Andrew Parker comments on Government’s ‘Token gesture’ plan to end unsafe cladding
Construction Partner, Andrew Parker, was quoted in the Law Society Gazette and Property Week following his comments in the wake of the Government’s announcement of a revised plan to end unsafe cladding in residential buildings across England.
Andrew commented: “Today’s announcement amounts to only a token gesture towards the cladding problems. There is no timescale for many of the measures and in some cases only consultation is promised. There are no retrospective measures in place for those affected in the last couple of years. The measures repeatedly refer to cladding only and we are left unsure of what happens in buildings with no ACM cladding but highly unsafe external wall systems. The money that has been pledged has not been put into any sort of context – how many buildings is it assumed it will fix? How will the construction industry be assisted to cope with the extra demand and extra expertise that is needed? Professional indemnity insurance is mentioned in passing but many insurers currently refuse to cover fire related cladding works – how will the all important design and construction of the remedial works receive sufficient insurance cover? Today’s announcement will sadly not reassure the thousands of leaseholders currently trapped in limbo in unsafe flats.”
Andrew’s comments were picked up in the following articles, including the Law Society Gazette, Property Week, Prime Resi, Inside Conveyancing, News on the Block and New Law Journal:
- ‘Token gesture’: solicitors criticise £3.5bn cladding intervention
- Jenrick unveils developer taxes and £3.5bn fund to pay for cladding removal
- Property developers to face two new taxes to pay for cladding scandal bill
- ‘Token gesture’: solicitors criticise £3.5bn cladding intervention (Inside Conveyancing)
- £3.5bn to tackle cladding
- Cladding fund leaves lawyers unimpressed
The new government plan to end unsafe cladding: too little, too late?
Well, not enough and not fast enough. Whilst the additional £3.5bn in funding represents a much need injection of cash, it misses the mark in many respects.
