Building Safety Fund

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities written question – answered at on 7 February 2024.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mike Amesbury Mike Amesbury Shadow Minister (Levelling Up, Housing, Communities and Local Government)

To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, how much (a) has been spent and (b) remains in the Building Safety Fund as of 31 January 2024.

Photo of Mike Amesbury Mike Amesbury Shadow Minister (Levelling Up, Housing, Communities and Local Government)

To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, if he will make an estimate of how much it would cost to expand access to the Building Safety Fund to (a) social housing providers, (b) shorter buildings and (c) other non-qualifying leaseholders.

Photo of Mike Amesbury Mike Amesbury Shadow Minister (Levelling Up, Housing, Communities and Local Government)

To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, if he will make an estimate of the number of buildings which it would be cheaper to demolish than to remediate under building safety regulations.

Photo of Lee Rowley Lee Rowley Minister of State (Minister for Housing)

As of 31 December 2023, we had allocated £2.3 billion through the BSF. Data on the BSF and other remediation programmes for buildings under 18 meters is published and updated monthly here.

All residential buildings above 11 metres in England now have a pathway to fix unsafe cladding, through either a taxpayer-funded scheme or developer-funded scheme. Where developers or building owners are not currently funding cladding remediation, the Government has committed £5.1 billion to ensure that people are safe and feel safe in their homes.

All leaseholders can benefit from the funding available for cladding repairs for buildings over 18 metres through the BSF and CSS, regardless of whether they qualify for protections under the Building Safety Act 2022. Furthermore, remediation contribution orders provide all leaseholders in relevant buildings with a route for recovering historical safety remediation costs from those who caused them.

Given the small number of buildings under 11 metres likely to need remediation, our assessment remains that extending protections to buildings below 11 metres is neither needed nor proportionate. Where buildings are unsafe, the Defective Premises Act offers a route to recover costs from the responsible party or parties.

No analysis has been undertaken on the number of buildings it would be cheaper to demolish than to remediate.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes1 person thinks so

No1 person thinks not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.