Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Private blocks with dangerous cladding double what government thought

Hta chalcots projects 52 0 large
  • 3 Comments

The government has admitted that around 300 private tower blocks in the UK have dangerous Grenfell-style cladding – twice as many as previously thought

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government revealed there were 297 blocks over 18m high wrapped in the unsafe materials, more than double the 138 it estimated previously.

It brings the total number of high-rises with combustible cladding to 470, with the number expected to rise since the cladding status of another 170 private residential buildings has yet to be confirmed.

Yesterday (28 June) housing secretary James Brokenshire announced a new task force to ensure the tower blocks are made safe ‘swiftly’.

But in a written statement to MPs, he admitted that more than a year since the Grenfell Tower fire, cladding has only been removed from 19 tower blocks across both sectors, with works only complete on four of the 297 private buildings.

In his statement, Brokenshire said local authorities had been ’working hard to identify affected buildings in their areas’ and had tested more than 6,000 buildings.

Brokenshire also announced £1 million for the launch of an expert inspection team to ‘ensure building owners take the necessary action’.

‘The safety of residents is my main priority,’ he said, ‘and fire and rescue services are working with building owners to ensure residents are safe now.

‘But I want to see swifter progress in removing unsafe cladding which is why I have announced further action to support councils as they work with owners of high-rise blocks.’

I want to see swifter progress in removing unsafe cladding

While the government has promised to fund the removal of cladding for social housing blocks, it has made no such commitment for buildings in private sector.

It is still unclear who will pay for cladding removal on private blocks, with some building owners passing the costs on to residents.

Brokenshire said: ‘I have been clear that leaseholders should be protected from unfair costs and we expect the industry to do the right thing. If they don’t, I will continue to explore other routes and I am not ruling anything out.’

Earlier this week, The housing, communities and local government select committee said it would be urgently raising safety concerns with the government after certification chief Claire Curtis-Thomas told the committee she was aware of at least 30 buildings that now did not comply with fire safety regulations after the cladding had been removed.

  • 3 Comments

Readers' comments (3)

  • I'm currently involved in the inspection of nearly 70 tower blocks (many privately owned) for external cladding and the results from some are encouraging, but from many, are much less so. A number of current results also conflict with some earlier reports which show 'compliant materials' at the time, which are clearly not compliant now, even though the buildings are unchanged. Solicitors, building owners and leaseholders will undoubtedly argue about costs for extensive remedial works, so whilst 'rectification forthwith' is the outcome of many reports, I dread to think when this will actually happen.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The diversity of contractor, designer, and manufacturer over such a number of buildings must point to either a failure in the building control assessment process or in the manufactures assessment standards. I struggle to believe such a large group of people would all either install wrong or specify wrong.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • MacKenzie Architects

    Complete silence from the insurance sector (buildings insurance), are they hoping the government will pick up the tab?
    Government seems desperate to chuck money in all directions, so maybe they are.

    Interesting the new wording of PII policies as these insurers scramble to avoid any claims related to cladding. Really poorly thought out, shame on them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

AJ Jobs