Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE SOCIAL LEGACY OF GRENFELL:AN AGENDA FOR CHANGE
SUMMARYe Grenfell Tower fire was a critical moment in both local and national life. It shone
a spotlight on a series of issues that we were dimly aware of, and yet oen ignored.
e Public Inquiry is vital, but if all we do is address issues of fire safety and building
regulation, we will have missed a pivotal moment. Grenfell is a once-in-a-generation
opportunity to look at what might be wrong with our social fabric and try to fix it.
We need to talk about the Social Legacy of Grenfell.
is report emerges from a series of conversations hosted by the Bishop of Kensington
with local residents, community groups, faith leaders, activists and others towards the
end of 2018 and into early 2019. It seeks to identify an agenda for change within our
society which will be a lasting and fitting legacy to those who tragically lost their lives
at Grenfell Tower on the night of 14 June 2017. e report focuses on identifying the
issues, rather than providing the solutions, and highlighting the factors which should
be given close attention in coming years. ose issues are:
RENEWING DEMOCRACY: finding ways to enable people, especially in more
deprived areas, to have more of a say in issues that directly affect their lives.
HUMANISING WELFARE: the need for culture change in local Councils and
service providers, ensuring that the provision of support services of whatever kind,
is made more relational and accessible.
BECOMING NEIGHBOURS: providing means and motivation in urban areas
in particular, for interaction between different groups divided by income, ethnicity,
or class.
PROVIDING HOMES: ensuring that social housing is given the priority it
deserves and looked aer well, seeing housing less as a financial asset and more as
a secure place for home, shelter and community.
NOTICING FAITH: Recognising the importance of local community
organisations as vital to social cohesion, including faith communities.
The Rt Revd Dr Graham Tomlin
Bishop of Kensington
2
3
INTRODUCTIONe Grenfell Tower fire was a seismic moment in both local and national life. Although
it had a profound and lasting impact on the North Kensington community in which it
happened, its repercussions were felt far and wide. In the days aer the fire, people
came from all over the country to offer help and donate gis, and media from across
the world descended on the area, asking how such a disaster could happen in a
sophisticated, modern, western European city such as London. In the weeks that
followed, discussion raged over questions which the fire seemed to highlight: social
inequality, poverty, immigration, housing, the role of local and national government
and so on. It seemed that for a brief moment, the Grenfell Tower fire shone a spotlight
on a whole series of social issues that we were all dimly aware of, and yet oen ignored.
Aonce-in-a-generationopportunitySince that terrible night, those who died have been identified, families have mourned,
the local community has grieved and tried to come to terms with what happened.
Discussion has flowed over what might need to change in North Kensington, with a
whole ra of consultation exercises taking place by various agencies. e Public
Inquiry has also met for Phase 1 of its investigations, and there is now a long pause
before Phase 2 begins.
e Inquiry was set up to determine “exactly what happened on 14th June 2017,
why it happened, and what can be done to stop something similar happening again.”
In other words, its focus is on the decisions and factors that led to the fire, and its
conclusions will presumably relate to the important themes of fire safety, building
regulations, maintenance of public housing, the use of materials and so on. is is
surely right and proper. To extend the scope of the Inquiry to broader social issues
would risk making what is already a long and complex task even longer and more
complex. Yet if all that we do is to think about fire safety and building regulations,
we will have missed a vital opportunity.
In an episode in the gospels, Jesus was once asked a question about a tower that had
collapsed in the city of Jerusalem, leading to the deaths of a large number of people.
He was asked if this meant that this was some kind of judgment on those who had died.
He answered No: those who died were no better or worse than anyone else, but he then
added one sharp warning: “but unless you change, you also will perish.” In other words,
when such an event happens, it can serve as a call for a kind of national repentance, a
close look at the way we live together, the kind of self-examination that can lead to
significant change for the better. And if we miss that opportunity we are in trouble.
We owe it to those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire to do this work of self-
examination. Many people in the North Kensington community feel that the media
interest has now moved on to other things, while they still struggle with the trauma
of that night and its aermath. Grenfell is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to look
at what might be wrong with our social fabric and try to fix it. We need to talk about
the Social Legacy of Grenfell.
As Bishop of Kensington, I became involved in the response to the fire on the day
itself, in subsequent days and weeks, and in the National Memorial Service
commemorating victims of the fire at St Paul’s Cathedral on the 14 December 2017.
If all that we do is
to think about fire
safety and building
regulations, we will
have missed a
vital opportunity
Grenfell is a once-in-a-
generation opportunity
to look at what might
be wrong with our social
fabric and try to fix it.
We need to talk about
the Social Legacy
of Grenfell
Since then I have remained in touch with many of the local community groups as
well as some of the people and families most closely affected by the tragedy. Between
October 2018 and February 2019, I convened a series of conversations with people
who had been intimately involved with the fire and its aermath, many of whom I had
come to know over the past couple of years. I met with local community group leaders,
survivors from the Tower, the bereaved, nearby residents, groups representing local
migrant communities, faith leaders, community activists, volunteers, local Councillors
and Council employees, mental health providers and many more. I deliberately did not
go beyond that to the many commentators who have looked in from outside, because
this was an attempt to listen closely to those who have been intimately involved in the
local community which had been so deeply impacted by the fire.
