Industry News


Building safety fund reaches £1.6 billion


been boosted by £1 billion, but doubts persist over whether this will be sufficient. The extra money was included in the Budget and


T


is available to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems. These systems, such as high-pressure laminate, wood and other Euroclass C/D cladding have been installed on high-rise residential buildings across both the private and social housing sectors. This funding is in addition to the £600 million


which the Government made available to ensure the removal of the highest risk Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding of the type that was in place on Grenfell Tower. So far, no extra funding has been made available


for other safety related work, which many experts also see as essential. The list includes installing water sprinklers, improving air ventilation systems, ensuring tower blocks have more than a single means of escape, upgrading the quality of fire doors and so on. The range of works and the price list is growing with the fires at Grenfell and other blocks, showing the vast extent of safety work required. Residents of high-rise blocks across the country


have been campaigning for months to get financial support – initially for cladding removal and replacement. Mental health problems, stress related illnesses and relationship breakdowns are being widely reported, as tenants and leaseholders complain of their plight being neglected. In June it will be three years since the Grenfell


Tower fire. Cladding removal works have progressed slowly, with the private sector particularly badly affected over issues of legal responsibility for the work, its planning and cost. Owners have been particularly badly hit as they have been unable to sell their flats due to mortgages not being available for purchasers. This has resulted in properties being given a zero valuation, with all parties stuck in limbo.


RESOURCE SHORTAGES The new grant funding will be available to remediate buildings in both the social and private residential sectors of 18 metres in height and over, that have the Euroclass C/D cladding systems. It is this combination of risks that experts, including Dame Judith Hackitt, have advised pose the greatest threat to public safety and should be remediated as a priority. But doubts exist as to whether the new money is anywhere near enough to pay for all of the skilled


he Government backed fund to pay for the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding systems on residential blocks of flats has


labour needed to remove and replace the unsafe cladding panels within a reasonably short timescale, of maybe two to three years. On top of this there are concerns over other factors such as the supply of scaffolding, design and inspection resources and testing facilities for new cladding panels. There are also calls for funding to help pay for the remediation of all residential blocks of flats, including those below 18 metres in height, of which there are thousands. The Coronavirus crisis and its impact on the


construction sector is also an unknown factor, with many sites closed down and work at a standstill. It is not known when normal building work will resume, but because of difficulties in physically resourcing projects the Government should be flexible and sensitive in its approach to setting targets for cladding removal to be completed by. In addition many thousands of residents have


expressed their lack of confidence in high-rise living and are determined to move to houses or low-rise blocks of flats as soon as they can. Either way this will not be an easy problem to solve. If the Government had acted more quickly after


it received the coroner’s report following the inquest into the deaths at Lakanal House in south-east London, then much of this pain, death and expense could have been avoided. It will be interesting to see if the Grenfell inquiry investigates the lack of Ministerial action, after it was told to revise building regulations and specifically upgrade fire safety rules. An industry expert has highlighted that the


prioritisation of works needs to also take into account an assessment of the insulation materials in use and how they react with different cladding materials, as well as the quality of cavity fire barriers. These may also need remediating as a matter of urgency. Ministers have made it clear that building


owners of tower blocks and other high-rise buildings remain legally responsible for ensuring the safety of their buildings and residents. In blocks of flats this will generally be the freeholder or their managing agent. Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick has named and


shamed several freehold owners of ACM clad buildings in the private sector, where MHCLG officials consider they have been too slow to deliver remediation schemes. It would be ironic if this prompted Sir Martin Moore-Bick to name Government Ministers and officials who had


20 | HMM April/May 2020 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


opportunities to act after the Lakanal House inquest, but failed to take them.


LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY In the private sector, grants will be for the benefit of the leaseholder owners of flats. The Government also expects building owners who have already committed to pay for the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems on buildings above 18 metres to honour these commitments. Mr Jenrick said: “We know many building


owners in the social sector are already rightly prioritising and taking forward this remediation work. We expect them to continue with this action so we can prioritise this funding on those who cannot afford the cost, creating a barrier to remediation and safety.” In providing financial support the Government is


making clear that building owners have no excuse for not ensuring their residents are safe in their homes. It will also help in the transition to the new regulatory arrangements, delivering positive change in advance of the Building Safety Bill and the new regime of ‘safety case reviews’, recommended in Dame Judith Hackitt’s review. This total investment of £1.6 billion to support


the remediation of ACM and non-ACM cladding systems on private and social residential buildings above 18 metres is meant to be the limit to the Government’s funding for remediation. A MHCLG spokesman added: “The fund does


not absolve industry from taking responsibility for any failures that led to unsafe cladding materials being put on these buildings. As a condition of funding, building owners must pursue warranty claims and appropriate action against those responsible for putting unsafe cladding on these buildings, which will be repaid to government once recouped. “If building owners continue to fail in their


responsibility to remediate unsafe cladding systems, despite this additional funding, the Government will not hesitate to encourage and support enforcement action through local authorities and fire and rescue services using their powers under the Housing Act 2004 and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. “These enforcement powers, including the


changes we are making through the Fire Safety Bill, and additional funding announced for the fire and rescue services in the Budget, will help ensure owners remediate their buildings at pace.”


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