NEWS Cladding not yet ‘identified’ on 70% of high rises
AN INVESTIGATION has found that councils nationwide are ‘struggling to identify dangerous materials on the outside of tower blocks’, with 70% still unidentified. Inside Housing reported on its
investigation, which obtained data from 131 councils via freedom of information requests. That data revealed that facade materials for 3,708 of 5,320 towers nationwide ‘have not yet been established’, despite a ‘government deadline to provide the data’ in March. The work was said to be the ‘first step in the government’s efforts to ensure that a range of dangerous cladding and insulation systems are removed from tower blocks’ post Grenfell. However, Inside Housing
noted that ‘with just £4m of funding spread between hundreds of local authorities’, alongside ‘limited powers for inspection and enforcement’, many councils are ‘struggling to get the data from building owners’. Of 1,612 buildings already assessed, councils identified 91 with high pressure laminate (HPL) cladding, 56 with timber cladding and 167 with combustible insulation. Extrapolating this, the news outlet
pointed out that ‘when all the 12,000 tall buildings in England have been identified, the amount requiring remediation work will exceed 2,000’, but industry sources said that the figures ‘look too low to be a genuine reflection of the use of combustible materials’ and particularly insulation. The ‘lengthy and complex legal process’ for councils to inspect building materials means the ‘vast majority’ of data is based on ‘untested responses from owners’. The Ministry of Housing,
Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is ‘already overseeing’ removal of aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding as it was used on Grenfell Tower, with this latest ‘data-gathering exercise’ aimed at helping ‘begin the process of remediating buildings with dangerous materials of other kinds’. Any combustible materials failing
safety tests should be removed, and a range of building owners have begun
privately owned blocks only covers aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding, and residents of flats with other combustible cladding ‘face uncertainty and mounting bills’. The news outlet pointed out that
work, but others are ‘declining to act or are passing on the costs to residents’. Local authority consultant Mark Baigent stated: ‘Building owners are rarely the people who built it in the first place. They probably don’t know the full extent of what’s behind the facade. ‘They may have records from the
developer, but they often don’t. People weren’t really asking these questions before Grenfell. Even where they do, there isn’t any guarantee those are accurate.’
An MHCLG spokesperson
responded: ‘Residents’ safety is our utmost priority and we have given councils funding to identify the cladding used on their buildings – we expect this to be completed without delay.’ The Manchester Cladiators campaign group also demanded action on combustible cladding rather than more ‘well-intentioned words’, in a letter to Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick. Inside Housing reported on the letter, which set out the group’s demands ‘as anger over the lack of decisive government action on all forms of dangerous cladding mounts’. The group represents 30 blocks in Greater Manchester with fire safety issues, and its letter noted that the group had heard ‘lots of well-intentioned words’ but had seen a lack of ‘meaningful results’. One of its pleas was that a building safety fund, and ‘not a loan’, that would cover all cladding types as well as other fire safety issues, was the ‘only fair solution’, as the government’s £200m fund for
12 APRIL 2020
www.frmjournal.com
cladding action groups nationwide have ‘expressed outrage’ at the offer of loans, the letter adding: ‘Thousands of residents live in blocks with [high- pressure laminate], timber and other forms of cladding, as well as a myriad of other fire safety issues. There is currently no solution for these people. Will you work with fire chiefs, freeholders and building managers to develop a new, effective strategy for interim measures and ensure the cost burden does not fall on residents?’ Manchester Cladiators also called
for resident involvement in future policymaking and invited Mr Jenrick to Manchester to speak to residents, stating: ‘The resident voice in decision- making, which Grenfell United have so eloquently called for, remains lost in government. Paternalism still prevails. Politics aside, we are also not convinced the government is being decisive enough or acting quickly enough. ‘Every day that goes by, not only
are thousands of residents forced to pay waking watch bills, but they live in fear that their waking watch will not wake them. That fear, day in and day out, is having a serious impact on their mental health. We have even heard stories of residents considering suicide.’ In response, an MHCLG
spokesperson commented: ‘The government has supported an industry-led solution to manage valuations of high-rise residential buildings. We expect owners to proactively share the relevant information with surveyors and residents and take proactive steps to ensure their buildings are safe as a priority.
‘Building owners should follow
expert advice to ensure any building safety risks are identified and fixed as a matter of urgency to make sure that residents are safe in their homes. Cost should not be a barrier to remediation, and we are working with Her Majesty’s Treasury to address this issue.’
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
