The formal consultation phase of the Grenfell Memory Project sought views from the wider Grenfell community and residents across the five wards of North Kensington. Feedback was gathered to help shape and strengthen the proposals, and was compiled into a report.
What the report covers
The report provides a detailed overview of our 12-week consultation, including how it was designed and delivered, the engagement activities carried out, and what the North Kensington and Grenfell communities told us about the five consultation proposals.
The report also explains the steps taken to reach a broad range of people, including groups that are often under-represented. It demonstrates how the consultation met relevant legal requirements, best practice principles, and our commitments under the 2023 Civil Settlement.
You can read the full consultation report (PDF, 930KB) here.
Consultation reach
During the 12 week consultation period, people could take part in many ways, including through questionnaires, events, group sessions and meetings, written submissions, and correspondence.
A total of 614 people participated or provided feedback, including:
- 38 long questionnaire responses
- 395 short questionnaire responses
- 161 participants at consultation events
- 6 formal organisational submissions
- 14 items of consultation correspondence
What we heard about the proposals
The formal consultation sought views on the five Grenfell Memory Project proposals.
Proposal 1: Grenfell Memory Project grants programme
90.1% of survey respondents agreeing with the proposal, including 62.1% who strongly agreed.
More specifically:
- Personal memory grants attracted consistent and often emotionally significant support. The proposal resonated with a widely felt need to acknowledge individual and family loss in a form that the individual - not an organisation or a collective process - could shape and control.
- Grants for young people attracted strong overall support. Young people’s wellbeing - and specifically their mental health and long-term life chances - were consistently identified as high priority concerns. The proposal was seen as timely and necessary, though participants raised substantial questions about scope, age range, and the relationship between this proposal and broader community needs.
- Community resilience grants attracted strong support in principle, but participants attached significant conditions to that support. The proposal was seen as potentially transformative for community organisations that had been sustaining vital work on fragile or non-existent funding - but only if governance arrangements could guarantee that grants reached those who genuinely needed them rather than those who were most skilled at writing funding applications.
Proposal 2: Supporting children and young people through community organisations - residential and day activity programmes
91.8% of survey respondents expressed support overall, including 58.8% who strongly agreed. Residential and day activity provision was one of the most positively received proposals. The idea that Grenfell-affected young people could access dedicated residential and day activities resonated strongly. The programme would be delivered through community organisations.
Proposal 3: Fire safety careers outreach programme
84.7% of survey respondents agreed with the proposal, including 55.8% who strongly agreed. Support for this proposal was strong but notably nuanced: there was enthusiasm for the principle, but concern about the complexities of offering fire safety careers to people directly affected by Grenfell, and the need for careful attention to risk.
Proposal 4: Reducing future tragedies
89.3% of survey respondents agreed with the proposal, including 66.5% who strongly agreed. Support for the principle of using part of the LFB grants programme to fund education and advocacy work aimed at reducing the risk of future tragedies was strong.
However, searching questions were asked about responsibility and resource - who should pay for professional education, and whether community funds were the right vehicle for what participants saw as an obligation of the state and the professions.
Proposal 5: Community Hub feasibility study
85.0% of survey respondents agreed with the proposal, including 57.3% who strongly agreed. The Community Hub Feasibility Study was the most divided proposal. Some participants expressed strong support, identifying a physical community hub as a long-standing and urgent priority for North Kensington. Others were clear that a community hub was not a priority and that funds would have greater impact if directed towards youth activities.
The Maxilla/Grenfell project was referenced as a possible model or anchor by some of those supportive of the idea of a feasibility study and there was a view that lessons learned from previous initiatives should be considered by a feasibility study.
Funding split
80.4% of survey respondents who answered agreed with the funding split across the proposals, although the level of disagreement suggests a meaningful minority of respondents disagreed (19.6%).
Read the full report
This summary highlights the main findings from the consultation. For full details please refer to the full consultation report (PDF, 930KB).
What happens next
We are carefully reviewing and considering what we heard from family members directly impacted by Grenfell, residents from North Kensington and others in the community throughout the consultation.
Our response to the consultation feedback will need to go through the Brigade governance process, which is currently expected to take place in spring 2027. Following the governance process, the London Fire Commissioner will make the final decision, and this decision will be announced publicly.