James Aufenast

With the release of the Grenfell report, the focus is back on how many buildings still have unsafe cladding, and what to do about it. There are plenty of misconceptions around what can or can’t be used on your external walls of your property, and how you go about checking its safety via EWS1. Here we aim to clear up the most frequently asked questions with a set of comprehensive answers. With thanks to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for supplying these.

 

What is an external wall system?

The external wall system is made up of the outside wall of a residential building and includes the cladding, insulation and fire break systems.

 

What is the EWS1 process and form?

The EWS1 form is designed to be used for residential properties such as blocks of flats, student accommodation, dormitories, assisted living, care homes and Houses in Multiple Occupation. It is not specifically designed for short-term accommodation such as hotels. However, it does apply to an entire building or block, so may be relevant where there is a case of mixed use.

The idea is that a building owner can confirm that the external wall system on a residential building has been assessed for safety by an expert, in line with government guidance – providing assurance for lenders, valuers, residents, buyers and sellers. It was developed through consultation with fire engineers, lenders, insurers, valuers, and other cross-industry representatives.

A qualified professional conducts an initial fire-risk appraisal on the external wall system, before signing the EWS1 form, valid for the entire building for five years.

Originally government advice specified what was required for external wall systems for buildings above 18m. Hence EWS1 was created to ensure residential buildings over 18m tall could be assessed for safety to allow lenders to offer mortgages. Changes in Government advice in January 2020, brought all residential buildings of any height within scope.

Not every building requires an EWS1 form, however. RICS published proportionate guidance for valuers, including criteria that will be used to help decide whether a particular building should need an EWS1 form. Valuers will always need to follow instructions given by their lender clients. The criteria considers the height of the building, the type of cladding and (in some circumstances) how much of it there is on the building. There are also criteria relating to balconies and combustible material. There needs to be a rationale to justify the request of an EWS1 form.

 

Do any government announcements about what buildings are in scope for an EWS assessment render any existing completed EWS1 forms obsolete?

No – the forms remain valid until such time as a new EWS1 form or updated fire risk assessment including an EWS appraisal is completed.

The building owner is responsible for clarifying which EWS1 Form is current, whether the form is still required, or why more than one form was produced. The building owner can refer to the professionals involved or through the firm’s formal complaint handling procedures.

RICS-regulated firms are required to have a formal complaints handling procedure and are subject to regulatory oversight. Where there are concerns over a RICS member or firm’s competence or conduct, these can be raised through the formal regulatory process of the RICS.

 

Does each flat or apartment have to get an individual EWS1 form for selling, buying, or re-mortgaging?

No – each EWS1 form is valid for an entire block or building.

 

 

What is the position in Scotland?

Separate EWS1s can be required on a flat-by-flat basis. The Single Building Assessment (SBA) was published June 2024. This is at pilot stage and includes 105 entries. It will ramp up during 2024 once the specification for the SBA is settled.

The Scottish Government is completing a survey of 11m+ medium and high-rise buildings, and have introduced a Cladding Remediation Bill to help safeguard homeowners and residents by creating a new power for the Government to undertake urgent measures to remediate unsafe cladding that presents a risk to life. The Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament 14th May 2024, is expected to gain Royal Assent and come into force in September 2024. 

In addition, they seek the devolution of powers to introduce a levy equivalent to the UK Government’s Building Safety Levy for England, to ensure the residential development sector makes a fair contribution to the Scottish Government’s costs of the Scottish Cladding Remediation Scheme. To date, the majority of developers have signed up to pledge self-remediation of buildings they were responsible for Developer Remediation Contracts are in progress with each individual developer. So called ‘comfort letters’ regarding individual blocks are also in progress.

The Scottish Advice Note (SAN) v2 was published on 16 December 2022. This provides advice for those responsible for fire safety in residential buildings including building owners/managers/residents groups responsible for determining the fire risk posed by external wall systems on existing multi-storey residential buildings. This is primary government guidance and currently takes precedence over PAS9980 and other guidance. Successful RICS EWS Assessment course completers working in Scotland will be required to register as a supplier with Public Contracts Scotland in order to be appointed directly by the Scottish Government.

The Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022 was amended in June 2022 effectively banning the use of combustible materials in an external wall build up:

Building standards technical handbooks 2022: summary of changes for 1 June 2022 – gov.scot. Regulation 8 is amended to ban the use of combustible materials in external wall cladding systems on dwellings and on other defined ‘relevant buildings’ with a  storey at a height of 11 metres or more.

A Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill confers on the Scottish Ministers powers to identify external wall cladding systems on residential buildings 11m+ that create or exacerbate risks to human life and to address those risks, to establish a public Register to record that a building’s cladding and fire safety has been assessed (SBA) and that remediation works have been completed. Also to enable one or more schemes to be established to require persons in the building industry to contribute towards assessing and remediating dangerous cladding and for connected purposes.

Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill 2024 – final changes and vote

 

What is the position in Wales?

The EWS1 process applies equally to Wales as it does to England. The Welsh Government has published (28 July 2023) new fire safety guidance. The Fire Safety Act 2021 was implemented in Wales, by The Fire Safety Act 2021 (Commencement) (Wales) Regulations 2021. The Building Safety Act 2022 has not yet been implemented in Wales, and no new national regulator such as the BSR has been set up. 

The Welsh Building Safety Fund allows Responsible Persons the opportunity to access support to carry out building safety-related surveys. Further information can be found here.

The Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) is set up to support leaseholders in medium and high-rise buildings affected by fire safety issues in Wales. A LEASE advisor will respond to leaseholders, review their situation, assess if legal support is appropriate and advise on how to proceed. When appropriate, LEASE will act as a referral service to a dedicated legal services provider whose initial advice will be paid for by the Welsh Government.

 

 

What is the position in Northern Ireland?

Northern Ireland cladding remediation funding applications can be processed and delivered through its Cladding Safety Scheme (CSS). In Northern Ireland, the funding will be administered by Homes England as part of the English scheme.

The CSS opened for new funding applications from Northern Ireland applicants on 7 August 2023. The EWS1 Form and process apply equally in N.Ireland.

 

 

What happens if the EWS1 assessment identifies that remedial works are required?

If an external wall system requires remedial work, the valuer takes this into account. Other measures such as the installation of a fire alarm may mean the cladding does not need remediation. A valuation will only be possible if there is clarity on cost of the work and a timeline for works to be completed.

