Grenfell campaigners have reacted to the “deeply sensitive decision” by the deputy prime minister to demolish the tower block.
Victims’ families and survivors were given the news in a meeting attended by Angela Rayner on Wednesday night.
Grenfell Next of Kin, which represents some of the bereaved families, described it as a “deeply sensitive decision… after a thorough engagement process in person” following an “uncomfortable conversation with uncomfortable truths”.
In a statement on X the group said: “The lack of closure, the continuous discussions and consultations, the retraumatisation of a divisive and painful debate brings nothing to the table except pain and further division.
“We want a discussion about what will go in the Tower’s place so it can be seen and remembered forever. We need to re-imagine a future and rebuild our broken shattered lives and our families.”
The government has previously said there will be no changes to the site before the eighth anniversary of the fire disaster, which claimed 72 lives on 14 June 2017.
It is expected more details will be set out by ministers by the end of the week.
More on Grenfell Tower
Related Topics:
Engineering experts have said that while the tower remains stable, and it is safe for people to live, work and study nearby, its condition will worsen over time and there is no realistic prospect of bringing it back into use.
The latest advice issued to the government in September was that the building, or the part of it that was significantly damaged, should be taken down.
Image: Grenfell Tower pictured days after the devastating fire. Pic: AP
Meanwhile, another campaign group, Grenfell United, claimed Ms Rayner had not given a reason behind her decision during the meeting and refused to say how many of the victims’ families and survivors had been consulted.
In a statement, it said: “But judging from the room alone – the vast majority of whom were bereaved – no one supported her decision. But she claims her decision is based on our views.
“Ignoring the voices of bereaved on the future of our loved ones’ gravesite is disgraceful and unforgivable.”
Image: Members of a support group for the next of kin and families of some the 72 people killed in the Grenfell Tower fire. Pic: PA
Grenfell Next of Kin expressed a different opinion, suggesting the decision by Ms Rayner “must have been difficult” and adding that “all the previous Secretaries of State [for Housing, Communities and Local Government] avoided making a decision despite the harm it did to us and the community.”
Local Labour MP Joe Powell also defended Ms Rayner posting on X that following “intensive engagement with our community… the decision to start planning for the Tower to come down has not been taken lightly”.
What is left of the tower has stood in place since the tragedy, with a covering on the building featuring a large green heart accompanied by the words “forever in our hearts”.
Views have varied on what should happen to the site.
Some of the bereaved and survivors feel the tower should remain in place until there are criminal prosecutions over the failings which led to the disaster.
The final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, published in September, concluded the fire was the result of “decades of failure” by government and the construction industry to act on the dangers of flammable materials on high-rise buildings.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:43
Key takeaways from the Grenfell Inquiry
The west London tower block was covered in combustible products because of the “systematic dishonesty” of firms who made and sold the cladding and insulation, inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said.
He said the “simple truth” is that all the deaths were avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were “badly failed” by authorities “in most cases through incompetence but, in some cases, through dishonesty and greed”.
It would mean a near 10-year wait for justice if anyone is ultimately charged – a period of time described by families as “unbearable”.
The disaster was Britain’s deadliest residential fire since the Second World War and began a national reckoning over the safety and conditions of social housing and tower blocks.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:45
September 2024: Grenfell community ‘brave and hopeful’
Separately, the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission has been consulting on plans for a permanent memorial in the area of the tower.
A shortlist of five potential design teams was announced last month, with a winner expected to be selected this summer to enable a planning application to be submitted in late 2026.
A government spokesperson said: “The priority for the deputy prime minister is to meet with and write to the bereaved, survivors and the immediate community to let them know her decision on the future of the Grenfell Tower.
“This is a deeply personal matter for all those affected, and the deputy prime minister is committed to keeping their voice at the heart of this.”
The government has been accused of “ignoring” the voices of people who lost family in the Grenfell Tower tragedy in its decision to demolish the building.
Grenfell United, which represents some bereaved and survivors, criticised the government’s conduct as “disgraceful and unforgiveable”.
Grenfell United said: “Angela Rayner could not give a reason for her decision to demolish the tower.
“She refused to confirm how many bereaved and survivors had been spoken to in the recent, short four-week consultation.
“But judging from the room alone – the vast majority of whom were bereaved – no one supported her decision. But she claims her decision is based on our views.”
“(The) meeting showed just how upset bereaved and survivors are about not having their views heard or considered in this decision.
