RBKC sing the “Anvil Chorus” as they go into partnership with luxury developers

This blog has  had  quite a few  arguments about housing with RBKC Deputy Leader and Lead Member for Grenfell Housing and Social Investment, Kim “Tailored-Sloth” before:

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2021/03/20/edenham-proposals-kim-tailored-sloth-gives-think-a-telling-off/

We’ve been suspicious  that “Tailored-Sloth” is not  committed to provision of a decent level of social housing in this borough and instead wishes to build more so-called “Affordable homes” instead.

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2019/11/11/social-affordable-potato-tomato-think-call-the-whole-thing-off/

Let’s just say we haven’t changed our opinion….

Cllr Taylor-Smith,  in a conversation with our Editor when she brought up the fact that RBKC got rid of their last remaining care homes – Edenham  in North Kensington and Thamesbrook  in Chelsea, leaving most of the  poorest  and elderly residents with no replacement council care home provision  and no choice but  to be housed elsewhere (often miles away), mentioned the site on Lots Road.

Earlier last year there had been a consultation around the design brief of the Lots Road  South site.

https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk/LotsRoad/consultationHome

  We saw the term  “affordable housing” rather than social housing from   RBKC in their Local Plan . Not social –  “affordable”. (Here we go again….) How many times do we have to point out that the  stark difference in  terms does not  really amount  to being interchangeable?

However, before Kim Taylor-Smith takes issue with our blog again, we do know that this is not the main fault of Planning terms and the Government for classifying homes for social rent, homes for “affordable rent” , homes for ” London affordable rent” and homes for sale at 80% market price lumped all together as “affordable”.

Here is Kim Taylor-Smith’s Twitter profile – note that term “affordable” and no mention of “social housing” .

Well, maybe 80% of market rate in one of the most expensive parts of London is affordable to Tailored-Sloth if not most anyway.

It does concern us that there are other motives that RBKC has for muddling the terms, and now we’ll take a trip down to Chelsea to look at where and what RBKC are proposing to build and a few other related matters…..

Lots Road South site

Last month there was  a RBKC announcement about the Lots Road site   on what RBKC proposes to do with the  Lots Road South  site.  The RBKC website  states that

“The Leadership Team appointed developers Mount Anvil last night (Wednesday 15 February) following a process which included feedback from a Community Liaison Group made up of local Lots Road residents and businesses. The group have met with potential development partners over the past few months to provide views on their approach to working with the community on the proposals.

The Lots Road South project is a key site within the wider improvement plans for the Lots Road area and forms part of the Council’s New Homes Delivery Programme. The whole programme aims to build 600 homes across the borough, 300 of which are for social rent and key workers. 

The site is situated towards the south-western corner of the borough, overlooking Chelsea Creek and Lots Road Power Station, and with river access nearby, and currently houses the Lots Road Auction House and some Council services.”

  The rest of RBKC performing  the “Anvil Chorus” is available  to read  here:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/newsroom/development-partner-appointed-new-lots-road-homes

Here are the SPD   documents for further reading

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/lots-road-south-spd

The small bit good news is that there was some  level of engagement and input from residents, area groups and local businesses in  the design brief.

This blog often berates RBKC consultations and whilst we criticise  many  of these – we think the Council officers engaging with residents on this actually didn’t do too badly (though the consultation should have been more widely publicised in our opinion) . Perhaps  it is only in North Kensington (safe Labour) wards where RBKC insists on completely ignoring most of the local feedback?

But for anyone like us  hoping that there will be social housing- especially for older residents- other site, we’re not optimistic at all.

Mount Anvil

THINK  had a look at  Mount Anvil  and from what we can tell is that they are primarily a premium luxury  developer, certainly not a developer that prioritises  homes for social rent . A rather curious choice considering the severe chronic shortage of homes for social rent that this council has.

They do have so called affordable homes – these are “starter homes” or shared ownership with housing associations such as L & Q or One Housing. These typically start at  £400,000 –  mostly in areas less expensive than Chelsea – so not affordable at all to most people on the average wage.  

We had a look at some of Mount Anvil’s   Market rate homes  .  First there is “Queen’s Cross” in the Royal Docks area. If one has a spare £400K to buy a bedsit in London E16 – one can be a resident here  if they wish :

Then there are shared ownership homes. Such as some in “The Silk District”  in Whitechapel. This is a collaboration with L & Q (more a property developer than a housing association these days ) and shared ownership homes start at around £500K there.

“Queens Cross”? “Silk District” ?Honestly  – what illicit substances are some of these people taking when they decide they are going to make up  whole new districts of London ?! 😄

We’re sorry to residents living near the Lots Road South site if these pictures cause nightmares about having massive skyscrapers being built in their neighbourhood, but these are Mount Anvil’s own pictures.

A Terrapin and a Bulldog

Here, from the THINK archives, are some blogs about property PR lobbyist Peter Bingle and his firm Terrapin Communications again:

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/a-rocky-road-well-travelled-and-a-terrapin-in-the-tank/

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2018/09/25/more-terrapins-in-the-tank-at-the-city-hall-of-shame/

And this article written by Robert Booth in The Guardian a few years ago is an illuminating look at the “business” between councils, lobbyists and developers:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/30/revolving-door-between-councils-and-lobbyists-raises-transparency-issues

Especially this bit:

Long after  Rock Feilding-Mellen, Nick  Paget-Brown and Daniel Moylan have departed RBKC (Moylan for the House of Lords – the shame of it), Peter Bingle still has a few friends at RBKC…..

Here, taken from Bingle’s Facebook friends list,  is one:

The Lots Road South site  is situated in Chelsea Riverside Ward. One of the three Conservative councillors for the ward just happens to be Cllr Gerard  Hargreaves.

Gerard “Bulldog” Hargreaves also  just “happens” to sit on the Planning Committee and be Deputy Chair of it. Funny coincidence that.

These days, quite a lot of RBKC Councillors do not seem to think they do not have to register their interests and connections anywhere,. There is certainly no obligation from the Council to do so . They do not seem to think it is in the public interest. We beg do differ and are highly concerned about Cllr Hargreaves’ connections, the Mount Anvil/Terrapin/Bingle aspect, the absence of transparency and possible connections and goings on with others.

