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 offices. 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.

Ben Coleman MP acts

We recently learned that a small group of residents met with Ben Coleman MP at the beginning of April to discuss their concerns with the proposed second phase of works to the estate's heating and hot water system and inside their homes.

Ben Coleman MP has now written to residents inviting them to a meeting at Ashburnham Primary School on the evening of the 8th of May 2025. 

This is the letter:

We're told that the residents are extremely grateful to Ben Coleman MP for taking a serious interest in this issue and their specific concerns and acting so decisively.

What the law says (and what it doesn't say)

Another of the claims often made by Council staff and Councillors is that the second phase of works to the estate's district heating and hot water system is required by law. That the law tells the Council to do it. 

Unfortunately, just like the claims about costs we discussed in our last post, this simply isn't true and we're now going to explain why. 

The law the Council is referring to is made up of the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014 (as amended in 2015 and 2020) and the Energy Act 2023.

It is certainly true that these pieces of legislation require the owners of buildings with communal or district heating and hot water systems (“heat networks”) to do a number of things but the wholesale replacement of an existing communal or district heating and hot water system for the sole purpose of installing heat meters is not one of them. 

The law actually requires the owners of buildings with communal or district heating and hot water systems to register those buildings with the Office of Product Safety and Standards. 

They must do this before the 1st of September 2022 (and there's some doubt as to whether RBK&C have actually done this and complied with the law). 

And as part of that registration they need to determine, in the case of buildings that don’t already have heat meters such as those on the Cremorne Estate, whether it is possible to fit them. 

They are meant to work out whether it is technically feasible - if it is even possible - and whether it is financially viable - how much it would cost and whether that sum is reasonable.

And should they determine that it is not technically feasible, because it’s too difficult or simply can’t be done, or it is not financially viable, because it would cost too much to install heat meters in the building, they need to inform the OPSS accordingly as part of their registration.

And that’s it. That’s what the law actually requires a building owner to do. 

And there’s a very good reason why this is what the law actually requires.

Councils and Housing Associations own many buildings with communal or district heating and hot water systems that are affected by this law. Do you know who else owns many buildings with communal or district heating and hot water systems that are also affected by this law? Private landlords. And when the government wrote the law they had to take them into account. 

It would not be reasonable to require building owners of whatever kind to rip out and replace the otherwise perfectly functional district or communal heating and hot water systems in their buildings for the sole purpose of installing heat meters. Which is why the law doesn’t.

The closest the law gets to proposing anything like that is in the case of "major building renovation", when a building is most likely a construction site devoid of residents, the work can be carried out without impacting the lives of hundreds and the building owner has already committed to investing a large amount of money renovating the building. It would clearly be unreasonable to demand such a thing at any other time. 

Let us in any case consider the buildings of the Cremorne Estate:

None of the buildings on the Cremorne Estate currently have heat meters. 

The district heating and hot water system was designed and installed before heat meters even existed and, to be honest, the professionals who designed and installed it were more concerned about providing the residents with decent heating and hot water than billing them for it. 

As a result, and to no one’s surprise, the system does not lend itself to the installation of heat meters and it is impossible to install them. That is to say that it is not technically feasible. 

In order to fit heat meters you would have to rip out and replace the entire system. This would cost millions. Some might consider that an unreasonable sum. That is to say that they would not consider it financially viable.

And that is setting aside the disruption that such works would cause. The estate would be a construction site. For years. 

All the Council actually needs to do is to register all of the buildings on the Cremorne Estate with the OPSS having properly documented and collated evidence to the effect that it is neither technically feasible or financially viable to install heat meters. 

But that’s not what they’re doing. Why not? 

Only the Council knows but the following has been suggested:

Councils are many things but being able to demonstrate any real concern about how much things cost or what impact their latest schemes have on the lives of their tenants and leaseholders is rarely one of them. 

They may moan constantly about not having any money - and RBK&C’s housing department certainly does do that an awful lot - but they also spend rather a lot of it with wild abandon on ill conceived and poorly implemented projects. 

They are also rarely concerned about the disruption those projects cause their tenants and leaseholders. They may claim that they care deeply about the wellbeing of their tenants and leaseholders but in practice they repeatedly demonstrate otherwise. 

As a result, where a private landlord might deem it technically unviable to install heat meters to the existing district heating and water system and financially unviable to replace it for the sole purpose of fitting said heat meters (setting aside, for the moment, the disruption that such works would cause) the Council appears to have reached the exact opposite conclusion. 

Why? Because money is no object and they simply don't care how disruptive the work will be or what the end result will look like. 

Intrusive works in people's homes that might require them to move out for weeks or months on end? No problem. 

Unsightly pipes running through communal areas and inside homes that were never designed to accommodate them? No problem. 

A bill running into the millions? No problem. 

You only have to wander up to the north of the borough, to the Lancaster West Estate, site of the Grenfell Tower fire, to see all of this playing out. 

On the Lancaster West Estate there are ongoing works to replace a district heating and hot water system that have already taken many years and are going to take many more. Works that have required residents to be decanted. Works that are so well conceived and designed that they have resulted in large pipes traversing many communal areas and covering the inside of people's homes. Works with construction costs running into the millions (and counting). And residents paying much more for their heating and hot water than they used to. 

