Social Housing Shortchanged: Just 10% of Building Safety Fund Allocated

Summary

Only 10% of the Building Safety Fund has been allocated to social housing, raising concerns about equitable distribution of resources for fire safety improvements. The fund, established after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, aims to remediate unsafe cladding on high-rise buildings, but social housing providers have been largely excluded, impacting residents and hindering new construction. This article analyzes the implications of this disparity and calls for broader access to funding for social housing.

Focus360 Energy: property compliance services – pre-planning to post-construction. Learn more.

Main Story

The Grenfell Tower fire, a tragedy that still sends shivers down your spine, exposed some pretty major flaws in the UK’s building safety regulations. It’s not an easy thing to talk about, really. In response, the government set up the Building Safety Fund, aiming to fix fire safety risks, especially in those towering high-rise buildings clad in unsafe materials. Great idea, right? But, and this is a big but, its implementation… well, it’s revealed a real problem. A mere 10% of the allocated funds have actually reached the social housing sector. Can you believe it? It’s a stark contrast and, frankly, it makes you wonder if we’re really looking out for everyone, especially those in social housing.

So, the Building Safety Fund, it was meant to cover the cost of fixing unsafe non-ACM cladding—you know, the non-combustible aluminum stuff—on high-rise residential buildings over 18 meters in England. It’s all overseen by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC). It all stems from that initial fund that dealt with the awful ACM cladding used on Grenfell. But, they widened the scope to include non-ACM cladding and buildings between 11 and 18 meters. Fair enough, you’d think.

The eligibility criteria, though? That’s where things get murky, really. Currently, social landlords can only get funding if the remediation costs would be passed on to leaseholders otherwise or if those costs risk the landlord going under. It’s a tricky situation. This restriction, it really limits how much social housing can access funding. And, as a result, not-for-profit housing associations are now having to pull resources from new projects to sort out safety concerns in existing buildings. It’s a tough call isn’t it? Do you focus on today’s safety or tomorrow’s housing needs?

This limited funding for social housing has some pretty serious knock-on effects. For one thing, it puts social housing residents at greater risk by delaying or simply stopping necessary safety work. For instance, I remember a story from a colleague about one block of flats that hadn’t had any work started because of budget issues. It was terrifying for the people living there. Secondly, it makes the current housing crisis worse by holding up the development of affordable homes. Thirdly, it adds a huge financial burden to these housing associations, which could impact their future viability. It’s not a pretty picture.

The CEO of the National Housing Federation brought this issue up with MPs, highlighting the urgent need for a more balanced distribution. Housing associations and advocates have been calling for those eligibility criteria to be widened, so more social landlords can get access to the funding. That wouldn’t just improve fire safety, but also free up the resources to build new, affordable homes. A win-win, right? It’s the kind of solution we all need to see more of.

The Building Safety Act 2022, which was enacted as a direct response to Grenfell, brought some pretty big changes to building regulations in England. The focus is on higher safety standards and accountability in the construction industry. These changes, which came into effect in October 2023, aim to revolutionise how we design, build, and manage buildings. The Act mainly focuses on high-rise residential buildings – 18 meters or taller, or seven or more stories – and establishes new roles for owners and managers. That said, the Act doesn’t directly address the funding disparity within the Building Safety Fund, leaving that particular problem of equitable access for social housing still unresolved.

That said, the government has at least acknowledged the need to address building safety in social housing. The Chancellor’s recent announcement of £1 billion in new building safety funding for 2025-26, that’s a step in the right direction. But, and there’s always a but isn’t there? We don’t know the details of how this funding will be allocated. Hopefully, it’ll provide greater support for social housing and fix those safety issues. Let’s wait and see, shall we?

This whole Building Safety Fund debate really highlights a bigger challenge: balancing the costs of safety improvements against the urgent need for affordable housing. The current system, where private developers seem to be prioritized over social housing providers, creates a real systemic inequality. It’s not just unfair, it actually hurts both safety and affordability, in the long run. A fairer approach would mean putting way more funding into social housing. It would ensure that everyone, no matter their tenure, can live in a safe place. As a result policymakers need to consider the long term problems of funding gaps and implement sustainable solutions. It’s a big task, no doubt about it, but it’s what we should be aiming for, for the benefit of everyone.