We will just briefly mention that another fellow Chelsea Riverside Councillor Sonia Zvedeniuk (who is a Government Special Advisor in her day job) also sits on the Planning Committee.

This blog is not accusing Cllr Zvedeniuk of anything (and she has registered this) , but we will point out that Conservative members of RBKC and the local Kensington, Chelsea and Fulham Conservative party here have connections which go straight to the top – so we do not believe the line (at various times and in its various guises) trotted out by RBKC Lead Member for Planning, Place and the Environment, Cem Kemahli and some Conservative members of the Planning Committee that “the Council cannot do much about UK Government Planning policy” . We’ll call BS on that….

Next Tuesday – the 14th of all dates being exactly 69 months since Grenfell – how inappropriate – RBKC Leader Elizabeth “Dizzy Lizzy” Campbell is planning to jet off to luxury property Expo MIPIM in Cannes to hobnob with abandon with loads of multimillionaire developers. Disgraceful. We wonder how may “connections” will be made to carve up the borough for the extremely wealthy and how many seeds for exclusive developments (that end up going to “buy to leave” investors overseas instead of long term residents) will be sown there?

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2023/02/23/troughing-it-as-dizzy-lizzy-does-the-cannes-cannes/

Perhaps some of those who go “isn’t more housing in the borough a better thing for all of us” might like to think about that. They might like to have a good think about what sort of housing it is and what it bodes for the future of communities.

Here is where some Mount Anvil homes get sold off to – land banking investment oppotuniries for wealthy residents in the far east. These, just over the river in Clapham, last year were being sold exclusively by Savills in Singapore:

We’re not too sure that residents will be enjoying their corner shops closing down, zero community atmosphere and half the lights out in the area because most of these people aren’t purchasing properties to live in them, .

Social Affordable – Who cares?

This is also taken from the RBKC Comms press release last month:

Killian Hurley, CEO Mount Anvil, said: “I’m delighted that Kensington and Chelsea Council are entrusting Mount Anvil at Lots Road, having recognised our ability to deliver with certainty for their community. We work only in London and only in partnership with people who care about the long-term, like Kensington and Chelsea and the other boroughs that have welcomed us. It’s a privilege to be continuing to listen to and learn from the local community as we deliver quality extra care affordable homes and vibrant community and commercial space.”  

Yes it’s that “affordable” term again. And whilst many Mount Anvil developments appear to have fantastic amenities such as gyms and great communal areas – it is debatable as to which residents would get to use and enjoy these and which ones wouldn’t.

Poor doors haven’t gone away, they have just been replaced with segeratated areas. It says a lot about attitudes to the less well off if a privileged few residents generally view the less affluent as dirty, lazy and immoral and would rather live in a Caste system set up than mix and work together to make their community great – but sadly there are always a few of these ignoramuses .

If we are going to talk about morality , then we have to say that the voices and views of such ignoramuses and luxury developers and their vested interests are ALWAYS given more credibility by the powers that be than the views and voices of residents who have a genuine personal interest in improvement their communities for the better- such as RAs, area groups, community campaigners. Money talks and BS walks and because a few prospective buyers are of this view and greedy luxury developers purely concentrate on vast amounts of profit , what few “affordable” homes get built all too often amount to tiny flats the size of a postage stamp (with oversized windows to make them look better and get round more planning bits and pieces) and the “affordable” residents excluded with hardly any or no access to amenities.

RBKC could have come up with something for everyone maybe something like this:

http://www.peterbarberarchitects.com/ordnance-road

Instead, our unoriginal local authority have gone back to their old familiar ways and default position of “luxury flats are the answer to everything“.

In the meantime, the future looks bleak for less well off residents who have worked hard all their lives and hope for a decent quality of life in their old age, such as the late unnamed elderly gentleman mentioned here:

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2022/01/13/the-tragic-consequences-of-an-absence-of-care-for-our-elderly-social-housing-residents/

Attitudes have certainly not changed at RBKC – despite what they say – we expect this development to end up with zero social housing such as that at Lancer Square (near Kensington Town Hall) approved in the “bad old days”. Because it looks like what “affordable” housing gets built will be negotiated with developers who do not exactly prioritise social housing. Or perhaps not even being negotiated, because it has already being given away.

We’ll revisit Mount Anvil CEO Mr Killian Hurley’s statement again: “I’m delighted that Kensington and Chelsea Council are entrusting Mount Anvil at Lots Road” Take note of the word “entrusting” implying that Mount Anvil will be steering this development.

It seems RBKC’s priority all along has been to be the “best Council” for the extremely wealthy and anyone else just has to put up with it or leave. There is no original thinking , it’s back to pre-Grenfell “business as usual” again. It really shouldn’t have to be this way.

We’re back to ranting and raving about RBKC exclusion of residents again…

When should council tenants and leaseholders be included or not included in the Tenants Consultative Committee? What about when the council’s work programme is discussed which includes works done to THEIR HOMES???

Apparently not, here is a response from Iago Griffith, RBKC Head of Resident Engagement and Partnerships to a North Kensington local councillor who raised this on a behalf of a constituent:

“Residents of street properties and small blocks without resident associations and compacts do have the their meeting which is the HOMES meeting. This is open to all such residents and meets bi-monthly and discuss much of the same topics as those discussed at the TCC, and is always attended by Doug Goldring and senior officers, we are always keen to encourage further attendance at these meeting and have on several occasions written out to encourage attendance. We do always ensure where we can parity with the TCC, with the same agenda’s items being discussed, and attendance from Cllr Taylor-Smith, Doug Goldring and other senior officers.  “

“You raise the role of the HOMES representatives. Bruno DeFlorence and Gaenor Holland-Williams role is largely to represent HOMES on the TCC – to ensure synergy with that committee, rather than represent all street property residents per se, as all of these residents are invited to the HOMES meeting. Never the less I am aware both Bruno and Gaenor do at these meetings raise issues by other street property residents, and I agree with your point if they are to act as advocates there contact details need to be available and at certain points the HOMES group needs the opportunity to re-elect its representatives. This can be discussed when the group meets again in late September.”

