An email from a resident to Ben Coleman MP

An email from a resident to Ben Coleman MP has recently been brought to our attention. 

It discusses all the issues and concerns that many residents of the estate have raised with us these last two years and which the Council has yet to address in any meaningful way. 

The email was sent during a recent heating outage on the estate, which appears to have been the direct result of contractor incompetence. 

The email is below: 

Dear Mr Coleman:

I am writing to you on behalf of concerned residents of Cremorne Estate to seek your urgent intervention regarding an increasingly distressing situation involving the persistent failure to provide heating to our homes, together with serious concerns surrounding the Council’s proposed replacement of our existing communal heating system.

We believe this matter raises fundamental questions about the Council’s duty of care towards its residents, the transparency of its decision-making, and the potentially devastating financial consequences of its proposed heating replacement scheme.

1. The continued absence of heating across Cremorne Estate

Since 1 October 2026, residents across Cremorne Estate have been without communal heating, despite our understanding that the heating was scheduled to be switched on at the beginning of the month.

As temperatures fall, this situation has become increasingly intolerable, particularly for elderly residents, people with disabilities, individuals suffering from chronic medical conditions, and other vulnerable members of our community.

What makes the situation especially troubling is that this is not an isolated occurrence.

Year after year, residents have experienced similar heating interruptions at precisely the time when heating becomes essential, around the beginning of October.

The recurrence of these incidents has understandably caused considerable frustration, distress and growing distrust among residents, who feel that their legitimate concerns have repeatedly been disregarded.

2. Recent correspondence with the Council

The latest developments illustrate the apparent lack of effective oversight and urgency with which this matter is being handled.

On 7 October 2026, a Cremorne Estate resident contacted Mr Akin Kolade, Gas Contract Manager within the Council’s Resident Safety Contract and Compliance team, requesting clarification as to when the heating would be restored.

Mr Kolade responded that Sureserve, the Council’s appointed contractor, should already have switched on the heating earlier that week and undertook to address the matter immediately.

However, when the resident subsequently informed him that residents were still without heating, Mr Kolade explained that the contractor had attended the estate and discovered that the pressurisation unit had tripped. He stated that the problem had been rectified and monitored, and that he would arrange for the contractor to attend again.

Notwithstanding these assurances, residents have continued to report an absence of heating.

We find it difficult to understand how almost an entire residential estate can remain without adequate heating despite repeated assurances that the problem has been resolved.

More importantly, we question why such failures appear to recur year after year, seemingly without any lasting remedial action being taken.

As it stands today, buildings that remain without heating are 1-17 Gillray House, 17-32 Gillray House and Apollo House.

Residents should not have to endure repeated periods without heating, nor should they be expected to continually pursue the Council for the provision of what is an essential service.

3. Serious concerns surrounding the proposed £5 million heating replacement scheme

Our concerns extend considerably beyond the immediate failure to provide heating.

The Council has proposed a comprehensive replacement of Cremorne Estate’s existing communal heating system, with a reported project budget of approximately £5 million.

Residents have substantial reservations about the necessity, proportionality and affordability of this proposal.

Our existing heating infrastructure remains operational and, in the view of many residents, is capable of continuing to provide adequate heating when properly maintained and operated.

We therefore question whether such an extensive and costly replacement is genuinely necessary, particularly when less disruptive and considerably less expensive alternatives may be available.

Of even greater concern are the projected running costs of the proposed replacement system.

Residents have been informed of estimates suggesting that annual heating-related costs could rise to as much as £3,000 per household following implementation.

If these estimates prove accurate, the financial consequences would be catastrophic for many households.

Cremorne Estate is home to residents from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds, including pensioners, people with disabilities, families on modest incomes and individuals who are already struggling with the rising cost of living.

It is simply inconceivable that many of these households could afford such extraordinary energy costs.

A heating system that residents cannot afford to operate is not an improvement to their living conditions. It is a potential mechanism for driving them into fuel poverty.

We are deeply concerned that the proposed scheme could leave residents facing an impossible choice between heating their homes and meeting other essential living expenses.

No responsible public authority should contemplate imposing such a financial burden without first demonstrating, through independently verified evidence, that the scheme is necessary, economically proportionate and genuinely affordable for the people expected to live with its consequences.