I went into each conversation with two main questions in mind: what are the key
underlying social factors that led to the Grenfell Tower fire; and, what are the main
long-term social changes people would like to see as a result of Grenfell? I tried not
to direct the conversations, but to allow them to flow wherever people wanted to go.
My task, and that of my colleagues Tom Jackson and Hannah Gordon who expertly
helped with organising them, was to try to listen, to reflect on what I heard, identify
the key themes and then to try to present that to a wider audience. is report is the
outcome of those conversations, and indeed many more before and since. Its main
aim is not to offer solutions, a blueprint for a better society (although at points,
particular suggestions for practical action will be suggested) but to identify priorities
for us all, whether government, the voluntary sector, statutory agencies, the media or
ordinary citizens, to address over the coming years. It focusses on five themes that
repeatedly seemed to come up as we talked during those winter months.
I am immensely grateful for all those who took part in these conversations and hope
they feel that this reflects the concerns and viewpoints they represented. One thing
I have come to admire is the strength and determination of the local community of
North Kensington and its cohesiveness, even in the most trying of circumstances.
is report comes not with the authority of any particular local group, and I have
deliberately kept anonymous the different voices quoted – it is simply my account of
what I heard and my reflections on it. My hope is that it identifies a programme and
agenda for change within our society which will be a lasting and fitting legacy to
those who tragically lost their lives at Grenfell Tower on the night of 14 June 2017.
4
5
ReNewINgDeMOCRACY
One note that sounded more than any other was the voice of a community that felt
that no-one had been listening. Again and again, we heard that local people felt
excluded from decisions that affected the details of their lives. As one participant put
it: “the key issue at Grenfell is not feeling heard”, or as another said: “fundamentally
people have no say – the local authority doesn’t appear to trust or understand the
local people and so instead simply make decisions on their behalf.” e attitude of
the Council and local government in general was oen experienced as paternalistic
and patronising, with “a lack of genuine listening and understanding.” is sense of
alienation from power, a disconnect between people who lived in the area around
Grenfell Tower and those who were making decisions about their lives is perhaps
reminiscent of the debate over Brexit and the way in which it also shone a light on
many parts of the nation who felt powerless to change their lives and a subsequent
desire to ‘take back control’ – a slogan that perhaps caught the zeitgeist more
effectively than its authors ever imagined. It has led to a breakdown of trust in
authority, which goes back a long way in local memory. Having also spoken to and
come to know representatives of the Council, both elected members and those
employed by it, it is not as simple as saying that the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea (RBKC) is made up of bad people deliberately seeking to ignore the
local community. I have oen heard Council representatives expressing a desire to
connect with the community, yet also striking a note of desperation in knowing how
to do that effectively. Something in our political and local systems seems to prevent
that happening, leading to a dangerous sense of isolation and disaffection. As one
person put it: “e sense of resentment and hopelessness is magnified when the
people with the task of representing you don’t appear to listen.”
ConsultationOne issue that came up repeatedly was consultation and how it happens. One
participant summed it up like this: “ere has been an exhausting amount of
consultation but not one good example of effective consultation.” ere has certainly
been no shortage of attempts to consult with local people. At one count there were
nine official consultation exercises happening in the local area. Yet too oen people
felt that the way it was done was ineffective. Sometimes it simply seemed a pretence:
“at present, consultation appears to be a tick-box exercise. ose initiating the
consultation already know the answers they want to hear and therefore aren’t there to
genuinely listen.” One note oen struck was how the loudest voices oen get heard,
and yet they are oen not the most significant voices that need attention. ose who
are most vulnerable oen remain quiet and their voices are not heard, and a way
needs to be found to enable that speaking and listening to take place. “Good
consultation starts with a blank page” said one person, and oen discussion continued
with the observation that consultation cannot be a one-off exercise so that the box can
be ticked that ‘the local community has been consulted’ but needs a longer-term
investment of relationship building, that develops trust and builds consensus. As the
political theologian Luke Bretherton puts it: “democracy takes time.”
In the lead up to the EU referendum, Michael Gove said that “I think the people in
this country have had enough of experts.” He was perhaps too quick to dismiss the
value of people who have studied their subject well and are a valuable source of
The key issue
at Grenfell is
not feeling heard
Rather than listening
first to experts
on housing policy,
economists or
developers, why not
listen first to those
who actually live in
social housing?
6
wisdom. Yet there is a sense in which he had a point. When it comes to social
housing, for example, rather than listening first to experts on housing policy,
economists or developers, why not listen first to those who actually live in social
housing? Surely their voice is vital in developing good effective housing policy in
future? One positive example noted in our conversations was the voice gained by
Grenfell United, the main group representing the bereaved and survivors. is is a
group of people that have found their voice. Government ministers have at times
consulted them about housing policy, although change is frustratingly slow. e hope
is that, as the recent Shelter report argued, a new forum for residents of social
housing is established which enables them to have a greater say on issues that affect
their homes. ere is still much work to be done to achieve this objective.
