Government data · May 2026

Cladding remediation tracker

See how remediation of unsafe cladding is progressing nationally and in reporting local authorities, using a transparent snapshot of MHCLG’s latest monthly release.

See the national picture Find a council

National position

Remediation status across England

“Completed” can include buildings awaiting building-control sign-off. “Not started” means works have not begun, even where a building has entered a programme or has plans.

014,411

Buildings monitored with unsafe cladding

0238%

1,672 completed

0315%

659 underway

0447%

2,080 not started

Approximately 101,000 dwellings

are estimated to be in monitored buildings where remediation had not started at the data date.

Programme comparison

Progress differs sharply by remediation route

Programme rows overlap and use different eligibility and reporting rules, so they must not be added together. Each bar compares status only within that row.

ACM programme

516 buildings

Complete: 91%
Underway: 5%
Not started: 4%

High-rise buildings with unsafe ACM; completion includes awaiting sign-off.

Building Safety Fund

640 buildings

Complete: 75%
Underway: 12%
Not started: 13%

Eligible high-rise non-ACM buildings proceeding with an application.

Cladding Safety Scheme

1,325 buildings

Complete: 8%
Underway: 19%
Not started: 73%

Eligible 11m+ buildings; separate pre-eligible applications are not included here.

Developer cladding defects

1,815 buildings

Complete: 31%
Underway: 16%
Not started: 53%

Developer-reported buildings with cladding defects; overlaps with other programmes can occur.

Beyond the monitored total

The identified portfolio is not the whole problem

Government estimates and management information describe different aspects of the remediation challenge and use different reference dates.

Estimated affected stock5,900–7,400

Residential buildings 11m+ estimated to have or have had unsafe cladding, March 2026.

Portfolio coverage61–76%

Estimated share of buildings expected to enter government programmes that was being monitored.

Estimated capital cost£11.8bn–£22.7bn

March 2025 estimate; it has not yet been updated for the March 2026 building estimate.

Enforcement activity898

11m+ buildings with suspected unsafe cladding subject to local-authority Housing Act action as at 22 May 2026.

Regional comparison

Completed-remediation rate by region

Regional percentages are rounded and describe the monitored portfolio, not every residential building in the region.

North East46%

Yorkshire and the Humber43%

South East43%

North West40%

London39%

West Midlands34%

East Midlands30%

South West29%

East of England26%

Local-authority data

Find remediation progress in your area

Search the authorities for which the published data supports a local breakdown. Counts are shown as bands rather than precise totals.

Search by council name

Showing all 66 reporting authorities.

Local authority	Region	Buildings monitored	Completed	Underway	Not started
Southampton	South East	101–200	78%	2%	20%
Bexley	London	11–50	64%	0%	36%
Dartford	South East	11–50	61%	9%	30%
Norwich	East of England	11–50	59%	14%	27%
Ealing	London	51–100	58%	9%	33%
Barnet	London	51–100	55%	11%	34%
Reading	South East	11–50	53%	10%	37%
Newcastle upon Tyne	North East	11–50	53%	10%	37%
Havering	London	51–100	52%	6%	42%
Sunderland	North East	11–50	50%	7%	43%
Haringey	London	51–100	50%	29%	21%
Eastbourne	South East	11–50	50%	14%	36%
Westminster	London	51–100	49%	6%	45%
Hackney	London	101–200	48%	13%	39%
Leeds	Yorkshire and the Humber	51–100	47%	17%	36%
Kensington and Chelsea	London	11–50	46%	14%	40%
Manchester	North West	201–400	45%	14%	41%
Medway	South East	11–50	44%	6%	50%
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole	South West	11–50	44%	7%	49%
Salford	North West	51–100	44%	23%	33%
Nottingham	East Midlands	11–50	44%	13%	43%
Slough	South East	11–50	43%	10%	47%
Wandsworth	London	101–200	43%	10%	47%
Newham	London	101–200	42%	17%	41%
Waltham Forest	London	11–50	41%	2%	57%
Harrow	London	11–50	41%	5%	54%
Croydon	London	51–100	41%	9%	50%
Brent	London	51–100	41%	13%	46%
Sutton	London	11–50	40%	5%	55%
Birmingham	West Midlands	51–100	40%	12%	48%
Lambeth	London	51–100	39%	2%	59%
Camden	London	51–100	39%	16%	45%
Lewisham	London	51–100	39%	14%	47%
Greenwich	London	101–200	38%	26%	36%
Hounslow	London	51–100	37%	15%	48%
Barking and Dagenham	London	11–50	37%	30%	33%
Sheffield	Yorkshire and the Humber	11–50	36%	14%	50%
Brighton and Hove	South East	51–100	35%	15%	50%
Tower Hamlets	London	Over 400	35%	18%	47%
Bromley	London	11–50	35%	5%	60%
Trafford	North West	11–50	33%	7%	60%
Ipswich	East of England	11–50	32%	14%	54%
Basingstoke and Deane	South East	11–50	32%	42%	26%
Gateshead	North East	11–50	31%	0%	69%
Bristol, City of	South West	101–200	30%	11%	59%
Plymouth	South West	11–50	29%	13%	58%
Hammersmith and Fulham	London	11–50	28%	7%	65%
Liverpool	North West	51–100	28%	20%	52%
Maidstone	South East	11–50	28%	32%	40%
Southwark	London	101–200	27%	10%	63%
Merton	London	11–50	26%	11%	63%
Redbridge	London	11–50	25%	7%	68%
Islington	London	101–200	24%	28%	48%
Portsmouth	South East	11–50	21%	17%	62%
Leicester	East Midlands	11–50	21%	17%	62%
Bradford	Yorkshire and the Humber	11–50	19%	10%	71%
North Somerset	South West	11–50	18%	18%	64%
Coventry	West Midlands	11–50	18%	0%	82%
Hillingdon	London	11–50	16%	23%	61%
Hertsmere	East of England	11–50	16%	58%	26%
Cambridge	East of England	11–50	14%	8%	78%
Milton Keynes	South East	11–50	14%	10%	76%
Elmbridge	South East	11–50	8%	25%	67%
Dacorum	East of England	11–50	8%	31%	61%
Woking	South East	11–50	8%	23%	69%
Stoke-on-Trent	West Midlands	11–50	0%	27%	73%

