The first steps towards a new era of cash linked targets for housing departments were taken this week as the Treasury named seven council pilots for its public service agreements.
Camden, Kent, Milton Keynes, Norfolk, Stockton-on-Tees, Sunderland and Warwickshire have been chosen to pilot local PSAs before the scheme goes nationwide in 2002/03.

None of the councils are planning a housing-related PSA but a further 13 councils will be on board by the end of September and it is likely that at least one will include a housing agreement.

Councils that successfully complete 60 per cent of their local PSAs will get Performance Reward Grants equivalent to 2.5 per cent of their 2001 budgets.

The local PSAs - aimed at improving services - will feed into government departmental targets. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has its own PSA to deliver decent social housing by 2010 and to reduce the number of people living in sub-standard accommodation by a third.

In its prospectus on PSAs for local authorities published last week, the DETR says that overall the PSAs should reflect a mixture of local and national priorities.

Cross-cutting issues like social inclusion should be amongst the local priorities, it adds. Social housing is also identified as a key outcome in the comprehensive spending review for neighbourhood renewal.

However concerns are emerging that the agreements could lead to a heavy administrative burden in a sector already subject to Best Value.

Local Government Association head of housing finance Neil Kingham said: "It is something that has worried us ever since we first looked into it. Some would say PSAs are a way of allowing authorities to build on Best Value. But we don't think they will get in the way of Best Value."

PSAs should be directed at the most pressing issues facing local authorities, he added.

"If a council has 170 performance targets to meet under Best Value, PSAs are about committing to the most important ones. It would be unfortunate if they were seen to be in conflict with Best Value."

Source

Housing Today