Government's building safety plan receives lukewarm welcome from Suffolk campaigners
Housing Secretary Michael Gove announced that they will make builders and manufacturers of unsafe material pay for costs of remediation and not leaseholders
Campaigners in Suffolk still want more clarity over who's going to pay for remediation costs of certain unsafe buildings.
Secretary of State Michael Gove announced his plans to address the Building Safety Crisis, including in Suffolk, yesterday.
He told Parliament that they wanted to shift the burden of fire safety remediation costs (including unsafe cladding) off leaseholders and hold the original developers of the buildings and those who manufactured unsafe materials accountable.
"I can confirm today to the house that no leaseholders living in a building above 11 metres will ever face any costs for fixing dangerous cladding.
"It should be the industries who profited as they caused the problem and those who continue to profit as they make it worse", he said.
The specifics of the plan include the bringing forward of the next phase of funding from the Building Safety Fund. A dedicated team has also been set up in the Department of Levelling up, Housing and Communities that will look to pursue those responsible for manufacturing flammable construction materials and building unsafe homes.
He has also encouraged construction firms to come forward with a plan to help leaseholders by March or risk incurring legal action or additional taxation. Other measures include the withdrawal of the consolidated advice note that defines what homes are unsafe and indemnifying building assessors so that they can exercise "balanced professional judgement" and review assessments that declare the need for expensive remediation work.
So how have these announcements gone down?
"The statements made in today's debate are promising on paper. I'm not optimistic that they will become reality but if in a few months time I'm proven wrong, I will be happy", says the founder of campaign group, Ipswich Cladiators, Alex Dickin.
While the Secretary of State announced measures to deal with unsafe cladding, the statement didn't make mention of who will be asked to pay for non-cladding related fire safety defects. This includes missing firebreaks, internal compartmentation issues, timber balconies or faulty fire doors.
"There's no point making a building half safe. If you're going to spend millions of pounds remediating unsafe cladding from a building, why would you stop there?
"If there's going to be a major building project going on for many months, if not years, on a particular building, why not go and fix the internal defects as well in order to make that building completely safe?" he adds.
Mr Gove later clarified that they will be adding amendments to the Building Safety Bill to protect leaseholders from having to pay for these defects, but it is unclear at this stage who will ultimately foot the bill and when it will be addressed.
"Warm words can give us some short-term hope but we do require a concrete plan that describes who will pay for non-cladding fire safety risk remediation", was Mr Dickin's response when asked about the issue.
Another sticking point in the plan is the proposal to go after the original developers of unsafe buildings. Mr Dickin says, "It's great that they are focusing on the current developers that are making large profits.
"But, they also need to recognize that a large proportion of the buildings with a fire safety defects across the country, have developers that no longer exist and therefore the funds need to come from another source as well."
This is true of many buildings in Ipswich with fire safety defects. So far, there is no indication over who will be held responsible should authorities fail to recover funds from the original developers, some of whom closed down due to bankruptcy.
"You have this situation where you're living and owning a property that has been built with so many corners cut and with flammable material installed. The main thing that you want to do is to have that ability or the option to sue them, or for the government to go after them.
"So it's incredibly frustrating that when you have a developer that has taken all of their responsibility away with them when they've changed name or they've just close their company down
"It's another missing piece in the puzzle and it's one that homeowners in Ipswich are eagerly awaiting answers to", he explains.
Mr Dickin says his building made an application for the building safety fund last year but have heard nothing back. With plans from the construction sector expected only in March, were they to comply with the Government's plan, the bills for leaseholders affected by the crisis keep piling up.
"Why put money towards making buildings safe without a sensible time-frame for funds to be allocated and work to commence?
"They seem to be far too focused on cladding even though they recognize that there are other fire safety defects to address. So far in terms of their funding or legal process, Government is yet to step forward and pay for those other costs.
"For leaseholders unfortunately, it means that life changing bills and costs are still going to come their way. So, even if a building is going to benefit from this additional funding today?
"You're in a situation where leaseholders can still go bankrupt and lose their home. So it does feel almost pointless", he adds.