A LEADING York developer has called on the main political parties to explain how they intend to tackle the city’s housebuilding crisis.
John Reeves, chairman of the Helmsley group, claimed in an open letter to party group leaders that there had been a “slow destruction” of the housebuilding industry, with catastrophic consequences for people formerly employed by it.
He claimed City of York Council’s requirement for 35 per cent of homes on greenfield sites and 25 per cent on brownfield sites to be affordable were the biggest factor stopping house builders from developing in York.
He said: “The policies are unaffordable and builders don’t build at a loss.
“The council needs to listen to our industry if there is going to be any left working, and I ask therefore for a public announcement as to the future policies of each party before I make my vote.
“The industry knows affordable houses have to be provided, but what use is a policy that stops the industry providing the homes the vast majority need?”
Tory group leader Ian Gillies said it had been proved that Lib Dem and Labour affordable housing percentage policies had been an “unmitigated disaster”, with little progress being made in increasing supply.
Green group leader Andy D’Agorne said it supported the present affordable housing policy, with the exact proportion being determined by a “dynamic assessment” that took account of market conditions and the scale of a development.
Labour group leader James Alexander said he was aware of the argument that the council’s affordable home requirements were a factor stopping housebuilding, but his experience was that the barrier to housebuilding was suppressed demand due to banks not lending for mortgages.
He said: “This barrier requires Government intervention.”
Liberal Democrat council leader Andrew Waller said the major problem was the drought in mortgages, but executive councillors had voted on a reduction in the affordable housing targets and greater flexibility in affordable requirements.
He said in the last financial year, “we” achieved 274 affordable homes.
So who is right on affordable homes?
AT the moment, austerity measures take centre stage when it comes to public debate. The referendum on how we elect our MPs and turmoil in the Middle East may have raised their heads a few times, but ultimately it is the cutbacks we are all talking about. So what happened to last year’s big topic – the stalling property market and the nail it drove into the house builders’ coffin? It certainly hasn’t gone away and while good properties in good locations will always sell, new builds are more risky, and especially when part of an affordable housing scheme. Now John Reeves, the chairman of builder the Helmsley Group, has reopened the housing debate by asking a question many have not dared to. What is the point of targets that dictate how many homes must be in the affordable housing category when builders believe that would make them a loss, so they don’t construct them? That, Mr Reeves says, has meant a slow destruction of the house building industry. City of York Council Leader Andrew Waller disagrees. For him it’s down to the banks, last year’s other hot topic. Mr Waller says affordable housing targets have been reduced and made more flexible. So who is right? As with most things, both arguments have validity, but one thing is for sure. Too many people can’t afford to get on the property level and they need government help at a national and regional level. Our leaders would do well to heed what Mr Reeves says for their sakes.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel