Cladding tax on new homes delayed for a year

Ministers have delayed a tax to fund the removal of unsafe cladding from homes after developers warned it could hamper the government's housebuilding plans.The Ministry for Housing said on Monday the Building Safety Levy would be introduced from autumn 2026, rather than this year.The tax on new homes is expected to raise £3.4bn to be spent on building safety, including efforts to take down dangerous cladding.The delay comes after developers said the tax could increase building costs and result in the government missing its target to build 1.5 million homes by 2030.
Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook told LBC the government was still committed to the tax and insisted the delay would not slow down the pace of improving building safety."The previous government left us with an unpalatable inheritance in that respect," Pennycook said."We've got to increase ther pace of works being done. Leaseholders are still trapped in these buildings."Neil Jefferson, chief executive of the Home Builders Federation, welcomed the delay as "recognition from government that these additional costs will inevitably constrain housing supply".But he suggested the "grossly unfair" tax on housing developers should be scrapped altogether.He said: "As proposed it will add thousands of pounds to the cost of new homes, threatening the viability of sites across swathes of the country at a time when industry is striving to reverse the decline in homebuilding numbers that we have seen in recent years."
The tax was first announced in 2021 by the then-Conservative government.Some of the money raised from the tax will go towards the removal of dangerous cladding from buildings, following the deadly fire at Grenfell Tower.Ministers have set aside £5.1bn to resolve the cladding crisis, expecting developers, building owners and social housing providers to pay the rest.Thousands of homes have been made safe, but as of December last year, work had yet to start on a quarter of the 1,323 tall buildings requiring attention.Up to 12,000 buildings and three million people could be affected.The lengthy process of identifying what work needs to be done and who should pay for it has left many residents living in fear of fires or with worries over costly repair bills.
In its general election manifesto, Labour pledged to "take decisive action to improve building safety" and to "put a renewed focus on ensuring those responsible for the building safety crisis pay to put it right".Last year, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said the government was planning to introduce the Building Safety Levy in September this year.But in a letter to Rayner, dozens of developers said "the ability of the industry to invest in increasing the supply of new homes to meet the government's 1.5 million target is being threatened by the imposition of new taxes".Housebuilders say they are already paying £6.5bn towards improving building safety through corporation tax and argue makers of unsafe cladding should bear more of the costs.Home Builders Federation estimates the tax could add £1,580 to the cost of building a home and lead to the loss of about 70,000 affordable homes over 10 years.A Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: "This government is determined to make Britain's homes safer by making developers pay their fair share to fix unsafe buildings through the Building Safety Levy."We have extended the timeline to give developers more time to factor levy costs into their plans while continuing to support them to build safe homes, and at the same time we are continuing to work quickly to fix buildings with unsafe cladding through our Remediation Acceleration Plan."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

South Wales Argus

21 minutes ago

• South Wales Argus

Abergavenny library mosque proposal decision date named

A decision to grant a 30-year lease on the former Abergavenny library was approved in May before being put on hold pending review by a council scrutiny committee, which met last week, and said the decision had to go back to the cabinet within 10 working days. Just days before the scrutiny committee took place the words 'No Masjid' and crosses were spray painted on to the grade II listed building with police investigating the criminal damage as a hate crime. Masjid is Arabic for place of worship or mosque. Monmouthshire council's Labour-led cabinet will now consider the arguments made at the place scrutiny committee when it meets for its regular meeting on Wednesday, June 25 and must decide whether to stand by its original decision or reconsider it. The scrutiny committee heard from Abergavenny mayor Philip Bowyer and town council colleague Gareth Wild, a Baptist minister, who both spoke in favour of the cabinet's decision to grant the lease to the Monmouthshire Muslim Community Association. READ MORE: Banner of support draped over Abergavenny mosque graffiti Four public speakers, including Sarah Chicken the warden of the alms houses next door to the former library, a resident, and Andrew Powell landlord of the nearby Groefield pub objected to the decision, citing reasons such as parking and potential for noise as to why a mosque and community centre would be unsuitable. Cabinet member Ben Callard, who lives near the proposed mosque and represents the area on the town council though he is the county councillor for Llanfoist and Govilon, explained no planning permission is required. Community centres and places of worship fall under the same planning use as a library. But he said the community association had promised to hold a public consultation on its plans, but that was criticised by councillors who called the decision in for review, as it was 'consultation after the decision'. The review was instigated by Conservative councillors Rachel Buckler and Louise Brown, who represent Devauden and Shirenewton, and Llanelly Hill independent Simon Howarth who questioned how the decision was made. They faced criticism as Abergavenny councillors and the town council backed the original decision. The former Abergavenny Library. The three questioned the council's process and complained there had been no scrutiny of the decision. Cllr Callard said the community association's bid was the highest scoring tender, and the £6,000 a year rent similar to one of the other bids, and rejected the idea it would be practical for the council to operate as a landlord if every lease had to go through a full scrutiny process. Cllr Callard also said if councillors disagreed with it offering the building for new uses, as it was no longer used as a pupil referral unit with the library having transferred to the town hall in 2015, the decision made last November to declare it 'surplus to requirements' should have been called in for review. The cabinet will consider the scrutiny committee's suggestions a re-tender should be run with specifications including an independent valuation, a survey of the building, consideration of the building's history and importance, a public consultation and the possibility of selling the building. It meets at County Hall in Usk at 4.30pm.