RepresentationParty Politics seemed to many to be an obstacle rather than a help to this process.
One view expressed was that to get elected as a local Councillor, you need to become
a member of one of the main political parties, become known in that party, lobby for
support, go through the selection process to be able to stand for election and so on –
a long and laborious process. As a result, many local people who might be excellent
community voices, particularly from immigrant communities who don’t have a long
history with our party system, feel daunted by the prospect and don’t even try.
Another voice within the Council itself argued that the polarisation of party politics
hindered good community change – scoring points against the other side sometimes
seemed more important than getting effective change happening, and in the political
quarrels, the genuine voices of local people go unheard.
A constant plea was for some form of empowerment of local people, both to enable
their voices to be heard and also to be active agents in their own lives, having a feeling
of involvement and choice in the decisions that affect them. While the usual process
was to expect the Council to consult with local people, the prospect was raised of
turning that around – what if local people were consulting with the Council, or those
with responsibility for delivery, to see how best to achieve that. Such a suggestion
obviously raises the question of how a community is enabled to discern and to speak
its own mind. Community Organising as a well-developed practice is one way to
make this happen, where different faith, community and voluntary organisations
come together at a grass roots level to help articulate local community feeling and
advocate for change. It is a way of counterbalancing the market as the only factor in
decision-making, so that people have a say on the issues that affect them, and
ensuring that relationships of trust stand at the core of our social life. One participant
put it like this:
Communities should be working out what they want and then consulting the
Council about how best to achieve this. In order to give the power back to the
community, the Council must see their role as facilitators rather than custodians.
e current structures and mechanisms are not conducive to this… If you devolve
decision making to the local level and then aggregate up to the Council you will
get a much better sense of what is needed.
is is the principle of subsidiarity: the idea that the role of government is not to
make decisions for those ‘lower down’ the social scale, but to enable, as far as
possible and appropriate, smaller, more local decision-making. e role of the
The idea that the
role of government
is not to make decisions
for those ‘lower down’
the social scale,
but to enable,
as far as possible
and appropriate,
smaller, more local
decision-making
7
State is not to dispense decisions from on high but to make possible a properly local
democratic culture where people find the dignity of being involved in the decisions
that affect their lives.
One difficulty voiced about this kind of locally based decision making was the way in
which meetings can be taken over by unrepresentative, strident voices, leaving more
measured, quieter voices unheard or reluctant to take part in what can become tense
and angry exchanges. One suggestion on how to manage this might be the creation
of an overarching, neutral, locally-based authority which has the responsibility of
managing the process of meetings, to put in place safeguards which enable them
to become more constructive.
AgencyPerhaps the main plea in all this was for a sense of Agency. Civil society works best
where people genuinely feel they have a stake and a say in it, where they feel they can
influence the decisions that affect their day-to-day lives and the issues that directly
affect their families, friends and neighbours. is needs profound culture change
within our public organisations, from a paternalistic assumption that those in power
know what others need, to a more devolved form of democratic life. Finding better
modes of representation, hearing the voices of those who currently have felt excluded
through a more decentralised and locally-based democratic process is vital for the
future of our society if it is to thrive into the future.
Civil society works best
where people genuinely
feel they have a stake
and a say in it,
where they feel they
an influence the
decisions that affect
their day-to-day lives
8
HUMANISINgwelfAReBeyond enabling community voices to be heard, there is something else: an urgent
need to help those who provide services, whether housing, healthcare or urgent
charity to connect more effectively with the communities and the people they are
trying to engage with.
AmorepersonalapproachRepeatedly, the experience was recounted of how the provision of welfare to a
vulnerable and hurting community oen felt disabling and condescending. Getting
assistance aer the fire oen meant turning up to an impersonal office, waiting in a
queue and asking for help. As one person told me “it made me feel like a beggar
asking for bread.” As another put it: “we didn’t want money, we just wanted to know
that we were understood.”
At the time of the fire, intended in the most generous way, donations poured in from
all over the country – clothing, bedding, shoes, nappies, food, leaving many local
churches, mosques and community centres heaving with gis. Temporary beds were
set up in sports centres and community spaces. Yet the vast majority of this was not
really needed by survivors and evacuees from the local area. Many emergency beds
remained empty because people le homeless by the fire preferred to stay with
friends or family. Most of it represented the need of people to help rather than the
need of people who were affected, and many of the donations were eventually sold
in charity shops.
Except in the most dire of circumstances, no-one likes to feel like the recipient of
charity. And yet in the rush to help the victims, the way in which that help was
offered, oen pre-packaged, and unrelated to the actual needs of people, le them
as passive recipients rather than active agents in the process of rebuilding their lives.
