‘The proof will be in the delivery and the detail’: sector views on government’s response to final Grenfell Tower Inquiry report

Grenfell United, which represents the bereaved and survivors, said the government’s response has made the group feel “frustrated”.

“We need to see real, tangible safety changes – not another list of consultations, reviews and delays,” it said in a statement. 

“The evacuation policy is still ‘stay put’. Single staircases remain. No sprinklers. And no PEEPs (personal emergency evacuation plans) for disabled residents. This is what social housing blocks look like today. And people are still living at risk.

“Ultimately, there is nothing that makes us feel like we’re in a new world where safety comes first.” 

The group pointed to nine recommendations only being accepted “in principle”, raising concerns that they could be “delayed, watered down, or quietly abandoned”. 

The group also raised concerns about the single regulator not taking over testing and certification of products. “Because the biggest reform to this recommendation should have been taking testing and certification away from private companies.”

It said that a “weak regulator won’t change a thing”. “It needs real teeth, real powers, and real enforcement.” 

The group said it hopes the government’s announcement is “more than just paperwork and further chances for private construction companies to water these vital recommendations down”. 

“The proof will be in the delivery and the detail.”

Campaign group End our Cladding Scandal also raised concerns about the proposed regulator not having the power to test and certify construction products.

It added that a green paper on system-wide reform of the construction products regime will “take many months, if not years, before any possibility of becoming law, while more reviews and lengthy consultations will just mean more delays before we see any changes”.

“Labour seems set on following the path of the previous government and is still only offering warm words about putting people at the heart of decision-making, when they know their reforms will not be enough,” the group said. 

It said: “We are still waiting for all industry sectors responsible for this crisis to be held to meaningful account. 

“Innocent leaseholders continue to be on the hook for huge sums to make our homes safe, as the promises to make industry pay have been broken. We are tired of hearing how much more there is still to do while there is so little action on the ground that makes a discernible difference and will deliver lasting change.”

End our Cladding Scandal added that the government’s announcement “makes little difference to the lives of ordinary people who are still trapped across the country in unsafe buildings”.

“If safe housing is truly a fundamental right, then Labour must finally show the impetus and political will to take control and grip this unrelenting crisis, and the focus must be on ensuring people know when their homes will be made safe.”

“The money to fund [cladding remediation] is coming from people on the lowest incomes in this country, and to make matters worse, means fewer homes will be built for those in dire situations on housing waiting lists, living in overcrowded homes and stuck in temporary accommodation”

Kate Henderson, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, welcomed the government’s focus on greater oversight for manufacturers of construction products and higher standards for new homes. 

However, she said that “to date manufacturers of unsafe materials have not contributed to the costs of making buildings safe”.

“Housing associations are doing everything they can to make their homes safe as quickly as possible, however social housing tenants still cannot access government funding to remove non-ACM [aluminium composite material] combustible cladding on their homes,” Ms Henderson said. 

She said the lack of funding is “not only affecting the pace of remediation in social housing” but “forcing not-for-profit housing associations to divert money away from services for residents and building new homes, to cover these colossal costs”.

Ms Henderson added: “The money to fund this work is coming from people on the lowest incomes in this country, and to make matters worse, means fewer homes will be built for those in dire situations on housing waiting lists, living in overcrowded homes and stuck in temporary accommodation.”

She urged the government to “put an end to this unfair funding regime and give for social housing providers and their residents equal access to building safety funding”. 

Commenting on the review announced for TMOs and ALMOs, Eamon McGoldrick, managing director of the National Federation of ALMOs, said the body “welcomes any oversight of any arrangements, delegated or not”.

He said the government has already gathered responses through a call for evidence from ALMOs, their parent councils and TMOs. 

“A questionnaire went out to all of our members from MHCLG with a lot of questions about how the governance works,” Mr McGoldrick said. 

“Certainly the main thing is now welcoming this call for evidence and welcoming any recommendations that government can make to help us all,” he added. 

Louise Gittins, chair of the Local Government Association (LGA), said that the Grenfell Tower fire was a “tragedy which must never be repeated” and that the LGA is “pleased the government has today accepted the inquiry’s recommendations”.

She said: “As we now act on these, it is crucial that councils and the fire and rescue services are closely involved, given the leading role they play in fixing buildings and ensuring residents are safe at all times.”

Grace Williams, executive member for housing and regeneration at London Councils, said: “We welcome action to improve building safety standards and to prevent a tragedy like the Grenfell Tower fire happening again.”

She said boroughs will “continue to work closely alongside the government, the mayor of London, our residents, and other partners to secure the changes we all want to see”.

Florence Eshalomi, chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Committee, welcomed the government’s announcement that it will accept the findings of the inquiry and take forward its recommendations.

She said that the Grenfell Tower fire “highlighted the underlying issue of the stigma faced by those living in social housing, where their concerns were too often cruelly neglected and ignored”. 

“This culture must change, and the government should set out what they will do to ensure that social housing tenants are dealt with respectfully and their complaints responded to,” she said. 

Ms Eshalomi said it “should not be forgotten” that many of the victims of the fire were disabled. 

