It is now more than two years since the Grenfell Tower fire. The government needs to move more quickly to bring confidence back to residents and the cladding sector alike, says Peter Johnson, chairman of Vivalda Group.
Credit where it’s due. James Brokenshire, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, should be commended for the £200m grant he has announced to replace defective rainscreen cladding and insulation on around 167 privately owned, residential tower blocks. On the face of it, it’s good news for the residents and the cladding sector.
However, there remain big questions about how the scheme will work and whether there is even enough money to get the job done. Assuming these two concerns are addressed, contractors and architects alike are still finding it hard to chart a course through the government’s shifting sands of product safety and regulation.
Granted, standard grade ACM (the product type at the centre of the Grenfell tragedy) has now been rightly consigned to the history books of cladding on high rise residential buildings. But this does little to clarify the situation with other popular systems which are currently undergoing government testing,
Bigger cladding issues
In short, grant money is there to replace ACM on private, high rise dwellings, but still there appears to be little strategic guidance or real leadership being shown by the government on the wider issues surrounding cladding and safety.
According to the recent government statement. James Brokenshire’s £200m grant gives building owners three months from May to access the new fund. The announcement is fleshed out more in the parliamentary statement by Brokenshire. Here he says: ‘The fund is intended to provide capital support for the removal of ACM cladding systems, including insulation, as well as the removal and disposal of existing cladding, replacement materials and labour.’
The Brokenshire money is a grant, not a loan – which is good news. However, the devil in the detail appears when you start to consider how private landlords access the funds.
While the scheme describes how leaseholders who have already had to pay for remediation, can access funding, it goes on to imply that funding for major refurbishment works is conditional on them exploring all potential third party claims, The document says: ‘..building owners must pursue warranty and insurance claims and any appropriate action against those responsible for putting unsafe cladding on the buildings, with moneys to be repaid to the Government.’
In terms of process, the statement continues: ‘..we will write to all potential fund applicants by the end of next week (09/05/19) to start engaging them in preparation for formal applications. We will also make funding conditional on the building owner or responsible person agreeing a contract to start remediation works within a set period. We will provide further details on the application process; I urge those who intend to apply to start developing ACM remediation proposals and costings so that applications can be made and processed promptly.’
Then there is the issue of the amount of money put aside to deal with these 167 buildings. Many commentators, myself included, fear that the £200m fund is not nearly enough. I know of a lawyer dealing with three of the affected blocks, who thinks between them they’d take 10% of that fund. Being ultra-conservative, assuming a fund of £5m for each building would require a total grant of £835m. Moreover, what exactly is covered by the grant money? I understand that it does not cover interim measures, but what about the inevitable add on costs, professional fees, and further fire safety or other building defects discovered when work begins?
As has been discussed in much of the media discussion, the scope of the government’s reaction to Grenfell has been is too narrow. While it is now universally agreed that ACM cladding is not suitable for high rise buildings – with calls for it to be removed from all structures – it has since become clear that there are also potential fire safety issues with other types of cladding. Latest estimates suggest this could affect approximately 1,600 buildings in the UK.
Then there is the potential danger posed by combustible insulation, poor fire compartmentation, fire doors not resistant to the required standards, poor fixings and other materials used in various complex cladding systems.
New test programme
As investigations proceed and suspect cladding is removed, new problems are revealed. At the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) cladding forum in early May 2019, the Government’s £200m grant was confirmed, but most resident groups and leaseholders said that any announcement limited to ACM would not deal with all of the problems on their sites. Brokenshire did comment that a testing programme is underway for non-ACM systems, and we should not prejudge the outcome. However, all signs point to the fact that the UK cladding sector is undergoing a seismic shift – and the ground has not yet settled.
Interviewed on BBC Radio 5 recently, Jonathan Evans, chair of the technical committee at the Metal Cladding and Roofing Manufacturers Association (MCRMA), was asked about the potential size of the issue, should Government tests of other cladding materials already in use indicate these materials did not also pass the required fire test.
While there are a reported 433 buildings in England with the same cladding as was used on Grenfell (95 of which have been refurbished), the government has no estimate for the number of buildings that could be affected by other cladding materials currently under the microscope. However, when asked about the remedial cost of both ACM and other materials under review, Jonathan Evans suggested that while £600m had been already committed to deal with the former, this figure could rise to between £2-3bn if all products with potential to fail were to be included.
Given the sheer volume of remedial work required, does the roofing and cladding sector have the skills, manpower and products to satisfy this need? Do we have agreement within the industry about what a safe replacement looks like? And should the industry – as we have recommended, move to total on-site testing of all cladding systems?
There is yet to be a final decision on reforms to Approved Document B (the fire safety part of the Building Regulations), so could we be facing a situation where we install a particular cladding product (currently approved) – only to find standards are raised a year or so down the line?
Brokenshire’s grant is a positive move in the right direction. However, I am not convinced that it will be enough to solve all of the ACM issues we’re currently facing. Then there are the dark clouds hanging over other cladding materials – that require clarity from a safety perspective.
Finally, as an industry we need to consider the realities of delivering the new generation of cladding products – and this will require new innovation, training and skills from contractors and manufacturers alike. Brokenshire’s grant is a good first step, but there’s a long way to go before we truly resolve the problems associated with cladding on high rise buildings.