‘WEST LONDON CITIZENS’ AND KCTMO

In recent blogs the Grenfell Action Group has been highly critical of the attempt by ‘West London Citizens’ to position themselves as spokespersons for the social housing communities of North Kensington:

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/rbkc-regeneration-a-cuckoos-nest/

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/more-on-the-cuckoo-syndrome/

‘The North Kensington Housing Inquiry Report’ was submitted by ‘West London Citizens’ to the Leader of the Council at a meeting on 7th July at the new Kensington Aldridge Academy. This appears to have been a shoddy attempt, which we greatly resent, to insinuate themselves into the RBKC regeneration discourse by posing as bona fide community leaders, experienced in such matters, competently advised by experts in the field, and with a history of representing North Kensington working class communities in their dealings with the Council and/or the TMO.

We would be strongly inclined to dismiss both ‘West London Citizens’ and their report as completely irrelevant were it not for the fact that their exclusive little meeting, hosted by their newest member (and newcomer to the Lancaster West community), the Kensington Aldridge Academy, was graced by the presence of the Leader of the Council, Nick Paget-Brown, his Deputy Leader and Director of Housing and Regeneration, Rock Feilding-Mellen, and the CEO of Kensington and Chelsea TMO, Robert Black. We find it more than a little sinister that ‘West London Citizens’ – absolute newcomers to the North Kensington housing debate were able to persuade, with apparent ease, the most powerful figures from the Council and the TMO to attend this event, while local residents groups have struggled for years to get the attention of the same figures, never mind their actual attendance at local meetings.

The fact that ‘West London Citizens’ parent organisation ‘Citizens UK’ is, or was, one of the Prime Minister’s favoured lapdogs in the early days of the ‘Big Society’ debacle might go some way toward explaining ‘West London Citizens’ cosy relationship with the top dogs in RBKC. ‘Citizens UK’ are also, coincidentally, well connected to a number of right-wing think tanks known to be influential in Downing Street and in Conservative and Labour ranks generally.

There were two distinct parts to the ‘The North Kensington Housing Inquiry Report’, the first part revealing a catalogue of complaints of disrepair and poor service by the TMO, and the second part supporting largescale ‘regeneration’ of the council housing estates of North Kensington as the ultimate solution to these and other problems afflicting local residents. The claim by ‘West London Citizens’ to be community leaders, representing these social housing communities, appears to be based largely on a so-called ‘listening exercise’ which revealed this catalogue of complaints and the widespread dissatisfaction resulting from them.

The most remarkable finding above, the accuracy of which we have no reason to doubt, is that more than 70% of social housing residents reported unresolved repairs or maintenance issues. The solution suggested by ‘West London Citizens’ took the form of a number of ‘key recommendations’ made to the TMO, chief among which was an offer to work with them to improve the repairs reporting and monitoring systems.

The trouble with this so-called ‘listening exercise’, and the naive attempt at mediation that followed, is that ‘West London Citizens’ appears to have been entirely ignorant of a major scandal which beset the TMO in 2009, and which the ‘West London Citizens’ Report’ revealed to be still unresolved years after this crisis shook the TMO to its’ very core and severely embarrassed the Council.

At that time the Council had been made aware that the TMO had unacceptable levels of unresolved complaints against it and the Council thus felt compelled to intervene directly. They did so by placing the TMO under a ‘Supervision Order’, which is the most serious action they could have taken, short of dissolving entirely the Management Agreement under which the TMO functioned. At this stage the TMO had also been ordered to submit to the Council an approved ‘Improvement Plan’ which they were required to implement satisfactorily within a strictly limited timeframe, also imposed by the Council. All of this was in line with the emergency procedures written into the Management Agreement under which the TMO functioned, and which were intended for use when all other attempts at remediation had failed, and the TMO was deemed by the Council to be grossly in breach of its’ management duties under the Agreement.

The Council simultaneously commisioned an independent investigation of the complaints which had sparked this whole crisis. An Investigation Report was duly prepared and submitted by solicitor Maria Memoli of Local Governance Ltd. on 10th April 2009. This was followed by an Adjudication Report prepared and submitted by Mr John Butler, on 22nd September which concluded that there had been underlying failures of governance, administration and service, which had caused longstanding dissatisfaction amongst residents.

