The letter calls for independent oversight of the implementation of recommendations to avoid cutting corners
The Grenfell inquiry recommendations come from the publication of the final report in February.
The letter has been sent by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and calls for independent oversight to avoid the regulator “marking its own homework”.
Eight years since the Grenfell fire
Next month will mark the eighth anniversary since the disaster, and in January five contenders were announced as a shortlist for the planned memorial. Late last month, it was also announced that Deconstruct UK would carry out the demolition of the tower’s remains after debate whether the tower should remain standing as its own memorial or not.
The letter sent by the committee today takes into account the government’s response to the Grenfell inquiry recommendations and reinforces a number of them. They refer to previous disasters and reactions, and wishing to avert “repeating the catastrophic mistakes which have historically led to state-related deaths, from Hillsborough, to the infected blood scandal, to the Grenfell Tower fire itself.”
The recommendations made in the letter are as follows:
Implementing recommendations
While the Committee welcomes the Government’s acceptance of all the recommendations from the Grenfell Inquiry’s Phase 2 report, it is clear that there are significant risks of these recommendations not being implemented effectively if independent oversight is lacking.
We do not believe that the Government’s proposals to publish progress updates on gov.uk, and to annually update Parliament, go far enough in this respect. Additional scrutiny is required.
The Government must consult as soon as possible on a new system of formal implementation monitoring for accepted recommendations from all public inquiries. It should consider introducing this as a provision in the upcoming “Hillsborough Bill”.
This new monitoring system should be in place and actively monitoring implementation of the recommendations arising from the Grenfell Inquiry’s Phase 2 report before the tenth anniversary of the fire on 14 June 2027.
This system could be in the form of a national oversight mechanism, as advocated by INQUEST and Grenfell United.
Additionally, Parliament could consider setting up its own Public Inquiries Committee, as recommended by the Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee in its 2024-25 sessional report.
The system should monitor all of the accepted recommendations, including those which are for other public bodies to implement, such as local authorities.
We welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s pledge to “keep a close eye” on RBKC specifically, and to continue to listen to the council’s social housing tenants to assess how far the council has succeeded in implementing the necessary improvements in how it deals with their concerns.
Engagement with Grenfell Residents
While the Government has made good-faith efforts to engage the Grenfell community when making decisions around the future of the site, it is clear that there are still groups, particularly those from minority ethnic backgrounds, who feel that they have not been able to fully contribute to these processes.
Prior to making any future decisions as part of its management of the Grenfell site, the Government must ensure that it has a full and up-to-date list of contacts of those affected by the fire, including bereaved family members living abroad, and ensure that everyone on this list is contacted and their input sought.
We encourage the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to continue to review its processes for ensuring that a diversity of voices are represented in its meetings, in particular those of bereaved family members living abroad.
Building regulation and building control
While the Committee acknowledges that positive steps forward have been made in the building safety and control sectors since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, there is still much work to be done.
There is a serious risk that the Government’s proposed reforms to the building safety regime will fail if concerns around the capacity of the building control sector to inspect buildings are not addressed. It is imperative that the Government appoint the independent panel on the future of building control as soon as possible, so that the panel has sufficient time to consider its recommendations ahead of their scheduled publication in autumn 2025.
The Government should consider giving the panel statutory footing to ensure its recommendations are carried out.
In its recommendations, the panel should lay out a plan for driving up and funding the recruitment of building control professionals and fire engineers.
New regulatory landscape
We acknowledge the Government’s view that it is not appropriate to endow the new single construction regulator with the power to both regulate construction products and undertake their testing and certification, as this may create a conflict of interest.
However, the Government must pay due regard to feedback it receives on its consultation on the Construction Products Green Paper when deciding on the final role and remit of the new regulator.
The Government must also ensure that the role and remit of the new regulator is clear and distinct from existing regulators including the Building Safety Regulator and the Office for Product Safety and Standards.
Work of the Building Safety Regulator
Delays in the ability of the Building Safety Regulator to sign off on the safety of buildings must be addressed as a priority. It is clear that improvements need to be made both to the operating efficacy of the Regulator, as well as the quality of building control applications which are submitted for its review.
The Government must review how it can best support the Building Safety Regulator to make improvements in its day-to-day operations. This could include making changes to the Regulator’s remit to allow it to carry out its work on an organisation-by-organisation basis, rather than on the current system of going building-by-building.
It must also continue to work with the BSR and the sector to ensure that developers are enabled to submit better quality applications that allow them to pass through the building control gateways in cases where their buildings meet fire safety requirements, for example through the distribution of relevant guidance (or review of existing guidance).
Building remediation
The Committee accepts that the decision to delay the introduction of the Building Safety Levy until Autumn 2026 was the correct one, given the concerns expressed by industry. However, responsible developers should still be paying their fair share towards remediation; taxpayers and leaseholders should not be left to foot the bill.
The Government must write to this Committee to explain how it will address concerns raised by developers around the potential impact of the Levy on housing supply before it comes into effect in Autumn 2026.
In this explanation, it should also provide a new estimate for how much the Levy intends to raise in light of adjustments which will presumably have to be made to address these concerns. If this estimate is lower than the £3.4bn the Government originally said the Levy aimed to raise, it should set out steps for how it will make up for the funding discrepancy through other sources of funding (preferably through developer contributions).
The Government should also make changes to the existing funds available for remediation to ensure that social housing providers have equal access to funding as private landlords, to ensure they have the financial headroom to both invest in the maintenance of existing social housing stock and build new social housing.
Other building safety issues
We welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce regulations to mandate PEEPs for disabled residents in high-rise buildings. However, the Government must ensure that responsible parties are in a position to ensure PEEPs are produced for all residents who require them.
The Government must, as part of the Spending Review process, allocate sufficient funding to responsible parties working with high-rise buildings to ensure that they can put together PEEPs for all disabled residents in their building.
We are deeply concerned by the London Fire Commissioner’s comments regarding how fire-safe existing care homes are. We question the wisdom of the decision not to mandate sprinklers in existing care homes.
The Government should urgently review the decision to mandate sprinkler installation in new care homes, but not existing care homes. If it chooses to persist with this policy, it should lay out its plans for inspecting the arrangements building owners are taking in existing care homes to ensure they are fire-safe.
The letter and the rest of the recommendations can be read in full here.
The post Housing committee sends letter to secretary of state regarding Grenfell inquiry recommendations appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
