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.

Coverage in the local press

Reporters from the Chelsea Citizen, an online newspaper covering events in Chelsea, attended Ben Coleman's meeting on the 24th of September 2025.  

The Chelsea Citizen have now posted an account of that meeting on their website under the headline "Cremorne Estate’s new heating system debacle hots up". 

https://thechelseacitizen.com/cremorne-estates-new-heating-system-debacle-hots-up/

The coverage in the Chelsea Citizen is very much appreciated by residents. 

We will be posting our own account of the meeting, and the events leading up to it, shortly. 

Ben Coleman's Second Meeting

Ben Coleman MP is holding a second public meeting to continue the discussion around the Council's proposals to replace the estate's communal heating and hot water system.

The meeting is at:

Ashburnham Community Primary School,

17 Blantyre Street, World’s End Estate, London SW10 0DT

on Wednesday 24th September 2025 at 6pm.

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 mostly 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 case is that either the Council have supplied the wrong business case or it simply isn't as described at the meeting. We suggest the latter is the most likely - the business case described at the meeting, containing a cost-benefit analysis, simply doesn't exist and never has. 

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.