Agenda item

The Chair asked Mark Norris and Charles Loft to introduce the update.

Mark said that steady progress was being made on the ACM cladding remediation programme although this was slower on private sector blocks. He added that owners who the Government considered weren’t acting fast enough, were being named and shamed.

Mark said that on the reform side, the MHCLG Secretary of State had made a detailed statement in January and he highlighted three points from this as being of particular significance to FRAs:

1.     The intention to lower the height threshold for sprinkler requirements in new buildings from 30 meters to 11 metres, a measure that FSMC has long campaigned for.

2.     A new building safety regulator would be set up, initially in shadow form, within the Health & Safety Executive. This would happen within weeks.

3.     A new Fire Safety Bill would be published shortly that delivered on the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report.

Mark then asked Charles Loft to speak about the recent work of the Fire Protection Board (FPB).

Charles reminded members that the FPB wrote to both Chief Fire Officers and FRA chairs in November asking whether they were satisfied with the measures duty holders were taking to mitigate risks from ACM cladding in buildings over 18 metres that had yet to be remediated. The letters also asked whether FRS’s had plans in place to deal with a fire in these buildings. All but two authorities had responded to this letter and the two that hadn’t – Greater Manchester and London – had been given an extended deadline due to the number of properties involved. Charles said that this exercise had been very helpful in moving forward fire safety work in these buildings.

Charles reported that the FPB was working with the Home Office to prepare a business case in relation to £10 million of funding that had been made available by the Government to support inspection and assurance work on all 11,000 residential properties over 18 metres by the end of 2021.

Following this introduction, members raised the following comments and questions:

·       Did the naming and shaming just apply to private sector owners? Mark said that it applied to all landlords but that individuals/companies that only owned one or two buildings were not being named as it would readily identify tenants and leaseholders.

·       Steven Adams flagged up the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee Inquiry into progress on remediation of dangerous cladding and said that Lord Porter had been called to give evidence on 23 March.

·       Concern was expressed about leaseholders and owners whose properties had become blighted due to being covered in dangerous cladding. Many were unable to either sell or get insurance for their properties and leaseholders were being asked to pay huge amounts by the freeholder to cover the cost of works. It was considered that the naming and shaming process was contributing to this. Charles said that in his view, the only way out of this situation was for Government to intervene and pay for the work.

·       Concern was expressed about the number of buildings with High Pressure Laminate cladding which, like ACM, was also flammable. Mark said that the LGA had been raising this with Government for 2 years and councils were currently assessing how many affected properties there were in their areas. He added that it was likely to be more than those with ACM cladding.

·       Concerns were raised about the number of skilled professionals that would be required to carry out all the inspection and remediation work. Members considered that there simply weren’t enough qualified people to meet the Government’s deadlines. Mark said that the £10 million for the FPB was going to be in part used as ‘seed funding’ to upskill the workforce. Members then queried whether any of this would go into local authority building control. Mark said that this was yet to be determined. Charles added that the FPB had already achieved a lot in a short space of time and the NFCC was working hard on a plan of action for inspections.

·       The Chair said that he thought it was crucial that the Government was made aware of FSMC’s concerns around these issues and that people were held to account. Mark said that Lord Porter had sent a letter to the Chancellor asking him to allocate more money to remediation of unsafe buildings and he would circulate this to members. It was then suggested that FSMC send a separate letter seeking an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss their concerns. This was agreed by members. Mark added that a roundtable meeting with the Minister was being set up by Luke Hall to discuss the implementation of the Grenfell Inquiry Phase 1 recommendations.

Decision

Members noted the update.

Actions

·       Officers to circulate Lord Porter’s letter to Members.

·       Officers to draft a letter to the Minister from FSMC seeking an urgent meeting to discuss building safety.