4. Growing suspicions regarding the repeated heating failures

It is against this background that residents have become increasingly concerned about the circumstances surrounding the recurring interruptions to our heating supply.

Since the introduction of the Council’s proposals to replace the existing heating infrastructure, residents have observed what they believe to be a disturbing pattern of heating failures, particularly at the beginning of the colder months.

The timing and repetition of these incidents have led some residents to question whether the failures are entirely coincidental.

We must emphasise that we are not presenting deliberate interference with the heating system as an established fact. However, the recurrence of these incidents, combined with the Council’s determination to proceed with its proposed replacement scheme, has given rise to serious and legitimate suspicions among residents.

In particular, there is growing concern that the repeated failure of the existing system may be contributing to a narrative that portrays it as unreliable or no longer fit for purpose, thereby strengthening the Council’s justification for replacing it.

Some residents fear that the persistent disruption could have the effect of pressuring the community into accepting a scheme to which many have substantial and reasonable objections.

We sincerely hope that these suspicions are unfounded.

Nevertheless, given the potential financial implications of the proposed project and the repeated nature of the heating failures, we believe that residents are entitled to a thorough, transparent and genuinely independent examination of the circumstances.

The Council must be able to demonstrate that the existing heating system is being maintained and operated properly, that reported faults are genuine and accurately documented, and that decisions concerning its replacement are being made exclusively in the best interests of residents.

Without such transparency, public confidence in the Council’s management of the estate will continue to deteriorate.

5. Our request for your urgent intervention

In view of the seriousness of these matters, we respectfully ask that you intervene on behalf of Cremorne Estate residents and seek the following assurances from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea:

First: Immediate restoration of heating.

That the Council urgently ensures the restoration of a reliable heating supply throughout Cremorne Estate, with particular attention to the welfare of elderly, disabled and medically vulnerable residents.

Where immediate restoration is not possible, we ask that appropriate temporary heating arrangements and support be provided without delay.

Second: An independent investigation into recurring heating failures.

That an independent technical assessment be commissioned to establish why heating failures have repeatedly occurred at the beginning of the colder months, including an examination of maintenance records, contractor reports, fault histories and the operation of the estate’s heating infrastructure.

Such an investigation should establish whether the recurring problems arise from equipment failures, inadequate maintenance, operational shortcomings or any other identifiable cause.

Third: Full transparency regarding the proposed £5 million replacement scheme.

That the Council disclose the technical and financial evidence underpinning its decision to replace the existing heating system, including:

The independent assessments demonstrating that the present system requires complete replacement rather than repair or refurbishment.

• A detailed breakdown of the proposed £5 million expenditure.
• The alternative solutions considered and the reasons for rejecting them.
• The projected annual heating and electricity costs for individual households under the proposed system.
• The assumptions and calculations used to determine those costs.
• The measures proposed to protect residents from unaffordable energy bills and fuel poverty.

Fourth: Meaningful consultation with residents.

That the Council engage in a genuine, transparent and meaningful consultation with residents before any irreversible decisions are taken.

Residents must be given a proper opportunity to scrutinise the proposals, challenge the underlying assumptions and consider viable alternatives.

Consultation must not become a procedural formality through which decisions already taken are merely presented for public acceptance.

Fifth: A review of the proposed scheme pending independent scrutiny.

That the Council be asked to pause any irreversible commitments to the proposed heating replacement project until an independent assessment has established its necessity, affordability and long-term consequences for residents.

We believe that proceeding with such an expensive scheme without resolving these fundamental questions would be profoundly irresponsible.

6. The wider question of accountability

We recognise that the Council has responsibilities concerning the maintenance, safety and long-term sustainability of its housing infrastructure.

We do not oppose necessary improvements, nor do we suggest that ageing infrastructure should be retained indefinitely where there is clear evidence that replacement is required.

However, modernisation must not come at the expense of affordability, transparency or the wellbeing of the very residents it is intended to benefit.

Public authorities have a responsibility to ensure that their decisions are proportionate, evidence-based and sensitive to the circumstances of the communities they serve.

The prospect of households facing annual heating-related costs of £3,000 raises questions of such seriousness that we believe they warrant your direct attention.

For many Cremorne Estate residents, this is not simply a disagreement about infrastructure expenditure.

It is a question of whether they will be able to afford to remain warm in their own homes.

Equally, the continued absence of heating as autumn temperatures fall is not merely an administrative inconvenience. It is an immediate welfare concern that requires urgent resolution.

7. A request for your support

We would be extremely grateful if you could raise these matters directly with the Council’s leadership and the officers responsible for housing, heating provision and the proposed replacement project.

We would also welcome the opportunity for a delegation of Cremorne Estate residents to meet with you, explain our concerns in greater detail and provide the relevant correspondence and supporting documentation.

Above all, we ask for your assistance in ensuring that residents are treated fairly, that their concerns are taken seriously, and that no household is placed at risk of fuel poverty as a consequence of decisions taken without adequate scrutiny.

We trust that you will appreciate both the urgency of the immediate heating situation and the potentially far-reaching implications of the Council’s proposed scheme.

Cremorne Estate residents are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for reliable heating, transparent decision-making, meaningful consultation and the assurance that essential improvements to our homes will not render them financially uninhabitable.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Ben Coleman MP to hold Public Meeting

We are extremely grateful to our MP Ben Coleman for organizing a Public Meeting for residents.

The meeting will take place this coming Thursday evening, the 17th of September 2026, between 7pm and 8.30pm in Ashburnham Primary School.

This will be Ben Coleman's first public meeting since the last public meeting in September 2025. 

The meeting will focus on the proposed works to the Cremorne Estate's communal heating and hot water system. 

Residents will learn what progress has been made by the Council in addressing the issues, questions and concerns raised by residents at previous meetings. Those attending will be able to discuss them with Ben Coleman MP, the Council officers present, and their fellow residents. 

We are extremely grateful to Ben Coleman MP for his ongoing help and support.

Drop-in or farce?

A few weeks ago we were approached by a number of residents. 

They told us that they had received a leaflet by post inviting them to a drop-in organised by the Council to discuss the major works planned for the Cremorne Estate. 

The drop-in was to take place on the afternoon of Tuesday, 21st of July, in the Chelsea Theatre from 3pm to 7pm (as is often the case, those who work are effectively excluded). 

We were aware of this. Our last post was the response from one of those residents, who took justified umbrage at the short notice and general tone and attitude of the leaflet, to the Council. They emailed the Council and we posted that email in full in our previous blog.

The Council's drop-in has now come and gone. We have since discussed it with a number of residents , both those who attended and those who could not, and this blog is a summary of what they told us. 

There are, let us say, a number of odd things about this drop-in. 

Odd thing #1 - the invitations

Many residents reported receiving the leaflet/invitation to the drop-in at the very last minute - some had received it on Friday (17th of July), some had received it on Saturday (18th of July). 

But many did not receive the leaflet/invitation at all before the drop-in took place, and many still haven't received it to this day. 

At the drop-in the Council staff present claimed that the leaflets/invitations had been posted to all of the estate's residents at the beginning of the month. If so, it appears to have taken over two weeks for a fraction of those invitations to be delivered, which seems unlikely (whatever you might think of the Royal Mail, a delay of two and a half weeks is not normal). 

And that would not explain why some residents have not received the leaflet/invitation at all; you'd expect the Royal Mail to deliver them eventually. 

Where have all the missing leaflets/invitations gone? Is there a black hole somewhere in Chelsea we don't know about? 

Some residents have suggested that the Council may have only sent invitations to those least likely to rock the boat. Those who the Council believed might have the temerity to ask questions of challenge the Council's claims simply weren't invited. This would be an extremely foolish thing to do. 

There appear to be two possibilities and neither paint the Council in a good light. 

One possibility is that the Council made such a mess of posting out the leaflets and invitations that those residents who received it before the drop-in were given virtually no notice, and those who received it after the drop-in, or have not received it at all, have been totally disenfranchised. 

Well done to whoever orchestrated the mess.

On the other the Council has chosen to exclude some residents because they are considered "troublemakers" and likely to "cause trouble". 

Residents who are troublemakers you say ..? Now where have we heard that before ..? 

