Memorandum from Sheffield City Council
(BDH 44)
1. What lessons can be learned from the DH
programme and equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Worked well
— The national DH programme was properly
launched and quickly built momentum. It gave confidence to Council
tenants that they were valued and could have pride in their homes
and communities.
— It was helpful to have a clear financial
model and be able to plan for a long programme which is affordable
and won't change. Most "rules" were understood by all
parties.
— Added value in the Sheffield programme
of Construction Job Match, market testing, and using benchmarking
and scheme continuity through the original seven year framework
partnership to drive down prices.
Could have worked better
— The standard sample survey methodology
that was used in Sheffield to determine stock condition and estimate
programme costs needed to be bigger and more detailed. A small
percentage error could produce a large shortfall in estimated
costs.
— More time was needed to plan and mobilise
programme. In Sheffield we had to start on site very quickly because
of the ALMO funding draw-down timetable—and subsequently
spent some time afterwards getting the programme and delivery
partnership onto the best footing, after inevitable teething problems
at the start.
— The continuing problem of working with
annual local authority budgets, and bi-annual ALMO funding decisions
from CLG, has hampered the programme.
— Not enough national consultation with
tenants on priorities at the start, when the standard was adopted.
Many tenants had different priorities—including environmental
and communal upgrade works (security, waste disposal etc).
— The 2010 deadline was unclear—and
interpreted in different ways. Was it the end date for a programme
of work, or the date by which all stock should meet the national
standard (and stay at that standard). 100% or 95%? However, the
very public deadline did focus minds and gave the programme a
sense of urgency.
— Later ALMOs had more flexibility with
funding and developed local standards in consultation with tenants.
The different treatment between ALMOs across bidding rounds 1-6 started
to become divisive in later years. Rounds 3-5 had higher
funding through supported borrowing, and greater certainty about
completion.
— Greater national acknowledgement of the
acceptability and reasons for different local standards (above
the national baseline) would have helped with the messages to
tenants and leaseholders.
— Funding sources/streams have not been
joined up in the past decade in a way that would best help with
co-ordinated programmes, maximise efficiencies, and involve local
communities in integrated regeneration initiatives.
— There is no sustainable funding to maintain
Decent Homes once the programme has finished—either to local
standards or the national standard. The programme should have
been the kick start for fully-funded long-term Asset Management
Strategies.
— Because Local Authorities had to "match
fund" ALMO resources, there was very little flexibility or
scope to fund priority non-DH work. This carried a risk of the
Decent Homes programme sucking in all the resources at the expense
of other priority calls on capital programmes.
— Guidance on inflation assumptions in
the Building Cost Model was 'heroic' and never credible. Real
inflation exceeded the guideline level and distorted affordability
modelling. This was in addition to efficiency saving driven by
"Gershon" reductions in allocations in some years.
— In Sheffield we underbid for ALMO funding
(with hindsight) but no opportunity to go back to CLG. There was
no opportunity to secure additional funds from the CLG when it
became clear that the collapse in Right to Buy levels was adding
huge pressure into programmes—fewer homes sold and more
requiring improvement, but less capital receipts to finance the
works.
— The national Decent Homes standard is
very low and the guidance is both confusing and contradictory.
2. Where targeted housing fails to reach
the DH criteria by 2010, how should this backlog be addressed.
— All stock should be brought up to—and
kept at—the locally agreed standard (ref TSA consultation
on standards and priorities) through a fully funded local Asset
Management Strategy.
— The backlog after 2010 should be
cleared by an extension to the DH programme to be completed within
a specified period, to ensure that some tenants are not left behind,
or feel left behind.
3. Should minimum acceptable social housing
standards be amended to take account of environmental standards,
fuel poverty and the estate?
4. Do the management organisations—councils,
including via ALMOs and housing associations need to change? Will
they have sufficient funds?
— Organisations do not need to change providing
they are fully funded.
— There is a case (made well by the NFA)
for ALMOs to borrow in their own right.
5. What are the implications for decent housing
standards of the Government's proposal, currently out for consultation,
to move to a devolved system of council housing finance?
— The proposals are positive—but
depending on further modelling and consideration of options may
or may not be sufficient to maintain decency and tackle other
priority investment.
— Retention of rental income and receipts
in the local authority will increase resources, enable longer-term
planning and greater programme efficiencies, and strengthen "democratic
accountability"—with tenants seeing where their rent
goes to improve homes, communities and services.
— Breaking from annual short-term budgeting
to medium -term planning will increase efficiency gains by smoothing
peaks and troughs.
— Real opportunity to strengthen the roles
of tenants and leaseholders at the heart of decision making.
6. How should the DH target for private sector
homes occupied by vulnerable people be taken forward?
— There should have been a tenure-blind
DH programme to maximise the impact and make greatest use of the
economies of scale on large programmes—especially to benefit
vulnerable private sector residents.
— DH work to the private sector should
be allocated to ALMOs to deliver.
— The private sector target should be fully
funded (including equity release and other mechanisms in the funding
menu).
7. Are adequate arrangements in place for
the future regulation of minimum acceptable housing standards?
— No, not at the moment—TSA role.
— Regulation will fit with the TSA who
will need to make sure standards are set and maintained through
tenant scrutiny and the Audit Commission.
— In Sheffield, tenant scrutiny could would
involve the policing of many standards (vacant property repair/cleaning),
estate "mystery shopping" etc.
— Definition of what a three star service
looks like found in the Audit Commission KLOEs following years
of consultation with tenants and service users—that should
set the standards.
— In terms of language—"minimum"
is not good, we should aspire to raise standards.
— The whole approach to social housing
management and investment needs to be more inspirational.
— Social housing needs to be seen where
possible as accommodation of choice and not the last resort.
8. Are there local examples of innovative
best practice with wider post 2010 applicability?
— Regional joint procurement
— Supporting community enterprises
— General promotion of construction skills
— Performance Management Framework and
Evaluation Model (Viewpoint, Panograph)
— "Stay Safe" campaign (schools)
— Engendering community spirit through
contractor engagement (and through corporate social responsibility
initiatives)
— Partnership culture project.
September 2009
|
