The study, done by the 星空传媒 Research Establishment, was published on 9 June.
It concluded that properly managing and maintaining council stock could have cost up to 拢5.5bn in 2001/2, but only 拢4bn was actually spent. Of this money, 75% came from the government.
The Local Government Association defended its members, claiming that any underspend was because of a lack of government subsidy.
It said the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would have to hand over more cash if it wanted more money spent on management and maintenance before the 2010 deadline for the decent homes standard.
Ruth Lucas, senior project manager at the LGA, said: "This research shows there is a shortfall and authorities should receive more money.
"They are saying we should lay out more money, but what pot would that come out of?
"We have spent significantly more on maintenance than the subsidy given us, and the issues around rent restructuring limit our ability to make up any shortfall."
Paul Edwards, director of performance audit at best-practice body Housemark, said: "The report demonstrates that more resources are necessary if local authorities are going to deliver the government agenda.
"The government obviously has a key target here and it is very difficult for local authorities to deliver on this without additional funding."
A 6% increase in management and maintenance subsidy, announced last year (HT 5 December 2002, page 14), will bring the government funds available to 拢3.5bn by 2006.
The ODPM has asked the BRE to produce a further report into the method of allocating the cash. A spokesman for the ODPM said: "If a local authority needs extra funding to meet the decent homes standard, the three stock options set out in the Communities Plan 鈥� stock transfer, arm's-length management organisations and the private finance initiative 鈥� are the three options to explore."
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet