You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
The government must extend its combustibles ban to all existing and planned high-rise buildings, while greater clarity should be provided on plans to accelerate remediation work on private blocks, MPs have said.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has urged the government to bring in a “more comprehensive ban” and extend it to all existing buildings over 18 metres and those currently under construction.
The calls came in a letter from committee chair Clive Betts to housing secretary James Brokenshire, responding to the ban on combustible materials in high-rise blocks, which is due to come into force next week.
Mr Betts said: “We are concerned the ban does not go far enough, particularly in relation to existing high-rise and high-risk buildings.
“It cannot be right that materials deemed too dangerous for new buildings should continue to be permitted for existing residences and other high-risk buildings.”
The letter said that while it was pleased to see action being taken, it believes a ban should cover existing buildings as well as non-residential buildings where there was a significant risk to the loss of life, such as residential homes, hospitals and hotels.
The select committee cited research by insulation manufacturer Rockwool, which found that there were an estimated 2,372 existing high-rise or high-risk buildings which used rainscreen cladding systems, with 90% incorporating combustible insulation.
The government has only identified 457 high-rise buildings with aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding that needs to be removed.
Mr Betts called on the government to provide an estimate on the number of existing and planned high rise buildings with combustible materials in their external walls.
Alongside the combustibles ban, the housing secretary also revealed new guidance for local authorities to increase the pace of re-cladding of private residential blocks.
Mr Brokenshire said the local authorities would get the full backing, including financial support, to enable them to carry out emergency work on ACM buildings.
The local authorities would then be required to recover these costs off the building’s owners.
The committee called for greater clarity on these measures, including whether these would be a discretionary or mandatory obligation for local authorities and who would be liable for costs if local authorities were unable to recoup costs from the building owner.
Last week Inside Housing reported that councils were concerned that the moves by government, which come into force in January, would still end up taking months if not years to play out and ultimately end with building owners passing on the costs to leaseholders.
The letter from the committee called on Mr Brokenshire to indicate what measures he had in place to ensure costs could not be recovered from leaseholders through higher service charges.
An MHCLG spokesperson said: “Unsafe cladding systems which do not comply with building regulations should be replaced and I expect leaseholders to be protected from the costs of such work. We have a systematic programme to see that the most high-risk ACM cladding is removed from high-rise residential buildings.
“I have asked the government’s independent expert advisory panel to review its advice on non-ACM materials to update existing guidance.”
In the days following the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017, Inside Housing launched the Never Again campaign to call for immediate action to implement the learning from the Lakanal House fire, and a commitment to act – without delay – on learning from the Grenfell Tower tragedy as it becomes available.
One year on, we have extended the campaign asks in the light of information that has emerged since.
Here are our updated asks:
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
LANDLORDS
Read our in-depth investigation into how building regulations have changed over time and how this may have contributed to the Grenfell Tower fire: