywhere else the tenants have a housing contract. The landlords have obviously breached their side. The cost of alternative accomodation is not the tenants problem they will pay the same rent as at Grenfell Towers. If the matter went to court the Borough would be ordered to do the same. Politics dictates a speedy settlement and the govt is assisting the funding of that.

Sorting out housing need is far from being the end of the matter. The residents have endured a near war experience while those living nearby witnessed horrors much if which has been avoided by mainstream media. Claims are in preparation for compensation.

After this tragedy the govt should revise the tendency of English housing to ghettoisation. There is nothing wrong with the rich and the poor living side by side and works fine in many places.

There are 'luxury' apartments which also have social housing, separate in pretty much every way as was shown on tv recently ( not in connection with this event) They are pretty standard apartments, do not ( pretty obvious to have to say this isn't it?!) have the same entrance, concierge services, fixtures and fittings etc..but they are, (if the tv example I saw is anything to go by) a "community" in itself.

ADD: There are several articles from a few years back on the subject ( across various newspapers) I've selected this one , only because it has a short URL, but it does give some detail on the difference between the luxury and social sides of the building.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/25/poor-doors-segregation-london-flats

Thank you for the replies.

Firstly my compassion stretches worldwide and is not limited just to catastrophic events and the aftermath but poverty, ill health and starvation from birth to death. That's why I help fund women to start businesses in Central America in the hope their situation will improve. That's why I do not have compassion fatigue and still support overseas aid. That's why I am happy to support small groups of people who are working in their community to educate children. I'll not expand further because I'm sure you get the picture. I hope critics all do the same, put your money where your mouth is.

The link you put up Rose is very enlightening. Thanks.

I can well remember areas in London after being 'improved' and the loss of community was a fact not a generalisation.

I heard one of the homeless residents say tonight "it's nice for those that get a flat but what about those that don't?" He didn't say it with any malice but I have no doubt some groups will.

I'm still in favour of acquiring the empty houses through compulsory purchase and take those houses back into the social housing stock.

I believe, but it is only second hand, albeit from a fairly 'ears to the ground' reliable source, that some London tenants ( again not connected to recent events) have been offered alternative social housing in the general area I live but have turned it down.

Now personally, having spent a lot of my life moving around, I am not one of those who nec' would have wanted to stay in my birthplaces, or indeed most of the places I've moved from :-) But I do appreciate that a) many people want to stay 'where they know', and b) much more so when their entire family, friends etc live close, and where their children are settled in schools.

I would like to see empty properties being bought up and used, for eg there is a whole block of houses/flats a few miles from here that were built but have remained empty

"The development features a total of 20 flats but has been unfinished, with no work taking place since about 2012.

Councillor X said there have been some legal issues preventing work from continuing, but added residents have long wanted to see the building either finished or taken down, after vandalism and the gates supposedly preventing people from getting on to the site have made the area an eyesore."

It's just one example, but sure there are others.

It has always amazed me why there is even so called 'social housing' in what must be one of the most expensive parts of the entire country.

Does anyone actually know how many tenants were paying a market rent out of earned income as opposed to housing benefit? How many had actually bought the lease on their apartment and how many had any sort of insurance?

Of course the victims of this awful tragedy need to be given a temporary roof over their heads but the longer term situation need to be addressed.

Were there not to be social housing in the most expensive part of the country, then surely there would be a knock on effect on all those services provided by people on basic/low wages , ie those jobs which do not pay enough to cover the high rents, but which are essential to the better off 'movers and shakers' of London?

For eg I seem to remember watching a programme on fire men, who lived way outside London ( South Wales I think?) and by necessity commuted to their shifts. But what of all the council workers, nurses, retail staff etc etc?