Ministers are coming under pressure from the leading housebuilders to scrap onerous building obligations they blame for crippling attempts to tackle the housing crisis.

Builders representing more than 40 per cent of the new homes market have told the Financial Times they are being forced to jump through ever-higher hoops to meet tough social and environmental standards.

With the industry already struggling to justify using land for new homes amid a slump in demand and prices, top executives from the six big nationwide developers have warned that the government is simply hammering the final nail into its ambitious target to build 240,000 homes a year in England within eight years.

While the turmoil in financial markets has hit housebuilders hard, they have told the FT that looming equally large is the red tape that is making it increasingly un-economic for them to build. Obligations worrying the industry range from a requirement that all new homes must be eco-friendly to having to fit out even starter homes to meet the needs of elderly people.

“The combined cost of the government’s shopping list [of initiatives] come to around £3m a hectare,” said Stewart Baseley of the Home Builders Federation, the trade body. “That’s more than the average cost of residential building land outside London last year.”

Neil Fitzsimmons, chief executive of Redrow, said the rising value of land in the past had convinced the government that developers should pay for part of its social agenda. “Affordable housing, taxes, sustainability – those are cumulative demands that will make it difficult for developers to bring land to market, even without the lending crisis.”

But Caroline Flint, housing minister, last night defended the government’s approach. She said: “We are working with industry to address their concerns but we make no apology for wanting to deliver more affordable housing and greener homes. It is essential – and in their own interest – for housebuilders to base their decisions on the economic fundamentals and longer-term trends.”

Ms Flint’s words will do little to reassure builders, many of whom think the current crisis will leave a fundamentally changed housing landscape.

Peter Redfern, chief executive of Taylor Wimpey, said: “The impact of the current downturn will be felt for a period, but it is the decisions about some of the regulatory issues over the next 12 months that will drive volumes – or not – by 2016.”

Housebuilders have been among the worst hit by conditions in the mortgage market, with reports that demand for new homes has fallen by 65 per cent in a recent two-week period alone compared with the same period in 2007. That has led many to question the underlying value of residential land, which accounts for much of a developer’s profit when a house is sold.

“All the government’s initiatives – improving the environment, making homes affordable and so on – are wholly good things but there just isn’t enough [potential buyers] left to pay for these things,” according to John Callcutt, former industry executive who led the government review on ways more homes could be built.

As in previous downturns, many have called for palliative measures to be introduced, such as action to lower mortgage rates or a reduction in stamp duty for first-time buyers. In spite of their pleas, most builders privately admit the government is unlikely to assist with short-term problems.

But there is a growing consensus that, if the situation continues to deteriorate, the government will need to rein in initiatives introduced during the housing boom. These, say the builders, only made sense in the rising market.

Mark Clare, Barratt chief executive, says the downturn has merely exacerbated a difficult situation. “It is as if the targets were brought forward by two years. That’s not going to help,” he says, calling for an “absolute freeze” on any new regulations.

Others are talking of a trade-off. “The more flexible the government is willing to be, the more affordable housing will be built for first-time buyers,” says one boss. “On the other hand, the more cost gets placed on us, the fewer houses there will be.”

Some industry veterans nurse a grievance that, whereas government “loaded-up” builders with regulation when times were good, their own demands have fallen on deaf ears.

“The clever bankers who got us in this mess got a helping hand when they needed it, whereas the builders – who have worked so hard to meet Whitehall housing targets and play such a key part in the economy – have been left to struggle,” said one.