BristolUK

Fair enough. I knew about the second part but my comment was based on the Guardian report (since updated) that said "It is not yet clear if the Grenfell residents will have access to the facilities, which are normally not included for those in affordable housing" and I believe it was that uncertainty that caused the debate that shard mentioned.

scilly

according to the TV news earlier this evening ....

...... another 800 apartments are being evacuated because the buildings have the same cladding on them. It is expected that replacing the cladding will take about 4 weeks


where are those people going to go????

Flossie and Jim

Here's a pretty accurate summary of how the social housing provision is secured as part of a planning permission:
Is the Government really providing luxury Kensington flats for the survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster? | The Independent

Novocastrian

The flats in question were always going to be social housing. All that's happened is that the developer has promised to make them available by August rather than in October as planned.

Other occupants already knew of the arrangement (or should have known) all along.

Is the Government really providing luxury Kensington flats for the survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster? | The Independent

Shard

It wasn't the social housing aspect that was being debated on LBC but, specifically, whether those socially housed should have access to the premium facilities that were available in the building. Perhaps some of the media is pitching it as pure snobbery, but there is a certain inequity in private residents having to pay high fees for the use of the swimming pool (where 'exclusivity' is essentially what they are paying for) and others having use of the facility at no cost to themselves. However, the case was being made by many that the circumstances/suffering of the victims warranted extra compassion, and that the private residents should be more sympathetic.

Kensington resident tells shocked radio host: 'If Grenfell families move in I'll leave' | London Evening Standard

DandNHill

Absolutely and if you have never suffered loss like that you can't understand what it must have been like / is like.
But I kind of see where she's coming from (don't shoot me). To work hard your whole life to then have be living in the same building as people who might not have worked so hard would appear unfair. Although I'm sure if you were to compare her flat to one of the social housing flats that there's a difference in finish. Also I wonder even if they have the same front door to the building?
A lot of people would make out they are appalled at the what that woman was saying but secretly agree they don't want to live with social housing residents...

Siouxie

Just because they live/d in social housing, it doesn't mean they don't have jobs or work hard; doesn't mean they weren't educated. Social housing is affordable housing - it doesn't mean they haven't been paying for it.

The prices in London for private rental or house purchase are sky high - perhaps affordable housing was their only choice.

I know a couple of people who lost their (very nice) houses due to no fault of their own - one was made redundant and wasn't able to find a similar paying job, the other his wife kept the money he was giving her for the mortgage instead of paying it. Both houses were repossessed. One managed to get another job and is paying ludicrous amounts in rent - they will never be able to own a house again as they can't save enough now for a deposit. The other, after paying maintenance and spouse support couldn't afford to even rent privately.

It can happen to anyone.

bats

Font all of the flats in Grenfell Tower were council let's, some were private and some were privately owned.
Flat 182 Grenfell Tower, Grenfell Road, London, W11 1TQ - Mouseprice

There should generally be a mix of council and private housing. Nobody wants to red rich people ghettoes after all.

mikelincs

The affordable housing is, in fact, a different building.

mikelincs

There has been a fake news story, originally quoted by Metro, that a 6 month baby has been found alive on the 16th floor of the building 10m days after the fire, was on facebook, but that has now been removed, however there will have been plenty of people believing it, especially as the original article said that the news had been posted, on twitter, by the Metro police and the Mayor of London. ALL TOTALLY FAKE. WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS???

spouse of scouse

Because they're FITH.

Engineer_abroad

This is my understanding as well. The social housing was built by the developer in 2 separate blocks on the outskirts of the complex (next to the road I believe) and will not be finished to the same luxury standards as the other buildings. Those housed in the social housing blocks will not have access to the swimming pool, gym or other facilities within the luxury complex.

The only extra money the council is providing is to 1) finish the apartments quicker than originally schedules and 2) furnish them, seen as most people lost their furniture in the fire.

Ultimately who ends up paying will come down to who is at fault for the cladding not meeting the required code.

BristolUK

Accountability you mean? What an odd concept.
(there aren't enough appropriate smileys to express the cynicism I want to convey)

mrken30

It all comes down to money. Dangerous appliances are seen as acceptable by the current administration.

UK safety standards are 'cut to the bone', expert says - BBC News

mrken30

This cladding and PVC windows were banned in 2005 in Scotland for high rise buildings. Seems like the Scots are more advanced in their way of thinking.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40406057