Memoli Report

Ultimately the TMO survived this crisis, but not before heads had rolled at the top, starting with that of the then CEO Gordon Perry, and others in the top tiers of management. The TMO also undertook a root and branch reform and reorganisation of its systems, notably its’ repairs reporting, response and monitoring systems. The problems that had bedevilled the organisation were supposedly resolved and the TMO was again given a clean bill of health by the Council.

So what is the point of this blog?

Well firstly, it  would appear that ‘West London Citizens’ were unaware, during the preparation of their report, of the major scandal in 2009, after which a programme of radical reform of TMO governance and administrative systems had supposedly been successfully implemented to ensure that such failings could not, and would not, recur. This implies that the ‘West London Citizens’ investigation of service delivery by the TMO was shallow and ill informed, and that its’ recommendations on this issue were therefore  fatally flawed.

Secondly, it raises the obvious question of why, a number of years after the TMO underwent a root and branch reform under the strict supervision of the Council, there appears to be no evidence of any improvement in their performance, specifically in their response to, and delivery of repairs, and no sign of adequate maintenance of the housing stock which it manages on behalf of the Council. This suggests that both the TMO and the Council are either grossly incompetent, or are secretly colluding in running these estates down in a programme of ‘managed decline’, such as we have previously claimed on many occasions.

Lastly, in common with RBKC planners ‘West London Citizens’ appear to accept the poor standard of maintenance and repair of the Council’s housing estates as valid justification for the mass regeneration programmes which the Council proposes, rather than as an indictment of the negligence and/or incompetence of the TMO, which is responsible for the maintenance of these estates, and the Council which is responsible for oversight and scrutiny of the TMO, and ultimately for the condition of all Council owned housing estates. At no point in the Report is the supposed need for ‘regeneration’ challenged or questioned.

From our perspective the solution to the failings and contradictions inherent in the conclusions reached, and the recommendations made, by ‘West London Citizens’ is for them to either get out of the way and let those who are less naive and compliant confront the Council and hold them accountable, or else master their brief so that they can more competently represent the interests of the social housing communities they claim to represent. Merely being the Council’s lapdogs, and supporting the pretence that the Council is not responsible for the failings of the TMO, will serve only vested interests in Council circles and the developers and property speculators with whom the Council and the TMO are colluding.

The question thus remains whether the disrepair of Council housing estates identified in the ‘West London Citizens’ report is evidence of gross negligence and incompetence by both the Council and the TMO, or of collusion between the Council and the TMO in a deliberate programme of ‘managed decline’ of these estates in order to justify the radical mass regeneration which the Council is so keen to implement. We suggest the evidence points strongly to the latter rather than the former, although we have no difficulty accepting that both Council and TMO are also utterly negligent and incompetent.

THE LATIMER MASTERPLAN

It hasn’t escaped our notice that there’s been a great deal of interest in our recent blog entitled ‘Notting Dale Is Latest RBKC Regeneration Target’, and a lot of interest also in the ‘Latimer Masterplan’ to which we referred in that piece.

Having heard rumours in 2009 of the existence of a regeneration ‘masterplan’ for the Latimer area, we searched the council website and discovered an internal RBKC report which confirmed the existence of this document. The report we stumbled on, entitled ‘Masterplan and Feasibility Study – Latimer’ was addressed from the Director for Property to a Cabinet Working Group, and contained ‘the conclusions of a masterplanning study, undertaken by Urban Initiatives, for the Latimer (Notting Barns – South) area’.

According to the report the objectives of the masterplanning study were to contribute to the wider regeneration of North Kensington and create sustainable, strong communities by:

• Returning to a more traditional street form to improve connectivity;
• Replacing social rented housing to improve quality;
• Providing new market housing to create mixed communities;
• Providing new local shopping facilities to create vibrancy and vitality;
• Providing a new secondary school to increase education choice;
• Providing new/replacement business studios to support local businesses;

Amazed by what we had discovered we requested a copy of the ‘Latimer Masterplan’ from the Council under Freedom of Information legislation. They refused our request. We then complained to the Office of the Information Commissioner, who found in our favour, and under pressure from the ICO, the Council eventually relented and published the masterplan.

It is important to remember that although this ‘masterplan’ was produced six years ago in 2009, it bears a striking resemblance in its’ detail to both the Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre development, which is now more or less complete, and to the ‘study’ most recently announced of options for the ‘regeneration’ of a large area of Notting Dale, loosely referred to by the Council as the Latimer/Silchester area. Despite Council claims in 2009 that they had no intention of implementing the recommendations of the ‘Latimer Masterplan’, it would now appear, and we have never doubted, that they have every intention of implementing a version of this masterplan which will be very close to the scope and detail of the original.

