5 conclusions

1 Funding

Respondents to PwC's survey said that government's short-term funding streams are impeding delivery of the government's aspirations. They saw this as a key issue with housing policy. As one respondent working in housing market renewal pathfinder commented: "We have a programme which is supposed to last to 2018, but we're only getting funding in a maximum of two-year tranches. You can't do any effective long-term planning and this leads to less efficient use of resources." The survey concluded that funding needs to be long term, more certain and flexible.

2 Collaboration

There was a firm belief that public and private sector collaboration can produce added value and innovation. When asked what would incentivise private and public sectors to work together, respondents identified the following: partnership agreements, longer-term funding cycles, simpler procurement processes, changes to the planning system and new financial incentives.

3 Competition

Survey respondents said the more competitive working environment fostered by government should be encouraged. But different sectors of the industry showed very different levels of support. Contractors responding to the survey were all in favour, but only 58% of registered social landlords thought that the government was right to encourage more competition in the social housing sector, a comment perhaps on the opening up of social housing grant to private developers.

4 Joined-up thinking

Streamlined government procurement processes and new financial incentives were considered to have the potential to improve delivery of housing programmes. But one respondent thought that joined-up thinking should go a lot further: "It should be about joined-up thinking within government to support a generation of sustainable communities, with a balance across housing, health, education and employment.

5 Local solutions

Perhaps not surprisingly, survey respondents wanted more local decision-making and greater flexibility to adapt programmes to local circumstances. As far as individual initiatives were concerned, respondents believed the Decent Homes programme has been effective, but now felt it was time to raise the bar and set a higher minimum standard and give more focus to the overall community. There was strong support for making changes to enable local authorities to better deliver Decent Homes, most notably by giving them greater powers to raise capital funding.

Respondents also voiced concerns about a perceived bias towards housing supply in the South. There was a mixed reaction to the effectiveness of Pathfinders and home ownership programmes.

The PwC survey was carried out by Opinion Leader Research in February and March 2006. Respondents represented local authorities, housing associations, government agencies, developers and contractors across England. The survey results will feed into a PwC paper that will make recommendations in advance of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review.