NEWS Removal ‘slower’ than expected
The NAO report, Investigation into remediating dangerous cladding on high-rise buildings, found that while ‘progress is being made’ in removing combustible cladding from high rise residential buildings in the three years since Grenfell, ‘the pace of works has been faster in some types of building than others’, and progress in the private residential sector ‘has been slower than the government expected’. It noted that post Grenfell, the building safety programme was established by MHCLG, one of its main objects being to ‘oversee and support the remediation of high-rise residential buildings’ with combustible ACM cladding. It has specifically treated combinations of ACM and certain types of insulation as ‘unsafe’ as ‘it understands’ these ‘would be unlikely to meet building regulations guidance’ to ‘adequately resist the spread of fire’. While £400m in ACM funding
was announced in May 2018 for the social housing sector, another £200m was announced a year later for the private sector, but by April 2020 only 149 of the 456 buildings 18m or taller with ‘unsafe’ ACM systems ‘had been fully remediated’, leaving 307 ‘where remediation was not yet finished’, and ‘work had not yet begun’ on 167. In total in April, MHCLG reported
that there were 154 social sector blocks, 208 private sector blocks, 30 hotels, 54 student accommodation blocks and ten publicly owned buildings 18m or higher with combustible ACM cladding. Pace of remediation ‘has been fastest’ in the student accommodation and social housing sectors, but slowest in the private sector, with 66.7% of student blocks and 46.8% of social housing blocks ‘fully remediated’ by April, compared to 13.5% of private blocks. Progress in that sector ‘has
been slower because those legally responsible […] have been difficult to identify and have required more support than expected’,
MHCLG having – by April 2020 – paid £1.42m or 0.7% of the £200m private funding and £133m or 33.3% of the £400m social funding. It believes in turn that ‘all buildings within scope of its funding will be remediated’ by mid 2022, with over 95% of these ‘completed by the end of 2021’. That date is ‘later than the
expectation set’ by former Housing Secretary James Brokenshire in July 2019, when he said: ‘Other than in exceptional circumstances, building owners should complete remediation […] by June 2020’. Whilst this does not take into account the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact, ‘there are early signs’ that it has ‘slowed the pace of remediation’, with up to 60% of projects under way paused by April 2020. At this point in time, the
NAO added, MHCLG has ‘not’ assessed ‘how its timeframe for completing remediation will be affected’. Moving on, the NAO report said that not all buildings with combustible ACM ‘fall within scope’ of the existing funding schemes, such as high rise hotels, student blocks and build to let blocks, alongside buildings under 18m. MHCLG is apparently aware of seven build to let properties taller than 18m with unsafe ACM ‘which are not eligible for funding’. This is because the private
sector funding scheme ‘is designed to avoid the costs of remediation
10 JULY/AUGUST 2020
www.frmjournal.com
being passed on to leaseholders’, and it believes that building owners ‘have a clear legal and financial obligation to pay for remediation themselves’. One of the seven aforementioned blocks ‘has now been fully decanted’, it added. With MHCLG’s independent
expert advisory panel having advised that the ‘most dangerous forms’ of ACM are unsafe ‘on buildings of any height’, it has also warned risks ‘are increased in buildings with elderly and vulnerable residents’. It estimates that there are around 85,000 buildings in England between 11m and 18m, ‘but does not know what cladding systems they have, nor whether there are any care homes under 18 metres with unsafe cladding’.
On that note, MHCLG ‘will begin collecting data on buildings between’ those heights this summer. Returning to the funding and access to it, the NAO report said that building owners ‘must demonstrate they have made a reasonable attempt to meet or recover costs without having to charge leaseholders’ by paying for work ‘from their own resources, or through insurance, warranty claims or legal proceedings’. MHCLG ‘expects’ that it
could take owners ‘several years to recover costs’ from legal proceedings ‘in many cases’, and as of February this year, MHCLG
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