Given the high current level of interest in this document, the massive scale of regeneration it proposed, and its’ obvious relevance to the latest Latimer study recently announced by the Council, we thought it might be a good idea to make the original ‘Latimer Masterplan’ available again to any of our readers who might wish to study the full document :

Notting Barns South Masterplan

OFFICIAL – RBKC ADMITS ‘SOCIAL CLEANSING’ PLANS

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/press-release/royal-borough-assigns-£10m-purchase-homes-temporary-accommodation

The Grenfell Action Group has repeatedly accused the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea of despising the unemployed and the low-paid as an underclass which it would rather see removed completely from the Rotten Borough. The above press statement from Kensington and Chelsea Council may well be the first concrete evidence that our accusations have been well founded, and it confirms that ‘social cleansing’ is now an active policy which will soon be implemented by the Neo-Con Monsters in Hornton Street.

Back in early 2013 the Hornet”s Nest website revealed that Derek Myers (RBKC Chief Executive at the time) and Laura Johnson (Director of Housing) had been meeting with senior Councillors and Officers from Peterborough Borough Council to explore the possibility of RBKC shipping homeless families from the RBKC waiting list out to Peterborough.

This shameful plan involved RBKC buying land to build ‘barracks for the poor’ in Peterborough to which RBKC could move anyone on their housing register to a ‘Cockell New Town’ in Cambridgeshire.

http://fromthehornetsnest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-dangerous-pairing.html
http://fromthehornetsnest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/mr-myers-mixes-it-in-peterborough.html

At the time, these discussions apparently failed, partly due, no doubt, to the storm of adverse publicity created when the Hornet, and the Peterborough local press, both blew the whistle on it. However it has now become clear that RBKC have since continued to actively pursue this approach to solving the local social housing ‘problem’, and have now implemented the first stage of what is effectively a ‘social cleansing’ policy. This brings the nightmare scenario of largescale ‘social cleansing’ a step closer to reality.

The latest RBKC plan to use Council funds to purchase property outside London is evidence that ‘social cleansing’ is an active policy of RBKC and that our Councillors have a will to displace the poor and vulnerable out of the Rotten Borough to make way for spiv property developers and ‘buy to leave’ speculators. The references in the press release to ‘temporary accomodation’ are, of course, effectively meaningless as the Council has no intention of ever increasing the stock of social rented housing.

So far they have only allocated £10 million for this nefarious scheme, which appears to be targetted at homeless families on the housing waiting list. We all know, and the Council admits, that such a meagre budget will buy only a very limited number of properties, so we must assume that this is just a pilot scheme which is likely to be expanded if it proves successful from the perspective of the councillors and council officers responsible. We should also be mindful that what they now represent as an opportunity to house those in greatest need, may well be expanded to later include those targetted for decanting to make way for the mass regeneration projects that we now know are in the pipeline.

We have already seen social cleansing in operation elsewhere in London, notably in Brent, Southwark. Hackney, and Haringey. Make no mistake, your home and your tenancy are no longer safe, and we advise all social housing tenants, in this most rotten of boroughs, to treat all statements, reassurances or promises made by councillors or officers of RBKC with extreme caution. We call on all social housing residents to wake up to the likely implications of this new policy. Spread the word to your neighbours. There is no time to waste and we need to start organising and taking action now to protect our homes, our communities and our tenancies.

N.B. This story has been picked up by the Guardian this weekend in an article that indicts both RBKC and Westminster, which has implemented a virtually identical ‘social cleansing’ policy. Read more here:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/02/london-social-housing-kensington-chelsea-rising-prices

NOTTING DALE IS LATEST RBKC REGENERATION TARGET

In a recent blog ‘The Facts About Regeneration’ we quoted a press release issued by RBKC on 25th June, the main point of which appears to have been to reassure residents that the Council’s regeneration plans were limited to a small number of named ‘low density estates’, and that residents of other estates, which were not on the accompanying list, had nothing to fear. We quote below the last few lines of the press release:

“The estates that have already been selected for work to begin on include: the empty Edenham site under Trellick Tower, the Warwick Road Estate, and part of the Balfour of Burleigh Estate together with Barlby School (referred to as Barlby-Treverton).

