Selection fever

The government is pouring money into key-worker accommodation. But registered social landlords and private developers are becoming concerned that the local authorities that insist on deciding who's a key worker and who isn't are risking the provision of housing by being overly dogmatic. We listen in as a housing association chief executive discusses the matter with the senior partner of her law firm.

Chief executive: It's chaos. Each council is deciding who is and who isn't a key worker.

Senior partner: Well, they are responsible for housing, economic wellbeing, social services, education, planning, highways, healthcare – in health alone they have to work closely with the primary care trusts, regional health authorities, NHS trusts …

CE: … or whoever is in charge of local healthcare this week.

SP: That's not to mention the regional development agencies and the Local Government Association. But all this alphabet soup does mean councils are best placed to provide an overview and should have a strong voice.

CE: Sure, a strong voice, but not the final shout. Should councils decide starter home initiative grant priorities, not the Housing Corporation or the registered social landlords' boards? On planning gain, you lawyers always told me that a planning authority had to take decisions for planning reasons.

SP: Yes, but the local planning authority is obliged to take into account local conditions in reaching those decisions.

CE: But that doesn't mean giving key-worker status to council workers in areas where the politicos need more votes. Some of them are even telling us which schools to prioritise. Can that be right – or sensible?

SP: Oh dear – it does seem unwise. Any planning gain decision that puts local authority employees as first priority is wide open to judicial review. Then there are the tax implications if, say, a council decides that its teachers (particularly if it names schools) or its other employees have to be exhausted before any other category can be housed. It may not name the names, but that selection process is dangerous if the Inland Revenue decides it would like the tax – and I don't see Inland Revenue officers on key-worker lists.

It’s silly: the more public services are privatised, the fewer workers there are on council payrolls

CE: What about cutting out teachers employed by religious bodies or non-faith charitable bodies? Or cutting out the entire voluntary sector – those caring for people with learning disabilities, minors, abuse victims, the elderly? The workers actually supporting people would take second place to their Supporting People paymasters.

SP: Also relegated are employees of the NHS – the biggest employer in the UK – and it certainly has the muscle to challenge any council hijacking.

CE: The real joke is that the NHS take-up on nominations deals, particularly in London, is so poor that providers have to let out on-site nurse accommodation to any passer-by needing a bed for the night.

SP: The NHS procures housing for the staff levels it would like, but as it can't recruit the staff, the bed spaces are empty – a big risk for RSL providers. It could get the same in other sectors.

CE: A lot of key-worker provision will be equity sharing, so whether starter homes initiative or planning gain-funded, we will need the City suits to come across with the dosh.

SP: Councils still don't appreciate that time is money. The narrower the range of people to whom RSLs can lease, the longer it may take to close a sale or the void, and that will jeopardise the whole project if lenders get cold feet.

CE: It gets worse: imagine if it was required that the occupier was always a council-defined key worker, or there were maximum savings levels, gross income levels … it's silly. The more public services are privatised, the fewer workers there are on council payrolls – and, oddly, the fewer blue-collar workers there are on priority lists.

SP: It's enough to drive you to drink.