Where are the reports?

At the meeting hosted by Ben Coleman that took place on the 8th of May 2025 the Council agreed to provide a number of reports and other information to Ben Coleman's team before the end of the month of May. 

It is now early August and having heard very little from anyone we were starting to wonder: Has the Council lived up to its promises? Has it provided all of the information Doug Goldring said it would?

We spoke to a number of residents, including those who took a leading role in the meeting, and have the following to report. Below are listed each of the items the Council promised to provide and whether or not they have provided it.

Item #1: To produce some kind of condition survey/report. 

By all accounts no one has seen anything approaching a condition survey/report. The answer would appear to be "no".

Item #2: To produce historic repair data for the estate’s communal heating and hot water system covering a period of at least five years. 

Again, by all accounts the Council have yet to provide any historic repair data for the estate's communal heating and hot water system. The answer would also appear to be "no". 

Item #3: To provide a copy of the business case for the works, as this supposedly contains a cost-benefit analysis that Council staff believe supports their claim that wholesale replacement is cheaper than ongoing maintenance. 

We are told that the Council did supply a copy of a business case in relation to the second phase of works to the communal heating and hot water system. 

We've been provided with a copy. And unfortunately the business case is about having to employ external consultants to oversee the work. It does not contain any financial details or a cost-benefit analysis of any kind that might justify the claim that wholesale replacement is cheaper than ongoing maintenance. A claim that several Council staff made at the meeting, whether they like it or not. 

The general consensus amongst the residents that have seen the business is that either the Council have supplied the wrong business case or it simply isn't as described at the meeting (and heaven forbid that the Council staff may have misled the residents "in the heat of the moment", because that's clearly never happened before). 

So credit to the Council for providing something. But no credit for false advertising. The business case provided is not the one they described or promised. It does not contain any financial data in relation to the ongoing maintenance of the communal heating and hot water system, it does not contain any kind of cost-benefit analysis, and it does not support the claim made at the meeting that wholesale replacement is cheaper than ongoing maintenance. 

Item #4: 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. 

The Council sent Ben Coleman a report titled "Heating Cost Assessment for the Cremorne Estate" on the 6th of June. We've been provided with a copy and had a look. 

Our conclusion: the report is incredibly simplistic and is of little or no practical value to anyone as a result. 

In the report, the latest consultants employed by the Council (who are not Calford Seaden) make a number of claims in relation to how the first and second phases of work to the communal heating and hot water system will reduce the system's gas consumption and related costs but fail to show how any of their figures were arrived at. It is therefore impossible for anyone (including the Council staff that should be carrying out the due diligence required) to tell whether the claims have a firm basis in reality or have simply been plucked out of thin air. 

The consultants then calculated what tenants and leaseholders are likely to pay by dividing an estimate of the Council's annual expenditure on gas by the number of properties on the estate. 

We are not joking. That's literally what they did: estimate the Council's annual gas bill, divide it by the number of properties on the estate, claim that's what people will end up paying. 

No one living on the Cremorne Estate has ever been billed in this way and it is extremely unlikely that they ever will be. 

This is the calculation you might perform to get a rough, finger in the air approximation of what someone might have to pay if you didn't know any better. But there is no reason for the consultants not to know any better. They will have been briefed by the Council, and the Council knows exactly how tenants and leaseholders are billed today and how they are likely to be billed in future. Why would the Council not provide their consultants with this information? 

So yes, the Council sent through a report. But it's so simplistic and so detached from reality as to be completely worthless. It certainly doesn't address the question of what tenants and leaseholders are likely to pay once heat meters are installed or whether any of them might find the resulting energy costs financially crippling. 

The Calford Seaden report from 2019 suggests that residents will end up paying a lot more than they do now and that many will struggle to heat their homes properly and use the hot water they need, and the Council have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Item #5: 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.

The Council are apparently claiming that they cannot provide this information at this time as they are still working out what such a scheme would look like given the need to comply with the latest guidance from Ofgem. 

