In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 15:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would almost certainly be cheaper and better to demolish and start
again.


I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it to that block.

I wasn't either. It will almost certainly be demolished - even if the
structure is still sound. I doubt many would want to live in a building
with a history like that no matter how well repaired.

There are plenty of examples around where it is more cost effective to
start afresh than do major alterations to the structure.


Once its pulled down they can sell the land for a profit.

And then pay even more for the land needed to replace it. It is
already at the 'cheap' end of K&C.


Replace it?

Of course. The insurance money *must* be used to replace it with suitable
council homes.

The so called affordable housing that private developers claim they will
build in a planning application always seems to somehow shrink in number
by the time work finishes. Certainly did when Boris was Mayor. Be
interesting to see if Khan does any better.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.