More generally, people oen spoke about how getting help on housing repairs, benefits,
healthcare or financial advice, always seemed a struggle. Emails went unanswered,
waiting lists were too long, and the help offered impersonal. ere are exceptions of
course and many examples of excellent provision of welfare, yet that oen seemed the
exception rather than the rule. Distrust of the local Council had long been an issue in
the locality, was oen remarked on in the weeks and months aer the fire, and part of
the reason for that is the increasing tendency for Councils like RBKC to sub-contract
services to other providers. Commissioning other organisations to provide services
may be an effective way to deliver them, but it has the unfortunate effect of make the
Council itself feel remote, distant and anonymous. Another factor noted was that over
90% of those who work for the Council do not actually live in RBKC, which made it
less likely that they would know local conditions intimately and be able to address
them from within rather than as visitors from a distance.
RespectingdignityOne key aspect is giving the recipients of welfare a genuine sense of dignity and worth.
e danger is to think of those suffering as a result of a tragedy like Grenfell, or indeed
those in any difficult circumstances, whether of their own or others’ making, just as
recipients of assistance, or victims. en a cycle sets in – people who are treated as
“We didn’t want money,
we just wanted to
know that we
were understood.”
9
victims can feel victimised, and become passive and perhaps even resentful about
their treatment. And as a result they do not get the help that is available.
For example, we were told how when mental health advice was initially offered, it
was difficult to get much traction. I remember going to community meetings where
voices were heard complaining that no-one had offered any help to struggling
people, while knowing the area was awash with people trying to offer such help.
Again there was a disconnect between offers of support and those who needed it.
Men in particular found it hard to admit the need for help with mental health, as
well as people from some ethnic or religious communities who felt the help offered
did not align with their values or self-perception.
A different approach was needed. As one healthcare provider said: “If you empower
people who are in a position of weakness, they are agents of their own healing.
ere was a sense of re-empowerment of community which felt disempowered and
disregarded beforehand.” Again the theme is agency – finding a way for people to
feel they have a stake, a part in the decisions that affect their lives.
OfferingchoiceWith over 200 households needing rehousing aer the fire, RBKC set about the task
of finding them new homes. A sum of money was set aside and a large number of
housing units bought, with a complex system produced to enable people to apply for
the homes they wanted. e difficulty was that the homes on offer were not always
tailored to the needs of the particular families. If you had a disabled grandmother, a
debilitating illness, a large number of children or a special needs child, those factors
conditioned the choice of house you might be interested in, and there wasn’t always
the house you needed in the stock available in the location you wanted to live in.
Perhaps a better approach would have been to set a general budget for each family,
allocate a case worker to work with the family and estate agents to find the house
each household needed. Aer all, anyone buying a house prefers a sense of choice
rather than being limited to a smaller number of options. is was compounded
by the perception oen voiced in the media of the survivors being choosy. e
impression given was that they should be grateful for any charity offered them,
when the reality was that they had lost their homes through no fault of their own
and really should have been given the same range of options as anyone else in their
circumstance, if not more, given the trauma they had been through. It was an
unfortunate example of help offered in ways that oen served to make people feel
they should be the grateful, subservient objects of charity rather than active agents
n their own lives.
In a discussion with providers of healthcare services, we heard a positive story of
this kind of change in approach:
For a brief time aer the fire, it wasn’t about the money. e focus was
instead on how we can engage with the community. Rather than ‘We have
our services, now you come to us’ and focusing on meeting targets; we flipped
the switch and gave up power to allow communities to shape practice for
themselves. We changed from focusing on ‘What we are doing’ to ‘What
would be useful, valuable and relational?’. I gave Resident Associations,
groups of volunteers and churches the keys to our Day Centre building and
“If you empower
people who are in a
position of weakness,
they are agents of
their own healing.”
10
said, “Tell us what you need – feel free to use us or other people as you prefer.”
Power was given to the community for them to lead and decide for themselves.
Our services supported and encouraged them to talk about what the
community might need with a hands-off approach.
Or as another person said, those looking to provide mental health services found
they could not simply say ‘here is what we offer, come and get it if you want it’ –
they had to be more innovative and imaginative in how they made their services
available, “for instance being seen out and about on street corners, the appearance
of ‘Well-Being Pop-Up Café’ stalls and NHS staff standing out with the voluntary
sector in the community. e fact that we had to be more flexible in our approach
and engage physically in the community brought huge benefits.”
RelationshipsnottargetsThe other aspect of enabling a good connection between welfare provision and
those at the receiving end is the need for this to be based as far as possible on
relationships rather than targets. After the fire, numerous charities poured into
the area, generously offering their assistance, yet time and again, the places local
people went to find help was in the places where they already had established
relationships – local community centres, GP surgeries, churches, mosques, legal
advice centres – places that had been around for a long time and would be there
long after the other offers of help had disappeared.
Another striking note was the frequency with which the word ‘family’ was
mentioned. Families were one of the most crucial aspects in the process of healing
from trauma. Families were oen seen as the basic building block of healthy
community. Especially when they are networked with other families, they can
provide a context in which young people can avoid some of the dangers of gang
and peer culture, can learn how to create good relationships and build a sense of
security. Obviously not all family life is healthy, but investment in ensuring the
stability and cohesion of family units will make the ultimate welfare burden less
onerous for the rest of society.
