Five unanswered questions about Theresa May’s promise to fund cladding removal

The government has now confirmed the £400m will be in the form of grant taken from the Affordable Homes Programme, which will be then topped up in the next round of funding to compensate.

But there are many unanswered questions about the policy, here are just five of them:

1. Why has it taken 11 months?

Councils and housing associations have been calling on government to provide help with the funding since a few weeks after the Grenfell Tower fire last June.

The government says it has “listened to what social landlords have been telling us about the cost” of cladding removal, but these warnings have been in the public domain for months.

In August, then communities secretary, Sajid Javid wrote to the sector to say it expected landlords to meet the cost. Since then it has resolutely refused to budge on providing a penny towards the work. Almost a year on from the fire, only seven towers have had the renovation work completed. Surely, given that the money was available, serious questions must be asked over why the government didn’t act decisively and quickly to ensure its removal.

2. Where does the £400m figure come from?

In Camden, removal and replacement works to 10 blocks is estimated to cost north of £50m, while the removal of cladding from three blocks in Plymouth is expected to total £14m.

Obviously each tower block is different and costs vary but taking these examples as indicative, the money would stretch to fund removal work on around 80 blocks.

With (at least) 151 buildings still requiring work, and 54 where work has not even started, the £400m looks more than a little light.

The government has said the money will be in the form of grant, with conditions attached. It is not yet clear what these conditions will be. Neither is it clear how deep the Treasury’s pockets are if the total bill proves much higher than the estimate.

3. Will the government recompense social landlords for work already carried out?

Social landlords have spent tens of millions on removal works to date. There will be cries that those who acted promptly and responsibly are being penalised if there is no option for them to claim back the costs already incurred from the money now available.

It is understood funding will be available to social landlords who have already begun the necessary work, but whether this is to pay for its completion or cover the costs already incurred is not clear.

4. Can the industry cope with the workload?

A lack of capacity among contractors was partly blamed for the glacial pace of removal work back in January, and it is far from clear that there are enough skilled workers and contractors to cope with the scale and pace of the work required. Money, as ever, is only part of the equation.

5. What of private sector blocks?

The risk is no less acute to private leaseholders, with at least 132 private blocks identified as having dangerous cladding in official government data.

Sector figures expect the true number to be much higher, with many buildings as yet unchecked. Leaseholders at these blocks were arguably in an even more difficult situation than social housing tenants, as in the majority of cases their landlords were demanding they foot the astronomical bill for removal.

This remains an urgent, life threatening dispute which no one seems to have any clear idea how to resolve.

In response to this, a government spokesperson said: “We have made clear that we want to see private sector landlords follow the lead of the social sector and not pass on the costs of essential cladding replacement to leaseholders.

“We are keeping the situation under review and ministers are meeting industry representatives shortly to discuss this. We have not ruled out any options for ensuring this objective is met.”