However, at the meeting we were told that there was an existing financial assistance scheme already in operation, and many of the residents present were clearly completely unaware of it. There is nothing stopping the Council from providing details of this current scheme to everyone. 

And there is also nothing to stop the Council from indicating how the supposed "future scheme" is likely to differ from the current scheme. For example, is the eligibility criteria likely to change? If so, how? Is the scheme likely to help more tenants? Or less? 

The complete lack of information is therefore hard to justify.

The answer in any case is "no", the Council have not provided this information. 

Item #6: 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. 

The Council have not provided this information. They have however stated that no financial assistance for leaseholders will be forthcoming from the General Fund. 

At the meeting the Council stated that no financial assistance for leaseholders can be made available from the Housing Revenue Account.

Add those two statements together and the response appears to be that there will be no financial assistance for leaseholders from the Council, full stop. 

So the Council does appear to have answered this question. We'll give them that. Just not in a particularly helpful way. 

In any case, if the Council does indeed intend to provide no financial assistance whatsoever to the many leaseholders on low and/or fixed incomes it should do the honest thing and tell them as soon as possible. 

Write to all of the estate's leaseholders and let them know that they can expect no help with any increased heating and hot water costs from the Council.

Item #7: To produce a detailed summary of what a proper, comprehensive condition survey would involve and how much it would cost. 

Let's keep this short: there's no sign of this either. 

And that's the list. So where does this leave us? 

It is now nearly three months after the meeting. From where we're standing it looks like the Council have managed to provide just three of the items they promised: 

• A business case, that is not as described at the meeting. 

• A report on the heating and hot water costs that tenants and leaseholders would face once heat meters are installed that is so simplistic and detached from reality as to be completely worthless.

• A statement that there will be no financial assistance for leaseholders. 

We are told that that the Council have promised to supply Ben Coleman's office with a condition report of some kind as well as the historic repair data for the estate's communal heating and hot water system for the last five years as soon as they are available.

We sincerely hope that both will be a marked improvement over the "Heating Cost Assessment for the Cremorne Estate" and we would suggest that someone at the Council cast a critical eye over both before sending them to Ben Coleman's office. 

Not only does sending out nonsense like the "Heating Cost Assessment for the Cremorne Estate" waste everyone's time but it calls into question the professionalism of the Council staff involved. Because anyone who's read it will be asking themselves: Does no one at the Council check whether what the consultants are writing makes any sense or is even remotely plausible? Is no one at the Council capable of spotting and questioning clearly unrealistic or nonsensical claims? 

To conclude: the Council have clearly failed to provide all of the information they promised in the timescales they agreed to. But if the Council really means to convince people that the second phase of works and the installation of heat meters is necessary, and that residents will not be facing financially crippling heating and hot water costs as a result, they need to try much, much harder and actually deliver what they promise.

Our thoughts on the meeting

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.

Spelling out our concerns

It has come to our attention that some people are misrepresenting our concerns about the works being proposed for the Cremorne estate's communal heating and hot water system. We won't dwell on why anyone might wish to do this but we do want to ensure that everyone understands the issues we're concerned about and why. To that end we're going to quickly review and briefly describe those concerns below. 

Our primary, long standing concern is about the manner in which the Council has approached these works - with an absolutely minimal level of communication with residents and a complete lack of transparency. 

That the Council is intentionally progressing these works in secret and without the knowledge or consent of residents past the point where anyone might be able to influence them in any way. 

That concern has then led to others, and we would claim the following:

Claim #1: That the Council has failed to produce any real evidence that the works in people's homes are actually necessary. 

The Council initially claimed that the law required them to carry out the works. They did so repeatedly in writing and verbally and in public. We have seen the correspondence and there are many witnesses. They did write it and they did say it and it is not true. The law requires no such thing.

The Council are now claiming that some or all of the components of the existing heating and hot water system inside people's homes are old and unreliable and must be replaced. This is not what they originally claimed and we have to wonder why. They have, in any case, failed to produce any evidence to back up that claim. For all we know, it is also untrue. 

