General Chat

May be of interest

https://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/government-wins-appeal-over-affordable-housing-and-small-sites-policy

.......................

and I heard on my radio news this morning that over 600 residential towers in the UK have that same cladding :-0

Some of the men & women who sleep rough in squats, tents, cars, parks, bins, flimsy sleeping bags in shop doorways – all unimaginable spaces in our capital city and beyond - would appreciate a more permanent abode too.

Here in Bedfordshire developers have to build a percentage of socila housing on any plot they develop.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/rehousing-of-grenfell-tower-families-in-luxury-block-meets-mixed-response Nick, who pays £2,500 a month rent for a one-bedroom flat in the complex, also expressed doubts about the plan. “Who are the real tenants of Grenfell Tower?” he asked. “It seems as though a lot of flats there were sublet. Now the people whose names are on the tenancies will get rehoused here, and then they’ll rent the flats out on the private market. And the people who were actually living unofficially in the tower at the time of the fire won’t get rehoused.

“I’m very sad that people have lost their homes, but there are a lot of people here who have bought flats and will now see the values drop. It will degrade things. And it opens up a can of worms in the housing market.”

There are several local authorities here who insist on developers providing a percentage for social housing of any residential building work they undertake. In fact, I am not even sure whether it is now on the statute books.

Sometimes the developer will combine the types of dwellings (as seems to be the case where it is, apparently, planned to house Grenfell residents). Other developers have been known to buy from current housing stock in the area.


The Chief Exec of Kensington and Chelsea Council has resigned, by the way.

Thanks again for the replies.

I have had a nose around newspapers, interviews and social media tonight and there seems to be some uncomfortable reactions on both sides. Time will tell if this truly works as a solution.

Of those that intend to purchase the apartments and wishing to have a corner apartment or better view would probably have bought off plan so won't be able to just choose not to buy without a financial penalty. That's if they can get out of the contract which is very doubtful.

One sad fact of life over the past 30 years is that families couldn't afford to all remain in the same area.

The small flat I rented in Lambert Rd, Brixton between selling the cottage in Gt. Chesterford and buying in Kent (I worked in Brixton) was sold some years ago for £450,000. Most houses contain 4 - 5 flats of that size. In addition to the ridiculous pricing the parking causes massive problems.

What IS affordable housing in London? Here it's between £350 and £700 per month.

The house I live in, all the houses and flats in the immediate vicinity, started out as social housing built in the 80s around what was an ancient village area. You can tell the ones which still are social housing as periodically you see the housing trust vans going there to do repairs, or to paint the walls 'brick' colour.

Otherwise you would not be able to tell, it's a mix of renters , buyers, workers, non workers,elderly, families. Some I would say are rather more 'culltured' than others lol, but that's very much my individual perception ( I am not fond of noisy people who shout for the sake of it, regardless of whether they pay for their home or the state does ;-) I like peace :-) )

who says the people from the Grenfell tower won't "fit in"????

Just because they live in social housing or are immigrants, doesn't mean they are not entitled to decent housing.


It is now required here that any new build OR converted apartment building, whether for sale or rental HAS to include not only "market" but also "affordable" and "low income" apartments.

If the plans shown by the developer do not include at least 2 of the 3 ... the plans are turned down by the planning department

Several buildings have been built or converted in the last 5-10 years that have separate entrances for the "wealthy ones" so they will not be disturbed by the low income people. The apartments are also in different parts of the buildings, so it is not truly a mix of incomes.

Buildings for rental, with all 3 levels of affordability show no distinction between who is paying what ..... although one could probably assume that larger apartments of the higher floors with views will be more expensive than a small apartment on a lower floor with no views.


In addition, most of the apartment buildings approved over the last 3 or 4 years, no matter the height, have had retail premises at ground level, and often 2 or 3 floors of commercial offices, and apartments above that.

Some even have 10-15 floors of hotel accommodation between the commercial floors and the apartments.

Mind you, these buildings are between 45 and 65+ floors tall.

There are currently no other tenants in the block - the block is 'near completion', so if someone thinks a council tenant is a 'different' breed - they don't have to buy.
Apart from the concierge and cinema, they are, when all is said and done, just walls and windows, like every other building - only in this case, grossly overpriced because of where they are.
Things change. Where I live, it used to be the industrial part of Winchester, with barge people, then railway workers living here. There was an area of extensive sidings with 4 sidings, two passing loops, a large goods shed, and a ten-ton crane - so not a small affair!
The original housing consisted of a farmhouse or two, a couple of dairies, small Victorian terraced houses, for railway workers and huge Georgian houses.
Canal work stopped. A pub (sob) was pulled down.
The first Council Houses were built at the end of the 1920's.
More Council houses were built in the farmland in the 1930's.
The railway station was closed and the goods facilities were withdrawn from 4 April 1966.
A few of the (by now) dilapidated terraced houses were bought by the Council.
Some of the Georgian houses were turned into flats.
I forgot to mention the Chalk pit - the oldest bit of industry. In the 1960's houses were built on what would have been the edge of the pit. The most expensive and ugly houses around here!!

The warehouse was turned into Duplex flats in the 1990's, as was one of the dairies.
The terraced houses became de-rigueur for 'arty' types. The Georgian houses much liked by the better off.
The estate is a mixture of sturdy red brick Council houses and privately owned red brick Victorian houses of various types, with, of course the 3 story Georgian houses standing out in their glory!!
... and do you know - I couldn't tell you who owns their house - Council or otherwise.

If only the rich could live in certain areas that would be as bad as apartheid.

Kensington needs shop assistants, nurses, cleaners, posties, teachers, all the normal people doing normal jobs as much as it needs Saudi princes and Russian oligarchs, more in my opinion.

Well Igp it depends if you only measure the worth of a man or woman by their silver. If you do then of course social housing is inexplicable.

"He knew the price of everything and the value of nothing."

How well do you get along with Donald Trump? He is looking for somewhere to stay.

The council may have statistics for some of those matters but may or may not know how many flats were privately rented / bought.

IGP to answer your other questions re who paid, didn't pay rent and from what financial source...I'm sure the council knows, though maybe they would not think it the right time to broadcast those statistics?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.