You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
House builders question fairness of building safety plans, in new letter to Gove
The country’s biggest house builders have raised concerns about the fairness of the government’s building safety plan proposals, saying that the current plan means other organisations responsible for the construction of dangerous buildings can escape without penalties.
The country’s biggest house builders have raised concerns about the fairness of the government’s building safety plan proposals #UKhousingIn a letter to housing secretary Michael Gove today, the Home Builders Federation (HBF) said that it had “strong reservations about the fairness of any solution that might leave many responsible parties entirely out of scope”.
It singled out other parts of the construction supply chain, such as product manufacturers, which it felt also had some responsibility for the country’s building safety problems.
The letter, signed by the HBF’s chair Stewart Baseley, is the latest in a back-and-forth between the government and house builders over Mr Gove’s proposals to fix the building safety crisis.
On Monday, Mr Gove set out his latest ultimatum to builders, stating that they must come up with a fully funded solution that would see them provide “full and unconditional” self-remediation of their own blocks and cover the vast majority of the bill to remove dangerous cladding on buildings above 11 metres tall.
This came after he stated that the HBF’s latest offer came up short of what was required by the government and leaseholders.
The HBF’s initial proposal committed builders to resolve “critical” fire safety concerns on all their buildings above 11 metres, as well as a promise to remove all of its members’ blocks from the Building Safety Fund.
Read more
In the response, the HBF said that while it accepts the position that the ‘polluter pays’, it feels that developers and house builders should not be considered the only polluters and it said placing the emphasis on them means that other polluters could be “free of making any payments whatsoever”.
It pointed to foreign developers, freeholders and product manufacturers as those that could contribute, adding that the current proposals from the government would reduce house builders’ appetites to deliver the same level of new homes.
In addition to questions about the fairness of the fund for builders, the HBF raised two additional points that it said could speed up travel towards a fair solution.
The first of these was for the government to get a better understanding of the scale of the problem, criticising the current desktop work the government had done to get a full picture of how many buildings needed work.
It said that its members provided data to the government on their buildings a month ago for aggregated results, which would provide the closest estimate yet of what work is needed, but was still waiting for the results. It said that it was doubtful of the accuracy of the £4bn figure the government initially published regarding the cost of remediating buildings between 11 and 18 metres.
The body also criticised the government’s progress with ensuring a more proportionate approach to fire safety assessments, arguing that the steps it had made had done little to end the external wall system crisis.
It said that it welcomed the scrapping of the Consolidated Advice Note and the introduction of the “more sensible” PAS 9980 guidance, but that these had yet to usurp the EWS1 form as a way of assuring banks that buildings were mortgageable.
To reiterate this point the HBF, along with the British Property Federation and the Housing Forum, sent a separate letter to Richard Goodman, director of building safety at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, sharing concerns about the lack of progress in determining “a clear and proportionate approach to building safety”.
It said that despite Mr Gove promising to restore common sense to the assessment of building safety, building owners and leaseholders were still reliant on EWS1 forms for certifying building safety status.
The EWS1 form was introduced in December 2019 as a way of alerting lenders on whether a building had dangerous materials. However, it has caused almost paralysis in the flat sale market, due to difficulties obtaining them – and, when they are obtained, the large majority coming back with a negative result.
It was set to be replaced by the PAS 9980 assessment, which was hoped would become more popular than the EWS1 form, but this has yet to be the case, according to the three trade bodies.
The letter said: “Even with new legislation and additional commitments from UK home builders and product manufacturers, without embedding a more proportionate approach and aligning it with the mortgageability and insurability of buildings, it is possible that after even more time and considerable expenditure from all parties, including government, we will see little practical benefit for leaseholders.”
“We share the frustrations of ministers that other actors in the market have not yet adopted new guidance following the withdrawal of the department’s Consolidated Advice Note (CAN). Although well-intentioned, the CAN created well-documented logjams in the housing market.
“This situation demonstrates the importance of ensuring that government guidance and advice on this matter is clear and proportionate. Failures can have long-term consequences for homeowners and the market.”
Sign up for our fire safety newsletter
Already have an account? Click here to manage your newsletters
Related stories
