The Building Safety Act isn’t working. The government should ditch it

London is likely to see fewer homes built, not just this year but in ‘27 and ‘28 too, than at any time since the Second World War.

It would be easy to castigate mayor Khan for this and he does indeed bear some responsibility for the pathetically low number of starts. But the problem is deeper rooted than just unrealistic affordable housing targets. The city has other obvious challenges.

Build costs are higher than anywhere else in the country, the shortage of talent to actually do the work is at a critically low level and recent action by government has left potential buyers wary of committing. Several impediments have also been placed on developers by legislation. One is the Building Safety Act, which has effectively added a year to the consent process in London, and the second is the requirement for second staircases in residential developments of more than 18 metres in height.

Both these requirements were introduced by the last government and, while no doubt well meaning, have made the shortage of decent housing even worse. Repealing them would not make London a less safe place to live in, and abandoning the second staircase requirement would not make tenants on upper floors any less safe.

Existing regulations around fire doors and the like are sufficiently effective. So, I suggest to housing secretary Steve Reed, whose vision of one and a half million homes in five years is so far under water as to be less likely to be recovered to the surface than the Titanic, that he should repeal the relevant legislation and take us back to where we were prior to 2022.

His argument would be strengthened because both initiatives were instigated by Michael Gove during his time as housing minister, which led to me writing a piece headlined “What is Michael Gove smoking?”

However bright a man the now Lord Gove undoubtedly is, his time as secretary of state at what was then called DLUHC is not something he should spend much time on in his memoirs. Nor need he fear his current opposite number, Sir James Cleverley. I challenge any reader to tell me what he has had to say on what is surely one of the most critical social issues the country faces.

It would of course be a tough decision to abandon a body that has building safety in its name, but if there were ever a better example of how we have just been forced to absorb yet more bureaucracy without any evidence that this will actually make the country any safer, I have yet to hear it.

Labour’s problem remains that, having promised to scrap unnecessary impediments to progress, they have actually achieved very little. The recent Planning and Infrastructure Act has done good things as far as NSIPs are concerned after the Tories took their eye off the ball during the pandemic, but far from speeding up the planning process, the act introduces a new Nature Restoration Levy, enhances the requirements for environmental impact assessments and fails to grasp the nettle of what to do about the bats, great crested newts and jumping spiders.

In short, apart from threatening land owners with a draconian version of compulsory purchase powers that would make Donald Trump blush, the result actually does next to nothing to move the needle. Slogans might sound great, but are worthless without action.

Being a minister is not easy, but Steve must be bold if his vision is to succeed. If he gets it right, then we might see the house builders back in business. If he fails, then a problem that affects the least well off in our society will simply get worse.