Odd thing #2 - nothing to see here

The residents who attended the drop-in report that there were no displays and no hand outs. There were some documents on display but no copies of anything for residents to take home. 

Some residents resorted to taking photos of the documents on their phones in an attempt to keep some kind of record of what they were shown. 

And there is of course, no contemporary record whatsoever of the discussions that may have taken place between residents, Council staff and the consultants (funny that!). Although we're pretty sure the Council will knock something up after the event. 

This does not sound like a well organized drop-in designed to meaningfully engage with the residents that attend. It sounds like an afterthought and a tick box exercise. 

An afterthought and a tick box exercise is what most residents already consider drop-ins to be. They are held in such low regard that attendance levels are universally low (case in point: a drop-in on the World's End Estate held just a few months ago managed to achieve an all time record low attendance of zero). 

By all accounts this drop-in does not appear to have been much different. From what we have been told the number of entries on the sign-in sheet was so small that we so have to wonder whether they hit double figures (those who attended suggest that they did not). 

The Council will, of course, proclaim the drop-in to be a success, whatever the turnout. 

As far as the Council is concerned, the mere fact that it took place is a success, even if it appears to have been organized less well than a piss up in a brewery and less than ten residents (out of 230 households) appear to have actually attended.

Odd thing #3 - "the consultation has ended"

Those residents who did attend the drop-in were told that the consultation for the second phase of major works to the estate's communal heating and hot water system had ended, that the Council staff and consultants present would not discuss the proposed works any further, and that the works were now to go ahead as originally planned. 

This is an interesting take on the concept of consultation that we had not encountered before. 

Let us recap:

At the request of residents Ben Coleman chaired a public meeting in May 2025 to discuss the second phase of major works to the estate's communal heating and hot water system. 

Doug Goldring, the Council's then Director of Housing, was present. 

Doug Goldring agreed to provide residents with evidence of the need for the works as well as information on what the works would involve, particularly the most disruptive works that are to take place inside people's homes. 

Residents were also to be provided with information on costs, both of what heating and hot water charges would be should the works go ahead and, for leaseholders, what the works would actually cost.

A list of the evidence, information and documentation that the Council promised to provide was drawn up at the time. The Council has only ever, at most, provided a small fraction of what it agreed. 

It's fourteen months later and MOST of what was promised in May 2025 is still pending (see here for details). 

Ben Coleman then chaired a second public meeting in September 2025 to continue the discussion. 

As noted previously this was not a particularly good meeting. 

But the fault for that lay with the Council, who had quite simply failed to fulfill many of its promises from the previous meeting, and not Ben Coleman MP or the residents, both of which went out of their way to give the Council a fair hearing. 

And by the end of this second meeting a second list of evidence, information and documents that the Council were to provide residents, and some that residents were to provide the Council, had been agreed. 

At the time of writing the residents have provided the Council with all of the evidence, information and documents they agreed to provide at that meeting (they did, in fact, provide it many, many months ago). The Council on the other hand has yet to provide residents with ANY of the evidence, information and documents they agreed to provide. 

It's ten months later and ALL of what was promised in September 2025 is still pending (see here for details). 

After all this time the Council has yet to provide any meaningful evidence that the works are actually necessary, any indication as to the heating and hot water costs tenants and leaseholders will face should they go ahead, or what the works will cost the estate's leaseholders. 

And now the Council is proclaiming that the consultation is over and that the works are to go ahead as planned.

It obviously suits the Council to try and bring the consultation (if you can call it that) to a close. They have repeatedly failed to provide evidence that the works are necessary or answered most of the questions posed by residents. 

Why bother providing evidence or answering questions when you can simply bring the "consultation" to a close whenever you like without keeping any of your promises? 

From the very beginning we have always believed that the Council had no meaningful evidence to justify the works proposed. Some Council staff went so far as to claim that we were wrong and that we were misleading residents. Residents then asked the Council to produce evidence that the works were in fact necessary and the Council agreed to do so. 

And a year and a half later, they have completely failed to keep that promise. 

Who exactly was wrong? Who exactly has been misleading people? 

Lessons very clearly not learnt

This has of course all happened before. 

It happened during the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. 

