We hear a lot of nonsense when people talk about affordable housing. So here are a few facts.

There are two kinds of affordable houses: social rented houses, and private shared equity units.

In February 1991 Ryedale transferred all its housing stock to Ryedale Housing Association. The proceeds of sale were used to pay RHA to build more  rented houses. The money paid was recovered through Government grant. Between 1991 and 2002 (when Government grant ceased ) 478 units were provided. Of these, less than 35 were built in the villages outside the market towns.

Between February 1991 and May 2006, only 43 shared equity units were built outside the market towns. These include six built in the last two years. This is in spite of the much publicised “exceptions” policy which allows affordable houses to be built outside village development limits.

So, since 2002 no rented houses have been built, and the source of the cash has dried up. Further, the cost of land and materials have risen to such an extent that a million pounds will build less than ten houses.

Further, Government policy now directs Housing Associations to give virtually no waiting list points for having a local connection with the district. This means that an applicant from outside the district can be higher up on the waiting list than someone with a local connection in the district. There is nothing to stop anybody from being considered for a home in a village they choose, even if they have never lived in the countryside in their life, or are unfamiliar with country living. This removes the policy incentive to build social rented accommodation in Ryedale’s villages.

 So, what about private shared equity houses? Or houses that are so small that they command a low price?

These are houses which are built by developers who are required by Council policy to set aside a certain percentage of the houses as affordable homes. In the countryside, developers are required to build an affordable house for every five they get permission for. Now you don’t have to be a genius to see how to get round this restriction. If you are a developer, all you have to do is to apply for permission to build developments comprising four or less houses! And this is why very few shared equity houses have been built in our villages.

I have repeatedly suggested that this policy should be modified so as to require every fifth consecutive house granted permission in a parish to be an affordable house, so that, if one builder builds four houses in a parish, the next builder in that parish must include an affordable house in his development, and so on for the next five houses. However, the Council will not agree. Their objection  is that this would be unfair to the second or subsequent builders. This is an objection I cannot accept, because, once the policy is clear, every builder will know exactly where they stand, and can plan accordingly.

So, what has the council done in the new draft Local Plan (now called the Local Development Framework)? They have prohibited all market led housing in non-service villages – even within the old village development limits - in the expectation that this will produce more affordable housing in villages. One has to ask the question: if nobody wants to build affordable houses in the villages now, what evidence is there to show that this policy will encourage them to do so in the future?

The truth is that, while Ryedale say they want to provide more affordable housing in the villages, the reality is they don’t really intend to see any new housing in any but the 10 service villages.

And then there is the great political red herring: some councillors say Ryedale should use its reserves to build more houses instead of a sports centre at Malton school. Well at 10 houses for every million pounds of  the £8M reserves, not very many houses are going to be built. But isn’t it strange that this cry of: “build houses and not a sports centre” is never mentioned unless the sports centre project is on the agenda? There is no sustained campaign – it is simply a devious political stratagem to stop the sports centre.

It is time the Council realised that there is a need for more affordable housing for people with a local connection within non-service villages, and the best way to achieve this is through planning policies which, whilst allowing market-led development within village envelopes, block the loophole whereby builders don’t have to provide affordable dwellings if they build less than five units.