grenfell tower and new homes

Okay, it would appear that the Corporation of London has bought the 68 flats to be used as social housing from the quota of 120 affordable homes in the development.

I'm not sure the Independent has got it right at all. I can only see references to 'affordable housing' not 'social housing'.

I did post this on another thread, but 'affordable housing' is housing rented or sold at 80% of the market rate or value.

I think there's been a lot of assumptions or wrong information about the properties in the media, but the Independent has printed this article and seems to have done its homework, even including a link to the planning application.

The facts

I apologise for posting wrong information on the other thread about this.

People will be called for jury service the same as always.You are not excused it easily either.

Just wondering, if it goes to court, how on earth are they going to find a jury?

That's to do with who was culpable, not whether it was safe or not, which is what was asked in the commons.

The Newcastle leader has said that the council does not have oversight of the blocks that were built and/or clad by private developers.
If it turns out that developers have used cheaper materials than specified, that's against the law, but has also killed people.
Surely no architect would specify cladding that was not fireproof.

Perhaps, for the purposes of the law, it has to be absolutely established beyond any shadow of doubt that it was not the cladding that was meant to be used.

From what I have read, the developer has let the council have them for cost price.
Philanthropy in action again.
They know they will be built to a good standard, too, and will feel safe in them.
It's a long time since I've felt this good.

However, I can't understand why May said today that the cladding is being tested and they will know in the next 48 hours. It's been shown that it wasn't safe/legal.

Roydon was the company named as the one that cladded the tower -

And if the knowledge is in the public forum e.g. on television?

and I should have added, it is not what you say, but the way that you say it.

because there are laws of libel.

Why?

I think we should be careful on a public forum what we say about this.

If that is indeed a fact Lucky then it certainly would be, yes.

£5000 is the amount i read luck

Penny pinching indèed. Roydon is the named company.

I understand from reporting that there was a difference in cost between the fireproof cladding and what was used of about £5000. I think that feels like penny-pinching in the context of peoples lives being at risk.

Hard to understand how it could be penny pinching though, when so much overall was spent on the refurbishment ( of course it could be) we shall see, but it could also be that a mistake was made in actually choosing it ( if it is illegal cladding) or that somebody was incompetent somewhere along the line.
The people will be given a choice ( regarding the new flats) nobody will force them into a high rise ( although think the new ones are not more than five floors?)It may mean waiting longer for a house,or as Jalima has said, moving away from the city, perhaps they should be asked if they would like to leave London, if they think they could work somewhere else, a fresh start.Either way, I am sure their wishes will be acted on.
I don't think that social housing should ever be sold either Iam64 unless we ever get into the position of having too much of it!

Several websites, including the 'i' say the houses are “newly built social housing” and that an extra £10m has been found to complete and furnish them speedily. They are described as being 'bought by the government', presumably from the social landlord, understood to be the City of London who were building them. Social housing is social housing and the previous potential occupiers are on a housing list because they need social housing somewhere in the London area.

I do not begrudge the Grenfell tower survivors any one of those flats, I was merely suggesting that we should have some sympathy for the 78 families who would have occupied those flats who may have to wait much longer to get into decent housing.

It is fine for paddyann to say I'm quite sure those 78 families on the list will be glad they're not in the same situation as the Grenfell tenants and they'll be happy to wait to be housed,its often the people with the least money who have the biggest hearts

Well, it rather depends on the circumstances you are living in. Those 78 on the waiting list may well understand but if you are a single mother with several children holed up in one inadequate room in a B&B, possibly suffering from depression, to be told you will be there for another six months could bring you to breaking point and break your family, similarly if a family are living in a rat infested HMO, where the loos are too filthy to use.

I just think we should spare some sympathy for those who may have to continue to live in dreadful conditions longer because the homes they should have occupied are no longer available.

I never expected to read hard hearted and callous posts on GN, but there are at least 3 on this thread.

Some people say that the survivors should not be forced to move away because they would lose their support networks. However, perhaps they could be given the option of moving elsewhere if they wish rather than seeing a constant reminder of the trauma they went through.

There is more space for housing outside such crowded areas of London.

We should be building more social housing. The right to buy scheme should be ended. There should be investment in improving the infrastructure, roads, railways etc. This would create jobs. Alongside this the apprenticeship schemes should be expanded so we have a growing body of skilled trades workers to earn a living whilst working to benefit themselves and the country.
Like Luckygirl, I accept some will find my comments political.

It is so good that this is happening and the survivors of this dreadful fire will be rehoused in decent accommodation sooner rather than later.

It is interesting how this can be afforded but not the extra few quid for the safer cladding. This has to be a lesson to all those in councils and the construction industry. Penny-pinching when lives are at stake is simply not on.

I am now going to make a political point and apologies to those who find that offensive. We should as a nation be investing in homes and infrastructure.

As I understand it, affordable housing is designed to be sold to those with lower incomes. In this instance the City of London Corporation has bought these affordable homes and handed them to Kensington and Chelsea Council to let and manage. - specifically for the Grenfell Tower families. Nobody on the standard waiting list should lose their place.

Isn't M0nica simply saying that although there has been a great effort made to house the tenants from Grenfell Tower (and rightly so) we shouldn't forget that there is still a terrible housing crisis in this country, particularly in London and very little effort will probably be made to house those people?

Maybe not to start with but further down the line if they are not offered such good quality housing then it may cause an issue.

travelsofar why would they be offered housing of a lesser quality in future - surely they will stay where they are being moved to unless they wish to move themselves?

Or do you mean other people who may not be accommodated there and may not be offered brand new housing? Is this the only development of social housing in that LA area or is there more which may become available before too long?

Sorry, I am a bit confused.