When we met with mental health providers, they described the journey they had
been on from simply providing a service to giving active thought to how it might be
received at the other end. Here was a group of professionals who had learnt they
needed to be more focussed on building long-term relationships rather than meeting
targets or ticking procurement boxes, or as one of them expressed it: “putting
relational effectiveness before pure efficiency”. To give a wider example, one of our
churches in another London borough ran a regular foodbank to which many of the
more vulnerable people in the community came. A visit from a local Councillor led
to the realisation that many of the people who were reluctant to access help at the
Council offices were to be found right there in the church. So the Council started to
send housing officers, benefit advisors, mental health nurses and the like to the
foodbank. Rather than waiting in a queue in a cold and sterile office for an
appointment time with someone they did not know, conversations about housing,
benefits or healthcare could happen in a familiar building over a cup of tea, or a
warm meal, with children running around and the reassuring presence of the local
vicar and well-known church staff around to help if there was a problem. is was a
Council being imaginative in thinking how to enable people to access welfare in a
healthy and positive way. It was welfare with a human face.
11
BeCOMINgNeIgHBOURS
SocialinequalityOne of the themes that the media noticed at the time of the fire and in our
conversations was the extremes of social inequality in Kensington and Chelsea.
is is a borough that contains some of the most expensive streets in the country
as well as some of the most deprived wards in London. It was as if this particular
locality showcased in one small geographical area, the inequalities of wealth and
opportunity that are found across the country.
In our conversations, that sense of inequality was noticed in various ways. One was
educational. In the borough, we were told, 48% of children are educated privately.
Of the remainder, there are some excellent local state schools, and yet a note we
heard oen was that in the league-table, results-oriented world of education, the
successes of the higher achievers was celebrated while the lower achievers were given
less attention. Another strand was racial. As one participant said: “It is five and a half
times more likely for a black man to be stopped and searched by the Police, who use
the smell of cannabis to offer a justifiable cause. Meantime, the Kings Road is awash
with primarily white people using cocaine, but this goes unchecked.” Another was
housing, where the perception was that if you owned property you were able to get
instant access to repairs and renovation, yet if you lived in social housing, it took an
age before complaints were dealt with properly.
Variations in wealth, income, housing and education are bound to exist to some extent.
Yet the extremes are rarely seen so close together as they are in Kensington. e
question at least needs to be asked whether allowing the gap between the richest and the
poorest to grow ever wider is good for our social cohesion. e problem is the social
divide that oen creates, oen driven by fear, which is in turn driven by ignorance. It
was noted by many people in our conversations how rarely people from the south of the
Borough ventured north, leading to a widespread sense of ignorance about each other’s
lives. We simply do not know our neighbours. Even in north Kensington itself, like
many urban areas, there was a great sense of nostalgia for lost community: “there was a
time when it seemed everybody knew everybody – growing up, you knew you had to
behave on the bus because your mum’s friend was watching you.”
TransienceStories abounded of people with roots in the area yet who had had to move out
because of increased property prices, or an inability to pay rising rents:
“e lack of social housing is dividing communities and families
as people are forced to relocate.”
“As properties have become more expensive, people don’t expect
to be able to stay in the area.”
“People feel they are being pushed out and this has contributed
to the breakdown in relationships between people.”
The question at least
needs to be asked
whether allowing the
gap between the richest
and the poorest to grow
ever wider is good for
our social cohesion
“People feel they are
being pushed out
and this has contributed
to the breakdown
in relationships
between people.”
12
is has led to a strong sense of transience in urban life, with no-one staying around
for long, few people putting down roots and investing in local community life and the
resulting erosion of community cohesion. We need to find ways to make urban living
more stable and long-term. People invest in a community when they think they are
there to stay.
IsolationAlongside economic reasons there are cultural ones too. In the words of one of the
participants in our conversations: “People have stopped engaging with each other,
becoming absorbed in their own lives or consumed with the routine of getting up,
going to work and coming home.” A consumerist, libertarian, individualist society
where freedom is understood to mean freedom to do as I choose as long as I don’t
harm anyone else, renders my neighbour at best a limitation, or at worst a threat to
my freedom. It does not give us reasons to care for one another, and as the sociologist
Richard Sennett puts it: “a regime which provides human beings no deep reasons to
care about one another cannot long preserve its legitimacy.”
We learned that migrant communities are particularly vulnerable to this. ey can
oen feel isolated and hidden, cut off from others by language difficulties, casual or
overt racism or other cultural factors. Many young people stay hidden in bedrooms,
playing computer games, reluctant to venture out because going out costs money, or
due to real or perceived threats of violence, or lack of aspiration. When they do, the
visible extremes of wealth and the impossibility of ever aspiring to it in lawful ways
lead some to simply try to take it for themselves, leading to a spiral of conviction and
prison. In addition, tensions can exist not just between rich and poor, but between
different migrant communities themselves, perhaps between older settled
communities and newer ones, exacerbated by the high levels of unemployment,
poverty and overcrowding locally.
