Last week’s Envoy Roundtable discussion at The Gherkin brought together industry professionals and government representatives to explore the pressing challenges of cladding remediation. The conversation was insightful, touching on the balance between pace and value for money, transparency in public spending, and the hurdles faced by the industry. Below are some key highlights from the event:
Balancing Pace and Value for Money
There was consensus around the need to improve the speed of cladding remediation efforts, particularly in response to criticism that progress has been too slow. However, it was emphasized that while identifying gaps and streamlining processes is important, the pace cannot always be controlled directly. The real goal should be ensuring value for money—not simply choosing the cheapest option, but delivering the right quality at the right price. Cutting corners to save costs risks compromising safety and long-term durability.
Transparency and Accountability
Public money is at the core of cladding remediation, and transparency and accountability to residents are essential. The process should be focused on ensuring funds are used appropriately, not just to meet budgetary goals but to genuinely enhance building safety. Reducing delays in decision-making and minimizing variation in processes is critical to ensuring timely progress.
Case workers, divided between handling backlogs and new cases, are supported by operations teams who step in when complications arise. For projects facing financial strain, there’s a hardship fund available through the Cladding Safety Scheme, with further review by the DLA as needed.
Challenges with PAS/FRAEW and Inconsistencies in Approach
Concerns were raised over the perceived subjectivity of the PAS/FRAEW process. This lack of clarity has led some experts to avoid the government’s route entirely, opting instead for alternative methods to achieve compliance.
Another challenge identified was inconsistency in the way building control applications are handled. With a significant portion rejected for non-compliance, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) encourages the industry to submit clear, detailed evidence of compliance. The BSR doesn’t actively seek information but expects submissions to meet the necessary standards. A functional approach is necessary, though the BSR acknowledges that a checklist alone won’t suffice due to the complexity of different buildings.
Resources and Support
The BSR is providing useful guidance through various channels, including a YouTube series on building control, safety cases, and compliance expectations. These resources are designed to help clarify what meets the necessary standards, and case studies are available to showcase both successful and subpar examples. Although the BSR doesn’t offer direct building control advice, they can assist with navigating the regulatory process.
As cladding remediation efforts continue to face scrutiny, it’s clear that collaboration, transparency, and a focus on quality over cost-cutting are key to driving progress. Stay tuned for more insights in our upcoming video, which will be available on our website and LinkedIn page very soon!