“We are keen to build up the HOMES group and I would be only too happy to have an informal discussion with a constituent of yours who may have ideas on how to do this. Kind regards. Iago:“

Well this response is something of a joke, because not only do the “HOMES” representatives live nowhere near the resident’s North Kensington home, the resident in question was part of the small group of residents who called to set it up in the first place, and it was intended to be part of the MAIN TCC GROUP and not some inferior little offshoot, as we said previously here:

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2020/10/19/all-animals-are-equal-but-some-animals-are-still-more-equal-than-others-down-on-the-tcc-animal-farm/

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2021/02/11/rbkc-gives-residents-without-ras-the-back-alley-treatment/

But RBKC seems to view residents in smaller blocks and street properties as third class citizens who don’t deserve the same level of communication and respect as those in RAs.

We hate to go on and on about it but why otherwise wouldn’t Iago Griffith and his fellow Resident Engagement officers just send links to the meetings to any tenant or leaseholder who is interested to join? There really isn’t any reasonable excuse for this.

But RBKC might want to shut these residents up and out of these meetings for other reasons too. The resident who contacted their local councillor was under threat of regeneration before Grenfell – these were the little North Kensington regenerations planned outside of the Silchester Estate that people did not even receive so much as a letter about. If this had gone ahead, they would have ended up being forced out of the borough on the quiet.

With RBKC returning back to “business as usual” it appears that the council doesn’t want these residents to make some noise, especially if it will alert others towards any posssible future regeneration plans that the council may have in store for us.

If anyone is thinking our warnings about regeneration are a little far-fetched, let’s not forget about what Dan Hawthorn (pictured second right, next to Mr Griffith) , RBKC Executive Director for Housing and Social Investment, was doing before he came to Hornton Street – he was in charge of housing at Haringey Council – and partly responsible for the controversial (and thankfully axed) HDV regeneration scheme there. While times have changed and Mr Hawthorn may have moved on since then, quite what the motivations were for RBKC to hire the man in charge of such a scheme for the housing top job here, does make us wonder…

Plus, let’s also not forget that RBKC Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Grenfell, Housing and Social Investment Kim Taylor-Smith did tell a meeting of the Housing and Communities Select Committee some time back, that he thought that the council should at some point go back and look again at regeneration of properties that are more costly for the council to maintain.

RBKC tenants and leaseholders of smaller blocks and street properties, you have been warned!

Edenham/Trellick Tower controversy as locals and campaigners oppose RBKC new homes

Q: When are new homes proposed by RBKC in North Kensington welcome and when are they not welcome?

A: They are not welcome when they fly in the face of ,the local outdoor environment,, a world-famous listed building, a local art space and legal graffiti wall, when the council tries to up support by misleading and muddling affordable housing with social housing, and very importantly, goes against the wishes of what the majprity of local residents actually want there.

Despite the fact that only 35% of residents actually support building new homes on the Edenham site, by Trellick Tower in Golborne Ward, North Kensington, RBKC is still having further consultations on the matter and there will be an online Zoom meeting at 10:30am tomorrow. Link here:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/housing/new-homes-consultation/edenham

Residents can also complete the online feedback form included on link by Thursday the 25th of March.

So for some RBKC councillors and suits who seem to have their fingers in their ears, we’ll just remind them of sone of the residents’ comments from the last consultation :

With regards to views of Trellick Tower, RBKC claim to be in touch with the 20th Century Society, but a few days ago, the 20th Century posted this on Twitter:

THINK are very sorry for obscuring the view of Erno Goldfinger’s Brutalist masterpiece with the “graffiti” in our picture, but perhaps that’s what RBKC might end up doing with buildings if these proposals do go ahead .

Just in case RBKC hasn’t quite got the message just yet , readers can join local residents, THINKers and the 20th Century Society by signing and sharing this petition here, calling on RBKC to protect the art and outdoor space by Trellick Tower and say no to lucury flats here:

https://www.change.org/p/royal-borough-of-kensington-and-chelsea-council-protect-trellick-tower-s-art-and-outdoor-space-and-say-no-to-more-luxury-flats?redirect=false

Outdoor space is very precious to residents in Golborne Ward, who have very little of it in comparison to those of us elsewhere in North Kensington who live very closely to parks. Here, posted on Twitter, are a few views from more local residents:

Here is a response from RBKC Deputy Leader Kim Taylor-Smith;

As for homes, yes, we do need more homes in the borough, but there is a real severe shortage of social housing in this borough,but any residents who are only supporting these proposals for that reason may be in for disappointment too:

Thanks to Joe Halewood (who also writes the. excellent Speye Joe blog https://speyejoe2.wordpress.com/ ) for the clarification. We never seem to get a straightforward answer from RBKC on this most of the time, and we think some at our council have been very misleading for referring to housing that most social housing residents and those on the waiting list will never be able to afford to live in. These councillors, suits and officers – or rather liars – who have mislead people – “social/affordable” housing indeed – ought to be deeply and thoroughly ashamed of their behaviour.

Of course, Edenham isn’t the only site that is being consideted, and RBKC Deputy Leader Kim Taylor-Smith has said that there will be other sites considered in the future too, including one in Chelsea;, so this is far from the one and only opportunity that the council has to build more housing.

THINKers stand with our friends in Golborne Ward, and we believe RBKC need to abandon this and think again. They are here to serve us, and the wellbeing, best interests and views of our residents must always come first.

We really fear a return to the bad days of pre-Grenfell RBKC when the council ignored and disregarded the views of the community and ploughed ahead regardless, but if RBKC continue to go ahead with more consultations and PR exercises on this , it indicates that they have made the decision already, and from hearing that the outdoor space at the base of Trellick Tower has been fenced off, that appears to be exactly back where we are heading….

RBKC Scrutiny review of Housing Safety and Healthy Homes – have your say

The RBKC  Housing and Communities  Select Committtee has set up a Working Group on Housing Safety and Healthy Homes and they are asking for residents’ views on what the review should focus on.


Have your say here:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/council-councillors-and-democracy/open-data-and-transparency/review-housing-safety-and-healthy-homes

Residents have until 11:59pm on this  Sunday, the 6th December to respond.