Percentages may not total exactly 100 because of rounding. A hidden row simply does not match the current on-page filter.

How to read the tracker

Coverage and limitations matter

It is programme monitoring data

The figures combine ACM remediation, the Building Safety Fund, Cladding Safety Scheme, developer-led remediation and social-provider self-funded work while accounting for known overlap.

It is not an individual-building register

Local counts are banded. The tracker cannot tell a leaseholder whether their particular block is safe, funded or complete.

The methodology changed

From April 2026, developers report cladding and non-cladding work separately. That improved accuracy but reduced direct comparability with earlier totals.

Completion needs context

Government totals can include completed work awaiting building-control sign-off. Building owners should retain scheme, design, completion and FRA evidence for their own block.

For responsible persons

Manage fire risk while remediation is planned or underway

Remediation status does not suspend Fire Safety Order or Building Safety Act duties. The responsible and accountable persons should keep the external-wall evidence, FRA, safety case and interim arrangements aligned as information and site conditions change.

Record the external-wall evidence and specialist limitations
Review the FRA when risk information, evacuation strategy or work changes
Control temporary fire loads, access, alarms and escape routes during work
Communicate proportionately with residents
Keep completion, commissioning and building-control records

PAS 9980 guide EWS1 guide Blocks of flats FRA guide

Frequently asked questions

Cladding remediation tracker FAQs

Does this tracker list individual buildings?

No. The government publishes aggregate programme and local-authority data. Local building counts are banded where necessary to avoid identifying individual blocks.

Does completed remediation mean building control has signed off the work?

Not always. The government completed category can include buildings awaiting building-control sign-off. Check the building’s own records for its exact status.

Why can totals change between releases?

Buildings enter, leave or transfer between programmes, duplicated records are reconciled and reporting methods change. April 2026 introduced separate developer reporting for cladding and non-cladding defects, affecting comparisons.

Is every unsafe-cladding building in this dataset?

No. It covers buildings monitored through specified government programmes and reporting routes. The department estimates that more buildings require remediation than are currently monitored.

Does remediation replace the fire risk assessment?

No. The responsible person must keep the FRA current, consider the external wall and manage interim precautions and other fire-safety risks throughout the works.

London and Surrey support

Ask about fire risk in your block

Tell us about the premises, external-wall information and current remediation stage. Your enquiry can be reviewed and passed to a relevant provider.

Data source

May 2026 MHCLG release

This is an independent re-presentation of government management information under the Open Government Licence v3.0. It is a dated snapshot, not live building-safety advice. The next government publication was scheduled for 29 July 2026.

Read the complete official release