Industry News


Councils’ powers to remove Grenfell-style cladding ‘useless’


N


ew powers for councils to step in and remove dangerous cladding from privately-owned towers have been


criticised for being “largely useless”, leaving tens of thousands of leaseholders feeling unsafe and facing huge bills. Last November, Housing Secretary James


Brokenshire announced that councils had Government support to take control of ACM-clad buildings and carry out works, where developers and freeholders were dragging their feet or refusing to act. He said this included financial support if necessary and that “Everyone has a right to feel safe in their homes.” But council officials believe that as little as ten


per cent of the affected private tower blocks can actually be tackled by councils and as yet, no councils have used the powers, which only apply to buildings that meet very strict criteria. Instead Gary Porter, chairman of the Local


Government Association, is asking ministers to fund the works directly. Ministers made £400m available to fix social


housing blocks which has proved successful, with remediation works started or completed in over 80 per cent of blocks owned by councils and HAs. By contrast only a fraction of the private blocks identified as using the now banned aluminium composite material cladding panels have been fixed (10 out of 173). The Prime Minister and Chancellor have joined Brokenshire in demanding action from private block freeholders but 22 months on, works


have yet to start on most private residential blocks. The Government has revealed there are as many


as 16,600 flats in private tower blocks that have still not had their dangerous flammable cladding panels removed. Opposition MPs are demanding that Ministers set up a loan fund to be used for removal work, with a date set for all works to be completed and the affected buildings made safe.


LIFELINE NEEDED Suzanne Richards, Manchester City Council’s executive member for housing and regeneration, said: “The current powers government has given councils only apply to limited cases, perhaps only 10 or 20 per cent, where building owners refuse to act. What we now really need to see is for government to step in to offer leaseholders a genuine lifeline, by creating a fund that will pay for cladding works directly.” The crisis is affecting tens of thousands of


households across the country. Councils have to demonstrate problems with


insulation, cladding and firebreaks as well as the presence of an acute fire trigger such as gas supply, and that the building has no waking watch in place for a building to be classed as a category one risk, according to Manchester city council. If developers or freeholders have shown they are


willing to take action, those buildings will not qualify for council intervention, even if that involves passing costs onto leaseholders. The Housing Ministry confirmed that the powers


are only available “under certain circumstances”. It said: “We have been abundantly clear that unsafe cladding systems which do not comply with building regulations must be replaced and leaseholders must be protected from costs. We will also support councils who use the full range of enforcement powers at their disposal to ensure that action is taken by building owners to remove unsafe cladding.” In a more positive development, Housing


Minister Kit Malthouse told MPs that the company providing building warranties for most of the country’s housing has agreed to contribute to cladding removal costs from some schemes. “The government is aware that the NHBC has currently accepted seven warranty claims for buildings with unsafe ACM cladding in England and Wales. A number of these claims include multiple buildings. Further claims are still being considered.”


Toxic contamination found in homes and soil near Grenfell


Highly dangerous chemicals and other harmful toxins have been found in debris and soil samples close to Grenfell Tower, that could pose serious health risks to the surrounding community and survivors of the fire. Research by an expert witness to the inquiry into


the fire, has found a range of toxins with “significant environmental contamination” in a flat 160 metres from the site. Professor Anna Stec said there was now an urgent need for further analysis of the surrounding area to “quantify any risk to residents” over the long term for conditions such as cancer, asthma and other respiratory problems. Her study noted that although many of the


chemicals found in the soil are stable while undisturbed, problems can arise when they come


into contact with the skin through activities such as gardening or playing on the ground. Inhalation of chemicals found in the indoor


samples could also be damaging to health. Housing Secretary James Brokenshire and the


Minister for Grenfell Victims Nick Hurd, wrote to Grenfell survivors and the wider community in late March to confirm the appointment of an independent specialist who will be carrying out environmental checks in the tower’s vicinity. An initial report is not expected from them July at the earliest. Natasha Elcock, chair of Grenfell United, the


survivors and bereaved families group, said Professor Stec’s report was “alarming and hugely upsetting to read”. She said: “Allowing exposure


8 | HMM April/May 2019 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


to the level of pollutants in this report would be criminally negligent even without the horror of what happened that night.” She accused the Government of dragging its heels. “Twenty-one months after the fire, it has yet t o carry out a single soil test or offer a proper health screening programme to the community,” she said. The potential risk of contamination has been one


of the principal concerns for residents and survivors since the fire on 14 June 2017. They have repeatedly asked questions about the potential effects from particles in the plume of smoke and residues generated by the ferociously burning tower. Public Health England has been monitoring air


quality around the tower since the fire. In a report published in early March, it said “the risk to public health from air pollution remains low”. It has also consistently played down the likelihood the fire could have caused serious contamination because of the trajectory of the plume of smoke.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52