Residents were intentionally kept in the dark by the Council and TMO, their questions and concerns were never addressed, and the Council and TMO were clearly perfectly happy to act this way and with the immediate result. Because the purpose of the exercise was to do things TO the residents, whether they liked it or not. 

Why bother answering residents' questions, addressing their concerns or providing them with evidence or justification for the extremely disruptive major works you propose to carry out in their homes when you can just ignore them completely, plow ahead regardless, and basically do what you like? 

The end result speaks for itself.

You would have hoped the Council would have learnt something from that disastrous refurbishment, and the tragic events that followed. But it very clearly hasn't. 

And nowhere was this more evident at a meeting of the Tenants Consultative Committee that took place on the 13th of July. 

The residents present decried the generally poor attitude and behavior of the Council, many of them claiming that things had reverted back to the situation that had existed before the Grenfell Tower fire.   

Sadly, this does appear to be true. 

For the last nine years the Council has made many promises. It kept very few of them. 

It promised to not only listen to residents but to act on what they are saying. It hasn't. 

It promised to do things with residents, not to them. The residents of the Cremorne are clearly having things done to them, without their consent. 

We have always held that the Council should be judged on its actions not its words. Because simply telling people what you know they want to hear is very easy when you have no intention of keeping your word. 

And, as recent events clearly demonstrate, RBK&C does appear to be institutionally incapable of keeping its word.

Taking umbrage

We received the following email from a resident of the Cremorne Estate that voices his concerns with RBK&C's plan to replace the estate's communal heating and hot water system. 

The majority of the estate's residents oppose the Council's plans.

The email contains nothing that a genuinely reasonable person could disagree with. 

Dear Housing Management Team,

We acknowledge receipt of your July 2026 leaflet regarding the proposed heating and refurbishment works to our estate and the appointment of Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) as consultants for the next phase of the project.

We appreciate that maintaining and improving council housing is an important responsibility, and we recognise that investment in our homes can bring benefits where there is a clearly demonstrated need. Improvements to roofs, windows, balconies and brickwork may well be appropriate where supported by proper inspection and evidence.

However, we are deeply concerned by the statement that the existing heating system “must be fully replaced to prevent further failures and inconsistent heat and hot water distribution.” This is presented as an established fact, yet residents have not been provided with the technical evidence, engineering assessments or independent reports that demonstrate such a conclusion.

Over a considerable period, residents have repeatedly requested objective evidence to justify the replacement of the existing heating system. To date, no comprehensive information has been made available that explains:

• the nature and extent of the alleged failures;
• the engineering evidence showing that replacement, rather than repair or targeted upgrading, is necessary;
• alternative options that have been considered and why they have been rejected;
• the expected lifespan of the existing system if appropriately maintained;
• the projected operating and maintenance costs of the proposed replacement system; and
• the likely financial impact on residents’ future heating and hot water bills.

Without this information, residents are being asked to engage with a project whose most significant component has already been described as something that “must” happen, despite the absence of publicly available evidence supporting that conclusion.

Many residents are particularly concerned that the proposed replacement may significantly increase the cost of heating and hot water. At a time when many households continue to experience financial hardship and high energy costs, any proposal that could substantially increase ongoing household expenses requires careful scrutiny.

For many residents, especially pensioners, disabled people, low-income households and other vulnerable members of our community, affordability is not a secondary consideration—it is fundamental. A heating system that is technically modern but financially unaffordable cannot reasonably be described as an improvement for those who are expected to live with its long-term consequences.

Residents are therefore seeking meaningful consultation based on transparency rather than assumptions. Effective consultation requires that residents are provided with sufficient information to understand the proposals, assess their implications and express informed views before decisions are finalised.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Council and its consultants provide residents with:

1. The independent condition surveys and engineering reports supporting the proposed replacement of the heating system.
2. The evidence demonstrating why full replacement is considered necessary instead of repair or refurbishment.
3. Details of all heating technologies currently under consideration.
4. Independent modelling comparing current and projected annual heating and hot water costs for residents under each proposed option.
5. Information regarding the anticipated environmental performance, reliability, maintenance arrangements and expected lifespan of the proposed system.
6. A full equality and affordability impact assessment, particularly addressing the effects on vulnerable and low-income residents.
7. A genuine opportunity for residents to comment on the available options before any scope of works is finalised.