Everything that concerns us about the second phase of works to the estate’s district heating and hot water system has come true on the Lancaster West Estate. 

All because money is no object and the Council simply doesn't care how disruptive the work will be or what the end result will look like. 

Councillors and Council officers don't care about our elderly, disabled and most vulnerable residents. They will be extremely cold as they will not be able to heat their homes properly with the increased costs of heating and hot water.

Those residents with incurable conditions such as arthritis, kidney disease, cancer etc will become further unwell and have to be hospitalised and receive social care at an exhorbitant cost to the public purse. 

We will all suffer the consequences of the Council's and Councillors' selfish and ill thought out plans.

ReplyForward Add reaction

How much will our heating cost us?

One of the many ways Council officers and Councillors will try and convince residents that the installation of heat meters is to their benefit is by claiming that it will help reduce their heating and hot water costs. 

It would be wonderful if this were true. Sadly it is not. 

Back in 2019 the Council asked one of its consultants, a firm named Calford Seaden, to find out how much the residents of the Cremorne Estate would have to pay for their heating and hot water if heat meters were installed in their homes and used to bill them. 

The consultants went ahead and did just that. They worked out how much the residents of the estate would have to pay, on average, if the Council installed heat meters in their homes, used heat meters to measure how much heating and hot water they used, and then billed them for it.

They produced a report for the Council. A neighbour was kind enough to let us see, read and digest the contents of this report and, as it's pretty dry stuff, we've tried to summarise it below. 

What did they do? 

The first thing the consultants from Calford Seaden did was to work out how much energy, in the form of heating and hot water, the flats on the estate actually used. 

No one has ever measured this, so Calford Seaden had to work it out from scratch.

They sat down and estimated how much energy each flat was likely to need. They took into account the age and design of the buildings, whether they had any form of insulation, the size of individual flats and the people likely to be living in them (i.e. whether they were families with children, the elderly, the disabled, the vulnerable, and so on). 

They eventually arrived at these figures: a one-bed flat would consume around 8,000 kWh of energy per year, a two-bed flat would consume about 10,500 kWh per year and a three-bed flat would consume around 14,000 kWh per year. 

If the Cremorne Estate was a brand new housing estate these figures would seem a bit high. But the Cremorne Estate is not new. Most of the estate was built in the 1950s and there is currently little or no insulation on many of the buildings. Without constant heating many flats are extremely cold. The figures are a reasonable estimate. 

Calford Seaden then went out and had a look at how communal and district heating and hot water systems across London operated. They focused on those that used heat meters inside people's homes to measure their energy consumption and bill them for it. They made a note of what they found and used it to work out how much the residents of the Cremorne Estate were likely to pay for their heating and hot water if heat meters were installed. 

At this point we're going to cut to the chase. Calford Seaden's detailed findings and calculations are really interesting if you're into that stuff but most people aren't, so we're just going to tell you what they found instead. 

What did they find?

Firstly, let us emphasise that these calculations were originally made in 2019. 

That's before the pandemic and, more importantly, before the energy crisis that came about as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

It's five years later, the peak of the energy crisis has passed but energy costs remain stubbornly high, roughly double what they were before the pandemic, and they show little sign of going down any time soon. Ofgem has allowed the energy cap to increase twice so far this year. The direction of travel is upwards not downwards. Bear that in mind when you read what follows.

In 2019 Calford Seaden calculated that a resident living in a one-bed flat would have to pay 2.1 times (210%) what they did then, a resident living in a two-bed flat would have to pay 2.4 times (240%) what they did then, and the resident of a three-bed flat would have to pay 2.9 times (290%) what they did then. 

Let's turn those multiples into figures: 

The resident of a one bed flat would have to pay around £1,100 a year with a heat meter. 

The resident of a two bed flat would have to pay around £1,270 a year with a heat meter.

The resident of a three bed flat would have to pay around £1,500 a year with a heat meter. 

These figures would include a standing charge of about £650 a year that everyone would have to pay even if they used no heating or hot water at all. 

In 2019. 

No one on the estate was paying that kind of money for their heating and hot water in 2019. Everyone was paying, at most, half of what that one-bed flat would be paying (don't believe us? check your records). So, even before the energy crisis, everyone would be paying more than double for their heating and hot water if heat meters were installed on the estate. 

And, to no one's surprise, the Council kept that pretty quiet.  

But it gets worse. 

Energy costs have roughly doubled since 2019. So you can take the figures given above, double them and you have what you are likely to have to pay today: 

The resident of a one bed flat would have to pay around £2,200 a year. 

The resident of a two bed flat would have to pay around £2,540 a year.

The resident of a three bed flat would have to pay around £3,000 a year. 

And these figures would include that hefty standing charge, originally estimated at £650 a year, that is also likely to have doubled, which everyone would have to pay even if they use no heating or hot water at all. 

Where does that leave us? 

Well for a start we can treat the claim that heat meters will save you money as what it is: a con. 