As and when the Council starts looking for similar opportunities on other estates it will let residents know at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, if residents have not been contacted by the Council, they should assume that their estate is not being considered for redevelopment at this time.”

We can now report that the Director of Housing Laura Johnson has since written, on 3rd July, to the residents of a large swathe of the Notting Dale area warning them that the Council is now launching a ‘study’ to explore options for redevelopment of this massive area. The map above shows the targetted area, encompassing the entire Silchester Estate and all of the properties eastwards from Bramley Road to the Silchester Road and Kingsdown Close areas. We have reproduced below the main body of this letter:

There are a number of conclusions that may be drawn from this latest move by the Council, and a number of questions it raises. In terms of conclusions we believe that any reasonable person could conclude that the deliberate inference in the 5th June press release, that the Council’s regeneration ambitions are limited to a few named estates, and that everyone else is safe, should not be taken seriously, and should be read with extreme caution. We believe, and we think this latest plan clearly shows, that RBKC is intent on a massive regeneration programme of all social housing estates in the borough. We strongly believe that this particular ‘study’ of the regeneration potential of the so-called Silchester area will inevitably materialise into a plan for largescale demolition and rebuilding consistent with the ‘new model’ described in the press release.

We strongly believe that the Council intends to gentrify the area beneath the rail viaduct from Latimer Road Station to the Kensington Academy, and probably beyond. It follows that all of the small businesses in that location, especially the motor repair and servicing workshops that have occupied the arches area for many years, will be ruthlessly displaced and have no future in the area.

Another issue that concerns us is that of ‘decanting’. When largescale regeneration is implemented in this area we think it unlikely that the Council will be able to decant large numbers of residents from their homes. They simply don’t have the necessary number of empty properties into which to decant these residents. We therefore think it far more likely that they will implement the ‘regeneration’ programme piecemeal, working around sitting tenants rather than removing them to a safe distance. This means, of course, that many, or most, may find themselves surrounded by demolition and redevelopment sites and may be forced to endure the kind of noise, nuisance and toxic air pollution so familiar to Lancaster West residents who were forced to endure three years of hell living adjacent to the recent Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre site, from demolition to completion.

Another serious concern we have regards the future fate of the residents of the sheltered housing complex at Whitchurch House, which stands between Silchester Road and Kingsdown Close. This is a complex which houses some of the borough’s most vulnerable elderly residents. Typically these are residents who would have great difficulty adjusting to major changes in their living environment, the community in which they live, and their normal routines. The shock of sudden change and disruption to such communities typically causes great distress and frequently results in a sudden rise in mortality in the affected population. This must be avoided at all costs by handling any redeveopment of Whitchurch House, and the surrounding area, with the utmost care and sensitivity to the needs of the elderly residents.

We do not believe that RBKC can be trusted with this duty of care. We also believe that Whitchurch House will be a prime target for redevelopment and that, despite Laura Johnson’s claims that RBKC are merely launching a ‘study’ of possible redevelopment options, the fate of this entire area is as good as sealed.

Lastly, Johnson’s letter contains the statement below which is clearly meant to reassure, and appears fairly straightforward:

“It is important to stress that right now we do not have any development proposals for your area. We are simply carrying out a study to understand if there are viable options for the sort of redevelopment that would deliver on the Council’s objectives of providing better homes for existing and future tenants, delivering additional affordable housing, tackling the root causes of deprivation, and improving the urban design and built environment of the area”

This statement is, however, far more deceptive and disingenuous than it appears. In 2009 the Council commisioned consultants ‘Urban Initiatives’, to conduct a masterplanning study of the whole Latimer Area (ie the Notting Barns/Notting Dale area) exploring the options for largescale regeneration. The picture above is an illustration which appeared in the final version of this document showing exactly the kind of ‘new model’ higher density street based residential building design to which both Ms Johnson and the earlier Council press release refer.

The 2009 Masterplanning Study included the exact area shown on Laura Johnson’s map, but also the entire Lancaster West Estate, and a number of nearby smaller estates to the south of there, including Allom and Barlow Houses, Nottingwood House, Hesketh Place and Runcorn Place.

The 2009 study was called the ‘Notting Barns South Masterplan’ (also called the Latimer Masterplan). It detailed and recommended a phased ‘scorched earth’ regeneration of the entire Notting Barns area.

