Propertymark has cautiously welcomed the UK Government’s ambition to remove unsafe cladding by 2029, while raising concerns that the timeline may be too slow to address the pressing safety risks posed by dangerous materials in thousands of buildings.
The professional body also criticized recent communications from the government that use the term “landlords” to describe those responsible for cladding removal – a term often misunderstood by the public to refer to residential property owners.
Propertymark clarified that the ultimate responsibility for remediation rests with freeholders, urging the government to ensure greater precision in its messaging to avoid confusion among consumers and industry stakeholders.
REDEMPTION SONG
The UK Government’s latest Remediation Acceleration Plan, announced by Building Safety Minister Alex Norris this week, sets a goal to remediate all buildings over 18 meters tall with unsafe cladding by the end of 2029. This follows Norris’ warning that building owners who fail to comply with safety standards could face imprisonment.
The plan includes a comprehensive review of 175,000 building records by March 2025, increased funding for regulators, and new legal duties to enforce building safety.
Metro mayors have also been tasked with preparing localised strategies to expedite remediation efforts. The government has extended the Waking Watch Replacement Fund to March 2026 and outlined steps to support residents during the process, such as clearer timelines and financial assistance.
SLOW PROGRESS
However, progress remains slow. Since May 2024, more buildings have been identified with unsafe cladding than have been remediated.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) estimates that up to 12,000 buildings in England still require work, with only 44 buildings fully remediated between August and October 2024. At this rate, fewer than 900 buildings will be remediated in the next five years.
CHALLENGES
Propertymark emphasised that the lack of enforcement against non-compliant building owners remains a major issue, despite the Building Safety Act 2022 granting new powers to protect leaseholders from bearing the financial burden of cladding removal.
The trade body also raised concerns about the insufficient quality of replacement cladding materials, which often fail to meet the needs of both residents and the broader industry.
CRITICAL OBSTACLE
Insurance premiums for high-risk buildings remain a critical obstacle. Even after cladding is replaced, premiums have not significantly decreased, leaving residents to bear elevated costs. Mortgage providers are also hesitant to finance properties in high-risk buildings, further compounding the challenges for homeowners.
ACCELERATED ACTION
In November 2024, Propertymark called on the government to prioritize the removal of unsafe cladding in all buildings over 11 meters tall, citing a National Audit Office report that found only 1,392 buildings in England had completed remediation as of August 2024.
The professional body urged the government to address delays and ensure that sufficient infrastructure and a skilled workforce are in place to meet the 2029 deadline.
Propertymark also stressed the importance of learning lessons from the Grenfell tragedy, following the release of the Grenfell Inquiry’s final report in September 2024. Recommendations included creating a single building safety regulator and revisiting the definition of “higher-risk” buildings under the Building Safety Act 2022.
GOVERNMENT SHORTCOMINGS
Henry Griffith, Policy and Campaigns Officer at Propertymark, says: “Propertymark has long emphasised shortcomings in the UK Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower Fire.
“While the recent acknowledgement and plan to accelerate remediation is welcome, they have a considerable challenge ahead of them considering the pace of remediation thus far.
“Additionally, we have seen little action on existing costs for leaseholders, especially those who are exempt from leaseholder protections.
“We urge the UK Government to meet its Manifesto promise of protecting leaseholders from bearing the costs of remediation as no leaseholder should pay for their homes to be made safe.”
