Fire safety costs ‘could still hit development pipelines’ despite £1bn fund

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) said it expects social housing providers that are funding removal work to continue to do so without accessing the fund “so we can prioritise this funding on those who cannot afford the cost, creating a barrier to remediation and safety”.

Mark Washer, chief executive of Sovereign, warned that this approach could see housing associations build fewer new homes.

He said: “I think government has to understand that there will be choices that organisations have to make and building safety has to come first, and that can mean that we’re not necessarily focused on new supply as the one priority.”

Paul Hackett, chief executive of Optivo, said housing associations’ fire safety bills “affect our interest cover ratios, which affect the capacity of the sector to build new homes”.

“There is a really strong case to support housing associations with these costs,” he added.

Kate Davies, chief executive of Notting Hill Genesis, said housing associations “desperately need support to do the work”.

The MHCLG also added that the total £1.6bn investment “will be the limit to the government’s funding for remediation”.

That is despite housing secretary Robert Jenrick saying in January that “there has not been enough focus among building owners on buildings below 18m”.

Minutes previously leaked to Inside Housing indicated that the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) had advised a group of local authorities that buildings’ risk should be assessed on more than height alone.

They record Nick Coombe, lead on the implementation of the Hackitt Review and post-Grenfell fallout at the NFCC, telling London boroughs at a meeting convened by MHCLG: “Buildings should be assessed on risk eg a 17m building with ACM Cat 3 [category three – indicating the most combustible polythene-cored cladding] is clearly more dangerous than an 18m building with no ACM.”

The NFCC is a core member of the government’s expert panel.

The number of buildings with unsafe cladding less than 18m tall is unknown, but there are 100,000 buildings between 11m and 18m in height, compared to just 12,000 taller than 18m.

Pre-Grenfell guidance placed no restrictions on the use of combustible cladding below this threshold, meaning the required remediation work is likely to be substantial.

Darren Rodwell, the leader of Barking and Dagenham Council and executive member for housing and planning at London Councils, which represents London’s 32 boroughs and the City of London, said: “London boroughs urge the government to reconsider the commitment to remediation only on buildings over 18m high when there is still unsafe cladding on buildings below that threshold.”

Clare Norton, executive committee member of the G320 group of smaller London housing associations and chief executive of the Peter Bedford Housing Association, said: “The broad commitment to remove ‘unsafe’ materials is very welcome as this will remove some uncertainty where materials other than ACM pose a fire risk.

“However, how materials are removed from complex buildings which are not tall remains a question, as does whether there is any funding for interim remedial measures.”

The government announcement also suggested remediation work would be limited to buildings with cladding rated Euroclass C or worse. There are many buildings with Euroclass B-rated cladding that requires remediation, but may therefore fall outside the scope of the scheme.