“Ignoring the voices of bereaved on the future of our loved ones’ gravesite is disgraceful and unforgiveable.”
The government said the decision is a “deeply personal matter” for people affected by the tragedy and that Ms Rayner is “committed to keeping their voice at the heart of this”.
Image: Concerns have been raised over how many people were consulted over the decision
It has been almost eight years since 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower disaster, the UK’s deadliest residential fire since the Second World War.
There have been discussions over the years about how best to commemorate the tragedy for the decades to come.
Engineering experts have said that while the tower remains stable, and it is safe for people to live, work and study nearby, its condition will worsen over time and there is no realistic prospect of bringing it back into use.
Image: Angela Rayner met with relatives and survivors. File pic: PA
Grenfell Next of Kin, which represents some of the bereaved families, described the move to demolish the building as a “deeply sensitive decision… after a thorough engagement process in person” following an “uncomfortable conversation with uncomfortable truths”.
In a statement on X the group said: “The lack of closure, the continuous discussions and consultations, the retraumatisation of a divisive and painful debate brings nothing to the table except pain and further division.
“We want a discussion about what will go in the Tower’s place so it can be seen and remembered forever. We need to reimagine a future and rebuild our broken shattered lives and our families.”
Image: A wall of condolences close to the tower block. Pic: Reuters
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “The priority for the deputy prime minister is to meet with and write to the bereaved, survivors and the immediate community to let them know her decision on the future of the Grenfell Tower.
“This is a deeply personal matter for all those affected, and the deputy prime minister is committed to keeping their voice at the heart of this.”
Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said the “simple truth” was all the deaths were avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were “badly failed” by authorities “in most cases through incompetence but, in some cases, through dishonesty and greed”.
The report laid bare years of missed opportunities to prevent the catastrophe and how those responsible for fire safety were at risk of being compromised by commercial interests.
Liam Payne’s girlfriend has said his death was a “tragic accident” and he was in “such a good headspace” when she left him in Argentina.
Kate Cassidy was with Payne in Buenos Aires but flew back to the US days before the One Direction star was killed in a fall from a hotel balcony.
She told The Sun: “Love is so optimistic, and you just hope that everything will work out at the end.
“Obviously if I knew, if I could see into the future, I would never have left Argentina.”
The American influencer said she had to get back to look after the couple’s dog, Nala.
“I had a responsibility, we had a responsibility. We had our dog and obviously I never, ever thought this event would occur,” she said.
Cassidy added: “It was a tragic accident and no, I never did think [he might die young]. But, you know, we did have our own separate lives – this wasn’t the first time we have travelled separately.
“I just never thought this would have happened, that it would turn out the way it did.”
Members of a specialist British military unit used lethal force that was not justified in the killing of four IRA men in a 1992 ambush, a High Court judge has ruled.
Four Provisional IRA members – Kevin Barry O’Donnell, 21, Sean O’Farrell, 23, Peter Clancy, 19, and Daniel Vincent, 20 – were shot and killed on 16 February 1992 at St Patrick’s Church in Clonoe, Co Tyrone.
Northern Ireland’s presiding coroner, Mr Justice Michael Humphreys, found that the Specialist Military Unit soldiers who shot them did not have an honest belief in the necessity of using lethal force and that it was unjustified and not reasonable.
The four IRA men were shot dead by the soldiers minutes after they had carried out a gun attack on Coalisland Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) station.
The RUC was the police force in Northern Ireland from 1922 to 2001 and it played a major role in the Troubles between the 1960s and the 1990s.
The special forces opened fire as the men arrived at St Patrick’s Church car park in a stolen lorry they had used in the police station attack.
More from UK
An inquest into the circumstances of the killings opened in 2023.
Mr Justice Humphreys, who is also a High Court judge, said the use of force by the soldiers was, in the circumstances they believed them to be, “not reasonable”.
The judge also criticised the operation, saying it was not planned and controlled in a way to minimise to the “greatest extent possible” the need to use lethal force.
He also rejected the soldiers’ claims that the IRA members opened fire in the car park, saying they were “demonstrably untrue”.
Mr Justice Humphreys went on to say that reports created by the police force in the aftermath, including those provided to government ministers, referred to simultaneous firing and a firefight.
He said these statements were “demonstrably untrue and must have been known to be untrue”.
“The reasons for putting forward such false justifications for the actions of the soldiers are obvious,” he added.
“This, coupled with any lack of proper challenge of their accounts by the RUC investigators ensured there would be no actual accountability.”
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.