The news that more than 4,600 families in the Bradford district are living in social housing or accommodation that is considered over-sized adds yet more weight to the argument against building on our green fields.

The figures, revealed by the National Housing Federation, show the number of Council or housing association homes with an unused bedroom. They were released in response to the Welfare Reform Bill (returning to the House of Commons tomorrow) which, if passed, will mean these families will have to move or pay more rent to stay where they are.

The Federation has expressed concerns about the effect of families being forced out of their homes, and has called for a compromise amendment allowing them to remain where they are if there is no suitable alternative accommodation nearby.

While it could be argued that there may be exceptional cases that justify this, these figures need to be seen in the context of what we are told is an urgent crisis that requires 45,000 new homes to be built by 2028. They neatly illustrate yet again that there are real alternatives to bricking over our green spaces. While it may be unpalatable to some that families have to move to different areas if they want all of their home paid for, it is difficult to justify this sort of waste of housing space when we are faced with more and more new developments.

If the housing shortage is as desperate as we are told then these homes provide potential opportunities to rank alongside reinvigorating derelict houses and the redevelopment of brownfield land which could make a vast difference to the supply of affordable housing and drastically reduce the pressure on our green spaces.

If the need is as great as the Council says it is then every alternative must be considered before we risk losing forever some of our most valuable amenities