Lenders are unlikely to lend until remedial work has been completed, but some may choose to do so with retentions based on their own risk appetite. The EWS assessment is for the building owner to oversee, but the resulting report and EWS1 form should be available on request to all occupants in that block.

There is funding for the removal of dangerous cladding in all qualifying residential properties over 11m. However, leaseholders may still be required to contribute to the remediation, and clarity on the costs that will be incurred per flat will be required for a valuation to proceed. There is no funding for remediation for blocks below 11m.

 

Does the EWS1 assessment cover fire safety measures?

The EWS1 form assessment is for valuation purposes only. It covers the safety of external wall systems used in residential buildings, determining whether remedial works are required. It’s not designed to assess other fire safety features or risks and should never be used to determine the overall risk of fire to a building.

The person responsible for the building (Responsible Person under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) should have a fire risk assessment (FRA) for the building as this is an independent legal requirement that is already in place and has not in the past commonly incorporated assessment of external wall materials. Note this has changed with the Fire Safety Act coming into force in England and updated FRAs will need to cover the external cladding where this exists.

 

Is an EWS1 Form required on new blocks of flats?

No – a new building should be compliant with current building regulations and guidance at the time of construction. Carrying out an EWS assessment known as an FRAEW in accordance with PAS 9980 is not appropriate. The building owner should be able to supply all relevant certification re building regulations compliance which should satisfy lender requirements.

 

Why are lenders asking for EWS1 forms below 18m?

Changes in Government advice in January 2020 (the Consolidated Advice Note or CAN), at the time brought all residential buildings into scope. The RICS guidance note for Valuers published 08 March 2021 provides information on proportionate criteria where an EWS1 should be required. 

 

Does the PAS 9980:2022 Assessing the external wall fire risk in multi-occupied residential buildings published in January 2022 replace the need for an EWS1 form?

Not at the moment. The code of practice for external walls is for building surveyors and fire engineers who will need to carry out mandatory EWS fire risk assessments on buildings as part of the Fire Safety Act 2021 amendments. Under PAS 9980:2022 – the document which will provide a consistent methodology for carrying out an external wall appraisal – there will still need to be a summary report for valuers and lenders to ensure that the property is safe to lend on and does not have remediation costs affecting value. 

In time, updated FRAs with EWS appraisals will be carried out for all blocks, and RICS envisages there will be no need for an EWS1 Form. PAS 9980 introduced the term FRAEWs (Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls), and all competent qualified trained professionals undertaking this work should now be using PAS 9980. The CWCT have also published guidance to assist professional assessors, see this link.

The IFE and FIA published new guidance on 5 March 2024 to support use of risk acceptability and proportionality under PAS 9980 ‘Proportionality and risk when carrying out FRAEWs to PAS 9980’.

 

What EWS1 Form Option is applicable where there are potential issues with cavity barriers?

Cavity barriers are often an essential part of an external wall construction, so they need to be considered in any assessment of the external wall safety.

The EWS1 form references BS 9991 and Approved Document B for guidance for the design and location for cavity barriers. However, those guidance documents only cover ‘common building situations’ and in cases where the external wall is significantly different from those envisaged by those guidance documents, the recommendations in those documents may not be appropriate or necessary. In those situations, the design should be based on advice from a competent professional and agreed with the relevant approving body. If the external wall construction is then built in accordance with that design, that would be perfectly acceptable.

However, in other situations, investigations into external wall construction may identify situations where cavity barriers are in breach of the recommendations of BS 9991 or ADB guidance and that was not intentional. This could be due to poor design or installation – or both. In those situations there would be a need for a fire engineer to assess the risk level that is created in order to determine whether remedial works are required. In this situation it would not be appropriate to use the Option A approach as that would allow sign-off by non-fire engineering specialists, so the Option B approach should be used (i.e. a choice of B1 or B2 depending on whether remedial works are required).

The typical approach, in summary, should be:

• If site investigations confirm that the cavity barriers are not in accordance with BS 9991 or ADB, but that was due to an intentional design that was developed by competent professionals, and approved by the relevant regulatory body – Option A1 or B1 depending on the presence of combustible materials

 

• If site investigations confirm that the cavity barriers are not in accordance with BS 9991 or ADB and there is no evidence that this was due to an intentional design – Option B1 or B2 depending on whether remedial works are required or not.

 

Are existing EWS1 Forms completed prior to PAS 9980 being published, still valid?

All EWS1 Forms completed to date are valid for five years unless the building owner wishes to commission a new EWS assessment in accordance with PAS 9980. This may or may not result in a different rating in an EWS1 Form. Individual lender policy should be consulted to confirm that forms completed prior to the publication of PAS9980 are still accepted.

When Dame Judith Hackett recommended the introduction of a ‘golden thread’ in 2018, it was to ensure that what happened at Grenfell would never take place again. It was about righting the wrongs of a situation where so much had been overlooked, not monitored or checked.

 

She identified the need for key information to be stored, managed, and available throughout a building’s existence. A tool was required to safely and effectively design, construct and operate them, described as “a robust golden thread of key information” that should be “passed across to future building owners to underpin more effective safety management throughout the building life cycle”, according to Hackett.

 

The UK government accepted Dame Hackett’s recommendations in full. They formed the Building Safety Act, and then the Building Safety Act in 2022. The Health and Safety Executive set up the Building Safety Regulator to enforce this.

 

But despite that, and despite the amount of words used to explain the Golden Thread, there’s still a lack of clarity and some confusion. Who is actually responsible and at what stage? Which documents are required, when?

 

There are three main phases of a building’s life – the design, construction and occupation. The key personnel are shown. Plus when the full plans need to be landed. We’ve built a graphic to make this clearer, and much more. Do let us know what you think, and we hope you find it useful.

 

You can also find more detail from the government’s website.

 

 

We’re at a moment of real opportunity, in a place we haven’t been in decades with so much promise and potential. That’s the view of four leading experts – Catherine Ryder, Greg Reed, Nick Atkin and Geeta Singh, who spoke at a recent Housing Today webinar on the future of UK housing. Between them they own or manage 1 million homes in the UK, giving a valuable vantage point from which to assess the current state of play. But how does the housing industry sell itself to the new administration, and how does it promote the need for change? We have the key insights on what the next few years could look like.

 

Catherine Ryder, Chief Executive, Place Shapers

 

 

A government with an explicit ambition to build more homes, including more social housing is a good place to start if we want to end the housing crisis. We shouldn’t under-estimate the difference that will make. In the short term it may feel like things are not going to change very quickly because of all the challenges we’re facing. But long-term that approach is really welcome. And we do have an opportunity to adapt our relationship to the government. 

