On the evening of the 8th of May 2025 we joined a hundred or so other residents at a meeting organised by Ben Coleman MP held in the main hall of Ashburnham Primary School.
The meeting was intended to try and address the concerns many residents had with the proposed “phase 2” works to the Cremorne estate’s communal heating and hot water system.
The meeting was attended by a number of Council officers. This included, amongst others, Doug Goldring, the Council’s Director of Housing Management, and several officers from the Council’s Mechanical and Electrical (M&E) team who would be in charge of the works.
Local Ward Councillor Laura Burns was also in attendance.
The meeting kicked off with an introduction from Ben Coleman MP, who chaired the meeting.
This was followed by opening remarks from Doug Goldring and then a resident to which the Council staff then responded. The meeting maintained that tempo throughout.
Ben Coleman MP did an excellent job of keeping the meeting on-topic and ensuring that everyone was able to speak.
He also did a great job of trying to ensure that residents’ concerns would be properly addressed by the Council.
We made notes of what was said and discussed. We have compared our notes with others.
The morning of the meeting we described our concerns with the works being proposed on this blog. It is the post before this one.
In that post we made four claims, these were:
Claim #1: That the Council has failed to produce any real evidence that the works in people's homes are actually necessary.
Claim #2: That the works inside people's homes will be extremely disruptive.
Claim #3: That if the works go ahead heat meters will be installed.
Claim #4: That if heat meters are installed residents will end up paying much more for their heating and hot water than they do now.
Some of the residents we had spoken to prior to the meeting told us that they hoped that the Council would be able to address all of these claims. We hoped that too. Unfortunately that didn’t really happen.
Let us take each claim in turn and you’ll see what we mean.
Claim #1: That the Council has failed to produce any real evidence that the works in people's homes are actually necessary.
The Council did not repeat the claim that the works were mandated by law. They appear to have finally grasped why making this claim was fundamentally unsound.
The Council stuck to their new line that the works are required because the existing communal heating and hot water system is old and unmaintainable. Council staff claimed that it would be cheaper to replace the existing system than to maintain it.
The Council admitted that it hasn’t carried out a proper condition survey of the system and there are no condition reports.
Without a proper condition survey and the resulting condition reports any claims that the system is old and unmaintainable are little more than guesses. Possibly educated guesses given the supposed experience of the some of the Council officers involved but guesses all the same.
Council staff then claimed that the works could be justified by the system’s repair history. Without reviewing the repair history it is impossible to determine whether this claim has any merit. The Council promised to produce a detailed repair history for independent review.
So, has the Council produced any real evidence that the works in people’s homes are actually necessary? No, they haven’t. At least not yet. Our claim stands. The Council have not produced any evidence that the works in people’s homes are necessary.
We should note that Council staff had pinned some photos to the back wall of the room. Some of these showed pipes in various states of decay as evidence of the need for the works.
The photos were unlabeled. It was unclear where the pipes in the photos had come from.
Even the Council staff didn’t appear to know, claiming at one point that a badly corroded section of pipe had come from Brunel House before claiming that it had actually come from Gillray House a few minutes later.
The best way to avoid such confusion? Label and document things properly. As things stood the photos could be showing anything from anywhere.
At various times during the meeting different residents asked the Council to carry out a full condition survey and produce comprehensive condition reports that could then be independently reviewed. This suggestion was supported by Councillor Laura Burns.
The Council staff present, including Doug Goldring, found it difficult to refuse. They agreed.
Admittedly by the end of the meeting they were clearly trying to squirm their way out of it by making various excuses (“it would be too expensive”, “they would have to recharge the estate's leaseholders”, “the survey would be extremely intrusive”, “you only really need to survey 20% of the estate”, and so on) but they did agree to it.
And nothing inspires confidence in your honesty and transparency as trying to get out of something you had agreed to earlier.
One of the residents suggested that a truly independent survey should be carried out. That’s probably not a bad idea given what the Council might actually do.
Claim #2: That the works inside people's homes will be extremely disruptive.
Council staff claimed, once again, that the works would not be as disruptive as people feared and that the Council had no plans to decant anyone.