Now THINKers will just briefly have our say:

We are concerned that a number of our social housing residents are living in unsuitable accommodation partly because of the shortage of ground floor and accessible flats and partly because housing allocations and points are in serious need of a review.

Residents ages ago were told that the council would  review housing allocation points  but we have yet to see or hear anything of this.

Just in case some housing department suits have a rehearsed answer to this and say it is already council policy and long has been to prioritise ground floor flats for the elderly, sick and disabled, perhaps they could answer then as to why people are still getting unacceptable “final offers”  .  Here is just one  example of that; in  one small   block  , a ground floor flat was given to a single  able-bodied resident in their 20’s, but a top floor flat only accessible by several flights of stairs was offered to an elderly man who could barely walk and came to the viewing on a council minibus.

Also it has to be said that there are some  residents  who are living in  unsuitable accommodation  but are putting up with it because they are terrified of being moved away fron their local area and the borough or indeed London altogether.

Some permanent council accommodation   itself is  unhealthy and unsafe to begin with, but  residents who are saddled with it do not receive much in the way of help.    Look at the way that North Kensington mother of two young children,  Chloe Williams was treated by RBKC Housing last year. See our post from back then here:

/https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2019/09/26/stand-with-chloe-and-stop-the-eviction-protest-at-kensington-town-hall-this-evening/


Ms Williams  was given the “choice” of living with rats, mice and cockroaches or being moved to the other side of London – completely  unacceptable.

RBKC Housing also seem to think it is acceptable to not  bother to move one of us away from a neighbour who has been violent and a flat which is in poor condition and  has been for a number of years  ( the flat was given to her as  a final “offer” – take it or be homeless )
See our previous post for more on that  here – LINK

In many cases, calls for help and support have fallen on deaf ears.  Here is an excerpt from a post from us last year in which North Kensington resident spoke at a Full Council Meeting :

(full post here:

:https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2019/10/16/grenfell-scrutiny-and-the-summer-of-our-discontent-part-2-grenfell-committee-gets-the-chop-as-dizzy-lizzy-and-rbkc-lose-their-heads-the-full-council-meeting/)

First of all she spoke about Adair Tower, a council block in North Kensington, the tragic double murder of two elderly residents there Back in May, the media frenzy afterwards (which reminded some of the days after Grenfell ) and RBKC failing to provide vulnerable residents there any form of support despite offucers being in full knowledge of the situation.

Thankfully Sue Duggins, chair of the newly formed RA there got in touch with the Grenfell NHS Outreach Team and they were on hand to provide much needed support to residents there who had been in need of it

RBKC did not respond until June and them dismissely said that it was a “Police matter” . No referrals to victim support

We’re sadly not surprised by this as RBKC has form over many years, of neglecting the needs of residents in social housing – particularly those in North Kensington (we would be amazed however if Elizabeth “never been in a tower block” Campbell actually had any clue where Adair Tower was).

Leearna : ” I would therefore ask do the council have a policy in place regarding serious incidents that affect residents that has a reference to ensuring their mental and physical welfare is safeguarded? And if not, would you please seriously consider putting this in place as you seriously have a duty of care over your residents. And as this example demonstrates, you are dramatically failing in this ”

But what response did  the Leader of RBKC,  Elizabeth Campbell  have  to the  points and questions Leearna made about Adair Tower then, some might wonder ? Shockingly, Cllr Campbell  did not bother to  respond  on this at all.

So please  forgive us – even though while  there may be a few on the council who may he  approaching this with good intentions – if we are  still unconvinced that RBkC will ever really act upon the concerns and needs of our poorest and  most vulnerable residents.

And where is the record keeping? We hate to repeat ourselves, but we won’t be changing the record until there are strict rules and guarantees that our housing staff keep full and up to date records on their residents and properties. After all, how can they effectively ensure the wellbeing of both residents and our homes if they are continuously  failing to keep these?


It is not healthy or safe for anyone to live  in  poor conditions and/or in fear of  their safety  but  obviously RBKC expects some of their council residents to…..

As to the new council  homes RBKC is building – which our blog welcomes of course, residents will be in for a VERY long wait if they ever hope to get moved to these, so it’s very silly and pointless for some  councillors and suits  to keep pointing out  that they are building new homes (ready in several  years time) to people who  need to move ASAP.

It is also not exactly helpful to the mental  wellbeing of  many  residents in North Kensington – where most  of our borough’s social housing is –  when the council still fails to  acknowledge (beyond a couple of estates and blocks) that many more  residents here are still very traumatised by Grenfell.

The Committee Working Group will have six months to look into whether homes in the borough   are as safe and healthy as they should be – and the  simple and obvious answer to that question  is no, they are not. 

While we are pleased that RBKC is now taking fire safety issues seriously, they are still continually  ignoring a whole lot of other problems facing some of our most vulnerable residents.

Some of us feel that  even  if the Housing Committee were to listen and make some positive recommendations,  in the end this all has to be approved by the Leadership – and  that non-response  from Elizabeth “Dizzy Lizzy” Campbell    regarding Adair Tower speaks a thousand words as to how  important to some of those in charge, the wellbeing of residents in council housing REALLY is..…

We have to say that knowing  from both some of our own experiences and those of others, we are  left with next to no confidence that any of this will ever lead to real change.

We’d  really like to be proved wrong, but sadly we think the most likely council  response in the end will only be loads more expensive council publications and useless PR stunts with nothing ever really being done to addresss these issues.

What a mess.

Slumlord millionaires and the disgraceful dumping grounds for our homeless and vulnerable

Pictured is Mario Carozzo of Caridon, a Croydon-based property firm that is best known for being owners of slum warehouses where some homeless families get dumped in such as Templefields House and Terminus House in Harlow.

Both of these modern day slums have been in the media see this “Is Harlow being used to socially cleanse London”, this , “Harlow human warehouse drug deals and violence uncovered” this , “Inside the human warehouse: Desperate fanilies describe life in office block turned into flats” and this “GRIM FIND: Horrified cleaner who discovered rotting corpse in human warehouse quits after being forced to tidy up aftermath”

Some Caridon “flats” are as tiny as only 18 metres.

Caridon, who house tenants in these types of properties in various locations, are reported to have received over £8 million in housing benefit for putting people up in these conditions.