 

It’s absolutely vital that we have the support for the building of more homes, including those for social rent. But it’s not just about numbers. It’s about what you build and where you build it. Creating resilient communities where people have access to support and economic opportunities so they can live in a good quality home they can afford is critical.

 

I went to see one of our South Lakes Housing members recently and they’ve opened a new scheme in partnership with Housing England and the local council [pictured, above]. It’s small – it’s not going contribute hugely to the numbers, but it’s Passivhaus and it’s beautiful. Two streets face one another, with a communal space in the middle. Creating resilient communities where people have access to support and economic opportunities so they can live in a good quality home they can afford is vital.

 

Funding for regeneration will be critical if we are to respond to the housing crisis. For too long we’ve been piecing together regeneration funding to improve existing homes. It’s too difficult, it takes too long, and it means some areas drop further behind. We need a system that responds to these challenges individually rather than one size that fits all. So it’s great that devolution is being talked about. Having local areas with more say on how they spend their money could be truly transformational. 

 

But we need an answer in the places Angela Rayner referred to as ‘devolution deserts’. Problems come when there isn’t a combined authority, and not much chance of one. The government needs to look at mechanisms for encouraging places to develop strategies to solve crises locally and across neighbouring local authority boundaries. Devolution will take time to get right and there’s more the government can do to bring funding schemes together and extend flexibility in the Affordable Housing Programme. Then we can spend on regeneration. The challenge for us as a sector is how we measure outcomes beyond the number of new homes we’ve built. It may be difficult to do this in a way that is compelling for the government.

 

It’s great that the Labour manifesto mentions the housing association sector because we can play such a part in the challenges facing this country. Our members work in places where they’ve seen first hand the decline in local authority capacity, and where few other organisations are investing in the area or are committed to its long term progress. We have the infrastructure on the ground and many of our members are filling the gap left behind by others. 

 

But we’ve got a whole bunch of other priorities and challenges to deal with, which limits how far we can step in. Who we house is changing because of the shortage of social housing. That means only the people right at the top of the waiting list can access it. And there will be consequences if we don’t build more social housing. We work with communities to ease entrenched poverty and get people back into work. My worry is that unless the government starts thinking about the type of support the sector needs, some of those things might be at risk. A long-term rent settlement, higher grant rate, funding for building safety: all of those things will help but they need to come soon and be comprehensive. 

 

So my question is: how do we make a case for these interventions that doesn’t sound like pleading? How can we make a case to a government that already has a long to-do list? As a sector we need to show specifically what is at risk and how we can help the government meet its ambitions. Of course our role in economic growth and building new homes is important, but for us at Place Shapers it’s not the whole story. It’s how the sector can respond to the challenges presented by those areas that have been forgotten about.

 

Greg Reed, Chief Executive, Places for People

 

 

The new government feels like a step change politically, bringing opportunities for the sector and the country. It’s very exciting, you can feel it in the air. So, yes I’m delighted to see a prioritisation of house building. There have been a lot of barriers in the way for a long time. Now we need to see the government put their words into action and create the national change that has been promised. 

 

The crisis we face at the moment isn’t new – it’s been 30 years in the making. More people than ever are homeless. There are fewer affordable homes, and social housing lists are too long. So we support the sector’s call to build 90,000 new social homes a year. But what do we need to enable this?

 

First off, money. The rent cuts and impacts of the Osborne years have devastated the sector. I’d have £15m more funding to spend this year if they hadn’t happened and I could have built more housing. That’s why we need a rent settlement over a decent period of time so that people funding our business can see that we’re stable. It has to be agreed and stuck with. And we require land. Labour plans to help with that, but we need to deliver homes with infrastructure.

 

Local planning authorities have to provide their own local plans. Only 1 in 5 have done so in the past five years. That has to change, and national government should enable that to happen. Parkhill is a case in point. Net additionality requirements forced us to take over 20 years and use up a huge amount of money just to bring it back to life. A little help from the government along the way would have made a huge difference.

 

And finally, I had no idea I’d talk about planning so much when I took the job. But there’s a big pipeline. We have 15,000 homes ready to go. We want to do more and it’s vital that these are delivered. The last time 1.5m houses were built in five years was back in the 1970s before the planning laws were invented. It’s a bit of back to the future that’s needed.

 

Nick Atkin, Chief Executive, Yorkshire Housing

 

 

We’ve been on a rollercoaster. At the recent general election, housing was number four in voter priorities. It was 10th in 2019. So it’s important to remember where we were and how quickly the world can change. As much as I love rollercoasters, however, we need to get off this one and have a clear long-term plan instead that spans more than one electoral term.

 

One of the key ways to get that long-term certainty is to reclassify investment in housing. It could be moved out of the comprehensive spending review and viewed in the same way as major infrastructure projects such as road and rail. At the stroke of a pen that would remove that rollercoaster effect of supply and funding. 

 

We also need to think not just about building, but also our existing homes. The government looks to be keen on retrofitting and improving carbon credentials. Homes in the UK emit about 28% of all carbon emissions and one in six homes are socially rented. So we represent the fastest and easiest route to decarbonising the UK’s housing stock.

 

But it’s all underpinned by government finances though a growing economy. If you listen to Rachel Reeves, all funding programmes are predicated on that growth. We know the metrics, we know the multipliers around what you get when you invest in new and existing homes. So we can be a part of this kickstarting of the UK economy. To do that we need certainly over income streams and the removal of uncertainty over future rent settlements. The Labour manifesto talks about rebuilding capacity in the housing business plan, something I’ve never seen in my career. 

 

Finally, the regions are key. We have three mayors in Yorkshire, and are about to have a fourth prior to making our bid for independence. That’s a joke, by the way. But we need to tailor our offer to regional priorities. We have a good track record of devolution in Yorkshire, so we can support others in need of local solutions. And we have to be clear about regeneration. We can demolish homes that have come to the end of their natural life and replace them with something more fit for purpose, but we have to be honest about the fact that this has an impact on net supply. One reason we’re haemorrhaging so much social housing is Right to Buy. If it’s mooted that the government is proposing to bring back Help to Buy, then we can change Right to Buy at the same time. 

 

Right now we’re in a place that we’ve longed to be for decades. We have the ear of the government but there’s a real risk of over-promising. We have to be clear about what our offer is and what our asks are going to be. 

 

Geeta Nanda, Chief Executive, Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

 

 

What’s fantastic is that we now have a government that’s willing to engage. So as delivery partners we now have to come up with solutions. We have to speak coherently as a sector, with clear messaging.

 

But in London we require people to deliver the plans. It’s great that the government is talking about planning officers but in my work I face building control and a long time to sign off high rise buildings. We have a skills shortage. We can unblock planning, but that means nothing if the people aren’t there to build. We’ve had building safety, net zero, an ageing workforce and lots people emigrating who used to work in construction.

 

Apprenticeships aren’t coming through. That labour skills shortage is something we should talk about. We need more roofers, more carpenters, more surveyors and more women and people from ethnic minorities. There’s a demand for low carbon retrofit skills. We should work together to elevate the sector. We can remove barriers and show how data and tech are embedded in what we do. The shortfall is 2,600 people a year in terms of the planned investment delivery alone. 

 

Another set of problems are the siloed programmes of delivery. We have regeneration funds, the Public Sector Decarbonisation scheme, Right to Buy, Capital Grant funding and the Affordable Homes programme. So there’s a chance now to rethink the roles of each and bring them together. This is about existing money and how we can make it work harder and more suited to the needs of our homes. Regeneration is brilliant, it’s exciting to build for people, create better places, and replace the old concrete jungles. It’s a win-win. So how can we develop that in our placemaking?

 

There’s a lot of chat around full-profit RPs, about institutional investment capital wanting to enter the market. Lloyds recently published a report supporting the additional delivery of social housing. This looked at a different kind of social housing contract, with a model like a PFI where you get revenue over a period of time paid by the government in addition to rent. This is linked to the building of new homes. Social housing interest cover can come from existing rents but is there another funding stream that doesn’t impact on the government balance sheet and on other funding streams? This could bring different players into the game. 

 

Having worked in housing for a long time, I remember the large numbers of people in bed and breakfasts when I first started. We initiated private sector leasing to get people out of that accomodation and into a home. That has recently come under pressure with local authorities unable to find the landlords to arrange this. In Waterloo under the arches we had tented cities and we got rid of that with the rough sleeping progamme. So there are a lot of solutions out there – it’s often about renaming or tweaking them. At a school in Peckham 50% of children are living in temporary accommodation. What are the pathways to prevent homelessness, save taxpayer money and deliver long term housing solutions? It’s about prevention as well building more social homes.

 

 

With thanks to Housing Today for the webinar

 

A fresh start, a new broom. After 14 years we can roll out the cliches, but also expect more than that. Significant changes have been promised by Labour, both in the manifesto and in discussions since the election. Here some key figures from the housing industry outline their main asks from the new administration.

 

 

 

Andy Hulme, Chief Executive, Hyde Group

 

 

After the challenges of the last few years and the political uncertainty that has accompanied much of it, it’s welcome to see a government with a clear manifesto commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. In the next settlement for social housing rents, it’s vitally important this government delivers long-term certainty to help us unlock additional private sector investment with a 10-year, inflation-linked settlement and a 10-year funding programme to build more affordable homes. Given the scale of housing challenges people across the country face, there is no time to lose.

 

Polly Neate, Chief Executive, Shelter

 

 

People are fed up with piecemeal policies. To deliver meaningful change, the new government must turbocharge building social housing – we need 90,000 social homes a year for ten years to clear the waiting list and help eradicate homelessness. And to fix renting, they must bring forward an urgent bill in the King’s Speech that scraps no-fault evictions in their entirety, limits in-tenancy rent increases, and extends notice periods.

 

Justin Young, Chief Executive, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

 

 

It is vital that Labour bestow an urgency to translate the plethora of promises into sound and workable policy. Regardless of who is assigned to key positions across our sector, they must be given the time to execute their mandate; one of the reasons why we’ve seen such a lack of progress in house building and construction is because we’ve had 16 housing ministers since 2010.

 

Muyiwa Oki, President, the Royal Institute of British Architects

 

 

Labour’s manifesto doesn’t have all the answers but it shows ambition – not least to tackle the housing crisis by boosting the delivery of high-quality homes and fixing our broken planning system. The time for bold, decisive action to deliver a safer, greener and more equitable built environment is now. We look forward to working together over the coming years – bringing architects’ expertise to the table to solve the complex challenges our country faces.

 

Nick Gray, UK and Europe Chief Operating Officer, Currie & Brown

 

 

The government must also commit to a properly costed infrastructure development plan and deliver against these commitments to avoid the volatility that has left earlier important initiatives, such as HS2, with unclear or ambiguous goals. Construction is fragmented within Whitehall and spread across several different spending departments. The new government would do well to address this misalignment to improve efficiency.

 

Kate Henderson, Chief Executive, the National Housing Federation

 

 

After 14 years of cuts and policy uncertainty, we will require urgent action to shore up the sector’s finances, protect vital services, ramp up delivery of new homes and deliver for residents. We want to establish a collaborative relationship with our new government and work together to secure the future of social housing as part of a long term plan for housing.

 

Brian Berry, Chief Executive, the Federation of Master Builders 

 

 

The success of Labour’s housing targets will very much depend on two key issues being addressed. First, the need to reform the planning system to make it easier and quicker to build. Secondly, the urgent need to tackle the skills crisis ensuring we have enough skilled workers in the construction industry to build the homes needed.

 

Matthew Walker, Chair, PlaceShapers

 

 

Our new prime minister’s commitment to building more social housing is a great place to start to end the housing crisis. PlaceShapers was encouraged by Labour’s commitment to devolve housing powers to local decision-makers. The election outcome will not immediately ease the pressures in the sector, so we urge the government to ensure housing associations have the support they need to respond to the increasing challenges they, and their residents, face.

 

 

With thanks to Inside Housing and Housing Today for the interviews

 

With the Building Safety Act requiring a new level of oversight, it’s a good time to sort out the information you hold on your housing portfolio. 

 

You know – all those resident surveys, health and safety documents, energy guidelines and construction checklists. There has to be a better way than siloed spreadsheets with multiple duplicate entries and searches that only work if you’ve got the spelling exactly right. Just think of the working environment that could be yours – and the reflected glory you get from creating it. Projects running smoothly, information for a presentation deck that reveals itself immediately and people not pulling their hair out trying to find something that’s as good as lost. 

