It's all about increasing output, getting more homes to the buck and blurring the lines between "social" and "private" providers. But should associations be clapping or booing?
No one can dispute the need to overhaul a system that has lagged behind other government departments. For example, the archaic, inflexible total cost indicator takes no consideration of whole-life costs and energy efficiency. No one will mourn its passing. And who could argue with having design champions if it means the end to tawdry boxes? This, however, is hard to square with another proposal – standardised layouts. These could speed up approval of section 106 schemes (or help private developers get grants directly) but, as far as private housebuilders are concerned, standard often equates with poor, says Jon Rouse (page 20). They can also be tricky for brownfield developments, as Liz Potter points out (page 18). As the government design watchdog, standards should not be put forward without CABE guidance.
No one can dispute the need to overhaul a system that has lagged behind
The cull in the number of developing associations also makes sense if it can improve efficiency, as long as it does not import a one-size-fits-all approach. There must be some flexibility left in the system for more niche developments, particularly now that local authority social housing grant is disappearing. It's also worth asking what the criteria will be for deciding just who gets grant and who doesn't. The Housing Corporation has been monitoring performance closely and presumably anyone with a track record of poor delivery or rocketing costs can forget it. To its credit, the corporation wants to reward better performers, not just bankroll bigger ones.
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet