Many of my previous articles underline the unacceptability of "supply and demand" analysis as a basis for determining whether or not a given facility is fair game for developers.

Supply and demand analysis has no logical basis as an assessment measure of the adequacy of community facilities. Further, such a test ignores two crucial factors affecting usage levels - a) pricing and b) management.

Let's take a closer look at these two factors:

A) Pricing

At the charity known as Walker Cricket Ground Southgate (6 courts) where public courts are priced in excess of 150% of market value, £15 for 45 minutes, public usage is trivial. In June 2009 the trustees advised me that public receipts were averaging £225 per month. Despite only recently emerging from 8 years of trustee led threats to these facilities, it would now appear that under the new draft PPG17 replacement legislation these courts would once again be fair game for developers. The supply/ demand analysis would surely imply that many of these courts are 'surplus to requirements' - even when not in public use these courts are not particularly heavily used by the private squash club that has somehow gained improper control over them (this matter is the source of a separate complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman's office).

B) Management

A favoured trick of those wishing to change the use of a sports facility from say squash to non sports use such as creches or changing rooms is to produce usage data apparently showing squash in decline. At first glance this argument appears strong but beware conflicts of interest - and allow me to use this term to include a conflict concerning a desired policy outcome, not merely a conflict involving personal finances.

Let us turn to YMCA Romford, within the London Borough of Havering, and squash home of Niall Engerer (England junior international). Squash has been terminated and the courts converted to climbing walls. The sort of usage data referred to above was produced and accepted by a blinkered local authority but any impartial analysis shows that the climbing centre will be substantially less viable than squash.

In St Helens in the North West, another YMCA facility announced closure plans in August 2008 with the loss of 7 squash courts and a gym. Once again poor numbers were produced in justification. After the intervention of Bernie Gill, Chairman of Lancashire and North West Counties Squash, and the submission of a proposal underwritten by Bernie, entrepreneur Mick Todd and me the YMCA accepted that these poor numbers were a function only of their own incompetent management. Bernie, Mick and I were rebuffed but a new entity was granted a lease and squash was preserved.

At Letchworth Leisure Centre in 2004 the same crass tactic was played by North Herts District Council. I attended a public meeting. Graphs were produced with an exaggerated X- axis calibration which at first glance showed squash usage dropping off a cliff. On closer analysis one court was being used a little less, because North Herts District Council had failed to replace the neon light strips and it was unusable in the dark. When this minor problem was fixed, and when the belief in the success of the campaign to save the facility grew, usage rose strongly.

To invoke the words of philopsopher, author and most able chair of the April 29 Save Sobell Centre (Islington) meeting, Jamie Whyte, the arguments above constitute "Crimes Against Logic" and their promoters should be given short shrift.

I may disagree with Sport England's line on matters such as the proposed replacement PPG17 legislation, but SpE are committed, honest and decent people and they are the only institution protecting our cherished community sporting assets. They need our support and they have mine. They have done a sterling job in defending the iconic Crystal Palace sports centre. What a drain on public resources this summer 09 hearing has been. One taxpayer funded body, the London Development Agency has effectively been litigating against another - SpE. Surely this process will gain our communities nothing and enrich only the lawyers. Are the egos of a small number of LDA officials worth such a heavy price? In a final act of craven chutzpah I was informed that the Planning Inspector's judgment, which should have been delivered by Christmas 2009, is expected late May 2010, after the elections.

On what basis do public officials justify this manipulation of the timing of such decisions? How dare they presume to dictate that voters should 'not be influenced' by clear proof either way of an administration's skills or shortcomings in protecting community facilities at voting time?

Why is it adjudged wrong to allow voters to be influenced by national and local government actions rather than mere words?