 

The new safety requirements for housing provides a good excuse to finally kill off some half-built databases. And we recommend talking to your colleagues. Everyone has a concept about what should be included in a set of data. Every organisation has a set of processes and departments, people and information. It’s about agreeing on which of these are relevant for the upcoming task and doing it so the right people are involved. A workshop is a perfect first step.

 

Follow your framework

As data experts, we adopt an approach based on the challenges facing us. That means not attempting to shoehorn business processes into a particular model. In a recent case, we built a hierarchy of business areas, taxonomy of terminology, ontology of fire and safety entities, and an audit of processes, documents and datasets. We modelled all the entities – people, places, buildings, organisations, tools and systems.

 

Some people would have called it an example of a Conceptual Data Model. We didn’t because we prefer to spend time working out how different parts of a business relate to each other and not getting caught up in naming. Superimposing a particular model could put limits on that approach. From time to time we’d refer to it as a ‘Concept Model’ to show to other data experts that we weren’t using another, named design.

 

Plus there’s so much jargon and hazy terminology around at the moment. Don’t be afraid to ask a supplier what they mean by their use of the words ‘architecture’, ‘model’, ‘framework’ and ‘schema’. These are spoken about in so many different ways and things can get pretty blurred. You should even look out for the word ‘modelling’ being bandied about. A website can be modelled, with lists of products, services, contact details and a site map. But many exercises called ‘modelling’ are just a list or a summary of a process.

 

Even if you don’t start off your project with modelling, the ‘Zachman Framework’ can be useful. This kicks off with questions such as: ‘Why? How? What? Who? Where? When?’. You could have the ‘what’ as data, ‘how’ the function, ‘where’ as the network, ‘who’ as the relevant people, ‘when’ being the time and ‘why’ the overall motivation – in a recent case we were working on, this referred to the need to comply with building safety regulations.

 

To source information to answer these, use datasets, websites, papers, technical models, lists of people and organisations, buildings and assets, safety and hazards. If you’re in the housing sector a crucial requirement is providing a response for the Building Regulator. Look at data from residents and tenancy data, construction, repairs and maintenance, planning, building control and health and safety.

 

Box clever with your approach

If you’re rapidly put all this together to complete a Building Safety Case, then don’t stress the detail. Even though plenty of data might be part of the Case, it doesn’t all have to be sent to the Regulator. Extra information can be extracted later if your supplier has built the system right. This is especially necessary if – as often happens – it’s hard to define what goes where.

 

In a recent project, we found that there were no clear criteria for classifying some data as entirely health and safety-related, and some data as completely unrelated to health and safety. So whilst we were waiting for answer, we developed a list of Building Safety Case Reports with links to each other, plus other documents – but not datasets. It didn’t include every single piece of fire and structural safety data as requested by the building safety regulator.

Once you’ve done this make sure it’s shared – so it can be negotiated, amended and developed. That’s the bit when you can tweak according to the needs of the people you work with. Bonus points for a collaborative approach – you get to look like the right kind of project leader.

 

The output will serve to link databases across different business areas. Once you have a set of tables – financial, orders, HR, product, location, contact – the tables can be made into data models – the conceptual bit. From there your team can develop a physical model – a graphical representation of business requirements, and then physical data models – how the data will actually flow in your system. And that leads to the eventual database.

 

Thanks for reading our quick summary of data and building safety. Do feel free to get in touch if you’d like to discuss anything we’ve covered here – we’d be happy to chat it through.

 

You can reach out to our founder: ed.mcculloch@atendco.com

 

 

Some key definitions

You might want to know about…

 

Concept Modelling – a general term used to describe turning real world elements into concepts. It has been taken on by the data world to describe the visualisation and representation of data elements.

 

Data Architecture – how information flows, and how it is controlled. The aim is to translate business needs into data and system requirements.

 

‍Database – a collection of information that is structured and usually stored electronically in a computer system, enabling it to be easily accessed, managed and updated. Some examples are: MySQL, PostgreSQL, Microsoft SQL Server, MongoDB, Oracle Database, and Redis.

 

‍Data Capture – collecting information and converting it into data that is physically or digitally available.

 

Logical Data Model – establishes the structure of data elements and the relationships among them, independent of the physical database.

 

Physical Data Model –  introduces database-specific context missing in conceptual and logical data models. So representing tables, columns – how it’s going to look, or the framework behind how it looks.

 

Taxonomy – a classifying of information. Comes from the classification of plants and animals that the Greeks and Victorians were so fond of. Hence its similarity to taxidermy – although we don’t suggest you start stuffing animals any time soon.

‍

Unstructured Data – sets of data that don’t have a data model to structure and arrange them.

 

Zachman Framework – a way of organising data that takes into account what purpose the data is being used for, and what issue the use of the data is addressing. Named after John Zachman, who developed the concept at IBM in the 1980s.

There’s no doubt that council housing has a bad rap, seen as a series of concrete towers falling down under the weight of mismanagement and disrepair. Occasional guest appearances on TV crime series haven’t helped. But the mood is changing. Local authorities are investing in new structures; blogs such as Municipal Dreams are celebrating our housing heritage, and one scheme has been awarded architecture’s top prize.

 

So come on, let’s celebrate what’s been built! We’ve come up with the definitive list of the most iconic and successful public housing in the UK covering the last 114 years. Marvel at some of the gems on display in our all-time top 10. And don’t forget that our grading is based on how the buildings meet the needs of the residents – not just those of the architects picking up the awards.

 

1. Goldsmith Estate

Norwich, 2019

 

A recent addition to the social housing roster, this development sits right at the very top of our list thanks to the outstanding build quality, plus a factor that has been until recently has been overlooked – eco-friendliness. 

 

The people behind Goldsmith Estate took home the Stirling Prize in 2020 – British architecture’s leading award – thanks to so much good design. Notably, attractive beige brick that curves round street corners, hidden patios and perforated design. Roofs are angled so that the sun can reach windows of the row of houses behind. It hits Passivhaus standards, the German voluntary code, with a 70% reduction in fuel bills for residents. Passivhaus also requires windows to be raised one metre from the ground – a great height for a window seat, as it happens.

 

In recent years, national government restrictions on reinvesting funds from sales of council houses into new buildings has impacted building. But Norwich City Council has found a way. Through a mix of borrowing, taking money from a housing revenue account and dipping into reserves, they were able to bring in Mikhail Riches and Cathy Hawley. And the architects created streets rather than apartment blocks, modelled on the network of Victorian terraces in Norwich city centre, instead of the high-rises in this part of Norwich. With space for bikes and prams and parking pushed to the edge of the development, this is housing of the future, and a blueprint for others to follow.

