Agenda item

Mark Norris, LGA Principal Policy Adviser, gave members an update on the continuing work around fire safety in high rise buildings and noted that the LGA had been given a position on two of the six working groups set up following Dame Judith Hackitt’s interim report - the Occupation and Maintenance Group and the Residents' Voice Group.  

The Occupation and Maintenance Group was looking at the responsibilities of the fire service and environmental health officers, and how to balance the conflict between fire safety orders and the Housing Act 2004. The Group was keen that when considering fire safety in high rise buildings, the building is looked at as a whole and that whoever is responsible for fire safety has the ability to exercise powers in both communal areas and inside the individual residences.   

The Group was also considering whether there should be a new regulator for fire safety, what a regulator would look like and who it would be. Members were advised that the Group were considering whether a national, overarching regulator could work or whether there would be a lead agency responsible for fire safety and coordinating activity which would determine whether or not a building was safe.  

In terms of the broader ongoing work, Mark noted that efforts were still being made to identify private high rise blocks with ACM cladding, but that Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) officials had stated that there were a substantial number of blocks they have not yet been able to identify the cladding on due to the sheer number of buildings that needed to be inspected. It was also noted that there was still no clear legal guidance on the powers local authorities have in cases where the owners of private blocks were unwilling to cooperate or on who can compel owners to remove cladding if it is found to be unsafe. An additional £1 million in funding had been made available to local authorities struggling to identify the materials on some of their buildings and officers were due to meet with officials the following week to discuss how that money would be used.  

Members made the following comments: 

·         The cost burden produced by this work was a significant concern for members and while it was acknowledged that the work would be expensive, it was not clear what the overall costs would be. Members were keen for some indication from the Government of how much the work would likely cost overall and whether additional funding would be made available to local authorities and fire and rescue services. It was felt that councils were not able to play the role they wanted to without appropriate funding.  

·         It was noted that obtaining information about privately owned high rises was proving difficult, particularly in relation to ownership of such buildings. It was also suggested that there was a need to look beyond just high rise buildings in terms of inspection and enforcement.  

·         Concerns were raised about issues with supply chains in terms of expertise and materials and it was thought that scarce resources were likely to lead to inflated costs once the private sector began inspecting buildings and replacing unsafe cladding. It was suggested that joint procurement between councils could be useful in an effort to prevent the private sector from outbidding local government in terms of the costs. On the private sector, it was also felt that there was a huge amount of funding potential in private industry and that the NFCC could perhaps lead on joint engagement between the private sector and local government.  

·         Members wanted to see progress from the Government in terms of guidance on which materials were safe and felt the LGA could press harder for this. It was also suggested that a national categorisation or prioritisation system could be established to ensure that the buildings most at risk had cladding removed and replaced as quickly as possible. It was acknowledged that this would not be done overnight but that the public needed to be assured that progress was being made. Members were keen that a list of questions were drawn up and presented to the Government either via parliamentary questions or engagement with MPs.  

·         Members welcomed the letter sent to Dame Judith Hackitt by the Grenfell Task and Finish Group but were concerned that the FSMC's involvement in this was not strong enough. It was noted that there had been disagreements between the FSMC and the Board responsible for housing and building regulations in the past and there was a feeling that the FSMC had been side lined despite representing fire and rescue services across the country. It was suggested that the FSMC should have parity with other LGA policy boards and a better level of engagement with the Grenfell Task and Finish Group.  

·         In terms of a regulator, some members suggested a similar format to the HSE in the short term while a more permanent arrangement was made, and some raised concerns about ensuring that whatever the regulator looks like, it needed to have sufficient capacity and expertise to work effectively.  

Decision 

Members noted the update. 

Actions 

1.    Officers to draw up list of questions to ask the Government on funding and resources, as well as guidelines on what sort of cladding is safe to use.  

2.    Officers to draft a letter from the FSMC Lead Members to be sent to the Fire Minister. 

3.    The Chair to meet with Lord Porter to raise the Committee's concerns about their ability to engage on these issues.  

4.    Officers to share action points with the Grenfell Task and Finish Group.