We believe the Council declined, at the time, to implement this entire programme only because of the international banking and economic crisis which erupted in the same year and effectively scuppered their plans. We always knew that they would resurrect this programme as soon as the economic climate and the property market again proved favourable to their intentions.

The new study, of which the above letter letter warns, is therefore no more than an upgrading of the first phase of the greater Latimer project recommended in the Urban Initiatives Masterplan of 2009. We would therefore caution all residents of social housing, especialy those in the Notting Dale area, to be extremely wary of any reassurances offered by councillors or council officers, or any attempt to minimise the significance of the new study which is about to begin. These people are sharks, and to them the social housing estates of North Kensington, and the entire Rotten Borough, are no more than a giant shark tank.

GRENFELL COMMUNITY UNITE – A SMALL VICTORY!

On Friday 17th July, in the presence of our newly elected MP, Lady Victoria Borwick, and recorded on camera by local film-maker Constantine Gras, the TMO announced to a packed Lancaster West Estate Community Room that any residents who had not yet had the new boiler unit fitted in their hallways could now have it situated in the kitchen. This most excellent news was greeted by spontaneous cheers and hand-clapping from the collected group of Grenfell Tower residents who should never have been treated in this most despicable and shameful way in the first place.

This total climb down and complete U-turn by Peter Maddison and his team of bullies at the TMO represents a significant victory for the members of Grenfell Community Unite who have spent six months fighting the TMO over their failure to genuinely and properly consult with tenants and leaseholders over plans to destroy our homes with sub-standard improvement works.

However, the battle is far from over as justice now needs to be obtained for residents who have already had the boilers installed in their hallways under duress, and who may now wish to have the heating unit relocated elsewhere in their properties.

We are aware that a number of Grenfell Tower residents felt bullied and intimidated by the TMO/Rydon who, we believe, pressurised some residents with threats that the hot water and heating system could be cut off completely if they did not comply with the TMO’s plans.

We do not believe that the TMO has a right to act in this intimidatory manner towards residents and we demand that they do the right thing and offer to relocate the boilers of any residents who feel that they were unfairly pressured to have the works done in the first place. If not, they can rest assured that the battle will continue until all Grenfell Tower leaseholders and tenants receive justice!

It is not often that this blog has positive things to say about our local Labour Councillors but, on this occasion, we must acknowledge the efforts of Coucillor Judith Blakeman in helping to secure this positive outcome for Grenfell Tower residents.

We believe that, in recent times, our local Councillors have been pursuing personal vendettas against members of the Grenfell Action Group, and that this has had a detrimental effect on the wider Lancaster West community. In a report, dated June 2015, to her Kensington Labour Party colleagues, Judith Blakeman was markedly unsupportive of residents. She insinuated that there was a small group of trouble-makers in Grenfell Tower who may need to be prosecuted by the TMO and that the majority of other Grenfell Tower residents were “furious” with these protesters who were seen as simply holding up the works.

However, to her credit, Councillor Blakeman seems to have changed her tune after receiving a visit from Pilgrim Tucker of Unite Community, and following a meeting with a group of concerned Grenfell Tower residents at a recent local Councillor surgery.

Once Councillor Blakeman decided to take her foot off our throats and support the legitimate concerns of residents things quickly changed for the better and our community acknowledges the role she has played in helping the residents of Grenfell Tower to obtain justice on this occasion.

We ask the local Labour Group councillors to maintain this support for our community as we continue to seek the same justice for residents who have been previously bullied and intimidated into aquiescence by the TMO.

WE WILL NOT REST UNTIL ALL RESIDENTS OF GRENFELL TOWER, WHO HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF BULLYING BY THE TMO, HAVE THEIR HEATING UNITS LOCATED IN A PLACE OF THEIR OWN CHOICE.

THE FACTS ABOUT REGENERATION

In recent times the Grenfell Action Group has repeatedly highlighted how the Neo-Cons at Hornton Street are determined to rid the Rotten Borough of social housing and destroy existing working class communities. For our troubles, we have been repeatedly accused of scaremongering, and worse, by both Tory and Labour Councillors who wish to obscure the true aims of this evil and heartless Council.