Claim #2: That the works inside people's homes will be extremely disruptive and that in some cases the works might require residents to be decanted (as per Calford Seaden's report). 

The Council have not denied this. They have instead given vague assurances that the works won't be as disruptive as we suspect, that the works will only take only a few days to complete in each flat, and that the contractor will make good any damage.

These assurances are quite simply not credible. 

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? We'd suggest the answer to that question is "no". 

The experience on other properties is that these works will take far longer and be much more disruptive than the Council currently claims. 

Anyone that has ever had Council or TMO contractors in their home will find it hard to believe that the contractor will make good any damage. That has never been the case in the past. Contractors have only ever repaired the most trivial damage. They leave anything remotely "complicated", such as painting anything that is not brilliant white, to the resident to sort out for themselves and the resident ends up footing the bill. Why would it be any different this time? 

If the Council's contractors go into your home and make a mess you will be the one footing the bill to put it right.

The Council has also given vague assurances about avoiding decanting residents if at all possible. An assurance that ends with "if at all possible" is basically worthless. Residents from the north of the borough can attest to that. 

Their experience has been that if the contractor says that your flat needs to be empty for them to carry out the work, you will be decanted. 

Claim #3: That if the works go ahead heat meters will be installed (as per the regulations). 

We have never claimed otherwise.

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 is the issue that concerns many residents above all the others. 

That these works will cause their heating and hot water costs to increase dramatically, to double or triple what they pay now (as suggested by Calford Seaden), and that they will do so forever, not just for a few weeks or months. 

They may not be able to afford to heat their homes properly and even if they can, they will be permanently out of pocket. These works will make them poorer. 

Is there good reason to believe this? We think there is. The Calford Seaden report says this is the outcome. The evidence from other properties across London says this is the outcome. 

And despite it being the easiest issue for the Council to address they haven't. The recent letter and FAQ sent to residents doesn't even mention it. They appear to be trying their best to pretend that it doesn't exist and that no one has ever brought it up. Which suggests that it is true.

The Calford Seaden report is not wrong. Residents will end up paying a lot more for their heating than they do now. 

And those are our concerns and that is what we claim. No more no less. That's it. 

If anyone believes that any of these claims are incorrect or untrue then by all means point us at the evidence to the contrary. Believe it or not we would be more than happy to be proved wrong. In fact we would absolutely love to be proved wrong. 

Have you had sight of reports or surveys that contradict any or all of the above? Then by all means email them to us at savethecremorne@gmail.com or tell us where to find them.

News from the Chelsea Citizen

News of the public meeting organised by Ben Coleman MP has reached the Chelsea Citizen.

The Chelsea Citizen's latest email newsletter included the following: 

You can find the Chelsea Citizen's web site at https://thechelseacitizen.com/

Ben Coleman's meeting going ahead

Shortly after our last post a group of residents approached us to let us know that the Council had written to everyone and told them that they planned to hold a drop-in event at the same time and on the same day as the public meeting that had been organised by Ben Coleman MP.

These residents feared that this was a deliberate attempt by Council officers and Councillors to confuse residents and undermine a public meeting organised by the elected Member of Parliament representing their interests. 

Ben Coleman MP has since confirmed that the meeting at Ashburnham Primary School will be going ahead as planned.

There can be little doubt as to the MP's support and concern for the residents of the estate, and the residents wished to express their gratitude to Ben Coleman MP. 

They are extremely pleased that he has confirmed that he has no intention of cancelling or rescheduling his meeting whatever the Council's antics. 

To reiterate: 

Ben Coleman MP's meeting is taking place on the evening of the 8th of May, from 6pm in Ashburnham Primary School, 17 Blantyre Street, World's End Estate, London SW10 0DT.

It now remains to be seen just who will be attending the meeting from the Council and whether they will be able to address people's concerns and answer their questions properly. 

We encourage everyone affected by the Council's plans to attend.