Grenfell ex-residents should get a 3-bed house with a garden if that's what they want

[pingodolcepo]

Daily mail outrage that some of the residents are asking for a 3-bed house with a garden. But honestly, they have been through a living hell that was caused by someone else's very bad choices.

There are plenty of people in London that have a 3 bed council house, why can't these people that have dealt with horrors get one also?

I know someone that got a council house in Highgate in the 80s, was a cabbie with a good wage, bought it when offered and sold it a few years ago for over a million and now lives in a fab place with loads of land and a pool in the south of France. If plenty of normal people got houses why can't these poor residents get one? They won't ever be able to afford to buy it due to the high cost of london houses now.

OldPony
We paid tax for nearly 50 years, and always paid our rent, and we had 3 children and worked to keep them, never asked the state to help.
My husband had to retire at 70 due to his parkinsons, I just hope you don't get an illness like his, it can happen to anyone even you with your superior attitude.

No not Holland Park,
they could stop giving away land to developers & start putting some of the profits into more affordable housing.
Council housing creates huge profits in London

It's not a superior attitude, honestly. I hold nothing against you and wish you all the very best.
I hope I don't get an illness like Parkinson's, but to be honest I do expect to get old, frail and some sort of illness. Everybody does, it's a fact of life.
And when it happens, who's going to convert my bathroom!!

Londongirl, can I ask where you are getting your stats from?
It all sounds very improbable that tenants are subsidising K&C to the tune of millions, but I am prepared to be proven wrong.

“who's going to convert my bathroom!!”

YOU you silly Mare ..... because you probably own your own home!

There is a difference between subsidising and not making a profit...some posters could do with working that out.

LondonGirls Could you give some detail to some remarks you've made?

These poor people were paying £200 per week plus service charges
Private tenants have to pay 350-600/pw for basic flats in the same area. They are never given the chance to have a place for the super low price of £200/pw.

this inquiry will prove that it’s the council tenants who have been subsidising K&C council to the tune of millions How are council tenants subsidising a taxpayer-funded council?

they could stop giving away land to developers & start putting some of the profits into more affordable housing. Put what profits where? How much? Which plots of land? Who will build? Who finances that? What do you mean by "affordable"? Who gets to live there?

I’m also a bit about council tenants earning the council millions.

Also please provide examples of land that's been "given away" by the council to developers? That would have to include the benefit of items insisted on by the council in the S106, eg schools or medical practices or affordable housing/contributions.

cathf - the accounts of K&C council are published public records , sorry can’t post links at the mo but several newspapers have run stories recently

OldPony

Just because you don't earn a lot of money doesn't mean you do 'dossy work'.

I'm not a K&C resident, I'm in Islington, so forgive my ignorance - would locals be able to enlighten me. Where would these houses be built - where is the available land? Certainly in my borough wherever private developers are building usually luxury apartments that get sold to overseas investors to rent out as London property is seen as a safer bet for middle class families in the far east than a pension, and rented out for astronomical rents it's blocks of flats - usually at least several stories high, although some are high rise (eg on City Road, there's a 36 storey block being built)

There IS land that should be used for social housing stock rather than yet more swanky executive apartments - but the point is that it's flats being built, and not infrequently in high rise. There simply isn't the land to build lots of houses with gardens - to live in zone 1 and 2 it's unrealistic to expect a house?

That's NOT me saying that people should be expected to live in substandard properties, or that the councils shouldn't be building more. But given the lack of stock, isn't it more realistic and sensible to build good quality flats to a high safety standard, than smaller numbers of houses with gardens?

I don't know the economics of it but would be interested to: K&C is full of luxury flats which stand empty because they've been bought as investments, not homes. For the last couple of years they've been subject (finally!) to a 150% council tax, but that only applies if the place is unfurnished as well as unoccupied. If they changed the charge so that it was more like 500%, and applied to furnished as well as unfurnished places, then they might get a few more quid to put towards new housing stock.

I assume previous posters just mean that more is paid in rent to the council than they have spent in maintenance and repairs?

Londongirls, stories saying that K&C Council is subsidised to the tune of millions by SH tenants?
I don't believe it, sorry

Franklin77 - thanks
A. Everyone is given the chance to pay £200 per week as long as you have a job to afford it.

B. It’s common knowledge that K&C council are making upwards of £15 million per annum on council housing.

C. K&C council subsidised a local opera for £1 million of tax payers money.

D. Profits should be going into more affordable housing for everyone

"Where would these houses be built - where is the available land?"

New Economics Foundation has a list of just the public lands for sale in each area of the country. As Annie points out, we should perhaps look at the way mobile global capital is using London property as a sink for funds, and find a way of taxing those with expensive, empty flats.

LondonGirls
A - Everyone is given the chance to pay £200 per week as long as you have a job to afford it. I used to live in this area and I was never given the chance the pay £200/w for a flat, the minimum was £400/w. Can you explain how I was given the chance?
B - It’s common knowledge that K&C council are making upwards of £15 million per annum on council housing. What from? How is that a subsidy, which you called it?
D - Profits should be going into more affordable housing for everyone That's just a statement which doesn't mean anything. Profits from what? What is affordable? Could you answer all the questions I asked you before, including where's the land, how the building will be financed, who gets to live in them etc?

whiskyowl New Economics Foundation has a list of just the public lands for sale in each area of the country. Where near Grenfell does the NEF say there is public land available to house Grenfell residents in nice houses with gardens. Which, as a former resident of the area, I can tell you is something only a few multi-million pound property owners have.

If you work it through though, what are the consequences? So you make london less attractive; people don't invest here so developers don't develop. That's a lot of builders, architects etc who aren't earning the same. And a lot of stamp duty that the treasury isn't earning per sale.

And whilst you might say great, that frees up land for cheaper development, who's going to do it for less profit? It'd probably end up pleasing nobody: too expensive for the likes of grenfell residents; not expensive enough for investors.

And if nobody wants to invest in an area, eventually it becomes less attractive. Why do you think no ME families invest in stoke or Wolverhampton or Newport or Redcar?

There's a happy medium I think, between what happens now and not frightening people into buying property in other capitals instead, and it's not an easy thing to find.

Completely agreed whisky - and thank you for sharing, that's really interesting

My point about the land was more about there being enough land for enough houses with gardens (as per the OP who says all residents should have a house with a garden in zone 2). Isn't it a better use of public land to build more well constructed flats (of different sizes - given issues with people end up in situations of both overcrowding and as we saw when the bedroom tax was introduced, unable to downsize because there weren't sufficient 1 bed properties available) rather than houses?

Isn't it better to make more good quality housing stock in inner London available by building flats, rather than house fewer people by building houses?

Franklin77

A. You could of applied for a council flat.

B. K&C council takes on average £15 million in rent more than it spends.

C. It means the council should me putting that surplus (for want of a better word) into more affordable housing

I don’t know how much more I can explain it

OldPony, grants are actually available for low income home owners to convert a bathroom into a wetroom. I’m ‘lucky’ enough to have one.

OldPony
If it wasn't for millions of people like me doing my dossy work as you call it the country would grind to a halt.
I actually trained for 2 years to do my dossy work, its a caring profession, not well paid but we've never been to afford to save or to get on the housing ladder for me and my many children which is actually 3.
not going to sink to your level now, we've lived in K& C borough all our lives, yes we are lucky to have council housing, but you are just nasty

And OldPony I'm not asking you to pay for my wetroom as Yellowbucket mentioned there are grants available for that, and for my moving either as we would be giving the council a 4 bed property and downsizing only for a ground floor flat.