Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Emma Dent Coad: ‘Grenfell changed everything forever’

37864983751 045368a9f1 o

The Grenfell Tower fire revealed how humanity has been sucked out of the planning process. In a specially commissioned article for the LFA, Kensington MP Emma Dent Coad says we must stop talking about ‘regeneration’ and start looking at neighbourhood restoration

It can take me half an hour to buy a pint of milk from my corner shop. It’s not a long way. I don’t have limited mobility. But I live in the kind of neighbourhood where you get into several conversations on the way there, in the shop, and on the way back. Some days this can get annoying, but on the whole there’s nowhere else I’d rather live. If your car breaks down, if you seem fed up, if you’re unwell, there’s always someone friendly you can ask for help. Welcome to North Kensington.

There are places like that all around Kensington – and indeed across the borough of Kensington and Chelsea. And when constituents come to me to fight some local planning application, it is often the loss of these connections, this microcosmic living in their urban village, that they fear the most.

What we’ve seen and heard recently from the Grenfell survivors is precisely that umbilical connection with their neighbourhood. They knew each other. Their children played together, in the walkways, on the landings, up and down the building. Many had lived there a long time. The tower, and the estate surrounding it, was a neighbourhood of families, not only blood family – which can often disappoint – but those they chose to adopt as family. Many were my friends too.

Lancaster West wasn’t perfect – and some of the facilities planned at the outset were never delivered. There should have been shops, a GP surgery and all the other daily essentials. But they were available nearby. There was open space, grass and trees, kickabout spaces.

Then over years came the gradual erosion of the original concept: green lung built over; sports pitches moved away and monetised; no caretakers; anti-social behaviour; management and maintenance done on the cheap. Then finally, the refurbishment of the tower, done to make it look better for the benefit of planned future neighbours, and decidedly not for the benefit of the tower residents.

So what was being planned for the neighbouring Silchester West estate that necessitated this cheap and deadly façade upgrade? Total demolition of around 500 homes to be replaced by ghastly, supposedly Neoclassical, high-rise blocks, with narrow sunless courtyards. So, we asked, at the so-called consultation meetings, are those new blocks right up against the Westway the affordable blocks? Do you know how bad the pollution is around here? Oh, they told us, we haven’t decided who will live there yet.

Because the council and its overpaid planning consultants really think people are that stupid.

It said ‘North Kensington is the future South Kensington’. And they meant it. But these vapid anti-community aspirations went up in flames, along with 72 of my neighbours. Silchester stays. It will now be refurbished.

Good planning and architecture should allow people to flourish

Good planning and architecture should allow people to flourish, to stamp their own character on their neighbourhood. It should be the backdrop to the lives they wish to live. It should not control, define or impose certain lifestyles. But just look at some of our new developments, with floor-to-ceiling windows, curtains closed all day. Airless and windowless kitchens. No intermediate space outside. Why not think about how people live?

So how do we resolve these issues in a post-Grenfell Britain, and post-Grenfell London? The fire changed everything forever, and we must make sure it continues to do so. Let’s stop using that horrible word ‘regeneration’, which for social tenants means demolition of their homes and neighbourhoods, and wholesale decanting or forced removal to cheaper areas. Let’s look at where neighbourhood restoration, in all its many guises, comes from, and how it could be made to work for people.

We have neighbourhood plans, local plans, and we have the London Plan. For all their fine aspirations, and after painstaking consultation, our Kensington and Chelsea local plan is ‘ok’ in many aspects. But then it is subjected to a reductive process by overpaid planning consultants, to squeeze out every last percentage point of profit for their clients.

Residents are reduced to economic units. The finer aspirations for community living are deemed unviable to deliver. The lush parks of the visuals – with omnipresent child and red balloon – are reduced to narrow, featureless paved deserts with a few sad planting troughs. The promised new primary school goes private. The community centre goes out to tender and no GP can afford the rent on the health centre, so they turn it into a private gym.

The guilty party here is the political class which, through ignorance, greed or a genuine and malign intention of displacing low-income families, has given developers free rein.

The humanity has been sucked out of the planning and development process by the voracious demands of the international financial market, and the often sinister intentions of social engineering.

Frankly, the wrong people are in charge. Development Control has become Development Shock Troops.

Who will stop greedy developers building a generation of frankly shitty buildings?

I have just spent a few days in Barcelona, which I’ve been visiting since the early 1970s. Yes, some mistakes were made. But throughout the 1980s I was in contact with David Mackay, Barcelona’s city architect.

He told me over and again, that his job was to give the city back to the people. The little neighbourhood parks every couple of blocks. The pedestrianised Gothic quarter. The transformation of museums and art centres. Barceloneta with its beautifully restored warehouses.

And most exciting of all – he gave the people the sea. Where once railways and industrial areas filled the space between the city and the water, there is now the Olympic Village, miles of promenade, and miles of man-made beach. It was a spectacular and generous gift to the people of Barcelona, which has paid back millions of times over.

So who has the power to deliver such a powerful vision for London? No one. Our dreams have been sold off to the international financial market, and replaced with plans for overpriced vanity bridges, and a competition for the most outrageously anthropomorphic or toy-like tower.

We have a planning process focused on delivery, where we are the slaves of highly questionable viability and profit margins.

