I feel I must respond to the comments made by Dr Roger Pierce (Letters, July 9) regarding affordable homes.

Each one “sold’” does lose developers money, despite what he may say.

Indeed if they did not we would not be complaining. Plus the aspect of pepper potting has a double whammy as, regardless of whether or not it’s PC to say so, people do not want to buy a home at full value next to a social rented home and lenders will not lend in these circumstances.

A policy that is not delivering homes is a failed policy and the facts speak for themselves. Where are all the new homes in York despite the permissions given, ie Germany Beck, Terry’s, Nestlé, Shipton Street, school etc? The fact is they are not viable partly due to the affordable limitations.

Labour, you are in control... do something to get us working again, please.

John Reeves, Chair, The Helmsley Group, Monks Cross, York.

•Please allow me to respond to the comments of ex-planner and Labour councillor Dr Roger Pierce.

There is no anti-affordable housing brigade. There is no opposition to the provision of affordable housing – only the way that private enterprise is expected to provide it and subsidise it.

The sums paid to private builders do not cover the full construction costs and include nothing towards land purchase, site infrastructure, professional fees, finance costs or any of the other obligations and expenses imposed upon the housebuilder by excessive regulation. Every affordable home handed over involves a significant loss to the builder.

Moreover, the houses are not freely sold, but extorted in a form of legalised theft – agree to our demands or you will not get planning permission!

Matthew Laverack, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York.

• I WOULD like to provide some clarity on the distinction between affordable housing targets and so-called rules.

There is no such thing as a 50 per cent rule, nor any other rule. We have targets that vary depending on numbers of housing units planned.

At present, this is 25 per cent on brownfield and 35 per cent on greenfield sites – both, incidentally, lower than Selby, East Riding and Harrogate (40 per cent), the very areas in which Mr Cordock (Letters, June 2) highlights house-building is taking place.

It is wrong to suggest the council is adopting a rigid position on affordable targets. The economic downturn saw a lowering of affordable targets, and we are now being flexible where developments prove to be unviable.

Affordable housing is not cited by industry commentators as a deterrent to house building. Instead, they refer to institutional lending problems and mortgage availability.

A 20 per cent minimum level of profit for developers is guaranteed. So it is the likes of Mr Laverack who are fixed in their positions, and if they are unwilling to build at this profit margin then we can’t force them to. But other developers are talking with the council and being more realistic.

Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, Labour cabinet member for housing, Salisbury Road, York.