星空传媒

This year, one-third of the 87 council seats are up for grabs, and housing is once again a ballot-box issue. The Lib Dems feel Labour turned housing into a political football and now they want their ball back; Labour, which has 43 councillors to the Lib Dems' 42, hopes to consolidate its hold on power by taking four or five additional Liberal Democrat seats. Both parties predict the result will be close.

"Sheffield has 30% council housing stock, and another 15% are ex-council right to buy 鈥� that means a lot of people living on council estates," says Andrew Sangar, the council's Liberal Democrat shadow cabinet member for housing. "The suburban wards are safe Lib Dem, and the inner city is safe Labour.

"But control of the council rests on a small number of wards changing hands 鈥� and wards with a lot of council estates include some of the most marginal."

Chris Weldon, Labour's cabinet member for housing, agrees. "I think housing will be a key issue on the doorstep, and not just in the marginal seats. Maybe a son or daughter lives in a marginal ward, but it's also an issue for mum and dad in the neighbouring ward. In general, we think our support is holding up."

Sheffield shares its stock options dilemma with many other councils, but the stakes in this city are higher than most. It has 59,000 homes, of which 72% fail to meet the decent homes standard. Two-thirds need new windows; two-thirds new kitchens and bathrooms; one-fifth are without proper central heating. Sheffield calculates that an extra 拢1bn is needed to meet the 2010 decent homes target. In addition, Sheffield is suffering from the northern epidemic of low demand and is five years into a programme of stock reduction and rationalisation, meaning the emotive issue of where the wrecker's ball should strike is also raising the political temperature.

In the red corner 鈥�
After its strident "no citywide transfer" campaign, Labour took office in a tight policy straitjacket. The party couldn't go back on what it had said, or advocate stock retention in the face of the Communities Plan and the decent homes review. The vehicle it chose to break the impasse was 10 neighbourhood commissions. Chaired by Chris Weldon, these are made up of tenants, community, school and clergy representatives, and elected local members from the main parties.

Control of the council rests on a small number of wards changing hands 鈥� and wards with a lot of council estates include some of the most marginal 

Andrew Sangar, liberal democrat shadow member for housing, sheffield council

In effect, each commission will conduct its own stock options appraisal, canvassing local opinion then shading a map of its locality in three colours corresponding to the transfer, arm's-length management organisation or private finance initiative options. "We're likely to need a mix of funding to make the sums add up," notes Karl Tupling, the council's head of housing strategy.

However, working on the assumption that parts of the city will plump for ALMOs, the council has submitted two provisional bids 鈥� for up to 拢120m based on 11,000 homes 鈥� in order not to lose out on round three funding, although the bids are, of course, subject to approval by the first two neighbourhood commissions. The final ALMO application could be for a smaller amount if some estates prefer transfer, says Tupling.

But after its anti-ballot campaign, putting transfers back on the table lays Labour open to the charge of hypocrisy. It is a charge the party refutes 鈥� saying it opposed only a one-size-fits-all solution 鈥� but the Liberal Democrats are keen to exploit. "People voted Labour last year because they promised no transfer. Now, it's looking like there will be transfers," says Andrew Sangar. So, the Liberal Democrat alternative? "We won't be dogmatic," he says. "We'll work with tenants on the solutions that are right for their communities."

At the town hall, Tupling plays down the impact of any prospective change in political control. "We've tried hard to bring forward a process that we hope is resilient to political change, and to make sure the community is involved in looking at the options. Our tenants now have high expectations that we have a plan that's beginning to deliver. If we were to change direction on housing policy, what would that do to tenants' preparedness to engage in the process?"

One tenant expresses tentative support for the neighbourhood commissions, but feels the debate should be brought still closer to local people. Alan Ingram, former chair of Sheffield Tenants and Residents Together, says Whitehall civil servants, Sheffield councillors and officers have all forgotten that housing policy should begin at home. "They haven't lived on council estates, and don't know what the problems are," he says. "Ask people in some communities about the decent homes standard, and they'll say they'd rather have decent security than new bathrooms. What we need is clear guidance that says communities can decide what's best for them."

In particular, Ingram is unhappy at the way policy is being driven down a three-lane highway."What about community-based housing transfers, or estate-based housing trusts?" he says. "And Sheffield isn't bothering to look seriously at the PFI option, but why not bring in a developer to demolish some stock, and take on ownership of the remaining stock?"