When Grenfell happened, many people believed the solution was straightforward. Dangerous cladding would be identified, removed and replaced with safer materials. Nearly a decade later, we know the reality is far more complicated.

This week on Cladding Matters, join Gareth Wax, Steve Day and Hamish McLay as we discuss comments made by the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) that have sparked fresh debate across the industry. The regulator has acknowledged that removing every piece of combustible material from every building is not always possible. Instead, many remediation projects involve difficult engineering decisions about what can safely remain and what additional measures are needed to reduce any remaining risk.

For many residents, that may come as a surprise.

The expectation for years has been that combustible materials would simply come off buildings. Yet the BSR has confirmed that, in many cases, remediation is not about removing everything. It is about managing risk while working within the practical realities of existing buildings.

That raises an important question. What does a safe building actually look like?

According to the BSR, many remediation projects are considerably more complex than they first appear. Every building is different. Some have structural limitations, others present engineering challenges that make complete removal difficult, while some remediation work could introduce new problems if not carefully designed.

It is a reminder that these are not decisions taken on a drawing board. They are being made on buildings where people are living every day.

One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion is the growing use of partial remediation. Rather than replacing every combustible product, proposals are often based on detailed fire risk assessments and a package of safety measures designed to reduce the overall level of risk.

Supporters argue this is a sensible and proportionate approach. If the overall fire risk can be reduced to an acceptable level, they say there is little benefit in carrying out additional work simply for the sake of removing every combustible material.
Others take a different view.

Many leaseholders have spent years expecting dangerous materials to be removed completely. Learning that some combustible products may remain is understandably difficult to accept, particularly after everything residents have experienced since Grenfell.

It also brings PAS 9980 back into the spotlight.

The guidance was introduced to encourage a risk-based assessment of external wall systems rather than a blanket approach to remediation. For some, that has helped avoid unnecessary work and significant costs. For others, it has created uncertainty, with similar buildings sometimes receiving different recommendations depending on the assessment.

Confidence has always been one of the biggest challenges facing building safety.

Residents want to understand not only that their building complies with the regulations, but why particular decisions have been made. Clear communication is just as important as technical compliance. Without it, uncertainty can remain long after the work has finished.

The BSR also highlighted another important point. Remediation itself is not without risk. New façade systems can sometimes create unintended consequences such as condensation, damp, mould or maintenance issues if they are not carefully designed and installed.

That serves as a reminder that building safety is about far more than replacing one product with another. It is about ensuring the whole building performs as intended for many years to come.

For residents at Royal Artillery Quays and countless other developments across the country, this discussion will feel particularly relevant. Many have lived with uncertainty for years while waiting for remediation to begin. Understandably, they want confidence that once work is complete, it truly represents a long-term solution.

This week's discussion is not about criticising the Building Safety Regulator. Nor is it about suggesting that every building should be treated the same.

Instead, it is about understanding how these decisions are made, why they are being made and whether residents are being given enough information to have confidence in the outcome.

Join Gareth Wax, Steve Day and Hamish McLay as we discuss what the BSR's comments mean in practice, whether partial remediation can ever provide complete reassurance, and how the industry balances engineering reality with residents' understandable expectations.

As always, we'd love you to be part of the conversation. Whether you're a leaseholder, freeholder, managing agent, fire engineer or simply someone with an interest in building safety, join us live at 1pm on Friday, or catch the recording afterwards on our YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@SpillingTheProper-Tea

If you have any questions before, during or after the programme, we'd be delighted to hear from you.

For content enquiries: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
For podcast/media info: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.