Trade-offs and compromises are part of all government policy. One day’s priority can easily be eclipsed by the next day’s events. As a recent example, Ed Miliband has been stressing the government’s manifesto pledge to veto new fossil fuels extraction in the North Sea but the pressure on energy prices caused by the war in the Middle East has encouraged Rachel Reeves to suggest that the UK should control more of its own energy supply by opening up new offshore oil and gas fields; the implication being that the immediate economic interest is greater than the longer-term net zero targets.
There are many other reasons for the low number of housing starts, not least a skills deficit, potential mortgage price inflation and planning delays
Following the dreadful Grenfell tragedy what social price could be afforded by any such compromises on building safety? Clearly, Reform UK’s erstwhile housing and infrastructure spokesperson, Simon Dudley (a former chair of Homes England), thinks that the regulatory regime has gone too far. In an interview to Inside Housing, he said that the building safety regulations introduced after Grenfell were ‘not working’, adding a distasteful and needless aside that ‘sadly, you know, everyone dies in the end. It’s just how you go, right?’ Unsurprisingly, his remark caused huge offence. On social media, Dudley made an unsuccessful attempt to exculpate himself but, as I write, Nigel Farage has acted swiftly to distance himself from the comments and removed Dudley from a role that he had barely started.
To its credit the government has been true to its stated ambition of going further than just implementing the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and – unusually for any government – it has met all its self-imposed targets.
But what cost will this ambition mean for another government target, to build 1.5 million new homes in the life of this Parliament? Although ministers remain firmly wedded to this goal, the facts are weighted heavily against it. The latest reliable data shows that around 181,000 new home completions occurred in the 15 months since the election, an annual rate of less than 150,000 (half the required annual target).
To catch up over the remaining life of the Parliament would mean building 340,000 new homes each year and the number increases exponentially for every month that the proportional target is not met. It is almost 60 years since the UK last saw 300,000 homes built in one year and so, frankly, the government’s ambition is already beyond the capacity of the housebuilding industry to deliver.
Although his remarks were callous, there may be some truth in Dudley’s argument. That said, there are many other reasons for the comparatively low numbers of housing starts, not least a skills deficit, potential mortgage price inflation and planning delays.
Some developers are so concerned about this uncertainty that sites are being mothballed. Far from the housing boom that the government wants we are facing yet another period of housebuilding decline and stagnation that stretches back at least six decades.
In his defence on social media, Mr Dudley referred to a recent announcement from the Berkeley Group, one of the UK’s biggest housebuilders, which has stopped buying land for development and hiring new staff. But their statement referenced geopolitical volatility and the reduced potential for interest rate cuts as the primary reasons for the decision, and not increased red tape related to building safety. Ironically, the Berkeley Group’s divisional managing director, Karl Whiteman, leads the Construction Leadership Council’s building safety work and has done more than anyone in the industry to help the Building Safety Regulator unblock delays in project approvals.
These delays are no reason to put the brake on regulating to improve building safety. There have already been signs of a worrying volte-face with the publication of guidance by the Department for Education that reverses a requirement for new schools to be designed to include fire suppression sprinklers. It seems to be a case of fiscal concern overcoming safety need.
The industry itself is still pressing for necessary reform in difficult circumstances. Peter Caplehorn – chief executive of the Construction Products Association – told me, ‘We are moving to the next phase of building safety reforms by putting the fine detail on the principles in the Building Safety Act. We want to ensure the regulations are well thought through, practical and can immediately be taken up by industry,’ adding ‘right now however the industry is suffering. There are so many factors coming from across the economy that while many companies would like to be fully embracing reform their current priority is survival.’
Regulatory reform to ensure building safety is already overdue and although there is a need for greater clarity of outcome and certainty of timing, Mr Dudley is wrong to suggest that there is a need for any compromise when it comes to the safety reforms themselves.
Comments