Building Safety Funding Fairness

Summary

NHF CEO Kate Henderson criticizes the unequal distribution of the Building Safety Fund, with only 10% going to social housing. She calls for equal access to funding for housing associations and an end to the “immoral and unfair” practice of using social tenants’ rents for remediation. Henderson advocates for a fairer system ensuring the safety of all residents, regardless of housing type.

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

** Main Story**

Okay, so you’ve probably heard about the ongoing debate around building safety funding, especially in the wake of the Grenfell Inquiry. Kate Henderson, the head of the National Housing Federation (NHF), isn’t letting up, and I think she’s got a point. She’s been really vocal about what she sees as a fundamentally unfair system, and it’s hard not to agree when you dig into the details.

The Uneven Playing Field

Honestly, the disparity in where the Building Safety Fund money goes is pretty shocking. Henderson testified to MPs that only about 10% of the fund has been used to fix safety problems in social housing, while a whopping 90% went to private building owners. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it: are all residents safety being viewed equally? I remember a conversation I had with a friend who works for a housing association – she was pulling her hair out trying to figure out how to cover essential repairs after having to divert funds to fire safety upgrades. It’s a real problem.

And the rules don’t exactly help, do they? Social landlords only get funding if they can prove that leaseholders would be on the hook for the costs otherwise, or if the repairs would bankrupt the landlord. What about all the other crucial safety upgrades that need doing? This can have a real knock-on effect, forcing them to cut back on essential services or even delay new construction, and that hurts both current tenants and those stuck on waiting lists. Speaking of which, it’s worth remembering the human cost – those waiting lists represent real people.

Who Pays the Price?

It’s kind of sickening to think about, but under the current setup, social tenants’ rents are basically subsidizing building safety improvements. Henderson rightly calls this “immoral and unfair.” You’re asking some of the most vulnerable people in society to foot the bill for fixing problems they didn’t create. Shouldn’t everyone, no matter where they live, have the right to feel safe in their home? Henderson wants what she describes as “fair and equal access” to funding for all housing providers. I think that’s a basic expectation, wouldn’t you say?

Time for a Real Change

The NHF isn’t just asking for a quick fix; they’re pushing for a complete overhaul of the government’s approach to building safety funding. They’re saying, loud and clear, that the current system just isn’t sustainable. It puts an unreasonable burden on social housing and, consequently, on tenants. They need a bigger slice of the pie, plain and simple. That way, housing associations can tackle these critical safety issues without compromising their other essential services, or putting a stop to development plans. In my view, a long term vision is what’s needed here.

Thinking Long-Term

But the NHF isn’t stopping there. They’re also looking at the bigger picture, advocating for changes to building regulations and the whole planning system. They want things like ring-fencing planning fees for Section 106 agreements, clearer guidance on viability assessments… and even training for local councilors on the ins and outs of Section 106. That’s smart thinking! Henderson’s also urging the government to focus on specific, measurable outcomes in its upcoming long-term housing strategy – things like ending the use of temporary accommodation for families with children. It’s all about building a fairer and more sustainable housing system for the future. Let’s not forget, that the building safety issues aren’t the only problem facing those in social housing. There’s damp, overcrowding, and a general lack of investment in certain areas.

So, What’s Next?

The NHF is raising some seriously important questions here. Who should be responsible for building safety? How should we distribute resources fairly? As the government gets ready to unveil its 10-year housing strategy, the NHF’s push for change couldn’t be more timely. Addressing these issues is absolutely essential if we want to ensure the safety and well-being of all residents, and to build a housing system that’s actually fair for everyone. It’s March 4, 2025, as I’m writing this, and the debate is far from over. Hopefully, the NHF’s continued pressure will lead to some real progress. You know, I sometimes wonder if people at the top really grasp how all this impacts real lives. But I hope, for the sake of everyone involved, that they’re listening this time.