The leaked memo circulated in the housing ministry confirms our worst fears: this Labour government is abandoning its promises on affordable housing (A leaked memo, a Maga-style hat and a trail of broken pledges – it’s Labour’s great housing betrayal, 15 October). It’s a slap in the face for people who are crying out for homes they can afford to live in.
The plan to shower large property developers with public subsidies is an astonishing misuse of taxpayer money. At a time when public services are on their knees, the government proposes to use scarce public funds to boost the profits of highly successful private companies. We already see this in Liverpool, where the Labour council allows private developers to avoid paying much needed section 106 money because they argue that their schemes become “unviable”.
The proposal to suspend the community infrastructure levy is equally shortsighted and damaging. The levy is a crucial tool for ensuring that development benefits everyone, not just the developers. It pays for essential infrastructure: new schools, GP surgeries and transport links. This change will mean worse roads, fewer school places and more pressure on GP surgeries. It will cripple community budgets for years to come.
Most tellingly, the exclusion of local authorities and social housing providers from these discussions reveals Labour’s true centralising colours. To sideline us so completely shows a government that trusts big business more than it trusts local communities.
This is a policy born of the same old Westminster thinking: top-down, developer-led and fundamentally unfair. It is a profound betrayal, and local communities will not forget it.
Cllr Carl Cashman Leader, Liverpool Liberal Democrats; vice-chair, Local Government Association inclusive growth committee, Cllr Mike Ross Leader, Hull City council, Cllr Jim Millard Deputy leader, Richmond upon Thames council
The proposal by the housing secretary, Steve Reed, to reduce affordable housing requirements to 20% would be a gift to developers and a disaster for those who actually need homes. The idea that weakening obligations will unblock delivery is a false economy. It doesn’t speed up construction; it simply reduces the share of new homes that are affordable, deepening the housing crisis.
Lowering the quota also distorts viability assessments: developers will increasingly argue that even 20% is unprofitable on many sites, especially small or difficult ones, and ask for further reductions or exemptions. This pattern is already visible across planning systems: the stronger the baseline requirement, the more developers accept it; the weaker it is, the easier it becomes to wriggle out of it.
International experience proves that firmness works. In New York, inclusionary zoning mandates 25% to 30% affordable housing in rezoned areas, and development remains strong. Paris enforces a 25% social-housing quota under the solidarity and urban renewal law, with fines for non-compliance, while Vienna shows what decades of consistent high expectations can deliver: over 40% of residents are in social or limited-profit homes.
Meanwhile, Britain’s biggest builders are thriving. Persimmon posted £405m in operating profit last year, with a 14% margin, and Berkeley Group reported £529m pre-tax profit. Executives take home multimillion-pound bonuses. These are not industries on the brink; they can afford to contribute their fair share to the social good.
Sarah Willson
Town planner, London
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
