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.

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.

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. 

When the cat's away ... run a consultation.

An eagle eyed resident was kind enough to point out that the Council's consultation on opening up our gardens is both very short and taking place entirely during the month of August when many residents are likely to be away. 

The letter from Patrick Sean Sullivan is dated the 6th of August. The deadline given is the 28th of August. That is, at best, 22 calendar days. And all within the month of August. 

The consultation period is also unusually short. The equivalent letter for a proposal to paint some shed and garage doors was dated the 16th of July and set a deadline of the 14th of August. That's 29 calendar days. 

The proposal to paint shed and garage doors will not have a negative impact on anyone. Not all residents have a shed or a garage and many simply won't care whether the Council paints them or not.

The proposal to open up our gardens to the general public (for that is what it is) will have a detrimental impact on all residents, and particularly those living next to the gardens, for the many, many reasons we have cited previously (see our previous post for the gory details). 

Would any sane person believe that a proposal to paint some shed and garage doors is worthy of a longer consultation period than a proposal to open up our gardens to all and sundry? We suspect not. 

But the Council's Housing Management Department clearly do. 

Why? Because they are perfectly aware of the fact that a significant number of the estate's residents are likely to be away for some or all of the month of August. And they are quite cynically taking advantage of the situation. 

They are hoping that those likely to object will be away and will miss the consultation altogether.

Dissenting voices are very clearly not welcome. And if those likely to dissent are intentionally (ahem, accidentally) excluded by rigging (ahem, setting) the dates of the consultation in this way so much the better.  

They are quite simply trying to engineer the end result they want. 

The consultation is really a non-consultation. It is designed to tick a box not find out what most residents actually think. Because it's quite clear that Housing Management don't really care what anyone thinks. They simply want to have their way.

This is the kind of behaviour that you might expect of dodgy property developers with questionable planning applications who submit their planning applications at the height of Summer in a cynical attempt to try and avoid any opposition from those affected (and we've had plenty of those before), not the Council. 

The Heating Controversy

Those of us living on the Cremorne Estate are no strangers to problems with the estate's district (communal) heating system. Parts of the system located outside people's homes have been playing up for many years. Many of the estate's blocks suffered lengthy outages to their heating and hot water in 2017 and 2018 due to problems with the pipework running between the buildings. 

There are of course disagreements as to the cause of these problems and outages. Some say the external parts of the system are too old and haven't been maintained properly. Others say the performance of the heating maintenance contractor leaves much to be desired. Given that the Cremorne Estate is not the only estate to have suffered severe outages in recent times we would suggest that there is more than a little truth to both of these suggestions - the system probably hasn't been maintained properly and the performance of the contractor probably has left much to be desired. And the two are very clearly related given that the contractor carries out the maintenance. 

Whatever the actual cause of these problems the Council proposes to remedy the situation by carrying out extensive works to the system. These works have been split into two phases. The first phase contains all the works to the boilers and distribution pipework. The second contains all the works within buildings/blocks and inside individual homes. 

The Council recently wrote to all residents with regards to forthcoming major works and described the works as follows (copied verbatim):

Phase 1:

Replace the whole boiler house including all boilers and relevant controls. Total refurbishment. 

Replacement of all pipework involved in the distribution of heating and hot water system throughout the estate running from block to block, but not into the block. 

This phase is to bring all the external heating systems into a good serviceable condition and increase efficiency in its present design.

Phase 2: 

All pipework within each block and into each flat will be replaced.

Redesign the system install additional radiators and controls in line with the current legislation 'Decent Homes Standards'.

This will be a carefully programmed approach as we will need to carry out invasive works within each property. 

The timelines given are 2020-2022 for phase 1 and 2022-2023 for phase 2. 

Phase 1 is not controversial. We are not aware of a single resident who objects in any significant way to the first phase of works. Everyone seems to agree that the works are necessary, precisely because the current system is not in "a good serviceable condition" (for whatever reason). Leaseholders may wish to argue over the costs of the works, in particular as it could be argued that said costs will be abnormally high as a direct result of many years of neglect, but whether they will do so remains to be seen. 

Phase 2 IS controversial. A number of residents have pointed out that the Council's description of the second phase is neither accurate or honest. They have noted that the second phase of works, as proposed will actually be:

1. Extremely expensive. In particular as it involves significant works inside both buildings/blocks and inside people's homes. 

If you're a leaseholder have a good think about this, because you're going to be paying for it. 

