It is always interesting to hear Mr Laverack's views on development in York (House rule leads to fewer homes, Letters, November 13).

He seems keen that development takes place, but that amenity provision is not provided by the developer, who, after all, is making a "profit".

This creates a feeling that once a development is built he has little concern for either those who live in it or around it.

Does Mr Laverack truly believe that developers should not provide open spaces and children's play areas on their developments, or pay towards the upgrade of nearby facilities, which will be used by new residents?

Does he also believe that it is the council's responsibility, not the developers, to pay for road improvements, or crossings, when a new junction is developed?

What about landscaping and planting to screen or replace development damage, is this not the developer's responsibility?

It is not surprising that the trade press are up in arms about affordable housing, either for rent, reduced cost purchase or equity share, as they are only paid a realistic price by the housing associations, who receive funding from Government.

Mr Laverack also fails to understand that "affordability" is about creating balanced communities.

Can I remind Mr Laverack that the Fordham's Housing Needs Survey states York's need is for more than 1,000 "affordable" homes per year for the foreseeable future, a result of a low household earnings income figure.

At least 64 per cent of these completions need to be family houses, against a currently flat completion rate of 66 per cent.

Unless affordable housing policies are in place, York residents, today's and future children, will never be able to live here, either through buying or renting.

Finally, can I ask that Mr Laverack reads the Local Development Framework documents on the rules for affordability targets and Section 106 Agreements.

Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, Labour spokesperson for city strategy, City of York Council, Salisbury Road, York.


* I refer to affordable housing, and in particular to the letter from Andy Kerr, housing development manager of City of York Council (Housing problems, Letters, October 27).

The implication from Mr Kerr's letter is that since 2005, 50 per cent of homes built have been affordable dwellings.

In particular, he states that in 2005/6, 875 homes were built in York and planning permission was granted for 1,359 dwellings.

One assumes from that, that the latter figure does not include the 875 homes that were built.

According to Mr Kerr, therefore, 437 of the built dwellings in 2005/6 will have been delivered as affordable, and presumably 675 of those that were granted planning permission will by now have been delivered as affordable.

I rather suspect that is not the case, and nothing like 50 per cent of the dwellings built in 2005 and onwards have been delivered as affordable. The approval at Germany Beck is for approximately 700 dwellings. A quick calculation will show that the 245 affordable houses is 35 per cent or the total.

I also recall reading in The Press a few weeks ago that Phil Willis MP had stated that in his constituency, Harrogate and Knaresborough, six social housing units had been delivered in 2006.

In the urban areas of Harrogate and Knaresborough, there is a 50 per cent affordable provision and similarly in the rural areas.

I have not verified the figure stated by Mr Willis, but would assume it to be accurate.

If that is the case, how can a 50 per cent affordable provision be said to be working in that area?

As your correspondent Matthew Laverack recently stated, a 50 per cent affordable provision simply cannot work. The supply of housing land will simply dry up as the financial return to a landowner becomes derisory.

I E Reynolds, Colliergate, York.