Deltapoll results about the Polluter Pays
Over the period 23-26th of July 2021 Deltapoll conducted a survey around the fire safety issues affecting many building across the UK. The survey consisted of 4 questions and we will sumarise the main takes of the poll. We would like to express our gratitude to Deltapoll for conducting this survey for us.
Following the fire in Grenfell Tower four years ago, many other blocks of flats have been found to have the kind of flammable cladding, or other serious defects, that could cause a similar fire. Do you personally live in one of these flats, or know someone who does?
|I live in one of these blocks of flats||5%|
|I personally know people who do||14%|
|I don’t personally know anyone who does||76%|
|I’m not sure||6%|
A staggering 19% or roughly 1 in 5 people are either directly involved or know people who do. In London, where there are a lot of multi storey buildings this number rises to 32%. The fire safety issues also disproportionately affect younger people. In the age groups 18-24 and 25-34 the numbers are 40 and 39% respectively.
In general, and bearing in mind the large costs that could be involved, how much do you think each of the following should contribute to the cost of making these blocks of flats safe from these kinds of fire? These costs are likely to be thousands, and often tens of thousands, of pounds per flat.
|Pay more than half the cost||pay less than half the cost|
|The original developer||70%||8%|
|The current landlord||49%||24%|
|the current leaseholder||17%||67%|
People clearly belief that the responsibility lies with the original developer, 7 out 10 people feel they should bear the greatest financial contribution to making the buildings safe again. Only 17% of respondents believe that leaseholders should bear the majority of the costs.
The Government is offering to help people living in blocks of flats more than six storeys (18 metres) high. It says that blocks of flats less than six storeys high are less likely to face a catastrophic fire, and leaseholders should pay more of the coost if they wish to remove the flammable cladding. Do you think people living in flats of six floors or less should pay more of the cost, or be treated the same as people living on blocks of flats six or more storeys high?
|It is reasonable for people living in buildings up to six storeys high to pay more, as the risks of a catastrophic fire are less||16%|
|People living in buildings containing flammable cladding should be treated the same, regardless of height||68%|
The majorty of respondents reject the government view that low and medium rise buildings carry less risk than high rise. This has clear implications for the forced loan scheme and revised ews1 guidance
In some cases, developers followed the rules in force at the time. In many others, they did not follow the rules.
Thinking about those blocks of flats where it is established that the developers failed to follow the regulations in force at the time, here are two statements, A and B. Which of these comes closer to your view?
|statement||views closer to statement on left|
|A. It would be unfair to require developers to meet the full cost of repairs to buildings thathave been up for more than ten years, after the normal guarantees have been expired and no defects were detected in that time.||21%|
|B. If the developers were at fault, it should make no difference when the flats were built. The Government should pass a law enforcing the principle that “the polluter pays”, with developers made to pay in full to make these buildings safe.||64%|
Support for the Polluter Pays principle and therefore support for a bill based on this very same principle is very high. In fact support for it is highest amongst conservative voters with 71%.
You can find the full survey results here: