Extra funding to tackle unsafe cladding is too little too late for bankrupted leaseholders

Four years ago this June a fire broke out in a tower block in west London. The conflagration that ensued claimed the lives of 72 people, injured a similar number, and stands as one of the worst non-terror disasters since the Second World War. Although covered up, the charred shell of the building still looms across the skyline, and the inquiry into the causes of the tragedy is still not complete.

In that sense the remains of Grenfell Tower stands as an appropriate monument to continuing official indifference, both to the residents of that corner of London and to every resident of a tower block with dangerous cladding attached to it. These people have lived with the threat of immolation and, in some cases, financial ruin for far too long. To put it bluntly they are living with the prospect of being burned to death of bankruptcy. That 24-storey hulk in west London visible for miles around seems not to have been noticed by Westminster and Whitehall.

The announcement by Robert Jenrick, the secretary for communities and local government, of partial relief for people in such desperate circumstances is just that – partial and unsatisfactory. It is limited by size of building, type of materials and extent of remedial works. It is unbelievable that unsafe cladding of any kind should still be attached to buildings where people live and work. Like Grenfell Tower itself it should long since have been removed. Too many lives will remain blighted, and for some bankrupted ex-leaseholders it has arrived too late.

The £5bn of public money devoted to this project was always going to be necessary, because market mechanisms were always going to be inadequate to the task. The private developers are reluctant to pay up, and may not have the means in any case, and the leaseholders cannot afford to make their homes safe. In effect, they go into default and hand the keys over to the authorities, useless uninhabitable flats that could and should be brought back into useful purpose.

The state too has its share of the blame for Grenfell, as the inquiry will no doubt eventually demonstrate. Deregulation of building standards in the 1980s and 1990s went too far too fast – a lesson for today’s dash for new home construction. Re-regulation is obviously needed, if only because some of the latest development schemes, such as converting commercial into residential property and crazes such as basement conversations appear to be creating fresh problems. 

Planning rules and the powers of local authorities have been weakened with too little heed to the long-term future of these buildings. As the demand for traditional retail and office accommodation collapses, with the need for homes as acute as ever, mass conversion of sites seems an obvious corollary – but there has to be some greater care about amenity and indeed safety with radical changes of use.

The industry too needs to accept its share of responsibility. The new industry levy should provide some peace of mind about remedying poorly designed and badly constructed structures of every kind. It would be better, though, to avoid shoddy flats and houses being thrown up in the first place.