The problem with this claim is something we noted out in our last post:
“The Council currently has no idea how the works inside individual blocks and inside people's homes are actually going to be carried out. No one has drawn up any plans, schematics or diagrams. They don't know where anything goes or where anything is going to be installed. If you don't know any of this are you really in a position to give anyone assurances about how disruptive the works are likely to be?”
The Council admitted that this is true. They don’t have any real idea how the works inside individual blocks and inside people’s homes are going to be carried out. They won’t know until they’ve employed a consultant to figure it all out.
Under these circumstances no one with any sense would make any claims about the likely disruption, or lack of it, or whether it might be necessary to decant anyone.
So, given the complete lack of evidence to the contrary, this claim also stands.
Claim #3: That if the works go ahead heat meters will be installed.
No one from the Council disputed this. It’s not a matter of contention. Everyone agrees that if the works proceed as planned the Council will have to install heat meters in people’s homes.
Claim #4: That if heat meters are installed residents will end up paying much more for their heating and hot water than they do now.
This claim was based on an investigation carried out by Calford Seaden in 2019. The Council had employed them to investigate this very issue and that's exactly what they did.
Calford Seaden concluded that tenants and leaseholders would end up paying significantly more for their heating and hot water than they do now, up to 290% more for a three-bed property.
The Council admitted that it has not revisited the issue since. The Calford Seaden report from 2019 is all there is.
One of the Council officers present claimed that the Calford Seaden report was wrong but then failed to explain why or provide any evidence to justify that claim.
We’ve examined the Calford Seaden report and discussed it at length. It’s certainly not perfect but the basic methodology is sound. If someone from the Council wants to claim that Calford Seaden’s investigation and conclusions are wrong, they need to explain why and justify their claims. If they can’t all they’re doing is denying an inconvenient truth.
Once it had dawned on everyone that this was quite possibly the most important issue Doug Goldring explained that there was help for any Council tenants that experienced difficulty in paying their heating and hot water costs (although there was some doubt as to what that help amounted to in practice). He did however admit that there was no help available for leaseholders, but that this was something he was willing to investigate.
Whatever the case our claim stands. Without any evidence to the contrary the conclusions of the Calford Seaden report remain valid. Residents will pay a lot more for their heating and hot water than they do now.
And the most vulnerable residents, the elderly and unwell, will suffer. Many medical conditions can only get worse if you can't afford to heat your home properly.
So, after all that where are we? Well, all four of our claims are still valid. The Council have not been able to refute any of them.
But, thanks to Ben Coleman MP, Doug Goldring and his staff had agreed to the following by the end of the meeting:
To produce some kind of condition survey/report. Although given that a condition survey hasn’t actually been carried out it’s a bit of a mystery just what form this will take.
To produce historic repair data for the estate’s communal heating and hot water system covering a period of at least five years. Council staff did try to water this down by stating that they would only produce a summary, but someone then pointed out that sufficient detail had to be provided to enable independent review; the exercise would be entirely pointless otherwise.
To provide a copy of the business case for the works, as this supposedly contains the financial details that Council staff believe support their claim that wholesale replacement is cheaper than ongoing maintenance.
To produce a new, up to date, model of the heating and hot water costs Council tenants and leaseholders would face once the works are complete. This would effectively repeat the Calford Seaden exercise from 2019 with up-to-date data. The Council clearly hopes to arrive at a different conclusion the second time round.
Full details, including the eligibility criteria and any caps, of the financial support available to Council tenants who cannot afford the increased heating and hot water costs forecast.
Full details of what financial support, including the likely eligibility criteria and any caps, the Council might be able to provide leaseholders who cannot afford the increased heating and hot water costs forecast.
To produce a detailed summary of what a proper, comprehensive condition survey would involve and how much it would cost. The Council does appear intent on convincing everyone that such a survey would be too expensive, and they’ve already tried to scare off leaseholders by suggesting that they will recharge them for it, but given that the Council does not appear to have any meaningful evidence that the works are necessary there would appear to be no real alternative to carrying out a proper survey (unless, of course, you're perfectly happy to squander millions unnecessarily, which is always a possibility where RBK&C are concerned).
And all of this is to be provided to Ben Coleman MP and residents by the end of May.
Everyone we've spoken to since the meeting took place is extremely grateful to their MP, Ben Coleman. Everyone believes he has been extremely helpful and supportive.
And we look forward to being able to scrutinise all of the above.
