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.

What happened was terrible at Grendel, but what happened to the ex service men and women who also need housing was probably equally as traumatic or the abused person with 3 kids in a hostel. All these people deserve a property where they feel safe. But people relying on the state need to accept that compromise is needed. I’d love to live on the coast but can’t because of work, I have to live near a big city to balance work and childcare. I’d love a bigger house but can’t afford it. The welfare state is not a bottomless pit. If I was squashed into a b&b with my family I’d be happy to take a new start rather than holding out for my ideal/unrealistic property. I suspect this is exactly what many of the Grendel families have done. Some people just don’t want to accept reality

LondonGirls - I looked and I can't find any stories about RBKC "giving" land to developers.

You could find some recent examples and check the land registry for sale prices and compare it against market value - but you seem very loath to support anything you are saying and simply to say vaguely that it's common knowledge.

Yes my parents are DM readers too. They have the ability to speak to a certain demographic very well I think. I just question why anything from the DM is jumped on, yet links to The Guardian as well as all of the very left-wing sites seem to pass muster no problem.
Anyway ... Back to Grenfell. If there are no three bedroom houses with gardens and you don't think the victims should be housed in towers (and I can see your point there), do you think it acceptable they be moved to other boroughs?
As I said, I don't think there is a solution to this.

*I know people in the area, and there are housing-association-run little terraced houses with little gardens out the back (housing association) and also newer townhouse-style terraced houses with surprisingly large gardens (for London). Granted, you have to be on the waiting list for a million years in order to get one, but they do exist. Quite a lot of the low-rise flats also have a little private patch out of the back for the ground-floor flats, leading onto a small communal area.

Whether you'd class these as "nice", I don't know. But I think they are nice.*

They sound lovely!

But I come back to my previous point

Of course it would be lovely for lots of houses with gardens to be available for social housing

Yes we need lots more social housing

Yes much of our social housing stock is substandard quality and doesn't meet required standards

Yes we need councils to build on public land and not just sell it off to private developers to flog posh flats to overseas investors

But given the scarcity of land and the glut of demand for housing stock

Wouldn't it make more sense to build more good quality flats and house more people, than fewer houses with gardens and house many fewer people

Properties with gardens in zone 1 and 2 do exist, as you've pointed out, but they're incredibly scarce, and it seems unrealistic to think anyone who wants one should be able to have one

I dont think they should be moved to other boroughs no. They will have jobs and the kids will be established at schools and support networks where they now are.

That's what people renting and owning homes privately have to do though. If the homes aren't there, they aren't there.

Can I ask whether anyone knows if the numbers entitled to rehousing are absolutely clear? Compensation claims based on non existent family, and even from folk who never lived in Grenfell at all have been reported, and while I'd hope a clearer picture has emerged by now I just wonder if there's still any uncertainty over the figures?

Grenfell was unprecented Fekko. And it should be making other HAS sit up and review and cancel their contracts with some of their cheap dangerous contractors............but no they have decided to latch on to disability scooters instead hoping to fudge and deflect from the issue.

I think there was a number of families on r4 - 230 I think. I don't know how many of these were resident or owners.

I haven't followed the disability scooter thing.

It actually makes me super uncomfortable for any naice comfy middle class people to sit around on their PCs on their Mumsnet chat time and discuss other people's lives and what they should or should not be entitled to after suffering horrors.

That's a bit of a generalisation isn't it? You don't know what class people are or is the knew people there or not.

Where in the Daily Mail does it say this? I saw some folk did not want to be housed 1.7 miles away, and some didnt want to be housed in view of the tower block.

It's not unreasonable to ask for a 3-bed if you had one before. Purpose-built flats often have 3, 4 or more rooms that you could use as a bedroom and still have a living area. I grew up in a 5-bed tenement in Glasgow (a bit like Kelly MacDonald's in Trainspotting).

Apart from big flats like that, most 3-bed accommodation has a bit of outside attached, since it's a house (even back-to-backs, which are very rare in London, have an outside).

The DM is using 'three bedrooms with a garden' to wind up people (suburban/rural and/or better off) who think that a flat is a tiny thing that you live in as a student before upgrading, or a 'little flet' that you use as a pied a terre up in the town. God forbid anyone would think the Tory K&C council are continuing to treat some of their residents poorly, in a crisis and post-trauma situation.

