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.
