好色先生TV

The government has unveiled plans to give legal force to its threats to stop developers from building unless they pay up for cladding remediation costs.

It follows a reported letter from the chief executive of housebuilder Persimmon to the Department For Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) calling the sanctions 鈥渦nlawful鈥�.

The firm is understood to have sought legal advice from a QC over housing secretary Michael Gove鈥檚 warning to builders over an estimated 拢4bn bill for repairs to mid-rise blocks of between 11m and 18m in height.

Last week Redrow chief executive Matthew Pratt became the first to do so, branding Gove鈥檚 threats as 鈥渦nrealistic鈥� and 鈥渋nequitable鈥�.

Pratt said: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think anyone can sign a deal that says 鈥榶ou will give me anything I want鈥�. Which basically [is saying that at] the end of the year 鈥榳e鈥檒l tell you how much it [the cost] is and you鈥檒l sign up to say you鈥檒l give us it.鈥� Nobody can sign up to that, it鈥檚 unrealistic.鈥�

But Gove has doubled down on the threats today, saying in a statement from DLUHC that those not willing to play their part in ending the building safety crisis 鈥渕ust face consequences鈥�.

The secretary of state announced plans to amend the 好色先生TV Safety Bill to allow the government to block planning permission and building control sign-off for schemes for 鈥渢hose in the industry not doing the right thing鈥�.

The new law would effectively prevent developers who refuse to pay into the fire safety repair fund from building and selling new homes.

The government will also be able to apply its new building safety levy - a tax on developers of high rise residential buildings - to more developments, with scope for higher rates for those who 鈥渄o not participate in finding a workable solution鈥�.

Gove said: 鈥淚t is time to bring this scandal to an end, protect leaseholders and see the industry work together to deliver a solution.

鈥淭hese measures will stop building owners passing all costs on to leaseholders and make sure any repairs are proportionate and necessary for their safety.

鈥淎ll industry must play a part, instead of continuing to profit whilst hardworking families struggle.

鈥淲e cannot allow those who do not take building safety seriously to build homes in the future, and for those not willing to play their part they must face consequences.

鈥淲e will take action to keep homes safe and to protect existing leaseholders from paying the price for bad development.鈥�

DLUHC said the new clauses would enshrine in law a commitment made by Gove in the House of Commons last month that no leaseholder living in their own home, or sub-letting in a building over 11m, 鈥渆ver pays a penny for the removal of dangerous cladding鈥�.

And the department said the provisions announced today will go further than last month鈥檚 pledges by protecting leaseholders from non-cladding costs.

However, it admitted that leaseholders could still have to pay up to 拢15,000 in London and 拢10,000 elsewhere in the UK.

The capped bill would be footed by leaseholders in the 鈥渟mall number of cases鈥� where owners of buildings above 11m do not have the resources to pay, with any costs already paid out by leaseholders over the past five years counting towards the cap.

The department said the plan would encourage a 鈥渕ore proportionate approach鈥� to fixing buildings compared to current practice which allows building owners to pass on all costs to leaseholders.

The law would also allow cost contribution orders to be placed on product manufacturers who are successfully prosecuted under construction products regulations.

DLUHC said product firms would be required to 鈥減ay their fair share鈥� on buildings requiring remediation, adding: 鈥淚t is wrong that, until now, a manufacturer could be found guilty of misconduct but could not be charged to fix the problems they caused in selling defective products.鈥�

Gove鈥檚 threats followed his decision last month to protect leaseholders entirely from the costs of repairing unsafe cladding on homes now deemed to be at risk.

But housebuilders dispute the 拢4bn price tag, and say that other developers, contractors, designers, subcontractors, insurers and government should all share the cost.