God help us – planning consultants are in charge of the future of London.

Planning has become an abstraction. Enough

So who now will deliver the sublime civic spaces, the new or refurbished people-friendly neighbourhoods, providing housing for humans and not people warehousing? Who will demand that new schools should serve the immediate neighbourhood, and that our elders should not – as we are seeing in Kensington and Chelsea – be forced into an elder warehouse in industrial estates? Who will monitor construction quality? Who will stop greedy developer partners building a generation of frankly shitty buildings?

Planning development has become an abstraction, a branch of the international financial market divorced from its purpose. And this has been revealed in horrific reality, with the fire at Grenfell Tower that should never have happened.


I have written elsewhere about how to get the balance right between human need, architectural design, and neighbourhood or building management. I call this theorem ‘Soft, Hard and Plastic’.

Soft issues relate to how people live, what provides a comfortable and convenient environment with everything you need close to hand, satisfying human need. Hard issues encompass the masterplanning and architectural design that delivers them, along with the construction quality which has become a huge concern. And plastic issues relate to building management and maintenance – so often an afterthought – where it should be forethought and planned into the project. Each of these elements should have equal importance.

I first wrote about this in relation to the original concept for Goldfinger’s Cheltenham Estate, the cradle-to- grave project with Trellick Tower at its core, plus nursery, GP, shops, family housing, sheltered housing and a much-cherished residential care home at its heart (shockingly demolished by the council in 2009).

Without this balance between need, design and implementation, and after-care, we are lost. We are shoving people into units, and our elders into industrial estates.

If you want a stark vision of the future, as the impetus for change, come to Kensington and Chelsea and see just how wrong it can get.

We can, and must, do better. And that must be our legacy for the 72 dead, and hundreds displaced and traumatised, after the unforgivable and avoidable atrocity on my doorstep. The fire at Grenfell Tower must be a game-changer. And it’s our job to make sure it is.

Emma Dent Coad is MP for Kensington

Image by R~P~M


Readers' comments (4)

  • The fire should be a game-changer, and (to be quite blunt) the implications for personal liability might see to that, even if some of those most directly involved could be in denial on the specific instruction of insurers and lawyers.
    But what should surely be of great concern is the way in which those outside direct involvement in the Grenfell Tower disaster - the government ministers and civil service who've been criticised for failing to act diligently on the recommendations of the enquiry into the previous Lakanal House fire tragedy - might not be accountable.
    The recent elevation of one of those involved to the peerage surely does nothing to allay fears that there's still the risk of high-level denial of the full story of what enabled this tragedy to happen, and that it could yet balloon into an even greater scandal.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with the general sentiment, but do feel it is unfair to blame the "overpaid planning consultants": They are responding to a policy and regulatory environment which encourages the extraction of maximum profit. Until the deficiencies in policy and regulation are taken seriously, profiteering will remain. Until Local Government services are relocalised (instead of outsourced) there will be limited understanding of local conditions by consultants on all sides who are shipped in. Until Local Government is resourced and enabled to make the proposals rather than merely react to proposals by others, they will remain unable to properly serve their commmunities.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'Let’s stop using that horrible word "regeneration", which for social tenants means demolition of their homes and neighbourhoods, and wholesale decanting or forced removal to cheaper areas.'

    Indeed, but why is the Labour MP for Kensington telling the Architects' Journal, when she has direct access to Jeremy Corbyn, John Healey, Sadiq Khan and presumably the leaders of the Labour councils implementing London's estate regeneration programme such as Lib Peck in Lambeth, Philip Glanville in Hackney, Peter John in Southwark, Damien Egan in Lewisham and John Biggs in Tower Hamlets - to name only the most demolition-happy councils?

    Last August ASH identified 237 London estates that have recently undergone, are currently undergoing or are threatened with regeneration, privatisation or demolition and redevelopment with the resulting loss of homes for social rent. 150 of these were in Labour-run boroughs. Given the secrecy with which councils and housing associations conceal their schemes, there will undoubtedly be many more we haven't identified. Most of them are replicating the privatised management structures, unaccountability to residents and building regulations uncompliant maintenance and services that were in place at Grenfell. Many of them are being supported by funds from London's Labour Mayor. All of them are being carried out in accordance with GLA guidance and Labour housing policy.

    If Emma Dent Coad and the other politicians in the Labour Party that have tried to blame this disaster on the Conservative government's austerity fiscal policies (although without ever explaining how this caused the fire) wish to stop the estate regeneration programme on which Labour's housing policies are founded and which is driving London's housing crisis, she should look closer to home.

    She won't, because estate regeneration is a cross-party programme to which all three political parties in power in London's local authorities have subscribed. Labour's opportunism in turning the death of 72 residents to their own party-political ends at the expense of the truth of what killed them will one day stand high in the list of its betrayals of the people who, against all the evidence to the contrary, continue to believe the Labour Party stands 'for the many, not the few'.

    Simon Elmer
    Architects for Social Housing

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Michael Bach

    Grenfell should be a game changer, not just for construction and management of social housing, but for creating a new social contract/covenant between local authorities and their residents. Residents now want to be involved in decisions that affect their lives and want a place at the table in co-designing new housing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.