As the book of Genesis puts it: ‘It is not good to be alone’. is sense of isolation in
our cities, where we simply do not know our neighbours, and do not take the time
to do so is bad for health, social cohesion and wellbeing in every sphere.
eneedforcommunityIn the immediate aermath of the fire, all the usual social barriers broke down as
people came out of the streets from all over London to do what they could to help.
It wasn’t long before life returned to its usual individualised pattern, yet one of the
remarkable results of Grenfell has been the way in which community groups have
formed, people came together to hold vigils, organise street parties, or raise money.
Volunteers have come from the south of the borough to get involved in life in the
north, and people have become aware of the desperate need for community. It is as
if that brief taste of togetherness that came as a result of the immediate tragedy
reminded people of what they had been missing and what was desperately needed.
One person described the change this new perception worked in her: when she
moved to a new flat, she made a point of knocking on the door of all her neighbours
to introduce herself. A small gesture but the kind of thing that breaks the ice and
begins to allow community and friendship to form.
Several people pointed to the role of local businesses and their potential for creating a
stronger sense of community. If local businesses had a stronger sense of responsibility
“People have
stopped engaging
with each other,
becoming absorbed
in their own lives
or consumed with the
routine of getting up,
going to work and
coming home.”
That brief taste of
togetherness that came
as a result of the
immediate tragedy
reminded people of
what they had been
missing and what was
desperately needed
for and rootedness in the communities they were located in, they could be valuable
agents for change. Businesses that deliberately created opportunities for local
residents, with a vision for local social impact rather than simply profit, would be
important partners for a deeper sense of neighbourliness.
One of the legacies of Grenfell would be a renewed determination to increase our
sense of being neighbours to each other, bound together by a common humanity,
not just tolerating each other but needing each other. On one level it means small
acts, asking questions, striking up conversations, making friendships, being curious
about one another’s lives, even if we are divided by wealth, religion or ethnicity.
On another level it needs to influence decisions about the availability of community
spaces, places where people can come together to form community life, seeing homes
not so much as castles to keep out intruders, but as places of hospitality for others, or
part of a balanced life that ranges between time at home and time spent in more
communal space that can feel like the home of a community.
ere is a fine line between the privacy that many people enjoy about city life and
the need for community. But the latter begins when we genuinely take an interest in
the lives of others rather than just our own: as one participant put it: “You know
when we have a good community when we are disciplining each others’ kids!”
Good communities are made of good neighbours, who are determined not to live
isolated lives, free from any intrusion from others, but actively seek to prioritise
relationships rather than independence.
Jesus Christ taught that at the core of being human is the call to ‘love your neighbour’.
is is not so much an external command to be obeyed, but an indication of how we
flourish as human beings. A society that respected difference, yet placed creating
opportunities for social cohesion before personal independence, being neighbours
before being individuals, would be a healthier and happier place in which to live.
Good communities
are made of good
neighbours, who are
determined not to live
isolated lives
14
PROvIDINgHOMeS
Grenfell Tower was home to over 350 people. Yet somehow it had become a tinder
box, vulnerable to a small fire in a Hotpoint fridge freezer on the 4th floor causing
such a catastrophic destruction and loss of life. It is the task of the Public Inquiry to
determine the exact causes of the fire and who was to blame for the decisions that led
to the disaster, but the fire shone a light on the issue of social housing, how much of a
priority it is, and what is commonly referred to as the housing crisis in Britain.
UnaccountabilityofservicesIn our conversations, housing was a regular theme. e flats in Grenfell Tower were
pleasant and roomy spaces. Most people enjoyed living there. Yet residents of the
Tower and the adjacent walkways told stories of trying to get the Tenant Management
Organisation (TMO) to attend to repairs done to broken down lis, draughty window
frames, or hear concerns about the refurbishments that had taken place in 2016.
ese attempts were oen frustrating, with long delays, emails unanswered and even
accusations of anti-social behaviour. When people did complain they reported being
made to feel that they were the problem. Many decided not to put their heads above
the parapet and complain out of fear of being labelled a trouble maker, being pushed
down waiting lists, risking eviction or a rise in rent, meaning people just put up with
poor conditions. Many felt the TMO to be a “broken model” and residents oen felt
at the mercy of Housing Associations that were felt to be unaccountable. In the past,
when there were local newspapers, these gave opportunities for some public
accountability, but since their demise, there are few effective forums or outlets for
complaints to be heard.
Stigmatisationose who lived in social housing such as Grenfell Tower oen felt stigmatised.
One participant said: “e initial narrative was that the Tower was home to scores
of illegal immigrants. It turned out there were one or two undocumented people,
but the national narrative hasn’t readjusted to reflect this.” In the past there had been
mixed housing, yet with the distance between the rich and the poor getting wider,
social housing was effectively ‘ghettoised’. If you lived in social housing the feeling
you got was that you must be a loser, as successful people all own their own homes
or rent expensive flats or houses. We heard of one family that has been moved 13
times in 17 months, and the mother of the family is now struggling with depression.
e line between modernisation of older properties and gentrification of a local area
is a fine one to discern, but there was a repeated feeling in the conversations of a fear
of a secret agenda to force out poorer people to enable more expensive properties to
be built, what one person called “managed decline of housing estates on valuable land
in North Kensington. is has happened so gradually it has gone unnoticed.”
