A target date must be set for work – costing billions – to make thousands of buildings covered in dangerous cladding safe, Whitehall’s spending watchdog has said.
Up to 7,229 buildings across England are yet to be identified and some might never be, the National Audit Office (NAO) said, as it warned completing works to make all buildings safe at an estimated cost of £16 billion might not be achieved in the next decade.
Campaigners have repeatedly criticised the slow progress of such work – known as remediation – in the seven years since the Grenfell Tower fire claimed the lives of 72 people in 2017.
Delivering her Budget last week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves pledged that the Government will “make progress on our commitment to accelerate the remediation of homes following the findings of the Grenfell Inquiry, with £1 billion of investment to remove dangerous cladding next year”.
The NAO report, published on Monday, said the impacts of dangerous cladding “have extended far beyond the immediate victims of the Grenfell fire, with many people suffering significant financial and emotional distress”.
It noted that on top of living with the fear of fire, there have been costly bills for remediation and some residents have paid for so-called waking watches to patrol buildings while waiting for cladding to be removed.
The NAO said the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has estimated somewhere between 9,000 and 12,000 buildings will need remediating – made safe.
The latest official figures, up to the end of September 2024, showed there were 4,821 residential buildings of at least 11 metres in height identified with unsafe cladding, up by 50 since previous month.
Of the 4,821 buildings identified, only half had either started or completed remediation works.
The NAO report stated: “Pace has been a persistent concern and remediation within the portfolio is progressing more slowly than MHCLG expected.”
The department’s modelling estimates an end date of 2035 for completing cladding remediation, but the NAO warned this will be “challenging to achieve”.
Among its recommendations, the watchdog said the department “should publish a target date by which it expects all affected buildings to be remediated based on its understanding of the number of buildings to be remediated and the speed at which it expects building owners and developers to complete works”.
This should be continuously reviewed to keep track of “whether the date remains achievable as the portfolio progresses”, it added.
Last year the department brought its five remediation programmes, including the ACM (aluminium composite material) programme, the Building Safety Fund (BSF) and the Cladding Safety Scheme (CSS) together into what it describes as a single remediation portfolio.
While total costs are expected to be around £16.6 billion, the department’s estimates range from £12.6 billion to £22.4 billion, the NAO said.
MHCLG has pledged to provide funding for qualifying buildings at a current forecast cost of £9.1 billion, the NAO said, with the remainder funded by developers, private owners or social housing providers.
The new Building Safety Levy, to be paid by developers on new developments, is not expected to start until autumn 2025 at the earliest and MHCLG is yet to confirm payment mechanisms, the NAO said.
The report stated: “To complete remediation within the cap, MHCLG will need to work around a lack of certainty over income generated by the Levy (and will potentially need to extend it beyond the 10 years initially anticipated to recoup the funds required), and the ability of social housing owners to fund remediation of their properties at a pace acceptable to residents.”
He added: “There is a long way to go before all affected buildings are made safe, and risks MHCLG must address if its approach is to succeed.
“Putting the onus on developers to pay and introducing a more proportionate approach to remediation should help to protect taxpayers’ money. Yet it has also created grounds for dispute, causing delays.
“To stick to its £5.1 billion cap in the long run, MHCLG needs to ensure that it can recoup funds through successful implementation of the proposed Building Safety Levy.”
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said many residents remain “in the dark about when their homes will be made safe”.
He said: “The programme is falling behind schedule and MHCLG needs to pick up the pace to get it back on track. There is a long road ahead to resolve the cladding crisis and the Government must take steps to better protect the taxpayer.
“It urgently needs to ensure its fraud controls are working and that developers contribute their fair share to the costs.”
Building safety minister Alex Norris said: “The pace of remediation to make homes safe has been unacceptably slow.
“This Government is taking action, meeting our commitment to invest £5.1 billion to remove dangerous cladding and making sure those responsible pay for the rest.
“This Government will protect leaseholders and empower regulators to take enforcement action against those building owners who fail to act.
“Since coming into office, we have ramped up work with local authorities and regulators to speed up remediation and we will set out a remediation acceleration plan soon.”
The End Our Cladding Scandal campaign group said: “The Prime Minister has said he considers himself someone responsible for building safety – we must see action to back up those warm words.
“It is, or it should be, a simple premise that people either know their home is safe or know when fire safety defects will be fixed.
“In opposition, Labour said that no leaseholder should have to pay – yet now they are in power, the promises they have made over the last seven years seem hollow as they focus on building more homes rather than ensuring our homes are safe.
“We know that being in government may mean difficult decisions must be taken, but those decisions must be made with ordinary people first and foremost in mind, rather than the interests of business which have dominated government thinking for decades. Anything less would be a betrayal of all innocent victims of this scandal.”
