How has the sector changed since Grenfell?

Comment23 Jun 2020Helen Evans

Helen Evans, chief executive of Network Homes and chair of the G15, reflects on housing associations’ progress on building safety since Grenfell – and the continuing work ahead

Helen Evans

Helen Evans is chief executive of Network Homes and chair of the G15

Sharelines

Helen Evans, chief executive @networkhomesuk and chair @G15London, reflects on housing associations’ progress on building safety since Grenfell – and the continuing work ahead #ukhousing #socialhousingfinance #grenfell

“In the aftermath of the fire, most people I know working in housing were asking themselves: ‘Could this happen to one of our buildings?’ Very few were able to answer categorically: ‘No.’” #ukhousing #socialhousingfinance #grenfell

The Grenfell tragedy was three years ago. Seventy-two lives were lost. Their families, friends, neighbours and community are still at least two years away from the outcome of the public inquiry set up to establish how a European capital city could have allowed grossly inadequate building standards and controls to lead to catastrophic and avoidable loss of life.

In the aftermath of the fire, most people I know working in housing were asking themselves: “Could this happen to one of our buildings?” Very few were able to answer categorically: “No.”

Three years of frenetic activity followed. We have all been trying to understand if our homes are safe for the people who live in them. We have all been realising the scale of the problem and the impact on many thousands of people.

Most of us are now confronting the unwelcome truth that across the sector, many tenants and leaseholders felt that they weren’t listened to and that their safety and well-being weren’t their landlords’ priority. If one thing has changed since that terrible night, it is that the importance of listening to people and earning their trust has dramatically risen up every board’s agenda.

Here at Network, our board was determined to address the loss of trust and confidence head on. We have always wanted to have an open, positive and transparent relationship with tenants and leaseholders, but we also recognise that we haven’t always achieved that.

“We wanted to make a change that ensured that creating a dialogue and mutual trust and respect between the organisation, the people who work for us and the people who live in our homes was absolutely top of the agenda”

We wanted to make a change that ensured that creating a dialogue and mutual trust and respect between the organisation, the people who work for us and the people who live in our homes was absolutely top of the agenda. So, we changed our corporate strategy to reflect this, adding a fifth strategic objective devised in conjunction with residents and now consulting extensively to agree measures that people can have confidence in.

This is an issue wider than building safety and extends to people who live in homes that require no remediations. However, uncertainty, confusion and fear are still prevalent for those people living in the hundreds of buildings with ACM cladding or other defective fire-safety systems that are yet to be made safe. This was the case in the days after Grenfell and is still the case today.

Clearly, anyone in these buildings may be anxious about their safety and years of disruption. But there are major financial ramifications for leaseholders and shared owners as well. Remediation costs are hanging over them – sometimes tens of thousands of pounds – and many will be unable to sell their homes because they are not mortgageable.

Research commissioned by UK Cladding Action Group (UKCAG) found that nearly one in five leaseholders has thought about suicide or self-harm as a direct result of building safety issues.

During their investigations, housing associations have found a need for remediation on between 60 per cent and 100 per cent of buildings. All of these had full building regulation and control sign-off. And it’s more than cladding defects – it’s also compartmentation between homes, timber balconies and decking, high-pressure laminate, and flammable insulation. The road to remediation is still a long one for the thousands of buildings affected by these issues, because there is a limited number of fire engineers. Delays caused by the coronavirus pandemic have also extended remediation dates further.

The consolidated and clarified advice note issued by the government in January this year was much needed, but the effort to free up the mortgage and valuation process for owners of homes in buildings more than 18 metres tall has had limited impact. The EWS1 form has helped some leaseholders sell their homes, but it has not opened up the market as many had hoped.

In addition, some lenders are asking for forms for buildings less than 18 metres tall, causing sales in these buildings to stall. There is an urgent need for clarity here – if these buildings are in scope, the problem increases exponentially.

The government has responded to lobbying and made an additional £1bn building safety fund available to help leaseholders – including social housing leaseholders – who would otherwise have had to bear the cost of remediation through their service charges. This is very welcome and is something on which the G15 has lobbied hard. While the fund will give relief to some leaseholders and accelerate building remediation work in some cases, it is unlikely to be sufficient to cover all leaseholders and is quite narrow in terms of what it covers.

The regulatory environment is changing

While we deal with the building safety legacy, it is imperative to ensure that nothing like Grenfell or indeed Lakanal can ever happen again. This is creating massive changes. Oversight and control are shifting to internal specialist teams in organisations, following the Hackitt Review’s recommendation that building owners nominate a responsible person who oversees their safety. However, this needs to be backed up by the right organisational culture, to have the desired result.

We’ve also seen a ban on combustible materials on external wall systems on residential buildings more than 18 metres tall and the scope of fire risk assessments has expanded to include external wall systems, as well as fire doors. The Hackitt Review also led to the establishment of a new Building Safety Regulator; currently being created, this should ultimately bring more consistency across the board and make buildings safer in the long run.

We await the enactment of the Building Safety Bill and the Fire Safety Bill – two significant pieces of legislation currently passing through parliament that will hopefully make building owners more accountable and ensure residents have a stronger voice in the system.

Board priorities have changed

Housing association boards have always had a legal and moral obligation to keep safety at the top of their agendas. It is their primary duty and responsibility. Grenfell showed that good intentions are not enough, and that the complexities of construction, regulations and contracts can obscure who is responsible for what.

Design and build contracts were supposed to offset financial risk onto contractors. Since Grenfell, we have known that financial risk is secondary to the safety and security of people who live in our homes. Boards now know there is nothing more important than getting this right. They are saying that if the resources required to remediate buildings reduce or halt development programmes, so be it.

Our first obligation is to the people who live in our homes and our relationship with them. We need to earn their trust and confidence by putting them first and work together to keep them safe.

Helen Evans, chief executive of Network Homes and chair, G15