IN reply to Mr Cordock’s criticism (A punitive system, Letters, July 12).

He describes the requirement for housing developers to provide affordable housing via the planning system as “blackmail” and “legalised theft”.

I believe his use of exaggerated language reflects an inability to engage in meaningful discussion.

The requirement for affordable housing is not one dreamed up by the city council. It is national policy. It is one of the many “rules of the game” introduced by the elected government of the day.

It is no more legalised theft than requiring people to pay National Insurance contributions when they start work.

Your correspondent claims he is not anti-affordable housing. Well, if he is opposed to the present approach, what alternatives does he suggest?

The present policy has the advantage that the subsidy is provided by the landowner who must forgo part of the profit he would otherwise gain from selling agricultural land worth £3,000 an acre for housing at £1m an acre.

The necessary subsidy can only otherwise come from central government, which involves additional public expenditure and higher taxes.

Which, to be consistent, he must regard as another example of “organised theft”.

Dr Roger Pierce, Huntington Road, York.