If being sent to go and live miles away and being isolated from family and friends, work and support isn’t distressing enough, living in a crime and vermin- ridden cramped dangerous warehouse certainly is.

But arrogant nasty piece of work Mr Carozzo doesnt care; here, below is the sprawling property in Surrey that he lives in after raking in so much cash off the back of people living in squalor:

The video of the Panorama programme from earlier this year which shows some of the utterly disgraceful and thoroughly depressing conditions that some homeless households housed by Caridon after being sent there by their local authorities is extremely depressing. Our readers can watch it on this link

Personally we’d feel safer sleeping on a park bench…..

Some might be wondering what we are doing blogging about other areas generally outside our remit, but RBKC does send most people on the housing list in the borough to go and live out of the borough and disgracefully, we can reveal that contractors Mears Group -who house people in accommodation provided by Caridon – are on the list of private providers of tenporary accommodation that our council uses.

Last year Caridon sent out this b×’°$°°t to some local authorities including RBKC.

Mears Group back in April this year commissioned a report fron (not very) “independent” local government think tank Localis to review the Social Value Act.

Former Leader (until 2014) of RBKC Sir Merrick Cockell is the Chairman of Localis.

Social value? Are they having a laugh? We don’t think that people who have to live in these slums have too much to laugh about.

Mears Group do not appear to have consciences, let alone any sort of social values – and this is how they treat asylum seekers – here

Both RBKC Leader Elizabeth “Dizzy Lizzy” Campbell and RBKC Deputy Leader Leader Kim Taylor-Smith are known to have previously appeared at Localis events. Perhaps they can tell us if like Cockell, they still approve of Mears ?

THINK are not exactly sure what “social value” there is in dumping homeless and vulnerable people in warehouses far away where we wouldn’t expect a stray animal to live.

Assetgrove, headed by Sot Sotiriou, pictured above are a property company based in Winchmore Hill, are another approved temporary housing provider that RBKC use. They are also the landlords for slum warehouse Connect House, which in based on the Willow Lane Industrial Estate in Mitcham. The owners of the building – Connect House Ltd and property developer Joel Wider are reported by SW Londoner to have made nearly £2.5 million profit within a year of the building being converted.

Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden, Siobhain McDonagh, who has some constituents housed there has previously highlighted the terrible conditions that families there are living in.

Assetgrove are involved with a wide range of properties and also act as a seemingly ordinary letting agent in north London. Some blameless small time property owners of flats who might think they are doing the right thing by letting Assetgrove manage their properties and use them to help provide accommodation to the poor and homeless may be in for a shock too, as Assetgrove were expelled from The Property Ombudsman scheme after they apparenty failed to conpensate a property owner for missing rent and a cooker that went missing

Finefair Consultancy Ltd are another temporary housing provider that RBKC uses. Two years ago, the Hackney Gazette reported on some of the conditions that Hackney locals were living in. The hostel is owned by Blue Chip Trading Ltd. who Finefair contracts out to.

We couldn’t find any pictures of the slum landlords at “Blue S**t Trading Ltd” but here they are on Companies House

Pictured above is Finefair’s founder Kamran Naseem. Housing people in poor conditions doesn’t stop Finefair fron winning awards for best property management however (but then again we also remember KCTMO winning awards too – just what planet are these people on?)

It is ultimately Eric Pickles when he was Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when he made changes to the law bringing in Permitted Development Rights (PDR) in 2013 which allowed developers converting offices and shops to bypass planning laws who we have to blame for these slum warehouses and the rise of the unscrupulous property developers and magnates making a killing – literally.

Councils are putting people in conditions where some will end up killing themselves, or one another, or perhaps end up dying as a result of fire and anyone with half a conscience after reading the articles and seeing that Panorama programme will be wondering about the fire safety risks posed by housing hundreds of people in cramped conditions in buildings that were not intended for that purpose in the first place. We also think the risks of people catching and transmitting Covid-19 will be vastly increased in such places too.

Shamefully, Pickles, like Gavin Barwell , another former Government minister who does not care about the health and safety and wellbeing of residents in social housing either, now sits in the House of Lords.

If our council really does want to provide “high quality temporary accommodation” as they said here then they must stop using providers like these immediately.

If anyone at RBKC accuses us of media hype and sensationalism, we’ll just renind them that a THINKer once spent time being dumped in temporary accommodation outside the borough some years back which was provided by this council – and which she still has nightmares about to this day, and certainly witnessed violence and drug dealing on an every day basis, no effort to safeguard residents and was afraid for her life – and this wasn’t even in any of the places described here which appear to be far, far worse. The articles linked to this piece sadly ring true.

At least Peter Rachman’s tenants were able to live in their local community…..

RBKC Draft Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy and survey

RBKC residents have up to tomorrow to give their feedback by completing this survey here which will go some way to help formulate our council’s housing policies on homelessness, rough sleeping and housing support.

THINK support these and have made some points at the end of this post as well as in the survey. We encourage our local readers to complete the survey, give feedback and share.

The ten key points across four broad areas from RBKC are :

Preventing residents from becoming homeless and assisting them when they become homeless

1- Giving residents the power and ability to solve problems by refreshing and personalising the advice and information we provide when people may he facing homelessness.

2. Make sure we have the right solutions and ensure we are maximising all pathways into appropriate and settled accommodation

Providing suitable temporary accommodation for homeless households

3..Improve our provision and procurement of high quality temporary accommodation for homeless households

4. Ensure a range of settled accommodation and support is available to homeless households that we have a duty towards when homelessness can’t be prevented.

Reducing and working towards the elimination of rough sleeping

5. Prevent residents from rough sleeping in the first place

6 Helping residents that are sleeping in the streets for the first time off the streets for good

7. Support entrenched rough sleepers off the streets for the long term

Working with partners to prevent homelessness earlier

8 Look at the wider causes of homelessness in the borough and develop solutions through early identification and intervention

9.Make our housing services more visible and accessible to all residents and better communicate what we can and cannot offer

10. Work with partners and other housing providers to develop more effective interventions and solutions to homelessness through earlier identification and intervention.

