ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Registered social landlords and councils are never left without a bargaining position when it comes to planning gain ("The umpire strikes back", 3 October, page 5). Their hands are not tied behind their backs; increasingly, the opposite is the case.

Local authorities often expect their unadopted policies to be exercised without regard to the other costs or constraints affecting a development. If the developer does not comply with their wishes, they refuse planning consent and create significant delays, at no cost to themselves as the developer waits for an appeal date.

If the developer does comply or the inspector corrects the injustice done by the council, they are forced to use one of a select group of RSLs that operate a registration system (or "cartel"), so that a developer cannot bid up the price of affordable housing. Instead, they will be informed there is no public subsidy and that they are effectively expected to provide free land and to subsidise the build costs.

Neil Hadden's insistence on page 14 of the same issue that RSLs be involved at the start of each project seems at odds with the Peabody Trust's withdrawal due to the waste of resources. RSLs are surely not going to appreciate allocating more time and resources to be involved in all of the abortive work developers undertake investigating sites. But I agree that there will be times when RSLs should be involved early and I always advocate early discussions on affordable housing as part of my clients' pre-planning application process.

The planning system was created to give the opportunity for affordable housing to be provided as part of a balanced society. It is the responsibility of all of us to finance that opportunity, not just to tax landowners and developers. Perhaps we should be asking RSLs to put more of their resources into the planning system? After all, it is they who will benefit, long after the mortgage has been repaid.

Then there is the issue of the right to acquire, or staircasing, which takes the developers' contributions and gives them to the public. Shouldn't the reserve revenue from property sold in this way be returned to those who provided it after the replacement dwelling has been purchased?

No one asks Honda to provide subsidised cars, at less than cost, to families who can't afford to buy one, or to those who find their current car overcrowded or in need of major repair.

We have the means to facilitate a fair system through the Housing Corporation. It should be seeking to promote development, not stifle it by introducing restrictive policies and further regulation.