YY crossparsley

I dont think they should be moved to other boroughs no. They will have jobs and the kids will be established at schools and support networks where they now are.

I think neighbouring boroughs is fine. People commute across London (low paid workers use buses) and long school journeys aren't unusual in London either. So neighbouring boroughs is nothing unusual and there is a housing shortage.

I certainly think H&F, Westminster or Wandsworth would be reasonable. (Brent is also "neighbouring" but it's a larger borough and the furthest most point of it is further away.)

There could be possibilities in Wandsworth (always up for a bit of private dealing) or H&F, not so much Westminster.

If I were involved, I'd be suggesting a "low floor" compromise, so that all Grenfell survivors can have a special stipulation that they are housed no higher than the third floor.

This is a total non story. There are only a handful of full houses in RBKCs housing stock anyway. I'm sure if they wanted to move out of the borough any local authority would be happy to have them.

It actually makes me super uncomfortable for any naice comfy middle class people to sit around on their PCs on their Mumsnet chat time and discuss other people's lives and what they should or should not be entitled to after suffering horrors.

Don't be silly. How are you going to separate the "naice MC" posters from the "naice WC" posters?

Besides, this is about public policy and governance. It SHOULD be discussed.

^and long school journeys aren't unusual in London either

But this isn't something we should be encouraging. It really isn't good for the children, the parents, or the transport network to have a bazillion kids criss-crossing London every morning and every evening.

I'm sure if they wanted to move out of the borough any local authority would be happy to have them.

One of the things about surviving an extreme trauma is that it can really help to have people surrounding you that understand what you are going through. The local schools are by now very good at working long-term with traumatised children, not just the ones from the tower, but the ones who witnessed it, who knew people who had died, all of it. Moving away would mean the families lose access to all of that. It isn't just a case of the normal bother of changing schools.

And what local authority is so keen to get people from outside their borough for social housing?

But this isn't something we should be encouraging. It really isn't good for the children, the parents, or the transport network to have a bazillion kids criss-crossing London every morning and every evening.

That's a whole other issue and you're never going to stop it now, TBH. My own London secondary commute was 3.5 miles. One of my DC had 2.5 miles. Plus ca change. I've often marvelled at the inefficiency of it looking at the various uniforms going in different directions on the walk to the station, but it IS an ingrained London norm.

Primary runs need to be a bit shorter because they're hopefully accompanied.

The whole Grenfell problem has to be resolved within London norms and facts and not with reference to utopian standards.

In fact... You get people who have never worked a day in their life in the PRIVATE sector And when people in the private sector become homeless... They are entitled to council support for rehousing, just like council tenants.

Yes and Local Housing Allowance (which is housing benefit for private rentals) will not cover rent for a property in central London which means tenants have to top up the rent from other benefits or income as private rents are so much higher than social rents. Unlike their counterparts in social housing, they have no security of tenure, have far less rights, are unlikely to have a landlord that will refurbish their property without a rent increase, can be evicted with 2 months notice and can be evicted even if they are not at fault. Private tenants who are left homeless and go to the council for housing are more than likely going to be put up in temporary accommodation (a hostel, B&B etc) or another private rental. They are very unlikely to ever be given the choice of social housing, let alone a three bedroomed property in central London

"Properties with gardens in zone 1 and 2 do exist, as you've pointed out, but they're incredibly scarce, and it seems unrealistic to think anyone who wants one should be able to have one"

This is rubbish. Gardens are not at all unusual in zone 1 and as for zone 2 😭 that's half the reason people move there

However, Gardens are also not looked upon in the same way they are out of London and it would really surprise me if peoplepreviously living on Lancaster west would be particularly desperate for one- that sounds very DM wet dream tbh.

Archery I know of many local authorities and housing associations who have offered to help Grenfell residents and in fact know of a couple who have donated properties which grenfell residents are currently occupying, in neighbouring boroughs.

Of course they shouldn't need to move from RBKC unless they want to. But I think people forget that a big estate like Lancaster west- blimey you have children who have barely left the estate. Stick them in High Street Kensington and they may as well be in Westminster or Hammersmith

So ... What is the solution?
Houses with gardens are what is wanted, but there are none available.
We can't house in flats, we can't move out of K&C. What is the solution?
There's no point in debating points of social policy and discussing changing the way money is spent. The debate on that alone will take years. These people need housing now, and a pragmatic solution asap.