search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
EXTERNAL ENVELOPE The long road to remediation


Peter Johnson of Vivalda Group discusses the progress being made on remedying the unsuitable cladding on high rise buildings, and the complex issues which have made it frustratingly slow


W


hile the frustrations of architects, contractors and residents alike regarding the slow progress being made on the replacement of faulty cladding on high rise buildings is understandable, and there have been teething problems, the working group led by The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is at least trying to grapple with the complex issues surrounding the replacement task. The Grenfell Tower disaster is now universally acknowledged as the UK’s worst housing failure. In its grim wake, we’ve had the Hackitt Review, then the Moore-Bick enquiry, which is now well into its second phase. In 2020, Housing Minister Robert Jenrick announced a fund of £1.6bn to fix affected high-rise buildings. Then in February of 2021 we saw an additional £3.5bn – meant to kick-start private contractors to commence work on unsafe blocks. Since then, progress from the contractor’s perspective has been very slow. While the funds initially sound impressive, it is now widely believed that the £5bn figure will need to increase significantly (some say tenfold) to adequately ‘make good’ all of the buildings at risk as a result of hazardous cladding.


While the ultimate budget required to fix the 470 plus towers affected by unsafe ACM cladding is still a matter of serious debate, and may need to be increased substantially in the future, this should not be stopping vital remediation projects from moving ahead. So, why are we not seeing the current £5bn fund turning into recladding activity? From our standpoint (sitting between the product manufacturers and the contractors) we know major strides have been taken to overcome most of the practical barriers to the remediation process. Experienced installers, contractors and developers deserve recognition for their role here, but there is still a way to go. So, what


67


are the remaining challenges that are holding back the repairs?


Form fatigue First off, the application process itself is highly complex, making the process to apply for funds slow, expensive and painful. Phrases that have been heard include: ‘’One wrong entry on a page and the application needs to be completely restarted.’’ It is also understandable that there are still significant numbers of project funding applications stuck in the pipeline awaiting further clarification before final approval, or just waiting for that final ‘go’ document. By way of illustration, in May 2021 more than 650 projects were in application with only 22 funded projects either started or completed. However, at the same time the volume of ineligible applications, or ones that were incomplete totalled some 1,400. In this regard it does seem at least that we may well need a simpler application process, and perhaps even more proactive support with the correct completion of this onerous and complex application process.


ADF SEPTEMBER 2021 WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


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  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108