A few points from us on this:

These points are all encouraging and admirable but perhaps rather ambitious considering that Housing needs and support services in our borough are at best, stretched. We really hope that RBKC plans to provide increased funding in order to meet these points.

We hope that with regards to the last point, that our council will look further into hidden homelessness in the borough – which is more commonplace here than some would think.

We are also concerned that there appears to be no commitment to ending the “Temporary Accommodation Lottery” which often means that households in very similar circumstances receive very different accommodation – ie someone getting temporary housing in the borough while another person gets sent to the other end of London when both have identical housing points and needs.

We also believe that our council needs to have a written commitment to housing residents of this borough in the borough first.

We are pleased to see that our council wants to work with other housing providers but there are still very few Housing Association properties being advertised on the Home Connections website. Also including more HA homes in nearby areas which are just outside the borough such as in Westminster or im Hammersmith amd Fulham just for example, on the Home Connections register would be helpful to some homeless households too

Some THINKers have direct experiences of living in temporary accommodation and we are concerned about the safety and wellbeing of residents, living there. We would also like to see a written commitment and increased help and support ftom the council regarding the safety of residents placed in TA. We also know of cases of residents becoming homeless after leaving TA in which they did not feel safe in after receiving no help and support from the council.

With some cases around homelessness prevention, residents often receive better help and advice from the Citizen’s advice Bureau or their local Law Centre – such as North Kensington Law Centre or the Nucleus Law Centre in Earl’s Court – than they do from Kensington Town Hall.

RBKC Question Time: Any Answers? Part 2: Kim Taylor-Smith

Here is our transcript of the RBKC Question Time with Kim Taylor-Smith, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member (or “Leadership Team” member in Dizzy’s PR lingo!) for Grenfell and Housing

Some answers contain some useful links and information that may be of help to RBKC residents – which we have highlighted – as in our previous post

There is somewhat less of our commentary this time as “Kim Tailored-Sloth” appears to have made more effort than Dizzy Lizzy at answering the questions (see our previous post), but whatever anyone’s opinion of our council, its Leader or the RBKC Cabinet;; all these Question Time sessions and many of the answers provided are useful for local residents

He even answered a few questions from us and our readers. Thank you to everyone who sent the questions into us.

Question from THINK : While many appreciate the importance of ensuring that properties are fire safe, someone at the council has deliberately taken the decision to fit a new front door on tenants homes at this particular time because in their words, “everybody will be at home”, and this appears to show a complete lack of sensitivity towards residents who are vulnerable or self isolating. Can RBKC give a guarantee that they will only fit doors at this tme with the prior consent of tenants and will not force entry or unneccesarily pressurise residents into having doors fitted?

Kim Taylor-Smith: “So in sort, answer is yes – I can give that guarantee. We have always fitted new fire rated doors at every address with the consent of the tenants and having a prearranged meeting in order to do so. So with that regard, it’s important obviously that we consider people’s needs. And to reinforce the strategy, we also during lockdown, are not going to be fitting doors to any vulnerable group or self isolating tenant. So, we will further check that where we have made appointments, before those appointments go ahead, we will check with the residents to see if for any reason if they don’t want that appointment then we will not fit the door. ”

Question from resident via THINK :What are housing staff, who work with some of the borough’s most vulnerable residents, given that they are not all able to self refer or are officially categorised as clinically vulnerable by the NHS, what is the council doing to help these residents get the help they need?

KTS “Well, the soonest the crisis started, our housing management team started contacting our residents – starting with those over the age of 70, and now actually in terms – everybody over the age of 60 and anyone under that age where they have known vulnerabilities. And this will include cross-referencing with our other departments including Adult Social Care and Family Services to ensure that we identify those residents that have vulnerability.

We’ve also talked through what that support should be and completed referral forms on behalf of the other agencies, such as people like Age UK and we will continue to monitor these referrals to ensure that they are working. I mean, our team have now spoken to over 3,800 of our council residents in council homes and in temporary accommodation and we’re also offering a weekly and fortnightly call back to about 800 people. And where we haven’t been able to get hold of somebody via telephone, what we’re doing is we’re writing and we’re phoning and we’re giving cards and we’re doing deliveries but certainly if people are aware of somebody with vulnerabilities that hasn’t been contacted by the council, please let us know”.

Question from resident via THINK: Whilst it is reassuring for all of us to know that the council will not be taking legal action against anybody who falls into arrears and service charges when so many people are suffering at this time, can you please give further details amd information of what other help there is available?

KTS: “Well, if you do need financial support you may be entitled to help from the council’s Local Support Payments Plan. This is in fact what was originally launched as a Hardship Plan amd we’ve renamed that and its something that we’ve boosted by £500,000 on top of the funding that we were receiving from central Government, and you can apply for this by phoning our telephone number – 020 7745 6464 – and all of these numbers are on the council website. You also might be entitled to Universal Credit and to find out more about that you can call 0800 328 5644. And if you’re a council tenant who is struggling to pay and keep up with your rent and payments, we’ve set aside a fund to support you as well – and we stress we will not be taking any enforcement action on rent for a few months amd if you want to know more about this rent fund, please email us at

HM-rentincome2@rbkc.gov.uk

Or call the number at 0800 137 111

Again, these are all on the website

And finally, the Government has also launched an emergency package with energy suppliers to emdure that you don’t face amy addtiinal hardship in heating or lighting your home during the Coronavirus break – and we will be coordinating work across the voluntary sector to provide food, medical supplies and social support to an unprecedented number of people. And if anybody is suffering financial hardship, we always recommend to call the Hub”

We think that the Government should have some words with the energy suppliers and ban the punitive and costly key meters which cause unneccessary hardship to some of the poorest and most vulnerable by charging them more in real terms than bills for their gas and electricity.

Question from resident via THINK: Understandably, tensions between some neighbours will be running very high at the moment with many residents indoors amd shut down 24/ 7, how can the council help residents report and take actions against disturbances such as loud music or DIY going on until late in the night, if council services are not running as normal?

