Meanwhile, 13 councils could face government intervention after getting a "poor" verdict.
The Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment rated England's 150 largest councils on seven key services – housing, libraries and leisure, benefits, environment, use of resources, social care and education – and judged their ability to improve.
Housing got more bottom marks than any other service but, as it was given less importance than education and social services, some councils with low housing ratings still managed to get into the top 50 and get the extra borrowing powers.
Conversely, some councils that performed well in housing had to be content with "fair" overall scores. Their housing departments will not go unrewarded, however; they will get inspection "holidays" and other incentives (see table, left).
The 13 to get the "poor" verdict included Coventry, Wakefield and north-east London's Waltham Forest, despite each of these scoring three marks out of four for housing. The Audit Commission said the bottom 13 councils were unlikely to improve "without external support". But no interventions will be requested for failings on a single service, and the commission's housing inspectorate does not envisage taking action at councils where housing scores well individually.
Derby was among the councils to get a "good" overall rating and top housing mark. Council leader Chris Williamson said: "Housing has made a tremendous contribution to our overall rating." He said the council would spend its extra borrowing on regeneration. Its arm's-length management organisation, Derby Homes, which already has extra subsidy, and its three-star private-sector housing section will play key roles.
The exercise also gave the first clear picture of regional differences. The North-east came out on top, with three of its 12 councils rated "excellent". The Yorkshire and Humberside region fared worst, with three of its 15 councils rated "poor". London showed the most extreme variations, with a high proportion of "excellent" councils, but more than one in 10 rated "poor".
The commission urged caution in interpreting regional results, however, pointing out that the mix of council types and numbers varies across the country.
The 47 unitary authorities fared well, with results strongly skewed toward high performance, but only two gained excellent ratings.
The commission rejected the idea that some councils had an easier task than others. Though the statistics showed those in deprived areas tended to perform worse, the link was "weak", the commission said, adding: "Some councils in the most deprived areas are excellent, and some councils in relatively affluent areas are poor and weak."
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet