Funding congestion appears to be easing.13 Jan 2026 13:22
The original Government Building Safety Pledge was aimed at major developers committing to pay for or remediate unsafe cladding and other life-critical fire safety defects on residential buildings over 11 m tall that they built in the past 30 years. According to official government records, around 49 developers had signed the pledge (also referred to as the developer remediation contract) committing to fix unsafe buildings they developed or refurbished.
Examples of signatories include:
Barratt, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Crest Nicholson, Persimmon, Redrow, Taylor Wimpey and many others — 50+ major housebuilders across the sector.
(This pledge is separate from other government remediation plans involving social landlords (which saw at least 110 social landlords sign a joint plan).
Developers who signed up have agreed to identify buildings they developed that have life-critical fire safety defects (including unsafe cladding) and fund or carry out remediation. Those who failed to sign risk restrictions on their ability to operate (e.g., planning permissions and building control) until they comply. Its meant to protect leaseholders — so they are not left with the bills for safety fixes they had no role in creating.
The pledge ensures the industry pays rather than leaseholders (in many cases) under schemes like the Cladding Safety Scheme or Building Safety Fund.
It creates legal obligations and enforcement mechanisms if developers fail to act.
There are thousands of buildings needing cladding remediation; as of late 2025, only about 35 % had completed works, and around 49 % had at least started remedial works. A significant number of buildings still haven’t been identified or assessed (government estimates suggest hundreds to potentially thousands remain to be fully catalogued).
The Building Safety Pledge represents significant industry commitment to remediate dangerous cladding, but sheer scale, regulatory bottlenecks, legal complexities, backlog in approvals and data gaps mean remediation is still slow — much slower than early political statements implied. With most major firms signed up, practical delivery on the ground continues to lag a timeline many leaseholders hoped would be met sooner but latest information appears to indicate that the situation is now a priority issue and funding congestion is being speedily addressed.
Hopefully this will be confirmed in next LST RNS.