OvercrowdingOvercrowding was a key issue, whole families living in one bedroom flats, with
nowhere for children to do homework. People who were close to the top of the
waiting lists for social housing in North Kensington have been in uncertainty due to
the understandable priority in re-housing Grenfell residents, leading to local tensions.
A key analysis offered at the heart of this problem was that housing in Britain has
Housing in Britain has
been seen more as a
financial asset than a
place for living, shelter
and for hospitality
Many decided not to
put their heads above
the parapet and
complain out of fear
of being labelled a
trouble maker
15
been seen more as a financial asset than a place for living, shelter and for hospitality.
It is perhaps one of the results of living on a small crowded island where land is
valuable, yet it is said that over 60% of our national net worth is tied up in housing –
far more than most other countries. To secure ourselves for the future we tend to buy
houses rather than putting that money into pensions or investing in local businesses.
As a result, housing prices rise and in places where land is particularly valuable such
as London, housing becomes truly unaffordable. While we all agree everyone should
have access to adequate healthcare, education and a pension, our undervaluing of
social housing suggests we don’t think the same is true of our basic need for shelter
and a place to call home, a place we can assume is dry, warm, safe and secure.
We need to find a whole different approach to housing which sees it not primarily as
a financial asset, but a home. It should be a shelter where people can feel safe, bring
up families, and offer hospitality to others, thus creating the kind of healthy
communities and neighbourhoods mentioned above.
AbroadermixofhousingAccording to many that we spoke to, this would involve a huge investment in good
quality social housing, both to provide homes to those who need them, but also to
reduce the sense of stigma that oen attaches to those living on such estates.
Incentives to fund and enable Community Land Trusts are one way to ensure good
affordable housing, responsive to local needs, that brings agency back closer to the
local level. Another is to seek a revision of the rules on affordable housing to make
it more difficult for developers to avoid providing it and to make it more genuinely
affordable than the current rule that it must be offered at 80% of market rate allows –
in most of London that still renders such property out of the range of most people.
Most London Boroughs have a pretty even spread of social housing, affordable homes
and private housing. In RBKC, there was far less affordable housing than in other
boroughs. e result was a very polarised community with the extremes of wealth
and poverty living so near each other mentioned above. Properly affordable housing
would ensure that middle income people and families can live in areas such as
Kensington & Chelsea and help bridge the gaps between extremes.
A community divided so starkly along economic lines is not healthy. We need to find
ways to enable mixed housing neighbourhoods, where larger and smaller homes,
affordable, social and private housing can be blended together better to enable a
stronger sense of community to emerge.
It should be a shelter
where people can feel
safe, bring up families,
and offer hospitality
to others
16
There was a faith
dimension to the
tragedy”
Churches and other
places of worship are
more successful than
any other social settings
at bringing people of
different backgrounds
together
The existence of
these ‘intermediate
institutions’ in between
are vital for healthy
community life
vAlUINgfAITH
One of the stories that was noticed repeatedly at the time of the fire was the role that
faith communities played. Churches and mosques were among the vital first
responders on the night of the fire, opening their doors and making available space,
immediate support and respite in the crucial early hours and days aer the fire.
Religious buildings became emergency relief depots, places for people to find a
shoulder to cry on, centres for co-ordinating volunteer help. As one faith leader
remarked “there was a faith dimension to the tragedy”. North Kensington is quite a
religious place, with many faith communities present, oen with immigrant
majorities. Many of those who died were Muslims and some were Christians of
different denominations. People needed the space to mourn and lament, and oen
found such space in the many services, shrines and multi-faith vigils that were
offered in the days and weeks aer the fire and of course through the National
Memorial Service at St Paul’s Cathedral and on the one-year anniversary in June 2018.
MeltingpotsIt is significant that three of the main spaces used for public meetings aer the fire
were St Clement’s Church, Notting Hill Methodist Church and the al Manaar Muslim
Cultural Centre. One participant in the conversations noticed how when meetings
were switched from Notting Hill Methodist Church (which was local, familiar and
seen as politically neutral space) to the Town Hall, attendance and participation
dropped, and they became full of representatives of the local voluntary sector rather
than residents.
e role of faith communities as melting pots, bringing together people who would
never usually cross paths was oen noticed. In churches and other similar
communities, people of diverse ethnicities, income brackets, class and age can come
together in a way that happens in few other places in Britain today. is confirmed
the analysis of a report by the Social Integration Commission in 2014, that churches
and other places of worship are more successful than any other social settings at
bringing people of different backgrounds together, well ahead of gatherings such as
parties, meetings, weddings or venues such as pubs and clubs.
OtherlocalcommunitygroupsIf we take ‘faith’ as a broader category, Local community groups, motivated by a
commitment to and faith in local community life, such as the Harrow Club, the
Rugby Portobello Trust and the Clement James centre (closely allied to St Clement and
St James Church) played a particularly important role in the response to the fire and
have continued to be at the very heart of community response. ese, alongside the
faith communities, are examples of the kind of local bodies that are critical for social
cohesion and co-ordination. While the creeping individualism of a globalised
consumerist world can seem to suggest that there is just the individual, the market
and the State, the existence of these ‘intermediate institutions’ in between are vital for
healthy community life and need to be seen as such, rather than by-passed in favour
of statutory services.
Faith leaders recognised that the tragedy had led to closer friendships and collaboration
among them. ey also noticed the benefits that had come from the willingness to take
risks and bringing people together, such as in arranging the Memorial Service at
St Paul’s Cathedral, at a time when emotions were still raw and feelings running high.
Faith leaders has been willing to work together and with the local community to help
enable an event that marked the loss of those who had died, celebrated the local
community and look to the future with the hope that faith can bring.
ResourcingcommunitygroupsYet such groups can struggle to get support and funding. One participant said this:
“e potential that faith communities have is under-recognised and yet they tend to
be trusted by the community. Yet Councils oen have a degree of suspicion towards
faith groups, concerned that they may have a subversive agenda.” Sometimes that fear
comes from suspicion of a proselytising agenda, or religiously-motivated views that
don’t chime with secular assumptions. However a bias against faith or the insistence
that faith groups shed their own identity and convictions while secular groups do not
have to, risks missing the great benefits that faith groups can bring to the task of social
integration. At other times that suspicion is of ‘amateurs’ trying to intervene instead
of the ‘professionals’. Yet if the ‘amateurs’ have the relationships and the ‘professionals’
have the skills, surely positive partnerships between them can deliver local
representation and the co-ordinating of community voices much better.
People of faith do not have a monopoly on goodness. People of all faiths and none
were involved in impressive self-sacrificial action to support those affected by the
Grenfell Tower. Faith communities have work to do in becoming more accessible
and welcoming to those who do not yet belong. Yet local community groups, faith
communities, and churches in particular have for centuries provided, and still
provide an important space for social cohesion and the cultivation of habits of
community building, that we allow to fade at our peril. Much is spoken about the
decline of the Church today. Some of that is due to the fading of belief, but much is
also due to the fact that we do less together. We go to the cinema less oen than we
used to. We tend to drink at home rather than in pubs, which have been closing at a
steeper rate than churches in recent years. If we do not act to support churches, other
faith communities and community groups, we will lose a valuable source of social
capital that holds our society together.
“The potential that faith
communities have is
under-recognised and
yet they tend to be
trusted by the
community.”
Local community
groups, faith
communities, and
churches in particular
have for centuries
provided, and still
provide an important
space for social
cohesion and the
cultivation of habits of
community building
CONClUSIONMany have noticed how local and political debate in our nation is
becoming more polarised and angry. In a very divided society, Grenfell
has much to teach us about the importance of (and steps towards) a more
united and compassionate society.
Imagine a renewed approach to democracy, a stronger sense of agency,
so that everyone felt they had more stake in their local neighbourhood,
and a say in the decisions that affect them. Imagine a new approach to
welfare that worked out not just what to offer, but how those who receive
it can themselves shape the offer and receive it in a way that gives dignity.
Imagine a greater sense of neighbourhood in our communities, where
people had the spaces and the motivation to meet and encounter each
other across social divides. Imagine a new approach to housing that
enabled decent homes for all, space to live and thrive and welcome others.
Imagine a greater recognised role for local faith and community groups,
and the valuable work they do in providing social cohesion. Renewing
democracy, humanising welfare, becoming neighbours, providing homes
and valuing faith would go a long way towards a renewed Britain that
works well for all its citizens and offers the dignity and opportunity to
thrive together that makes us fully human.
e Rt Revd Dr Graham Tomlin
Bishop of Kensington
“This is a very diagnostic and informative analysis of the
Grenfell tragedy, which is crucial for all to understand,
as we deal with the aftermath of that tragedy.”
Abdurahman Sayed, Al Manaar Cultural Centre
“This report provides clear and positive examples of how we might
empower communities, ensure that people play a part in the
decisions that affect them and how we can support each other.”
Clare Richards, CEO Clement James Centre
London Diocesan Fund
36 Causton Street
London SW1P 4AU
Resurgo Trust
St Paul's Place
Macbeth Street
London W6 9JJ
“This report clearly identifies the key factors that the
Grenfell Tower fire and its response highlight for the
wider community.”
Mike Long, Minister, Notting Hill Methodist Church
“This is an excellent paper. It is a unique and honest look into how Grenfell
has created a ripple effect in time. Society can truly turn the Grenfell tragedy
into a positive movement that forces people to step back from their day to
day lives and take note of the issues that could benefit everyone.”
Shahin Sadafi, former Chair of Grenfell United
