Agenda item

Mark Norris provided members with an update on Grenfell Tower, noting that since the last update, considerable work had been going on at both a local and national level in terms of improving safety in high rise buildings. Members were told that the main focus so far had been on social housing and that 15 local authorities had responded to a DCLG survey which showed that around 50 blocks across the country used for social housing were considered to have unsafe cladding on their exterior. A letter had also been sent to local authorities asking them about private high rise blocks in their area and asking that they complete a spreadsheet and return it to DCLG.

The LGA had raised issues about the cost of surveying buildings and was working to establish what the Government’s expectation was of councils who are able to identify blocks with unsafe cladding. DCLG believed that there were powers under the Housing Act 2004 which would allow or require local authorities to take action when it came to private owners of high rise buildings but a new burdens assessment would need to be carried out.  He stated that it was also vital that there is clarity about what unsafe cladding could be safely replaced with, and that there was a need to ensure that decisions made now would be compliant with future requirements following the review of building regulations.

In terms of the public inquiries, members were told that preliminary meetings would take place that week and that the review of building regulations and fire safety in high rise buildings was likely to be undertaken quite quickly.  The LGA’s work on these issues will cut across a number of Boards.

In the discussion which followed, members made the following comments:

·         Concerns were raised about large, private companies with Kitemark accreditation being able to self-regulate as it was apparent that inferior and less safe cladding had been promoted due its lower cost.

·         While the review of building regulations is critical, members suggested that if the regulations were adjusted, there needed to be a better way of enforcing them and questions needed to be answered about how this would be funded.

·         On building inspections, members said that there was a need to make sure that inspections are regular so that standards were still met after any alterations were made to high rise buildings, including leaseholders’ own adjustments to their properties. Members said that inspections ought to include the checking of fire alarms and fire doors as well as changes within properties.

·         It was noted that regulations for private landlords are higher than those for registered social landlords (RSLs) so the narrative should reflect the need to increase regulation for RSLs rather than bring private landlords’ regulations down to the same level.

·         Resources are critical. Current issues cannot be fixed without the resources to do so.

Decision:

Members noted the update.

Action:

Officers to circulate the terms of reference for the review of building regulations and fire safety.