Scotsman

29 minutes ago

• Scotsman

Regime change in Iran? Be careful what you wish for

Getty Images History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Ten years ago, in a very different world, the SNP was adapting to life as Westminster's third party and the resulting new responsibilities. The EU Referendum Bill was still rattling its way through Parliament, with the mayhem it unleashed yet to come. As the SNP's first member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I was working with colleagues as then Prime Minister David Cameron mulled the expansion of air strikes against Daesh. The so-called Islamic State had unleashed a wave of horrifying violence across the region that they were publicising through social media channels. The Committee had investigated the implications of any such military action taking evidence from a range of actors and experts in the UK and region. The proposed action was one of extending UK airstrikes from Iraq, where the RAF was already in action against Daesh, across the border into Syria. That would have meant the UK joining other states, as well as countless armed groups, in becoming a participant, however limited, in the ongoing conflicts across Syria. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Comparatively this was a modest proposal. Daesh was not a state actor, the UK was already involved in military action against them and there was unanimity around wanting to see an end to Daesh's murderous reign. However, there was reluctance across Parliament to sanction intervention. Even in 2015, the implications of the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hung heavy over MPs, mindful of the consequences of the Iraq war, pursued by a Labour Prime Minister, that had led to regional destabilisation, an undermining of the international rules-based system and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the subsequent civil war. There were also the more recent consequences of 'regime change' in Libya where a Conservative Prime Minister had sanctioned action that led to the fall of Colonel Qaddafi's administration. Many of the mistakes that had been made on the run up to Iraq were repeated in the Franco-British led actions in Libya. The consequences of those mistakes were again felt most keenly by the innocent civilians. Given that recent history our Committee was asked to come up with a set of criteria for the House to consider ahead of the vote. Our report, written by the very talented team of clerks who assisted us, was published in November 2015. It bears re- reading today especially the short, one page section 'Enabling the House to reach a decision' that effectively provides a 'check list' for war. When teaching first years at the University of St Andrews I used to ask them to read the report, and if not the whole thing, then that one-page provided a good cheat sheet of what policy makers should look for when considering whether to sanction military intervention. It is as useful a read today as it was then. Some of the questions around international law, the role of ground troops, agreement of regional actors and the overall strategic goals meant that the Committee could not, initially, agree military action. Today as Trump considers action, and the UK is coming under pressure, I feel that the questions we posed then are relevant today and again have not been answered. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Don't get me wrong, the Iranian regime is deeply unpleasant, threatening its neighbours, murdering opponents and oppressing its citizens. The same was true for the regimes in Tripoli and Baghdad. Furthermore a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for the region and the rest of the world. Iran has absolutely no problem in visiting death and destruction on its citizens and neighbours including providing an arsenal for Russia and the drones that target families in their homes in Ukraine. An Iran that respects international law has huge potential as I saw for myself in 2015 when the Committee visited. Sitting around the table in the British Embassy where Churchill had celebrated his 65 th birthday with Stalin and Roosevelt during the Tehran Conference in 1943, the British chargé d'affairs and other senior diplomats updated us on the progress with the JCPOA diplomatic negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities. They were clearly making some progress until Trump brought them to an end. We were also briefed, and could see for ourselves, the economic potential of the country where ordinary Iranians were keen to rejoin the international mainstream. Iran is a complex and deeply diverse country of well over 90 million a critical part of the world. Any war and upheaval in the country would have massive implications for us all. It could also further destabilise the Middle East convulsed by the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israeli actions in Gaza and the years of war in Syria. Over the next few days Donald Trump is considering joining Israel's military action against Iran. For now, Keir Starmer is calling for a diplomatic solution, joining President Macron, who mindful of past failures such as in Libya, warned 'the biggest mistake today would be to try to do a regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos'. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and no friend of Iran, Kaja Kallas also remarked that Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons but that 'lasting security is built through diplomacy, not military action'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, pressure could well be brought to bear on the British by the White House. The lessons of Iraq and Libya hung heavy over MPs ten years ago. As the situation in the Middle East evolves rapidly, those lessons seem as pertinent today as they did then. Like then, we shouldn't recommend war and regime change without answering the questions we posed a decade ago. History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians.