 

 

2. Boundary Estate

Tower Hamlets, 1910

 

The oldest, possibly the best looking, and almost the top-scoring estate on our list, this classic late Victorian development was born in the wake of the Housing of the Working Class Act. London County Council commissioned Owen Fleming to improve on the slums in the area and he designed wide, tree-lined streets radiating from a central bandstand. Fleming also drew in the striking lines of bright red brick and cream stone that run across the blocks, lightening the sheer heft and weight of substantial five-storey structures. They rise up to completion in a mass of chimney stacks and gables, delivering chunky Arts and Craft appeal. 

 

As a work of architecture, the Boundary Estate stands out amidst the 1960s tower blocks often associated with social housing. Grade II-listed and elegantly designed around nearby schools and churches, it has all the attributes to make it our number one. Except for its rather checkered history. At the time of inception, many of the poor inhabitants were kicked out to allow more affluent working class inhabitants to move in. Which is not exactly in tune with our social housing ethos. Today’s iteration has a community-run laundrette on site, plenty of green space and an arts centre, almost as if it’s trying to make up for past ills. There’s also the fact that 40% of flats are now privately owned – a location next to Shoreditch and the City has driven this. In fact, a local estate agent would describe a wealth of amenities and a prime location – if it wasn’t for the fact that the Boundary Estate is still – just about – a social housing project.

 

 

3. Trellick Tower

Kensington and Chelsea, 1972

 

This monument to modernity rises sharply out of the west London landscape, with a separate service tower completing the iconic silhouette that’s repeated on so many T-shirts and album covers. Designed by Ernó Goldfinger, a Hungarian-born emigré whose name also provided the inspiration for a James Bond villain, it was built in the Brutalist style that dominated social housing in the 1960s. Goldfinger was one of a number of Eastern European architects to move to the UK, and came late to Le Corbusier-style urban living in the sky – just as it was falling out of favour. The 1980s quickly turned the Tower crime-ridden and deprived, with threats of demolition by the local authority. 

 

Yet for residents there was another world. The stairwell mixes bright stained glass with hammered concrete, casting a soft, coloured light over public areas. Large apartments and balconies provided stunning views across the capital. Now loved and gentrified, as well as Grade II listed, the difficult history of Trellick Tower is recognition that as with nearby Grenfell, structures like this are widely open to abuse.

 

 

4. Challender Court

Bristol, 2018

 

A development that proves you don’t have to be huge to have an impact, with eco credentials and build quality that has impacted local authority housing departments and designers in just a few short years since.

 

Created by Emmett Russell architects, Challenger Court is part of three social house projects in Bristol. It’s small by the standards of other entrants in this list, with just eight one-bed apartments. But with a generosity of space in each flat – around 50m2 each – and sensitively incorporated into nearby housing, this development stands tall. Large windows convey plenty of light, while slated metal balconies in front of them minimise overlooking of other residents. A carefully placed rill helps with drainage. As with Goldsmith Estate in Norwich it’s built to Passivhaus principles, using heating from natural, or ‘passive’ sources: triple- insulated windows, the sun and even the human inhabitants of each flat. Unlike some concrete incarnations of social housing, Challenger Court is built to last, finished off with a light brick and powder-coated aluminum exterior built to improve with age. 

 

 

5. Brunswick Centre

Camden, 1972

 

Once described as “a rain-streaked, litter-strewn concrete monstrosity that seemed destined for the bulldozer” by writer Steve Rose, in 2002 the grade II-listed Brunswick Centre was brought back to its original brutalist glory. A £22m restoration then has led to a gradual improvement since – so that it is now the vibrant shopping and dining centre once envisaged.

 

The origin story of the Brunswick Centre is one of limited circumstances leading to a very creative solution. Back in the early days of the site, a developer had wanted to put in a couple of high-rise towers but was thwarted by London County Council not permitting buildings higher than 80ft. So he turned to Patrick Hodgkinson who, inspired by Finnish architect Alvaro Alto, opted for banked ramparts to provide the same density as the tower blocks. The developer also failed in getting enough buyers in time, so apartments were leased to the London Borough of Camden, who took over residential management.

 

Living quarters aren’t huge, but they’re light-filled thanks to the classic angled windows. It’s a fabulous location, near Russell Square in central London. On the downside, 100 of the 400 flats are now privately owned, and the slightly uneasy relationship that exists between the landlord and the council-owner continues. That drops Brusnwick a few places down our list. But as a place to live and also visit – or even catch a film in the local cinema – it scores highly.

 

 

6. Bishopsfield

Harlow, 1967

 

Designed to imitate an Italian hill town, locals saw this estate instead as something you might find on the other side of the Mediterranean, hence frequent references to the ‘kasbah’. But behind this name-calling was a valuation of the low-rise, human proportions of the development, with alleys and courtyards winding their way through the Essex countryside. So in 2008 when faced with demolition, 92% of residents argued against its removal. The striking cuboid structures contain ‘L’-shaped flats of between one and five bedrooms arranged around a courtyard, with parking restricted to certain areas – something that is only now being introduced into new developments. Michael Neylan and Bill Ungless created a rarity, a modern structure that was loved, and ahead of its time.

 

 

7. Byker Wall

Newcastle, 1983

 

A long winding wall of 620 maisonettes housing 9,500 people, this was architect Ralph Erskine’s crowning glory and a break with the Brutalist orthodoxy of the time. Started in 1969 and finally completed in 1983, the development stands out not just for its incredible 1.5 mile structure, but also the range of textures and colours from the use of different bricks, terraces, balconies mixed with private gardens and larger open spaces. The wall that forms the key part of the design was intended to block out noise and pollution from a motorway. This was never built, but the structure functions as a useful barrier to North Sea winds. Lack of funds meant poor construction and materials in some areas, but overall it is a design classic, as recognised by UNESCO when they placed it on their outstanding twentieth century buildings list.

 

 

8. Windmill Estate, Ditchingham

Norfolk, 1948–63

 

A beneficiary of the post-war boom in social housing, when half a million homes were destroyed or made uninhabitable and 3 million were impacted by bombing, Windmill Estate wasn’t replacing a load of inner city rubble, however, but being built in rural Norfolk.

