Is Gove’s hard-line approach to building safety wise?
The government has given developers an ultimatum to commit £2bn to repair unsafe buildings – or face the consequences. This threat may not be the best tactic, writes Richard Glover of JMW Solicitors.
Despite recent admissions by secretary of state Michael Gove that the government is partly at fault for the Grenfell tragedy, it appears the government is now prepared to take significant action to force the construction industry to pay to fix unsafe buildings.
The government and the construction industry have been grappling for more than five years over how to remedy safety flaws in high-rise buildings.
In April 2022, 49 developers voluntarily signed a pledge committing to remediating unsafe buildings of 11 metres or above and protecting leaseholders from the costs.
The government has now given those developers six weeks to sign up to an industry-funded £2bn repair scheme aimed or face “significant consequences”, with Michael Gove advising those that do not sign up to “find a new line of work”. Developers have until 10 February 2023 to confirm their intentions.
We would caution against such an aggressive tactic as this could cause more problems than it solves and could even result in the government policy facing a judicial review of this policy.
The government seeks effectively to press-gang developers into entering into an agreement, threatening them with severe consequences, such as being refused planning permission or in some cases being prohibited from carrying out development of land entirely if they do not sign up.
However, forcing developers to enter into the proposed agreements might prove an issue for the government. If developers don’t sign up and find themselves frozen out of the market as a result, then those developers are likely to take action, opening up the strong possibility of a judicial review of the government policy. We have sounded out clients that face this problem and there is a willingness to mount a challenge.
There has been a constant state of flux regarding fire safety remediation work since the Grenfell disaster and this latest step adds another ‘option’ into the mix for leaseholders and property managers, which will no doubt feed the paralysis that currently exists.
The proposed repair scheme may not be the miracle cure that it first appears to be. There is the wider public policy issue of the housing crisis being made worse. The increasing regulations, coupled with the threats of being blocked from the market, will undoubtedly cause panic in the industry meaning experienced builders will be hesitant to build new high-rise properties.
It could also potentially prove to be anti-competitive by blocking smaller developers from the market altogether and putting those that are highly exposed out of business.
While there is no doubt that the government pushed through this policy with the best of intentions, it may well have the opposite effect to what it was trying to achieve.
- Richard Glover is a partner at JMW Solicitors
Maybe not the best outcome for your clients Richard but it certainly is for us leaseholders. We have waited years for them to rectify faults on buildings we bought from them in good faith. (its not just cladding, fire breaks were omitted in many buildings to save costs). It is only now that they are being faced with this that they have decided to act. Shameful imo. I’m no Gove fan but he has certainly sorted this.
By Bob
Maybe 25% payable by government for a lapse in ensuring Build regs were correctly designed, 25% payable by contractors who pushed the envelope knowing they were playing with fire safety rules which could be life or death, 25% for the suppliers who knew what their products were being used for and should not have colluded with contractors to play with the rules and finally 25% for the councils/developers who were trying to cut costs but should have taken a safety first approach. Other issues that just ignored Build regs eg firebreaks are 100% contractors responsibility. I think that evenly splits the responsibility rather than spending years arguing over a few percent on one side or the other…poor leaseholders have been waiting too long now….they were let down by EVERYBODY upto the point of purchase/occupation. How’s that for a solution?
By Anon
It’s high time that the industry, as a whole, accepts their responsibilities.
Whilst Building Regulations and the like are continually evolving, the industry is relatively deregulated, by the absence of quality control and the checking necessary for that, which has led to elements of works not performing as the design intended.
The core principles of construction were always: TIME; QUALITY; AND COST;
Whereas now, it appears to be: TIME AND COST!
By Anon
The point that Gove made concerning the government failure was around the lack of oversight by the various inspectorates of the short cuts and shoddy work perpetrated by the developers. The responsibility lies firmly at the developers door. Tens of thousands of leaseholders have had to delay starting families, turn down jobs in other parts of the country because of their inability to sell and move home and suffer from the stress of having massive, unpayable bills landing on their doormats. Your response… to hustle for business that if only partially successful will result in further delays, costs and stress.
By Howard
Sign up, pay up and shut up.
By Dr B