Building Safety Bill

Written evidence submitted by Henry Grala, on behalf of Drayton Park residential Group (BSB29)

Building Safety Bill

We have formed a Drayton Park Residential Group representing 290 flats in a development consisting of 10 blocks 6 storeys high and below 18m. We are therefore in the category which is not eligible for funding under the government scheme. I am a Chartered Civil & Chartered Structural Engineer with over 40 years experience working mostly on various types of retail and residential buildings. I have worked closely with Fire Engineers and other construction professionals during this time. Here I am writing on behalf of the leaseholders of the development.

1. Limited combustibility insulation has been identified in a substantial part of the cladding. However, this is encapsulated in render which achieved a class ‘0’ rating for fire safety at the time of construction in 2007. This was deemed to comply with Building Regulations at the time and considered fire safe. For compliance with Building regs. fire performance of the cladding system as a whole was always considered and not performance of individual component materials. The whole building was assessed in terms of fire safety which included means of escape, escape routes, proximity of fire stations, internal fire compartmentation, fire doors, materials and all aspects which holisitly achieved an acceptable fire safety strategy. Since construction of Drayton Park, there have been 2 fires, with one gutting an entire flat. There was no damage to outside cladding or escape routes adjacent and everyone who needed to be evacuated at the time was. Clearly the Fire Strategy worked here even though the insulation is of limited combustibility. The whole system was seen to function as it was designed to.

2. A photo of the front elevation is attached showing the copper clad feature on one side and the steel/ glass balconies on the other. These form natural vertical barriers to fire between blocks. There is also a horizontal firebreak at 3rd floor level. So even if fire did break out and somehow the render broke off and the insulation caught fire it would be contained in a small area. A maximum of 4 flats could only be affected at a time in one block. Fire would spread more quickly through the 30 minute fire doors internally. If no fire engines came the buildings would be destroyed from the inside out before cladding could contribute. To condemn the insulated render is extreme risk aversion, with the risk of the cladding causing a disaster being miniscule in this case.

3. Recently Robert Jenrick announced that the EWS1 form will not be necessary for buildings below 18m. as a result of the advice of the working party led by Dame Judith Hackett. This stated that to include buildings below18m as unsafe is extreme risk aversion and unnecessary. Nevertheless cladding removal continues to be required for such buildings on a massive scale based on the previous government advice that all buildings whatever their height with such cladding should be included as being unsafe. The announcement now saying the opposite has had no effect on lenders, surveyors and insurance companies. These buildings remain blighted by the Cladding Scandal. Lenders are still not approving mortgages, insurance costs still remain many times the levels before this scandal and failed EWS1 survey results are not being withdrawn. Closing the stable gate after the horse has bolted comes to mind. In our case the Insurance Premium has gone up 117% as an interim measure pending the outcome of further investigations. This is evidence of profiteering. Government needs to provide clear regulation and legislation defining how these buildings are now considered safe following the latest review for these organisations to follow.

4. Leaseholders, hundreds of thousands of them, are suffering significant hardship as a result of the sweeping knee jerk statements made by Government. All we ever hear is the £5bn set aside to remedy decades of regulatory and construction industry malpractice. This is a token gesture, and that only for buildings over 18m. The £5bn includes £2bn levy on property developers. However, this £5 bn will not be adequate to remedy the scale of the cladding defects. It has been estimated that £15bn is the likely sum to remedy cladding defects in buildings over 18m. If you take into account 20% VAT on Construction work of £15bn, the Taxpayer gets all the money back. If you consider the income tax paid on the wages of the construction workers there is a net gain to taxpayers from all this unnecessary remedial work at expense of leaseholders. This is exacerbated by increased material costs as a result of Covid and Brexit. The embodied carbon in all the replacement cladding and the carbon footprint resulting from all this unnecessary work will be huge, fuelling environmental pollution and accelerating climate change which goes against the UK’s legal commitment to reach net zero 2050. Other costs such as Buildings insurance increasing several times over for most developments have also been ignored. All this currently being inflicted on blameless leaseholders. The law should be protecting innocent victims, but instead it is exaerbating the issue and leases ultimately allow the freeholder to pass on all costs to leaseholders with little or no scrutiny. The focus for the Construction industry now is to retain existing buildings as far as possible and adapt rather than rebuild in the interest of limiting environmental damage.

