Read on Twitter
There's been lots of talk about how much better the Australian state of Victoria has been doing at dealing with its cladding crisis, so for this month's issue I spoke to the chief executive of the agency tasked with making their buildings safe 
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/home/home/dealing-with-deadly-cladding-down-under-68754?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/home/home/dealing-with-deadly-cladding-down-under-68754?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
A couple of key takeaways:
1. The key difference between Victoria and the UK is that Vic has managed to proactively assess and categorise buildings as low, medium, high risk whereas we're treating all in the same way.
1. The key difference between Victoria and the UK is that Vic has managed to proactively assess and categorise buildings as low, medium, high risk whereas we're treating all in the same way.
2. This means Vic has a manageable pile of buildings in the high extreme/risk category which it is now fixing, whereas we are pretty much casting around trying to fix every building in the country with Rishi Sunak's spare change
3. But please understand, doing what Victoria did took an enormous amount of effort and time, and was possible because they had the state infrastructure to do it. I did that in more detail in another story last year: https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-cladding-crisis-down-under-what-we-can-learn-from-the-response-to-grenfell-in-australia-64164
4. What's worth pointing out is that they've spent so much time on that they've only remediated three buildings so far (but will now substantially accelerate). I think that's the right approach, but it's an easier one in Victoria because...
5. Their buildings come with sprinklers, fire alarms and escape plans as standard. They didn't have the double whammy of dodgy buildings AND total reliance on stay put in high rises. Makes it harder for us to tolerate delay while assessing risk
6. They also don't have leasehold, all buildings are owner corporation owned and this makes it much easier and gives the residents more control. It also begs the eternal leasehold question: what is the point of the freeholder exactly?
7. They initially wanted to do low cost long term loans (sound familiar?) but this died because leaseholders simply wouldn't take them. Instead they are funding through a mix of public funds and a levy on building permits
8. Why are we not doing the latter? It would raise a huge amount of revenue and have a clear sense of fairness and is entirely legally possible (worth stressing though: it only touches the sides of the problem IF you do the initial risk work)
9. Only possible time to call Victoria to do this piece was 9pm in the evening and I've got two kids under three, so yeah. You're welcome.
