Housing Investment Priority Analysis
Evidence-led ranking of housing work programmes for Leeds City Council, derived from published expenditure.
Property-level priority ranking is not published from public data.
Ranking individual properties requires housing work orders, repeat-visit records and EPC ratings. Work orders and repeat visits are partner data requiring a DPA and DPIA; EPC requires a registered API token; and no local-authority-level damp and mould prevalence dataset exists in the UK. The ranking below is therefore at programme level — category by council — derived from published expenditure, and must not be read as a property shortlist.
Required to produce a property-level ranking
- Council housing work orders with anonymous property IDs, work type, cost and status
- Repeat-visit and outcome records per property
- EPC certificate data for the council's own stock (EPC_API_TOKEN)
- Stock condition survey extract
Programme priority ranking
| Rank | Programme | Annual spend | Trend | Suppliers | Band | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Responsive repairs | £34,478,318 | +56% | 553 | moderate | 61% |
| 02 | Aids & adaptations | £1,493,201 | +112% | 69 | moderate | 61% |
| 03 | Planned maintenance | £104,183 | — | 6 | monitor | 61% |
| 04 | Other housing | £83,633,840 | -12% | 1,986 | monitor | 61% |
Trend compares the most recent six months of published spend against the preceding six.
Priority logic panel
Transparency report for Responsive repairs
Capped at 62% by design: the two heaviest real-world inputs — hazard assessment and EPC rating — are unavailable, so no programme score here can be more than indicative.
Factors considered
- Safety & complianceweight 0.35 · +0.175
Reactive repairs include disrepair with direct tenant safety implications.
- Energy & fuel povertyweight 0.25 · +0.025
Limited direct energy impact.
- Cost effectivenessweight 0.20 · +0.112
Spend in the last six months is +56% against the preceding six months.
- Repeat activity proxyweight 0.20 · +0.114
57% of supplier-months show three or more payments, used as a proxy for recurring work in the absence of property-level repeat-visit records.
Weights are published so a housing lead can disagree with them. A policy profile that cannot be inspected cannot be approved, and an unapproved profile should not drive investment.