5. Decades of Fire research,design and development has been discredited on the basis of Grenfell Fire which was due to many factors, not only the cladding material. Yet the EWS1 form does not appear to account for a holistic approach to the Fire Strategy of each individual building, but just the materials used.

The buildings exist, so it would make sense for a detailed analysis of each building by a fire specialist to identify how to maximise fire safety for the building as a whole and how the fire strategy is intended to work. Building regs are intended as a guide when building from scratch. Common sense and logic should be used to recommend the most effective solution of the billing as it stands in each case to achieve fire safety at minimal cost and disruption. This could be achieved in a lot of ways not just wholesale change of cladding insisting this complies with Building Regs. A lot of new Fire Assessors have appeared, and it is clear they have not got adequate experience, leading to a great tendency of highly risk averse decisions. There are many old buildings which do not comply with Building regs still standing and are not condemned. Until now Building Regs applied at the time of construction have always been accepted as adequate over the life of a building even if Regs. have been updated at a later date. This has always been enough without any adverse safety effects.The new cladding on Grenfell Tower did not satisfy the Building regs at the time this cladding was installed and so was clearly a breach of the regulations applicable at the time.

6. Included was the announcement that the time leaseholders can claim against developers and builders is due to be increased from 6 years to 15 years. By the time this bill goes through a lot of the builders will just go into liquidation and there will be no one to claim against. And the large companies that remain have specialist lawyers at their disposal to fight any claims. Where will leaseholders get the funds to pay for lawyers to fight these claims? in any case how can a leaseholder legally bring an action against a Developer or Builder? There is no Contractual link.

7. There is also a statement "that Freeholders have to try and recover costs from Developers and Builders. If this fails then the costs should be recovered from Leaseholders." How can you ensure the Freeholder makes a concerted effort to recover costs? What would be considered an adequate bar/proof that the freeholder has met his obligations? Even if the freeholder can bring a claim, they can pass all these legal costs onto leaseholders.It leaves very little incentive for long costly protracted legal proceedings. Ultimately, leaseholders lives are held in suspension until this crisis is resolved and they are at the mercy of others with very little control– many are not in a position to wait for legal proceedings to play out.

8. Sadly, it seems many buildings under 18m need no remedial action, but will be forced to have works carried out. Think of the misery , costs, life changing situations, hardship this will cause, not to mention the unnecessary environmental pollution this unnecessary work will add to the carbon footprint. What a fiasco.

9. The Government should take control and show some leadership. Not just make sweeping announcements from time to time which don’t change anything. The situation was created and continually made worse by ill conceived Government announcements over the last couple of years. Sensible solutions are desperately needed.

Suggestions.

1. Approve and incorporate the McPartland/ Polluter Pays amendment into the Fire Safety Bill. Innocent leaseholders need to be protected here – They are victims of poor regulation and and a not fit for purpose building industry. Those responsible for this mess should be held liable and the law should protect leaseholders, not make this bad situation even worse for them.

2. Provide clear, realistic guidelines which practically analyse each building and provide a range of possible remedies giving an acceptable risk, which does not involve replacement of cladding where possible. This should minimise cost and carbon footprint rather than trying to achieve extreme risk aversion where historic data does not support the likelihood of such risk.

3. Underwrite the additional insurance costs for leaseholders resulting from the incorrect previous government advice on buildings under 18m. which has now been withdrawn. The insurers are not lowering their premiums.

4. Review each building’s existing fire safety characteristics in a holistic way, identify weaknesses, and assess all possible remedies which minimise risks so an acceptable standard can be achieved. These are solutions which may not adhere strictly to the latest Fire safety requirements but provide a low risk situation.

5. Legislate so the RICS, BSA and UK Finance withdraw requirement for EWS1 forms on buildings below 18m. and invalidate EWS1 forms carried out to date, so buildings are not blighted in the future.

6. Enforce the requirement that Freeholders must take legal action to recover costs from Developers and Builders and not pass the cost of this onto Leaseholders. The requirement for the Freeholder to try to recover costs as drafted is far too weak.

September 2021