Grenfell Tower survivors to move into luxury block
After a week of living in community centres, hotels and vacant properties, the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire will be rehoused permanently in a £2 billion luxury complex in Kensington.
The government revealed yesterday that it would acquire 68 units, ranging in size from one to three bedrooms, to house the 250 Grenfell residents who lost everything in London’s worst fire in decades.
The luxury units are only two kilometres south of Grenfell Tower, the 1974 building that went up in flames on the morning of June 14, killing at least 79 people.
The units, which are on the market for between £1.5million and £8.5 million, have large spacious rooms and balconies, with access to pools, saunas and gyms.
It is a stark contrast to the Grenfell Tower where families were crowded into subdivided apartments.
The apartments are "all newly built social housing" located in the same Kensington and Chelsea borough, Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said on Wednesday.
It was paid for by the City of London Corporation, the wealthy local authority responsible for the capital's financial Square Mile.
The announcement was made just before British Prime Minister Theresa May apologised for the chaotic failures by local and national governments responding to the fire.
"The residents of Grenfell Tower have been through some of the most harrowing and traumatic experiences imaginable, and it is our duty to support them," Javid said.
"Our priority is to get everyone who has lost their home permanently rehoused locally as soon as possible, so that they can begin to rebuild their lives."
While the housing situation is a relief for many of Grenfell survivors, some of the survivors still have concerns and want questions answered.
"It's all very well in theory, but we need to read the small print," said Alan Crawley, whose mother survived the fire.
"Putting a group of traumatised people who have lost loved ones and all their possessions in the corner of a shiny new building, isn't going to solve the problem in itself. The government should answer the resident's questions first before making these vague statements."