ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

Non-ACM block faces £2m bill despite new guidance

Residents facing a cladding removal bill of £2m have called on the government to go further with its guidance around the removal of cladding to extend to those non-ACM buildings deemed unsafe.

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard

Leaseholders living at the 246-home NV Buildings in Salford have told Inside Housing that government guidance has had no impact on their situation and they still face paying thousands to make their building safe, due to the cladding system on their building being non-ACM.

In an update to parliament last month, housing secretary James Brokenshire said the government would provide financial support to local authorities to remove ACM cladding from buildings and force building owners to cover the costs.

Peter Brown, who is a resident and nominee director of the building’s management company, told Inside Housing: “This new legislation is limited to buildings with ACM cladding – the type involved in the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

“However other cladding systems have been identified as a fire hazard but, unbelievably, so far there has been no attempt by the government to evaluate the severity or size of the danger from other types of combustible cladding.”

He called on the government to extend the guidance to other non-ACM clad buildings deemed unsafe and where leaseholders are facing huge costs.

The NV Building’s cladding system contains EPS (expanded polystyrene insulation) which has been deemed a fire hazard by the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service and in need of removal.

The government has so far focussed on ACM cladding since the Grenfell Tower Fire and latest figures from the government has found that a total of 441 blocks over 18m are clad with ACM, with remediation work having started on 100 buildings.

Analysis recently carried out by insulation manufacturer Rockwool estimated that a total of 2,135 high-rise buildings were high-risk and contained combustible materials on their facades.

The developer of the scheme is Countryside Properties who built the development in 2005. The contractor of the building was Carillion who went into liquidation earlier this year.

A spokesman for Countryside said when the building was built 15 years ago, it complied with all fire and building regulations and relevant approvals.

He added: “While we are of course sympathetic to the concerns raised by residents at NV Buildings, it is the responsibility of the freeholder to ensure that the building complies with prevailing fire and building regulations on an ongoing basis.”

Mr Brown also criticised the government’s guidance for focussing on recovering money from building owners rather than the developers.

He said while the move by the government was a positive step, it did not address the fact that it was developers that built the buildings.

“The government keeps going on about building owners, but building owners are just in most cases financial institutions that have bought the freehold, in most cases they don’t even know what it looks like.”

Residents at the NV Buildings are under a tripartite lease which means residents are not only liable for the re-cladding costs but also must manage the remediation work.

Housing secretary James Brokenshire 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. I am concerned that many are not.

"I have asked the government’s independent expert advisory panel to review their existing advice to inform updated guidance."

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.
RELATED STORIES