KTS: “Well it’s true to say that our capacity to respond to noise complaints at the moment is very limited, and we will not be visiting properties to assess the noise you are experiencing amd we’ll be trying to limit all interactions with the general public. But we will deal with these complaints on the telephone, and so if you are experiencing antisocial behaviour, then I do encurage you to call our Customer Care number which is 0800 137 111 and you can call that Monday to Friday 9am till 5pm, and anything out of hours you can call pur Noise and Nuisance Team on 020 7361 3002. All of these numbers are on the council website and all complaints will receive a call back with advice and guidance. Alternatively, you can contact our Environmental Health Team by email @environmenthealthrbkc.gov.uk or you can fill in one of our omline complaint forms and to raise your conxerns and you’ll find that again on the council website

So we will continue to take action on antisocial behaviour as our first priority is always to try to resolve issues amicably wherever possible, but if that’s not possible ten wr will take action amd in April we had to issue three warning letters for the first time and the council has also had a partial closure order approved by the Judge in response to an antisocial behaviour case.”

Question from resident via THINK: What help and support is the council offering to residents who may suffer from domestic abuse or family problems during this time? And is there any further provision of extra emergency accommodation?

KTS : “Well we’ve launched a new campaign wotking with the Angelou Support Service and the Police to help those suffering with domestic abuse during the Covid-19 pandemic – and posters hae been placed in local pharmacies across the borough and plans are underway to display them in food banks, children’s centres, GP surgeries, hospitals and supermarkets – and our interfaith forum have also been supporting the campaign.

We’ve been asking the public to make sure that information gets to victims by sharing this on social media with the hashtag #YouAreNotAlone. If you or somebody you know is afraid or worried about sexual or domestic abuse, support is available; call the Angelou Support Service – you can find their mumber on the website and their number os 020 8741 7008 and their office is open Mondays till Fridays from 10am to 6pm . And the 24 hour national DomesticAbuse helpine can also be contacted and in an emergency dial 999.

We have sufficient capacity in temporary accommodation to accommodate anybody who would need this and they would also receive the support of an independent domestic violence advisor, placed in by the Homeless Team.”

Here are some other links and numbers:

Refuge National Domestic Abuse Hotline; open 24/7, free and confidential – 0808 2000 247

If you are concerned that a child is being harmed or abused, please call the RBKC Children’s services team on 020 7361 3013 from Monday to Friday between 9am to 5pm. Ouside this time, please contact the Emergency Duty Team on 020 7373 322

Question from resident via THINK: What help and support is there for residents living in temporary accommodation?

KTS: “Well the council has made welfare calls to 99.9% to 2213 people who are living in temporary accommodation in Kensington amd Chelsea and in other boroughs across London, providing assistance with food, health and financial support where available – and during the early stages of the pandemic, we wrote to all residents in temporary accommodation to inform them of where they could get access to specific advice and support, and we followed this up with texts and letters and emails would have been sent to all residents who we had not yet made direct contact to, and we provide a follow up for all residents who’ve asked for support”

THINKers are sure that we heard the council state they had made contact with 65% of residents in temporary accommodation somewhere else….

Question from resident via THINK: “What is the council doing to make sure that providers of temporary accommodation keep people safe at this time?

KTS :”Well again, we’re working with providers of temporary accommodation to minimise health risk to both the residents and officers and supporting them with both advice and guidance with respect to restrictions on movement. And while routine repairs have had to be suspended under Government advice, we will continue to make sure that people are safe and secure and that all urgent repairs are completed and that residents are not left without security, heating and hot water”

Question from resident via THINK: Can you guarantee that households of more than two people are not being made to stay in a cramped hotel or bedsit?

KTS: “The short answer is yes – if we are aware of anybody who is in that situation they will be offered alternative accommodation”

Question via Twitter from @rosa_red_ : Have the victims of Grenfell Tower been rehoused yet as promised by Theresa May when she was Prime Minster? And if not, how is the Coronavirus affecting them?

KTS: “Well, the Coronavirus pandemic has presented many challenges to everybody and the council is working incredibly hard to support the community.

Even with this challenge, to date, 194 households have moved into a permanent home of their choice, and we have 5 further households who’ve chosen a home, but are currently in private rental accommodation waiting to move. And that leaves a further 2 individuals who had previously moved, but we are supporting to try and find a new home. The council has spent over £200million to secure over 300 homes so that people have a maximum choice available and that we have been working very hard to make these properties the best place that a family can call their own home.

We’re nearly there, but we will not be rushing the last few to meet artificial deadlines.This hasn’t been a simple task. and it was never going to be. Council staff have never stopped caring and never stopped working and we will continue to do this, until every family is in their new home amd starting to rebuild their lives.

Our efforts won’t stop there though, when they just walk through the front door. No matter where people are living, survivors will have received a wraparound support from the dedicated service, and help to make sure that they are managing as well as they can be.

We are actively contacting all our tenants and all households in temporary accommodation to understand the impact that the virus has on them and to offer support wherever we can.

Every family’s circumstance is different, and so that means our job is to understand each individual family situation and to tailor support that meets their needs”

Question from Nicola: I’m an RBKC resident and I’ve been emailing and calling the council repeatedly to ask for some deep cleaning and disinfecting in our building. It is privately owned and managed, and to date, nothing has been done – and in spite of my increasingly urgent pleas – the staff still do no additional cleaning, wear no PPE, and do not observe physical distancing. We have at least one confirmed case of Covid-19 in the building.

KTS: “Well Nicola, obviously we are really sympathetic to comcerns of all residents who are currently self isolating in very very difficult and challenging times, and obviously we are very aware of this case and we’ve been corresponding by email and although we do not discuss individual cases in public, I can confirm that our procurement team are in regular contect with your landlord, regarding the cleaning regime.

We will always seek clarity and reassurance of enhanced cleaning regimes like this where people are in TA (temporary accommodation) and where these issues are being raised by us, and we will provide details of companies that we use for providing deep cleaning to TA providers in case they would like to use them. So far, we have made over 3,800 welfare calls and checks to our elderly and most vulnerable residents and this has been very effective in giving residents an opportunity to tell us if they suspect these sort of issues are occurring and to outline what support they want and need from us – and we will continue to make these calls and give callbacks. And there is always of course the Covid-19 hub which everybody can contact. ”

Here are the details for the RBKC Covid-19 Hub:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/coronavirus-covid-19/covid-19-hub-and-support-residents/covid-19-hub-and-support-vulnerable

Question from Stefan, leaseholder at Adair and Hazelwood: Our inflammable cladding is being removed at no cost to leaseholders and I’m told our windows also need to be replaced at the same time to make the seals safe. As the window replacement is clearly an intrinsic and essential part of the cladding replacement works, the cost should not be from leaseholders. Do you agree?

