Issue - meetings

Background:This year, we have passed the seventh anniversary of the fire in Grenfell Tower, which burned for more than 60 hours taking 72 lives. The Grenfell fire exposed a crisis of fire safety in high-rise building across our country, with a considerable number of buildings in the Royal Borough of Greenwich being found to have various levels of breaches of building regulations and the use of dangerous materials.

We believe that it is imperative that the developers and owners of all buildings over 18m in need of fire remediation work must be able to proceed with the removal of unsafe material as quickly as possible, and leaseholders should be protected from the costs of this work being passed on through fees and charges.

However, the response to this crisis from the previous Government was woefully slow, piecemeal, and created competing and contradictory safety standards for remediation work that has left residents burdened with high insurance premiums and mortgage difficulties.

Motion: This Council notes with deep concern the following:

1.    Disparity in safety ratings between developers and insurers

Flammable material on homes poses a risk and while we cannot eliminate all fire risks, it is about managing them. The disparity arises from insurance companies and developers having varying priorities and perspectives.

In the wake of the Grenfell fire, insurance companies have added the heightened risk of whole block fires in many over 18m buildings. In many cases the risk is too high for single insurers are not able to cover on its own. So, leaseholders have left unable to get cover or brokers have turned to sourcing cover from multiple firms. The latter meaning thatseveral insurers are involved in covering one building, creating a ‘layered’ effect and driving up the cost. 

Developers often rely on building regulations and standards that they meet during construction, which may vary depending on the specific interpretation of safety requirements. These ratings can sometimes be less stringent than the criteria used by insurers, who often apply more rigorous standards based on their risk models and the potential liability they face in the event of a claim.

·        Developers are focused on the present safety and adherence to construction standards, while insurers look at potential risks and historical data to predict future incidents.

·        Developers aim to ensure the building is safe from the start, adhering to codes and best practices. Insurers, however, evaluate the likelihood of future incidents and how well risks are managed.

·        Developer ratings are often based on current and immediate safety measures, whereas insurer ratings consider long-term risks and past performance.

·        Insurers are focused on the EWS1 certification process, which is a set way for a building owner to confirm for insurers that an external wall system on residential buildings has been assessed for safety by a suitable expert, in line with government guidance. It is however not a legal requirement to remediate to A1 standard with requirements for fire safety being B1, and this disparity creates confusion and frustration for leaseholders and  ...  view the full decision text for item 16

Given the elapse of three and a half hours, Members voted to extend the meeting by 30 minutes and to take item 16 next in recognition of the numbers of residents in attendance.

Councillor Majella Anning declared that she lived in building that which was undergoing remediation, so would not vote.

Councillor Lade Olugbemi moved the motion and spoke to it as published saying that since the Grenfell Tower fire nearly 8 years ago, where 72 people lost their lives, many people in the borough remained living in buildings which had been found to be in breach of various building regulations and with unsafe materials.  Developers and Builders of buildings in need of remediation should be able to proceed with the removal of unsafe materials and leaseholders should not be liable for the cost of this through fees and charges.  The discrepancies between the assessment of risk from an insurance perspective and a buildings perspective had left leaseholders in the difficult position of living in buildings which they could not obtain insurance for.

The Motion was seconded by Councillor Rachel Taggart-Ryan.  She spoke about the new government’s prioritisation of this issue through regulation and investment in remediation work.  It was important that the financial burden of this work should not fall on leaseholders who had no say in the materials used in the construction of their buildings.  Alongside the motion in her capacity as relevant Cabinet Member, Councillor Taggart-Ryan had written to Alex Norris MP, Building Safety Minister, urging him to increase resources and implement clear timelines for the Building Safety Regulator, and to back a risk -pooled reinsurance scheme to help ensure quicker and more substantial reductions in the costs paid by leaseholders.

Councillor David Gardner spoke in support of the motion as many buildings in his ward were affected by cladding issues which left leaseholders in a difficult position when it came to trying to sell.

Councillor Matt Hartley, Leader of the Opposition, stood to move an amendment.  He further wished to amend the published amendment to remove the bullet point which read (This Council) “ welcomes the decision by the London Fire Brigade to issue an enforcement notice in relation to fire safety issues at Royal Artillery Quay” as there was some expressed doubt over this, as whilst this had been communicated to the Chair of the Royal Artillery Quay Residents Association, Council officers had been unable to obtain confirmation of this from the Fire Brigade.  As there was some doubt over this point Councillor Hartley said he was happy to remove it from his amendment.

Councillor Hartley, moved the amendment and spoke to it as published with the additional amendment.  Whilst he was happy to broadly support the wording of Motion, he felt it could go further and focus on what the Council could do to influence the local issue in the ward, rather than a more generalised call on the government to do more.  It was acknowledged that that there were many other housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16