No one living on the estate will save any money if heat meters are installed. The opposite will be the case: residents will pay a lot more than they are paying today. 

Sadly, it gets even worse. 

A large proportion of the Cremorne's Estate's population is elderly, or vulnerable, or has young children. These residents spend a significant amount of their time at home. 

Many elderly residents suffer from complex medical conditions. The health of these residents will deteriorate if they can't keep their homes warm. Their health will suffer and they risk losing their independence. 

Many residents have limited incomes. Many elderly residents only have a state pension and already depend on pension credits. Some families already depend on local food banks. 

They are the ones that will end up paying much more for their heating and hot water than they do today. They'll have to pay the hefty standing charge, and then they'll have to pay for the heating and hot water they use. And before you know it they're facing the extremely steep increases in heating and hot water costs Calford Seaden predicted - up to 300%.

Remember, heating and hot water costs are not covered by Housing Benefit or Universal Credit. But the Council will still expect residents to find the money to pay for their heating and hot water from somewhere.

What will happen if they simply don't have the money to pay for the heating and hot water they need? They'll either run up a large debt to the Council or have to turn off their heating and refrain from using any hot water and suffer the consequences to their health and wellbeing. 

We've done the sums. A resident in this situation will have to reduce their heating and hot water usage by more than 75% to try and ensure that they pay no more than they do today. They'll go from being able to heat their home properly to only being able to afford to have the heating on for five or six hours a day at most. For those who spend much of their time at home, they'll be spending that time in a rather cold flat. 

Does this sound even remotely reasonable to you?  

How can Council officers and Councillors be so cruel as to inflict this on our most vulnerable residents? What have these residents done to deserve this ? 

But this IS what the Council is proposing. They know who lives on the estate. They know what will happen to them and the harm it will inevitably cause. Do any of them care? 

Our Councillors are: 

• Gerard Hargreaves (cllr.gerard.hargreaves@rbkc.gov.uk), 
• Laura Burns (cllr.laura.burns@rbkc.gov.uk) and 
• Sonia Zvedeniuk (cllr.sonia.zvedeniuk@rbkc.gov.uk). 

We should all let them know how we feel by emailing them. 

Heating Phase 2 Key Decision

A Key Decision for Councillor Sof McVeigh, the Lead Member for Housing Management, Housing Safety and Building Homes, has been brought to our attention.

It is Key Decision KD1010888. 

You can find it on the Council website here: KD1010888. It looks like this:

The Key Decision is described as "covering the contract award in connection with the procurement of a contractor to deliver the Phase 2 domestic heating and hot water works and building fabric works at Cremorne Estate in the Chelsea Riverside Ward". 

In plain English that means that it is about the appointment of a contractor to carry out the heating works inside homes on the Cremorne Estate.

The decision is dated the 27 November 2024. That is the date that it became a matter of public record. The expected decision date is given as "Monday, 25 August 2025". That means the Council expect to have appointed a contractor to carry out the works before that date. 

If there was any doubt as to the Council's plans then this Key Decision eliminates them. 

This is happening. The Council DOES plan for there to be people in your home ripping out your existing radiators and all the pipework for both the heating and the hot water. 

The disruption to you, your household and your home will be massive. The Council will try to downplay it. They are misleading you and everyone else. 

They have done the same on other estates. They downplay the disruption works will cause. The disruption caused is then as bad as residents feared. The Council count on it simply being too late for anyone to do anything about it. Does this sound particularly "caring" to you? 

Now, for the obvious question is: if the Council expect to have appointed a contractor by the 25th of August 2025 when do they plan to consult all of the estate's residents? When do they plan to serve Section 20 notices on leaseholders? When do they plan to tell everyone about the 300% increase in heating and hot water costs that will result? 

As is often the case the Key Decision claims that resident consultation has already taken place. It says: "The residents on Cremorne Estate are aware of the Phase 2 works that are now following Phase 1" and that "The project team shall continue with resident consultation and engagement from phase 1 into phase 2". 

As far as we know there has been no meaningful resident consultation or information about any these works. There was little or no meaningful consultation about phase 1 (we would argue so little as to be equivalent to none), and there has been no meaningful consultation to date about phase 2. And there is no sign that the project team have any meaningful consultation planned any time soon.

Is this yet another Council Key Decision full of porkies?

To make matters worse our local Councillors have known about this project for many years. They have told us nothing and appear to have consented to our most vulnerable residents suffering the consequences. These are many of the same Councillors that wanted to demolish us. 

Heating - Phase 2

Back in July 2020 we sounded the alarm with regards to the Council's plans for the estate's communal heating and hot water system and, in particular, what the Council had decided to refer to as "phase 2" - work inside people's homes.

That original blog post is here. It's worth reading. 

A number of documents have since come into our possession which confirm many if not all of the concerns we had about the proposed heating works. 

The first document is a leaflet, pictured below. 

The second is a briefing note of some kind, describing some very specific issues and concerns in much more detail. That is pictured below. 

We will post our thoughts on these two documents shortly. In the meantime we thought it best to bring them to the attention of as many residents as possible.