We wish to emphasise that our concerns should not be interpreted as opposition to investment or improvements in principle. Rather, we believe that any major alteration to essential services should be supported by robust evidence, transparent decision-making and meaningful consultation with those who will ultimately bear both the practical and financial consequences.

We hope the Council will recognise that residents are seeking reassurance through openness and accountability. Providing the evidence underpinning the proposed works would help build confidence, encourage constructive engagement and ensure that any final decisions are demonstrably in the best interests of all residents.

We look forward to receiving the requested information and to participating in a consultation process that is informed, transparent and genuinely collaborative.

Yours faithfully,

On behalf of the residents

Seven months later ...

It has been over seven months since the last public meeting chaired by Ben Coleman MP.

We've been quietly waiting to see what would happen before passing comment. But now the time for comment is well and duly overdue. Let us begin ... 

Just over a year ago we started telling everyone about the Council’s plans for the estate’s communal heating and hot water system. 

We explained what the Council had planned and what the consequences of those plans would be - extremely disruptive works in our homes, so disruptive that some residents might have to be decanted, increased heating and hot water charges for the vast majority, massive major works bills for the estate’s leaseholders. 

Some accused us of being alarmist but the simple fact of the matter is that every single one of those predictions has yet to be proved wrong. 

Should the works proceed we are all still facing extremely disruptive works in our homes, decants, and increased heating and hot water charges. Leaseholders are still facing massive major works bills. For works no one has been able to justify. 

Ben Coleman, our local MP, held a meeting in Ashburnham Primary school on the 8th of May 2025. The meeting was intended to allow residents to bring their concerns with the proposals to the attention of the Council, and for the Council to explain its plans to the residents. 

Doug Goldring, the former Director of Housing Management was in attendance. Doug promised to address all of the issues and concerns highlighted by residents and to provide all of the information they asked for. 

Unfortunately Doug announced his departure from the Council a few days later and the Council officers left behind have shown very little interest in keeping Doug's promises. 

The end result is that most of the information and documentation the Council promised to provide last May is still outstanding. And most of what it did provide was quite simply not as described or up to the job.

The business case in particular, which supposedly contained a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed works, contained nothing of the sort. There has been no cost-benefit analysis.

Ben Coleman MP held a second meeting in Ashburnham Primary school on the 24th of September 2025. This second meeting was intended to enable the the Council to report back on its progress and to answer any further questions the residents might have. 

We were there. It became very clear very quickly that the Council had yet to provide much of the information promised at the previous meeting.

And the information it had provided, such as the infamous business case, was sorely lacking.

A so-called condition report that the Council's consultants had prepared over the summer was particularly poor. It contained no meaningful evidence as to the condition of the existing communal heating and hot water system. Its analysis of any data was superficial and slip-shod.

And the report's page count had clearly been bolstered by the inclusion of a great deal of barely relevant content from uncredited sources (are the Council paying for this stuff by the page?).

Which does raise the obvious question: does anyone at the Council ever read, let alone scrutinize, any of these reports they're spending so much of (our) public money on?

The result of all this was exactly what you’d expect. It was not a good meeting. 

There were few Council officers present. Those who were present did not appear to like being challenged by the residents. And neither did the Council's consultants, particularly when anyone had the temerity to point out the rather obvious deficiencies in what they were proposing. 

Despite this the Council officers present did agree to provide residents with more information and more documents. Information about heat consumption and tariffs and likely heating and hot water costs and all the major works they expect the leaseholders to pay for.

A month ago, six months after that meeting, we checked in with the residents who did such a good job of challenging the Council and its consultants at that meeting and they confirmed that the Council has yet to provide anything. 

That's right. They had provided no new documents, no new reports, no new information. Nothing of what they had promised. 

No reports. No information. Absolutely zero. Nada. Zilch. 

And, as far as anyone knows, the Council are proceeding with their plans for the estate’s communal heating and hot water system regardless. We’ve seen nothing to suggest otherwise and have every reason to believe that remains the case.

Is this what we should expect from the Council?

Does this sound like a Council who consults with and listens to residents?

Does it sound like a Council who has learnt anything from what we all know happened during the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, when gaslighting the residents was the norm?

We'll let you decide.