 

Loddon Rural District Council turned to Herbert Tayler and David Green amidst the housing shortage. Keen to make housing that fitted the location, not transplant yet more semi-detached from suburban settings, the two architects produced a 30 house-design that was horseshoe-shaped around a large green space, including bright, airy south-facing living rooms. It was terraced, a form not seen in the countryside since the 18th century. This meant saving on building costs, but also a simplicity of form and ease of navigation. There were small touches too, such as the date of a building marked by different coloured bricks embedded in a side wall. According to Tayler: “people do like decoration”. Windmill Estate is modernity without austerity – and a recognition that little details make a place liveable.

 

 

9. Mackworth Estate

Derby, 1959

 

This development edged into our top 10 because of what so many planners often miss – amenities. Schools, shops, recreational spaces, churches cater for the needs of residents but also provide spaces to people to meet up. Roads curve in crescents with a few cul-de-sacs amidst an array of footpaths. Houses are semi-detached or in short terraces, with variation provided by occasional pebble dash alongside red brick. There’s a demographic mix, with three-bed dwellings for houses alongside bungalows intended for the elderly. Overall out of 1,642 dwellings, 200 were built for private sale. This estate was created during a period of optimism, when despite straightened public finances, somehow places such as this were built. And amidst all the current difficulties, some of that spirit could be returning.

 

 

10. Park Hill

Sheffield, 1961

 

Towering over Sheffield city centre, for some people this high-rise housing estate was representative of everything that was wrong with the inner city renovation projects of the 1960s. Part of the Brutalist phase of British architecture that included Birmingham’s Bullring and Trellick Tower (see above), Park Hill was designed as a mini-city on the hill that materialised as a monstrosity on the mound for those who disliked its design and dominance. Created by Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith, Park Hill was meant as a utopian vision of how to live. And it succeeded to some extent, with neighbours from previous slums rehoused next to each other, a local nursery and homes for a 1,000 people built. Meanwhile, a striking Mondrian-esque aesthetic in its frontage knitted buildings together. Given listed status by English Heritage in 1998 and a makeover by Mikhail Riches, a shortlist for the Sterling Prize in 2024 resulted. Now a mix of student accommodation, privately owned and affordable housing, and some social housing, it’s a diluted utopia. But the impact of such a dominant part of our social housing history is not in question.

 

 

---

 

 

Thanks for reading our top 10. As you’ve seen, it’s based on intersecting matrices of architecture, amenities and historic impact, with some weighting towards eco-friendliness bearing in mind what the future might bring. Putting those together was a lot of fun – and gave us a final list. It shows what value there is in social housing. Because when you can build this well, despite right-to-buy and successive policies over the past 40 years, there’s still hope.

If you’re struggling to get to grips with the new Building Safety Act, and the likely request from the Regulator for information, you’re not alone. Many housing departments and building companies in the same position right now. So we’ve put together this summary of the issues being aired. It’s based on information recently released by the government and hopefully will make things a lot clearer. Read for the most commonly asked questions, and the answers to them.

 

The Principal Accountable Person

Is an individual director of a Resident Management Company personally liable for any breach of the law? Or does responsibility lie with the Resident Management Company?

The answer is no – the corporate body or the resident management company is the Accountable Person or Principal Accountable Person. The Regulator would take action against that legal entity rather than individual directors. The Building Safety Regulator has enforcement powers and can hold those to account who have duties under the Building Safety Act, if they fail to meet them. The duty holders are defined under Section 4, parts 72 and 73 of the Building Safety Act as the Accountable Person and Principal Accountable Person.

In general action will be taken against the Resident Management Company rather than individual directors because it is the company that is responsible for the safety of the building. So a Resident Management Company or any other corporate body is an Accountable Person or Principal Accountable Person. Therefore, the Regulator would take action against that legal entity rather than against individual directors. The Regulator will take the approach that it is those responsible for a breach that should be held to account.

The Building Safety Act does allow for action to be taken against individual directors. However, for the Building Safety Regulator to consider this, an investigation would need to show that the offence was committed with an individual’s consent or connivance, or was attributable to their neglect. Any enforcement would be taken in accordance with the Regulator’s Enforcement Policy Statement. You can search online via the Health and Safety Executive’s website or search for ‘BSR Enforcement Policy Statement’.

 

Is an individual director of a Resident Management Company the Principal Accountable Person?

No – the corporate body or the Resident Management Company is the Principal Accountable Person. It’s not an individual director.

 

Can a managing agent appointed by the directors of a Resident Management Company be the Principal Accountable Person?

The Resident Management Company can’t delegate this role to another body – assuming that they fulfill the definition of a Principal Accountable Person themselves. You can delegate some day-to-day tasks to the agent in managing building safety and even hand over responsibility for preparing the Building Safety Case Report or Residents’ Engagement Strategy, but the legal duties don’t pass to them.

 

Is the Accountable Person the same as the Responsible Person?

They can be, but not necessarily. Accountable and Principal Accountable Persons are those with duties under Part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022. The Responsible Person is someone with duties under the Fire Safety Order 2005 – what makes them ‘accountable’ is different to what makes them ‘responsible’. They’re the same person or body only if they meet both sets of definitions under these two pieces of legislation.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

High Risk Buildings and Proportionality

Does every high-risk building in a development need a Safety Case, a Building Safety Case Report and a Resident Engagement Strategy – even where much of the information is the same or similar?

The answer is, yes they will need individual submissions. High-risk buildings each have data and documents outlining fire and structural safety. Similar buildings may have significant differences, changes and modifications made. And these provide a basis for the Building Safety Case Report and are part of the Golden Thread.

A development will have one Principle Accountable Person, and information about similar buildings may be the same. But all buildings have different residents with varying needs, and that’s why each building should have a different Resident Engagement Strategy. The Building Assessment Certificate will depend on information provided to the BSR at Registration. The government’s guidelines on preparing a building assessment certificate application is also useful. Each registration will result in a request from the Building Safety Regulator to continue the application in that way, and one certificate per high-risk building from the Building Safety Regulator.

Do I have to have an intrusive structural survey of my building?

The answer is, no you’re not required to go to these lengths. In fact, the Building Safety Act doesn’t specify the type of survey that needs to be carried out. The way that the Regulator has phrased it is: “the person that’s accountable should take all reasonable steps to ensure building safety”. In other words, be guided by the building and the information in place. 

The history of any issues or incidents will be a factor, with older buildings potentially needing additional inspections – but your approach should be proportionate to the risks. You may need a survey if there are gaps, but it could just be a visual one that is required.

 

If a Building Assessment Certificate application is refused, is the building unsafe and will everyone have to move out?