She said: “To help ensure such a tragedy is not repeated, it is vitally important the government addresses the issue of personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for disabled people. 

“The government needs to set out how residential PEEPs will be made enforceable and how they will ensure disabled people in the private rented sector have the same access to PEEPs as those in social housing.”

Ms Eshalomi welcomed the plans for a new single construction regulator and chief construction advisor. 

She confirmed that the HCLG Committee will be holding a short inquiry to undertake an initial examination of the government’s response to the inquiry and to “explore progress on the wider programme of work around building and fire safety and remediation”.

Mark London, senior partner at law firm Devonshires, raised concerns about whether the government will be able to bring forward legislation for the single regulator later this year. 

He said the intention “seems highly ambitious given that the current Building Safety Regulator is still very much finding its feet”. 

“It will be interesting to see how it intends to achieve this in the autumn when it sets out its plan,” Mr London said. 

Douglas Rhodes, partner at law firm Trowers & Hamlins, raised concerns about the government potentially reviewing the definition of a higher-risk building.

He said that “one of the most notable” accepted recommendations “is that the government has said an urgent review of the definition of ‘higher-risk building’ will be undertaken and plans as to whether the list of buildings subject to the regime should be amended in any way will be set out in summer 2025”.

“Given the difficulties already encountered by the Building Safety Regulator in implementing the regime as originally envisaged, the possibility of reforming the system so quickly after its inception will cause concern across the property industry that further delays and operational difficulties will be encountered,” Mr Rhodes said.

He added: “It is to be hoped that the government will focus its energies on ensuring that the new regulatory system operates properly – and that the Building Safety Regulator is properly resourced – before further reforms are implemented.”

“To help ensure such a tragedy is not repeated, it is vitally important the government addresses the issue of personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for disabled people”

Andrew Parker, head of construction disputes and building safety at law firm Forsters, said the government was “right to accept” the recommendations directed towards it in the report and “take its time to implement the changes”. 

“The industry is already getting to grips with relatively new legislation from the Building Safety Act and navigating the Building Safety Regulator. 

“Too much radical change at this point would create further uncertainty and reduce productivity in the construction industry at a time when the government is seeking to deliver on its growth ambitions,” he said. 

Mr Parker said the creation of a single construction regulator and chief construction adviser is “long overdue” and “should, if introduced properly and in consultation with the industry, be an effective way of reducing the complexity and fragmentation of the regulatory regime”.

“Steps to professionalise fire engineers and assessors is welcome. The main challenge that remains is a severe lack of capacity in the sector which is affecting the pace in which buildings can be remediated,” he added. 

Andrew Bulmer, chief executive of The Property Institute, welcomed the decision to take forward all the recommendations.

He said: “While the introduction of one single construction regulator is a step in the right direction, the slow pace of remediation and the narrow focus on cladding have left many buildings only partially fixed. 

“Thousands still live in unsafe buildings, burdened by unaffordable insurance premiums, the costs of other safety issues, and uncertainty about their futures. 

“We urge the government to implement actions swiftly – accelerating and widening the scope of remediation efforts and putting resident safety ahead of bureaucratic and financial disputes.” 

Nicola John, managing director of Fire Door Maintenance, part of supplier UAP, said the government’s response is a “step in the right direction” but does not go “far enough”. 

“Tougher rules are welcome, but real safety isn’t just about ticking boxes. It’s about making sure the right people are in place and have the skills and knowledge they need,” she said. 

Ms John said fire safety legislation “demands greater detail”. 

“We’re a long way from where we need to be, and the industry doesn’t yet have a clear career path for specifiers, inspectors, maintainers and installers throughout the fire door chain to guarantee that those responsible for critical safety measures have the skills and authority to do their job properly,” she said. 

“The government must go further, act faster, and ensure these reforms lead to real, lasting change. We need legislation that forces the industry to act, not sweeping reforms that lack detail,” Ms John added. 

Andrew Mellor, partner at PRP Architects and technical advisor to MHCLG and the Welsh government on regulations and building safety, welcomed the government’s response. 

“We await consultations and announcements over the rest of this year before we will be able to fully understand the impacts that the further changes will have on the construction industry, but the impacts will again be far-reaching,” he said. 

Mr Mellor said the proposed implementation plan over a three-year period “appears to be realistic”, and the “focus on the existing improvement commitments is very sensible given the existing immediate capacity of the industry and regulators to take on more regulatory change”. 

“Perhaps the Building Safety Regulator will be renamed as the new construction regulator and given additional responsibilities,” he suggested, adding that the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) will “need more resource if that is to happen”.

He said the government “will have to allow time for recruitment in order to enable the new regulator to be able to fully deliver on the commitments” and to “prevent the delays that many are currently experiencing with outputs from the BSR”. 

Gary Strong, head of professional practice at the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), welcomed the government’s response along with a new dedicated construction sector regulator and chief construction advisor. 

“New rules on product safety should further raise manufacturing standards, whilst new laws empowering tenants in the social housing sector will help protect some of the most vulnerable. 

“It is reassuring that the government plans to provide updates every quarter and RICS will support the implementation of these reforms every step of the way,” he added.