The National Audit Office’s (NAO) recent report revealing that the UK’s building safety crisis could take over a decade to fix is a stark warning to the new Labour Government that decisive, practical action is needed. The industry has already worked to improve the regime while Labour scrutinised it in opposition, leaving solutions that, if implemented, would help accelerate the pace of remediation.
The Building Safety Act 2022 was intended to tackle dangerous cladding, but has instead thrown up more questions than answers. Labour now has the chance to do more than just inherit this legislation – they can reset the approach entirely – at little cost and next to no legislative intervention.
The NAO estimates that around £16.6 billion will be required to address unsafe cladding in buildings over 11 meters in England, with MHCLG expected to provide £9.1 billion of this total and the with the rest funded by developers, private owners or social housing providers. To combat this, in the recent budget Rachel Reeves announced £1 billion for building safety remediation, however it is important to spotlight this is not an entirely new pot of funding; it’s taxpayer’s money that by and large was already earmarked under the previous government. If Labour are determined to stick to the Conservative cost estimates, they will need a fresh approach to ensure the resident safety can be ensured whilst ensuring responsible parties pay their fair share.
One model for Labour to consider is New South Wales’ Project Remediate, which tackles fire safety risks in residential buildings with a practical, financially sustainable approach. It provides owners’ corporations with 10-year interest-free loans to fund cladding remediation, alongside expert programme management and quality assurance services to ensure compliance with safety standards. By replacing high-risk cladding with non-combustible materials and offering end-to-end guidance, the program accelerates remediation and reduces financial burdens, offering a blueprint for Labour to replicate in the UK.
The systemic issues in building safety won’t be solved by merely setting a deadline; they demand strategic groundwork that Labour must establish to tackle these safety gaps once and for all.
One of the most concerning findings in the NAO report is that around 60% of buildings with dangerous cladding have yet to be identified. These buildings are also likely to have defects beyond cladding. However, despite the urgency, delays are expected due to the inconsistencies between what developers are expected to fix and what the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act defines as their legal obligation.
This gap underscores a weakness in the Building Safety Act. The Residential Freehold Association (RFA) has proposed the “rule of one” principle, a unified standard for all building remediation projects. Each leaseholder should expect to receive a building remediated to a set standard formulated by MHCLG, then applied and certified by an independent fire engineer also appointed by the Department. This would mean that every leaseholder could expect the same high standard of remediation, and without this standardised approach, many buildings could remain unsafe while legal disputes drag on.
Labour must take stronger action against medium-to-large developers who continue to shirk their financial responsibilities by refusing to sign the pledge. Recent communications from the Department that developers are committing only to timelines, rather than actual funding, is something we cannot afford to ignore. Developers must be held to account, and Labour should ensure that their financial contributions align with their obligations to remediate unsafe buildings.
This is also an opportunity for Labour to address the disconnect between the Building Safety Act and the commitments set out in developer contracts. As things stand, building owners are locked in a standoff with developers who are exploiting loopholes in their remediation contracts to limit their liabilities, often clashing with the intent of the legislation. By leaving each building owner to negotiate individual delivery agreements, the current system is not only inefficient but also a recipe for prolonged disputes and costly litigation. Labour must introduce a streamlined, consistent framework that eliminates these inconsistencies and expedites the remediation process.
These combined issues beg the question: what is currently being done to accelerate remediation? While the Government has set deadlines, Labour’s leadership should be pushing for bold action, making sure they are working in tandem with developers and building owners to speed up the process and not leaving critical safety measures on the backburner.
Labour now has a chance to show that they can govern decisively and make a real impact on one of the most pressing safety issues in the country. This isn’t just about fixing the failures of the past – it’s about securing the long-term safety of leaseholders.