Daily Record

2 hours ago

• Daily Record

Fergus Ewing would have won SNP Inverness and Nairn selection contest 'by a landslide' claim party insiders

EXCLUSIVE: Party insiders said the veteran Nationalist would have beaten Emma Roddick in the internal vote. Fergus Ewing would have won the SNP candidate selection contest for Inverness and Nairn if he had stood, party figures have said. The veteran Nationalist announced on Friday that he would stand as an independent at next year's Holyrood election. ‌ Ewing will go up against current Highlands and Islands MSP Emma Roddick - who won the SNP contest. ‌ He has been the MSP for Inverness and Nairn since the Scottish Parliament returned in 1999 and was a minister for 14 years under Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. A Holyrood SNP source said: "If Fergus stood for the SNP in Inverness and Nairn he'd have won the selection contest by a landslide." A second insider said: "It's well known Emma put all her focus into her plans to challenge Fergus, while Fergus used his platform to give a voice to his constituents so fair play to him for giving folk in Inverness a proper option. "There was a lot of talk about whether Fergus should pass SNP vetting and perhaps there should have been more of a focus on the suitability of the current SNP candidate for Inverness.' A third source also said that Ewing would have won the selection contest. Ewing has been a vocal critic of the Scottish Government and was particularly damning about the coalition agreement with the Greens. ‌ He spoke out against the deposit return scheme, gender reform, marine protected areas and what he said was a lack of support for the oil and gas industry. He defied the party whip to back a vote of no confidence in then-Green minister Lorna Slater in 2023. This resulted in him being temporarily suspended from the SNP Holyrood group. Ewing had confirmed in March that he would not stand for the SNP - blaming the Scottish Government's failure to dual the A9 and A96 roads. ‌ On Friday he said he would stand against the SNP next year: "This has not been an easy decision. I have taken it because I love the people of Inverness and Nairn and the people of Scotland more than my party, which I have been in for more than half a century." He said the Nationalists had "deserted many of the people whose causes we used to champion". He added: "I believe the SNP has lost its way and that devolution itself – presently - is letting Scotland's people down. It doesn't need to be this way. ‌ " Holyrood is more fractious and tribal than ever before. "Too much power rests unchecked in the hands of party leaders, free to choose candidates who will slavishly support them, rather than stand up for the people who sent them to Holyrood. Choosing the pliant over the talented." ‌ Fergus Ewing is the son of SNP legend Winnie Ewing, whose win in the 1967 Hamilton by-election was a historic breakthrough for the party. His sister Annabelle Ewing is the SNP MSP for Cowdenbeath. Labour candidate for Inverness and Nairn Shaun Fraser said: " Fergus has rightfully earned respect for calling out the failures of SNP government and the policies and priorities which have done so much damage to the Highlands and Islands. ‌ "The breakdown in his relationship with his party highlights again that the SNP has no concern for the Highlands." Roddick said: "Local members backed me overwhelmingly in the selection contest for Inverness and Nairn. "I have always stood up for the Highlands and spoken out on issues that affect all of us who live here; I've never been shy about doing so. ‌ "I am SNP because I share our principles and belief in Scotland - that, as an independent country, we can best serve the people I represent and work hard for every day. "That's why I have the backing of the local party, and I look forward to putting our positive vision across during the campaign." The SNP was approached for comment.