On the money

you have only five years left to meet the decent homes standard, so now is a good time to pause and consider progress and plans.

It is clear that the standard has become “open to interpretation” and this in turn has given rise to varying methods of calculation, some more accurate than others.

The standard has been criticised for being subjective in parts (what exactly is adequate space and layout in a kitchen, for example?) and not always joined-up to other standards and measures (why use a new “thermal comfort” measure, when the rest of the country uses standard assessment procedure energy ratings?). But perhaps the largest risk is its representation of a very low target.

When viewed as a minimum standard that should be met as a by-product of a well managed and complete programme, decent homes can help to focus attention on the detail of the programme and offer an opportunity for wider consultation. But when viewed as the only standard to be reached, it can pose numerous traps for the unwary.

Simply meeting the standard is unlikely to represent a sustainable solution. For example, is it reasonable for a decent home to have single-glazing and no smoke detector, or to defer kitchens simply because the standard can be met for less money by renewing bathrooms? A strategy to deliver decent homes alone will therefore run considerable risk of increasing catch-up repairs, exacerbating demands on the day-to-day repairs service.

It could encourage work to be put off until 2011 or later, failing to deliver improvements or to meet tenants’ aspirations. Or it could simply fail to ask the crucial question: “Should we be spending this money on this property at all?”

One of the first questions to be asked is: “Have we got our calculation of how many homes do not meet the standard right?”

A range of calculation systems are used and it is rare for a calculation to be validated at the first attempt. Calculation variances may be down to an IT expert’s “interpretation” of the system in isolation from technical survey data, or as a result of methodological errors.

Care also needs to be taken to ensure that stock condition information is both complete and accurate. There must not be gaps in the data needed to undertake a full calculation.

For those local authorities undertaking a housing stock options appraisal, where the achievement of decent homes is a prerequisite, care should be taken to establish the validity of the results and the basis on which they have been derived. Any error made at this stage could lead to the adoption of the wrong strategy and potentially lead an authority to miss out on additional funding.