The view of the Affordable Homes Partnership is that monetary payments should only be made in exceptional circumstances.

Money is often of little use, the biggest issue being the time-lag.

When people hang onto that money and use it for housing purposes a couple of years later that money will have lost a lot of its value.

There's no question that developers would generally prefer not to have to provide affordable housing in a development. So it's always their preference to give a monetary payment . . . but it's not their choice. It's up to the local authority.

There are some reasons why money might be preferable.

Sometimes it's possible for the local authority to get more housing for the same money in a different location. But often the payment occurs because there isn't enough communication between the housing departments and the planning departments at an early stage. We urge that when a planning application comes in then the planning people need to start talking to housing people right away.

Sometimes the monetary payments become necessary because the nature of the development and the provision of the affordable housing under the legislation aren't discussed clearly enough. And it's also a matter of fairness. It's important that all developers are treated the same and that there's consistency. You don't want a situation where a local authority is getting money from one developer but is getting housing from someone else.

This issue is something we all need to think about. People need to buy into the whole idea of integration. I believe that all developments can have a social housing and affordable housing element. The idea that some developments are too exclusive for affordable housing simply isn't appropriate in this day and age. Part of the whole purpose of the legislation is to achieve integration. You don't want to ghettoize people. And from society's point of view it's better for all of us that housing is integrated and that there's no segregation.

So, if a developer offers money in lieu of housing or land, you've got to compare that with the option of getting 20% of the land and if it isn't better in terms of meeting the housing needs or housing strategy of that local authority, then they are legally obliged to seek the land or the housing. That's the default situation and I think that it's sometimes been misunderstood in the past. To be fair, the majority of county councils have sought housing under the legislation and there are other local authorities who have taken money but have achieved a lot of housing on the back of it. What worries me are the authorities who've taken a lot of money but haven't yet provided the housing. In those instances I think it's important for the authorities to read the legislation again.

The provision of affordable and social housing needs to be seen as legitimate and necessary. I strongly believe that it's a very good thing from society's point of view. Currently when there's land rezoning, the landowner or the developer gets a windfall pro"t. We think that general public should also gain from rezoning.

In conversation with Patrick Freyne