Compiling data for Top 50 developers

I was interested to see how your figures had been compiled, which, according to your methodology, involves using development totals from a variety of sources.

Compiling data in this way inevitably leads to inaccuracies. I accept that your methodology also includes pipeline projects, but as the article states, some of the figures ‘include an element of wishful thinking’. On closer scrutiny you will find that the majority are dependent on factors such as obtaining land, planning or grant funding.

I believe your rankings have a useful role to play but only if the results are reliable. This could be achieved by using more precise calculation methods such as basing it on National Affordable Housing Programme allocation figures (although this can be distorted by those associations that develop non-NAHP funded developments), or alternatively by using the figures published in annual report and accounts.

In the case of Sanctuary Housing, for example this would show 3,740 units onsite or committed to be built in the future as at 31 March 2010, and not the 2,200 reported in your current table.

Perhaps you could consider changing your methodology next year as I believe reporting the true picture will give us more credibility and assist us when arguing the case for new affordable housing developments with government and other groups representing our interests.

Tony King, group director, Capital Investment