They say that Mr Prescott's intention to bypass local councils and impose development on local communities will only add to delays and confusion with frustrated protesters resorting more to legal action in the courts.

The authors argue instead for a systematic freeing-up of the planning system, together with a package of incentives, such as tax breaks for developing brownfield land, to encourage development consistent with local support.

But it is the freeing-up of London's Green Belt, imposed in the late 1940s to contain the outward expansion of the capital, that is the most controversial proposal. In this way, the authors say, more use could be made of London's existing infrastructure, such as the Tube, and bring it the extra revenue it needs.

Mr Ehrman said: "The housing shortage is worst in London, while much of the development Mr Prescott is proposing is miles outside it and on green fields.

"Nearly all of the 60,000 acres of land within 16 miles of Trafalgar Square will be protected in one way or another and certainly no one is suggesting that all of it should just be built over.

"But is it really sensible that every field close to London, even if it is bordered by Tube tracks or motorways, should be sacrosanct, when further out farmland is being covered with housing for commuters, many of whom will travel back into the city?

"We are sayi ng that if you are going to crack this problem you have got to be more flexible.