At this time of year, a decade ago, the housing press usually carried shock stories of an overspend on the Housing Corporation's annual programme, or alternatively, an underspend, with a mad dash to bring other programmes forward.
Thanks mainly to three-year spending plans, that has changed. Now the Corporation has gone further to achieve even greater stability.
It has issued a consultation paper - Developing the new approach to investment - which suggests a four-pronged approach.
Firstly, it wants to develop the joint commissioning approach where it works with local and regional authorities and others to develop strategic plans. These might be based on just one council area or be spread across several and might cover, say, rural housing, supported housing or a specific regeneration initiative, often over several years.
Secondly, the Corporation aims to introduce a two-stage bidding process, similar to the Single Regeneration Budget. The Corporation would identify priorities in regional strategies and then ask local authorities and housing associations to submit outline bids. Shortlisted bidders would work-up detailed proposals. This should help give greater certainty.
The third change is to allow bids to be submitted throughout the year, rather than have the once a year dash to meet a November deadline. It also makes sense with the two-stage bidding process.
The final proposal enhances the current pre-allocation system. A three-year allocation "pool" would be introduced with approved schemes given agreed development timetables.
All schemes will still have to meet best value and Egan requirements as well as performance and quality standards. The annual bidding round will still be in place for one-off and smaller schemes.
The proposals are likely to be welcomed all round. They should make the Corporation's job easier - and help housing associations and local authorities.
Some associations may feel the proposals entrench power in the hands of councils and the Corporation. But they will still have to work closely with associations to ensure the private finance.
Muddy waters
High salaries for senior housing association executives, leading to big pension payouts or even bigger pay-offs for redundancy or severance, have been contentious for years. They are particularly sensitive issues in a voluntary sector where most associations are charitable, and board members unpaid.
The Housing Corporation has become increasingly concerned in the last decade because of a couple of high profile cases.
The latest involves Liver Housing, based in Merseyside, where the cost of redundancy of the chief and two other senior executives could amount to £1m plus if they were to get certain discretionary payments. (The association caused raised eyebrows a few years ago when the chief executive's salary was among the top dozen highest, when the association managed fewer than 5000 homes and only just made the top 100.)
The new concerns led to a statutory inquiry by solicitor Nicholas Bohm whose report has just been published. It chronicles events in minute detail.
The report was followed by a lengthy rebuttal from the association. It refers to the resignation of one board member who has resigned because of his "glimpse of the way our regulator works".
Curiously, though, the rebuttal doesn't quote another resigner - George Bundred, a member since 1994 - who reminded the chairman of his "fundamental disagreement" with the board, and his description of the redundancy packages as "outrageous", and which, if they leaked out, would be a "national scandal". He said it seemed to him they had forgotten they were a charity.
He summed up his opinion that: "The Housing Corporation is right and the board of Liver Housing is wrong".
The Housing Corporation board has backed Bohm's findings that six board members had been responsible for mismanagement. But they won't be sacked. Instead, three statutory appointments have been made to strengthen the Liver board as it moves towards merger with Grosvenor HA - the proposal which brought all this to a head.
So the three senior executives are likely to have to put up with deals which total £660 000. Bohm considered this at the limit of what is reasonable and appropriate, though not inconsistent with charitable status.
Source
Building Homes