However, it has now become clear that the policy of ‘social cleansing’ and ‘gerrymandering’, of which we have been warning, is about to be unleashed. The Council issued a press statement following motions passed in a full Council meeting on June 24th. The full text of the press release is available via the following link:

Council steps up efforts to deliver more and better new housing.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pressrelease/pressreleasePage.aspx?id=6711

If you live in social housing, on a supposed ‘low density’ Estate in North Kensington, we advise that you read the press release, and particularly the selected extracts below, very carefully, as it will not be long before RBKC and their henchmen come to your estate, or to an estate near you, intent on the destruction of lives, homes and communities:

“A full meeting of the Council passed a motion committing it to redevelop selected lower-density estates to increase the number of homes in the borough. The commitment is supported by a pledge that any Council tenants, whose homes would need to be redeveloped, will receive better quality new homes, on the same terms and rent levels, in or very near to the redevelopment. The pledge will ensure that existing mixed communities are preserved and that existing residents are able to stay in the areas they know and love.

The Council is particularly committed to ensuring that the urban design mistakes of the post-war years are avoided, and that any future redevelopments will be designed around traditional streets and squares and will be of mixed-tenure and mixed-use. The Council will insist on high standards of design to match those found in the rest of the borough. In doing so, the Council will seek to involve and work with local residents and amenity groups.

The estates that have already been selected for work to begin on include: the empty Edenham site under Trellick Tower, the Warwick Road Estate, and part of the Balfour of Burleigh Estate together with Barlby School (referred to as Barlby-Treverton).

As and when the Council starts looking for similar opportunities on other estates it will let residents know at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, if residents have not been contacted by the Council, they should assume that their estate is not being considered for redevelopment at this time.”

It is clear from the above that the Council is anxious to reassure all residents, particularly all social tenants, who will be impacted by this massive regeneration programme that they have nothing to fear from regeneration. They have even offered apparently ironclad promises and guarantees that the outcome of the planned regeneration will be a brighter rosier future for all social tenants whose homes currently stand in the way of progress.

But there are two sides to every story. Let’s have a look at the other darker side of this story:

In Februray 2015 Dave Hill of the Guardian published an article which challenged the new housing orthodoxy, expressed in the RBKC press release, and explored the dark side of it:

“A research institute which believes replacing council tower blocks with conventional terraces makes both social and economic sense is gaining influence, and not just among Conservatives.

‘Create Streets’ will not only have to win arguments about financing, design and genuine local consultation if their principles are to be widely applied. They will need more flexibility in planning regulations too, so that houses can be narrower, but with fewer bathrooms and more slender corridors to enable good-sized rooms. This would mean, for example, having the flexibility to by-pass elements of the Greater London Authority’s lifetime homes standards, brought in in 2004 to make homes adaptable to the mobility needs of disabled people.

Such trade-offs would come with the territory. So would all the others that any type of estate regeneration entails, such as the mixing of tenure types , years of dust, disturbance and possible ‘decanting’, the seemingly inevitable revisions and sometimes disastrous delays, the unravelling of informal yet often precious community networks, and, of course, the need for people to part company with homes they may have lived in and loved for years, even if they were badly built ‘slums in the sky’ on what some might deride as ‘sink’ estates.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/feb/18/should-london-embrace-the-vision-of-create-streets

In the same article the Guardian correspondent also criticized the current Earl’s Court regeneration in particularly damning terms:

“The Earls Court Project might one day produce a few nouveau garden squares, but everything else about it represents the precise opposite of what ‘Create Streets’ promotes. It is a top down, mostly high rise, greed-driven enterprise which proposes a pitiful amount of additional affordable housing on the strength of a strongly challenged viability assessment which had to be forced into the open and reduces ‘regeneration’ to a euphemism for colonisation. Local people oppose it overwhelmingly”.

The press release from RBKC can thus be read conversely as a heavily disguised expression of the Council’s determination to destroy our homes and communities. As we pointed out previously they have already put the legislation in place to allow them to do so.

In due course, the Grenfell Action Group will continue to blog on the malign forces at work that seek to collude with the Council in their attempt to dupe our community into believing that ‘regeneration’ is a force for good rather than evil.

We intend to show that the RBKC promises of a ‘right to return’ simply cannot be trusted and that RBKC have deliberately drafted legislation that contradicts the premise that every household will be re-housed in or near their original community.

We will continue to highlight the ill-considered negative impacts of decanting households and destroying peoples homes and lives that cannot be justified by a Tory Council that has always despised what they regard as an unwanted and problematic underclass. We intend to directly challenge those who intend to destroy our communities and we will not surrender our homes and residential amenity without a fight.