KTS: “Well Stefan, I don’t agree because the wimdows are not an integral part of the cladding, and tbis was clearly demonstrated when the cladding was removed, leaving the windows in place – and that we can replace the cladding without replacing the windows. However, our survey did suggest that it was a good idea to replace the wimdows as they are at the end of their ergonomic life at 27 years old, and that we can do the work together without havimg to put up scaffolding twice and the new windows obviously will be much better with greater thermal efficiency and everything else… So the window cost is a separate cost and we will be charging leasehold residents for their new windows but not for the recladding.”

Question from Stefan: Due to the current emergency, many residents are facing financial difficulty and a typical repayment of £1,100 per month over two years will cause hardship. So are RBKC able to extend its interest-free repayment period beyond the curent two years?

KTS:”Well again, yes. We understand fully – you know – of the impact of high value works being recovered from leaseholders amd the impact of this on their finances, and we’ll always try to work with individuals to find solutions without causing hardship. But given the current pandemic, we’re also acutely aware these financial things are far more pressing. So of course we’ll be happy to discuss a more flexible timeframe and I suggest leaseholders contact the Housing Management team to discuss the options or we can arrange for somebody to call you directly and I hope this provides reassurance to you that we do not expect any repayment arrangements to be finalised until such time we’ve actualy issued the invoice for the works in question”.

Thanks to all the residents who sent questions in and also to Kim Taylor-Smith for this and for answering questions from THINK and some of our readers.

The Rotten Borough has got some nerve!

We hoped to end the evening on a positive note with our previous blog post.

Unfortunately, along came RBKC Housing to pee on our parade and darken the mood of our blog today.

Why? Let’s see:

1. When someone is housed by RBKC (and also formerly KCTMO) and they live around the corner from Grenfell, where 72 friends and neighbours of theirs died mainly because RBKC put flammable cladding on Grenfell Tower – it’s a bit much sometimes for the same council to be giving us fire safety advice. (They could have more tastefully put out leaflets and hired a fire safety expert to write them instead, but – no). What some residents living in the neghbourhood received today was this letter, above

Seriously, with all the extra PR Communications staff they have now , RBKC could have perhaps approached this more carefully given how affected some local residents are?

2. As useful as some of the advice is regarding not having barbecues in balconies, and not storing flammable items, electrical goods, glass items, paint or upholstered furniture on them (this is what the letter basically says), all that advice, which may be useful to some residents. – and no, the actual advice isn’t an issue – but it is completely useless and irrelevant given to an entire block whose residents do not have balconies at all!

RBKC was supposed to be knowing about what its housing stock consisted of ages ago. When they took over management of our housing from the TMO, Kim Taylor-Smith and Doug Goldring promised residents that the council would undergo an assessment of all their housing stock. So what happened to that? Because it would only take someone as little as two minutes to walk around the outside of that small block of flats to figure out that nobody there has a balcony!

3. Just in case anyone assumes this happens to be an “innocent mistake”, we’ll just remind everyone of our post about the very same block of flats – on Hesketh Place, where RBKC failed to implement the Fire Brigade’s recommendations and put a push bar fire exit fire door on the rear exit of that building. Instead opting to just put a sticker up in the main hallway pointing the way to the front door (do they seriously think residents are that stupid?)

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/rbkcs-ludicrous-definition-of-an-emergency-fire-exit/

So much for our council’s posturing over fire doors……..

4. What is more, senior council officers LIED to residents and councillors in a Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee meeting on the 13th of March 2018 and said they had followed the recommendations of the Fire Brigade. (We posted about that too):

https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/news-from-the-rbkc-housing-and-property-scrutiny-committee/https://thisisnorthkensington.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/news-from-the-rbkc-housing-and-property-scrutiny-committee/

Not only that but OVER TWO YEARS LATER, there is still NO push bar fire exit door fitted on the rear of that building.

A sticker pointing the way to the front door is not a fire exit; but RBKC thinks it is (just as they think residents there have balconies we suppose….)

RBKC’s housing stock assessment exercise is either taking one hell of a very long time or it doesn’t exist.

We believe that local authorities ought to know about the layout and types of their properties and residents living in them before they go out giving fire safety advice.

So forgive us if we are unable to take RBKC supposed concerns about fire safety seriously.

We think some Piglet-Pie Awards are in order:

For failing to undertake a proper full assessment of all housing stock as promised, for allowing other officers to knowingly fib about fire exits, for showing ZERO consideration for how some residents affected by Grenfell may be feeling when communicating about fire safety and for the whole heap of bullsh** on top in the form of lies and broken promises to residents in council housing, THINK are proud to present both RBKC Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Grenfell, Kim Taylor-Smith and RBKC Director of Housing Management Doug Goldring with a joint Piglet-Pie Award:

Former RBKC/KCTMO Director of Housing Teresa Brown headed for the “Fire Exit” and out of RBKC (thank goodness) in June 2018 (just in time for the Grenfell Anniversary). Before Doug Goldring arrived, she was in charge of housing stock. Here is what her LinkedIn profile says:

Actually there are around 9,400 homes in RBKC – so we had a Housing Director who didn’t even know how many homes she had overall responsibility for! And as for “Strategy” we all know where that ended up… The next time we expect to hear from her will be when she appears at the Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry (and she’d better not tell Piglet-Pies then).

So for all this, plus the fibs, incompetence, neglect of our housing, partly causing this mess and allowing her staff to tell blatant lies to residents, for failing our community before and after Grenfell, for being in her position for over four and a half years and doing NOTHING , plus a whole back catalogue of other things, THINK are especially proud to award Teresa Brown a very richly deserved Piglet-Pie Award (it’s the very least she deserves) :

Perhaps we’ll give them some “fire safety advice” and tell them not to place the awards on their mantelpieces?