2. Extremely disruptive. Precisely because it involves significant works inside people's homes. And they will clearly be much more disruptive than the Council wants to admit. 

In some blocks the distribution pipework runs through people's homes rather than through communal areas or spaces, so even replacing that will be extremely disruptive. Residents are likely to have workmen in their homes for many weeks if not months replacing not only the radiators and pipework serving their homes but also the pipework used for distribution.

And a consultant's report we have had sight of clearly states that to be the case. The report goes as far as to state that it may even be necessary to decant residents during the works. That's a rather extreme definition of the word "intrusive" being used by the Council. 

3. Expensive for all in the longer term. That the additional radiators and controls referred to will include Heat Interface Units and Heat Meters and that their use will result in a significant increase in the cost of heating and hot water and drive many tenants and leaseholders into fuel poverty, something the Council has done before on a number of other estates. 

The Council has rather a lot of form in this regard. 

For example:

The residents of Grenfell Tower were convinced to have their district (communal) heating removed and replaced with individual boilers within their homes (arguably unsafe in a tower block) on the assurance that the new system would be no more expensive. This turned out to be a very blatant lie, the replacement system was a LOT more expensive and many residents were unable to pay to heat their homes as a result. 

And there's a very similar tale of woe at Wiltshire Close. 

Similarly the "hidden homes" flats created on the World's End Estate next door were intentionally removed from the estate's district (communal) heating system for no good reason and despite the opposition and objections from that estate's Residents Association. The tenants who subsequently moved into those "hidden homes" found themselves facing heating costs up to three or four times that of their immediate neighbours. And, unsurprisingly, having committed the dastardly deed neither the Council nor the TMO felt any obligation to either remedy the situation or help the affected tenants and that remains the case to this day. 

And, we suspect, that's just the tip of the iceberg. The Council clearly has no qualms about making tenants and leaseholders fuel poor. It might say it has no intention of doing so but its actions to date clearly say otherwise.  

And again we have had sight of a consultant's report that states that will indeed be the case if the second phase of works proceeds as planned. 

The report states, quite clearly, that some households on the Cremorne Estate are likely to face increases in their heating and hot water charges of up to 300% if Heat Interface Units and Heat Meters are installed and used.

So there are some very obvious issues with the second phase of these works. And they have been brought to the Council's attention, both directly and via the office of Greg Hands MP. And what have the Council done? Not what you might have expected. 

Or perhaps exactly as you might have expected.

The "heating controversy" referred to above is that having been told of these issues and concerns the Council has decided not to engage in a serious, adult conversation with the residents that have pointed them out. Rather it has decided that it would be best to pretend that these issues don't actually exist and suggest that those raising them are being "difficult", "obstructive" or "troublemakers". 

Some members of Council staff have gone as far as to refer to the issues raised as "misinformation" which, given the existence of the two reports from the Council's own consultants, is not only farcical but bordering on the behaviour of Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

And where have we heard this kind of thing before? Oh yes, that's right, at Grenfell. When the tower was refurbished (and clad in highly combustible materials) the Council referred to any residents raising any issues or concerns as "difficult", "obstructive" and "troublemakers". The Council thought it better to insult, demean and denigrate residents than try and address their (clearly justified) concerns. It appears very little has changed.

What the Council should have done is respond to the issues raised by engaging in an open and honest discussion about the scope of the works, the impact they are likely to have on residents and allow residents to be actively involved in making the decisions that may yet mitigate, minimize or even eliminate that impact. 

We appreciate that the Council may not have wanted to have that conversation at this time. But now that the cat is well and truly out of the bag it would be sensible to try and engage in a proper discussion with the residents that treats them as adults. 

Said residents may, unsurprisingly, wish to have some input into a decision process that is likely to have a monumental impact both on their homes and on their lives but is currently completely opaque and in which they have no real involvement. 

Sadly this has not happened. Other than the descriptions of the works quoted above the Council have sent us nothing. And the responses to any residents who have made queries or raised issues are not being provided by technical staff who might actually understand the issues and be able to address them properly but by "resident engagement officers" who clearly haven't a clue and are not beyond simply lying to make the residents and their issues go away.

And referring to any resident as "difficult", "obstructive" or a "troublemaker" suggests the Council has learnt nothing from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, let alone improved in any way as a result. 

But should the Council ever get round to addressing these issues properly we will be more than happy to document their response here. 

We hope for and await something meaningful. But we're not holding our breath.