Learning from lived experiences of building safety remediation works

Since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, building safety problems have been identified in many multi-occupancy buildings around the country. Work to remedy problems with flammable cladding systems, insulation, missing fire breaks, compartmentation, and flammable material on balconies is ongoing, but there are many buildings in which work is yet to commence.

Earlier this year we carried out research to explore leaseholders’ lived experiences of building safety remediation works. This was funded by the Crook Public Service Fellowships at the University of Sheffield, and the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE). The aim of the research was to use these early experiences of remediation to inform a report and key learning points that could be used to improve the remediation process in buildings where work was yet to start. 

Planning remediation

In our research, it was often the case that there was a lack of engagement and information sharing with leaseholders by those responsible for remediation works. Transparent sharing of information before works starts, an opportunity to meet the different organisations involved with remediation projects, and an opportunity to have their views heard and feed into the remediation process should be a minimum requirement for schemes. Understanding the possible impact that work is likely to have on the lives of people living through remediation, and working to minimise negative impacts, is essential to improving experiences.

However, there was little evidence that the experience of living through works was an important part of decision making in planning or carrying out work. Many leaseholders felt that they were not viewed as a stakeholder in the remediation process, even though the work has a very significant impact on their homes and daily lives.

There is a need for greater recognition of the importance of involving leaseholders in decisions that affect them, including through consultation and offering choices where this is possible. This involves shifting how we think about building remediation as a technical exercise in improving the material safety of buildings, to a process that also seeks to maximise the well-being of those resident through the works. We have built this into our 10 Principles for Planning Remediation.

Living through building work

As you might imagine, living through building remediation is often an incredibly stressful and difficult experience, with most leaseholders reporting that their mental health was negatively affected by works. It is important to remember that for many leaseholders, remediation comes after several years of stress and anxiety associated with building safety problems.

Noise is one of the biggest sources of negative impacts for leaseholders. This is not just about the volume of activities such as drilling – which has been described by leaseholders as “debilitating” and “torture” – but also the unpredictability of noise disruption, making it difficult for individuals to anticipate and potentially mitigate negative impacts. Leaseholders also described the loss of light in the home, which was worse for those with plastic sheeting compared to mesh, and the lack of ability to ventilate their homes due to restrictions during works.

There were significant impacts on privacy, with many leaseholders reporting that they did not feel comfortable at home. Individuals were resorting to keeping curtains and blinds shut all the time due to the close proximity of workers to private home space. Many leaseholders felt that contractors seemed poorly prepared for working on occupied buildings, staring into homes, eating lunch outside on balconies, smoking outside people’s windows, leaving rubbish around on site, and shouting and swearing whilst people were trying to work at home. Remediation sites are people’s homes, not building sites, requiring closer attention to behaviour on-site and a greater focus on maintaining a safe and secure environment for those who will be coming and going from their homes during works. During the research, there were several reports of security problems, with people climbing scaffolding, or gaining access to the building through doors that were left open, and security was a significant area of dissatisfaction for leaseholders living in buildings through remediation.

Our 10 Steps for On-Site Contractors details the steps that can be taken by contractors to minimise these issues.

Communication during works

Channels of communication will differ between buildings, but it is crucial that there is clear information on who is responsible for communicating with leaseholders during remediation, what information they will receive, and how often. There was considerable demand for more frequent and detailed communication once work was underway. For example, knowing when particularly noisy building work would – and would not – be taking place outside their home would enable people resident in the building to plan around disruption as much as possible. However, many leaseholders reported that it had not been possible to obtain information that would enable them to know how they would be affected week-on-week during remediation works.

Delays to projects were commonly reported by those participating in the research, but communication around delays was not always effective. For example, in some cases end dates for the completion of certain elements of work were replaced with ‘to be confirmed’ or ‘unknown’ when delays occurred. This contributed to a feeling of remediation works dragging on with no end in sight.

Although communication is a difficult area to get right, we have developed some key Communication Principles as part of this work.

What next?

There are many areas of learning to take from leaseholders’ early experiences of remediation. These should help to inform future projects to ensure that remediation takes greater account of the views of leaseholders in planning work that will significantly disrupt their homes. Of course, many of these lessons are also likely to be relevant to the experiences of other building residents, of any tenure. Remediation does not – and should not – be a purely technical exercise but needs to be planned to maximise livability and the well-being of building residents. We are continuing to share our learning with relevant stakeholder organisations and government bodies, to identify practical actions to help to improve conditions for those living through remediation.