The loss of playing fields and built sports facilities has accelerated since our national planning laws were changed in the early 2000’s as a result of the Barker Report.

Although planning law is designed to concentrate decision-making powers at local level, local powers are bounded by supervening national directives known as Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes (PPS and PPG).

The Barker Report was accepted without question by the Prime Minister and resulted in the strengthening of PPG3 – the specific national planning law dealing with housing. Despite growing concerns at the devastation of not just community sporting facilities but also farmland and green fields, the powerful national media has failed to question the validity of the assumptions underlying the original report and its updates. Nobody with influence has effectively questioned the wisdom of continuing to erect more and more housing on green space and in place of iconic facilities such as the Michael Sobell Sports Centre in Finsbury Park.

The strengthened PPS 3 makes it very difficult for communities to protect their amenities. I follow many planning disputes when updating my national database of threatened sporting facilities. Time and again I see the dreaded reference to PPS 3. Time and again it trumps objections.

Is there really such a dire shortage of housing in England and Wales? I do not believe so. I do not believe the data trilled out by politicians. Allow me to explain why. The national data presented in support of those who claim there is a housing shortage is merely the aggregation of all the local authority housing waiting lists up and down the country. The powers that be admit this is not a perfect method but assert it to be a fair proxy. People on the waiting list “need” housing, they say. But what does the word “need” mean? When is “need” simply used as an emotive substitute for “desire”.

I maintain that the data cited grossly misrepresents any reasonable estimate of those whom the man on the Clapham Omnibus would consider “homeless”.

Market forces have contributed to the unreliability of the data. Let me give you an example. A couple with children living in modest (but expensive) suburban Barnet accommodation may be paying perhaps £2000 per month in housing costs. This couple have many friends who live in social housing that is almost identical in quality and costs about £600 per month.

The quality of social housing has risen considerably since the reforms embodied in the 1988 Housing Act. It is virtually impossible to tell the difference between social housing and modest to medium standard private housing in many parts of the country. Unsurprisingly, couples who are funding their housing privately are motivated to examine the qualifying criteria for social housing very closely, and many such couples will register on the waiting list for social housing simply in the hope of saving the £1400 per month. These market forces encourage some to feign separations/ marital splits to enhance their chances of winning the social housing lottery. Politicians shy away from discussing this in public, but the scale of this trend is immense.

I am a lucky man. I live in a decent house and I drive a mid market family car. However I would prefer to drive a Ferrari. My local Ferrari supplier has offered to rent me one for £1400 per month more than I pay for my present, less desirable, vehicle. I would like the taxpayer to pay the £1400. I need a Ferrari, I cannot afford one, and therefore there is a shortage of Ferraris.