NEWS
Private landlords to ‘face action’ over cladding removal The Guardian noted that as of
COMMUNITIES SECRETARY James Brokenshire stated that private sector landlords have a ‘moral imperative’ to remove flammable cladding, with the government considering enforcement; while a director of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) revealed that some private landlords are ‘trying to hide the fact that their buildings’ have the same cladding as Grenfell Tower. The Guardian reported on
Mr Brokenshire’s letter to 60 developers and building owners ‘including some of the UK’s biggest property firms’, in which he explained ‘actions they must take to avoid penalties’ concerning removing dangerous cladding. Companies contacted include Lendlease, Pemberstone, Paddington Corporation and GLA Land & Property, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) releasing the information. As regards penalties, The
Guardian stated that companies ‘could be fined or barred from accessing other government schemes if they do not obey’, and Mr Brokenshire commented: ‘There is a moral imperative for private sector landlords to do the right thing and remove unsafe cladding quickly, and not leave leaseholders to cover the cost.’ He also urged developers to
cover the cost of removing and replacing cladding, warning those ‘who are not acting quickly enough’ that they could face council enforcement action. In June, the government revealed that 156 privately owned high rises were wrapped in aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding, and it ‘expected’ numbers to ‘rise further’, as another 170 private sector blocks’ cladding status was ‘still to be confirmed’. Progress was‘proving slower’
as freeholders argued that leaseholders should pay bills. Mr Brokenshire had stated: ‘Fire and rescue services are working with building owners to ensure
August, 293 private buildings had been found to have ACM, and MHCLG ‘had not been informed’ of action plans for 200. Residents of a range of blocks have been charged for fire safety measures or taken to tribunals to force them to pay for cladding removal. These included Babbage Point
residents are safe now. But I want to see swifter progress in removing unsafe cladding. I have been clear that leaseholders should be protected from unfair costs and we expect the industry to do the right thing. If they don’t, I will continue to explore other routes and I am not ruling anything out.’ A taskforce was set up to help councils identify cladding on private buildings ‘amid growing concern that officials still do not know’, with MHCLG having ordered councils to identify buildings wrapped in ACM ‘by the end of May’. Ministers at that time were frustrated that landlords ‘have not come forward in sufficient numbers’ to confirm cladding types. In July, only two new projects ‘got under way’ in a month, while only a quarter of buildings had plans in place. Of all private buildings with ACM, 23 had started the process of removal by 12 July, ‘only two more’ than by 14 June. Four further buildings with ACM had been identified in that time, taking the total up to 301, with 74% of those with ACM ‘having not informed’ MHCLG of ‘any plans to remove’ it – a small fall from 76% a month before. Around 100 buildings’ status
was ‘still to be confirmed’, with between 3 to 5% expected to have ACM. Only 77 of 301 had provided plans of work at that point.
10 OCTOBER 2018
www.frmjournal.com
in Greenwich; Vallea Court and Cypress Place in Manchester; the NV Buildings in Salford Quays; and Victoria Wharf in Tower Hamlets. A few developers and insurers chose to cover replacement costs after tribunals and loss of value at New Capital Quay and Greenwich Square in Greenwich, and Citiscape in Croydon. Evening Standard reported on
the views of Gary Strong, global building standards director at RICS, who told the Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee that private landlords are ‘trying to hide [the] presence of Grenfell-style cladding’, as they do not want to disclose they have ‘a really expensive problem’, with some ‘very reluctant’ to even have their cladding tested. Mr Strong stated at a meeting of the committee: ‘We know from confidential phone calls we have been fielding in our dedicated team at the RICS that people have said, “We think we have ACM cladding but we do not want to tell the Government about it.” There is an issue there where some of these institutional owners do not want to disclose the fact that they might have a really expensive problem on their hands and they do not really know how they are going to resolve it, either.’ On being asked if owners
were ‘playing it fast and loose’ with safety, Mr Strong said he agreed that ‘there is an ethical and moral issue here’, and noted that RICS believes the problem is ‘much bigger’ in the private sector, suggesting that the number of private buildings with ACM was ‘double the official figure’ of 300
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