The answer is ‘no’ – upheaval on this scale isn’t necessary. A Building Assessment Certificate application is based on whether those accountable for the building (known as Accountable Persons) are meeting specific legal duties. Not all of these will affect the day to day building safety. For example, if a Resident Engagement Strategy didn’t contain what it was supposed to, the Regulator would have to refuse the application.

However, that doesn’t mean the building is unsafe – even where the Building Safety Regulator identifies more work to be done. If you’re responsible for the building, you can often be able to manage risk by putting interim measures in place at that time, with the expectation that more permanent measures will follow.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Fire Risk Assessment

 

Do I require a type 4 Fire Risk Assessment including intrusive inspection of compartmentation?

A fire risk assessment is required by article 9 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005, but the type of assessment isn’t specified under The Building Safety Act. This regulation requires an Assessment of Building Safety Risks relating to the spread of fire and structural failure, without recommending any particular methodology.

A suitable and sufficient assessment depends on the building. And here you’re advised – if you’re the Principle Accountable Person – to look into the safety of your building. What do you already know? What documents or assessments do you already have? It’s good to identify gaps to work out what further information is needed. This will depend on the age of the building, the type of construction and any history of incidents. It’s an approach that is proportionate to the complexity and condition of the building’s safety, in other words.

For added info, it’s best to remember that fire risk gets worse the higher the number attached. So, Type 1 fire risk assessment is about common parts – non-destructive. Type 2 fire equals common parts – destructive. Type 3 refers to common parts and flats – non-destructive. And Type 4 is all about common parts and flats – destructive.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The Safety Case Report

What is the format of the Safety Case Report and what information should it contain?

It must be an electronic document, but there is no particular format specified. The report must contain a description of the building, potential building safety scenarios considered in the risk assessment, and actions taken to prevent and mitigate the spread of fire and structural failure. It should also include an overview of how you manage building safety risk, including arrangements for maintenance, managing changes to the building and a description of your emergency plans. Further guidance is available on the government’s website at Guidance to Preparing a safety case report. The Building Safety Regulator won’t be producing a template for the safety case report.

 

What is the hourly rate charged by the Building Safety Regulator to assess a Safety Case Report?

The Regulator charges £144 per staff hour worked for assessing the Safety Case Report and other elements of Building Assessment Certificate applications issues. There is also an initial charge of £288 per application. Where work is carried out by other third parties, the Building Safety Regulator will charge the Principal Accountable Person. You find out more at Building Safety Regulator Charging Scheme.

 

How many hours on average will it take the Building Safety Regulator to assess a Safety Case Report?

There isn’t a typical or average figure. That’s because there are many factors including the age, type and complexity of the building. Also how well it is being managed and clarity of the account provided in the Safety Case Report BSCR. The time taken will increase where the Regulator needs to request any extra information or carry out another type of intervention.

The Principal Accountable Person can reduce the time taken to assess the report by including everything the law requires, and demonstrates that they have taken all reasonable steps. Good signposting within the report will help the Regulator find information quickly. You can also reduce the need for extra information by explaining your assumptions and conclusions. If you refer to an assessment or report, say if there are any actions outstanding, and detail your plans to close them out. If there are no actions outstanding, also communicate that in the report.

Do I have to use consultants to complete the Report?

There’s no requirement to use any consultant: as a housing manager you can gather the information and write the Building Safety Case Report and Resident Engagement Strategy. If you decide to use consultants, be clear what it is you want from them. And look around at a range of options. The government has seen a huge range of costs quoted for work.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Resident Engagement

Does Resident Engagement mean we have to do everything everyone wants?

No – the approach is more about consulting residents and owners of residential units about issues such as building safety decisions. Then you can take their views into account. Sometimes only some of the residents will be affected by a decision and you can; target your engagement accordingly. The Regulator also recognises that some residents will not want to be contacted about building safety.

 

Based on the latest government figures from March, here’s the latest on how the industry and government are progressing in their attempts to make our high-rise properties safe.

It’s an overall summary of where we’re at, with 22.5% of buildings repaired, 23% with work underway on making the building safe and 55% where projects have not even yet started.

The bald truth is that remediation is on the low side, with the exception being the more high-profile ACM scheme. Here the obvious threat of publicity has driven reform, but elsewhere progress is slow. The data makes that clear, with the major schemes and industry sectors covered in our summary. Check it all out below, starting with our charts showing remediation started, in progress and not yet started at all.

     

 

Social Housing

The proportion of cladding works started is even lower in the social housing sector, with an even smaller proportion completed here – 10%. A sizeable amount – 63% – has not even begun work.

 

ACM

Given that this covers high-rise residential buildings with the most dangerous type of cladding – such as that formed part of Grenfell Tower – it is perhaps not surprising that most progress has been made under The ACM Cladding Remediation Programme. This has been monitoring buildings since 2017. A total of 87% of buildings have been re-cladded, with only 2% yet to start remediation.


Building Safety Fund

This scheme is for buildings over 18 metres, which have different types of cladding to that included in Grenfell but which are nonetheless deemed dangerous. That, along with the fact the scheme began in 2020, three years later than ACM, explains the sudden drop-off in a completion rate of 28%, with 26% having started remediation. That leaves a sizeable 46% of buildings with no remediation work started on them at all.


The Cladding Safety Scheme

This only opened for applications in July 2023. It also only covers buildings higher than 18 metres outside London. That partly explains the rate of progress, with only two buildings having work begun on remediation. However, there are plenty in the pipeline, the government insists.

Developer Remediation

Life-critical fire safety defects have been found in 1,501 buildings, and developers have committed to remediating these. However, 58% of these buildings have yet to have any work instigated, with just 20% completed to date. From a severity point of view, this is comparable to ACM but the completion rates are not.

11m v 18m buildings

It’s notable that there has been less progress in the higher category building above 18 metres, with 8% at this height having their cladding remediated. This compares to 31% in the 11–18 metres band. In fact these taller high rises have just 69% not yet even started.

 

 

Progress over the past 12 months

This shows how much work has been done in the past year on cladding remediation. It portrays a gradual rise in remedial activity, with a recent increase after being almost flat over the winter months.

 

 

That’s our roundup of the top stats that have come out of the government covering changes made to higher-risk buildings in the UK. We’ll update later in the year when hopefully we can show not just an increase in completed projects, but that the rate of progress has also increased.

All figures taken from UK Government, ‘Building Safety Remediation’ data, March 2024