There was a fascinating survey out the other day about the prohibitively high cost of housing in this country.

The authors had hunted around to find the most unaffordable places outside London, and discovered, not surprisingly, that Oxford, Bath and Brighton had all seen rent rises so steep locals were having trouble renting a home. 

But none of those three was the most difficult place in the country to afford to rent. 

Instead, they discovered renters in Three Rivers have the toughest job in the country affording to pay for a roof over their house, with an average of more than 54 per cent of someone’s income going on rent. 
These are scary figures and not the result of some curious one-off circumstance. 

Hertsmere, where an average of 46 per cent of income goes on paying the rent, is not far behind on the list and nor is Watford. The average rent in both is above £1,000. You probably already felt  you lived in an expensive area - this is the proof. 

Of course, if you own a slew of properties in our patch then you’ll be delighted by all this, but most people’s experience is at the other end of the scale. 

The past few years have been marked by very modest pay rises and a feeling of tightness in the wallet, so increasing rents are tough to accept. 

And, of course, the cost of buying a property has gone up dramatically as well. 

You can now spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in many places in south west Hertfordshire and end up with a fairly modest family home. 

The problem is, the speed at which wages have grown has come nowhere near to keeping pace with the rise in house prices. 

That means  potential housebuyers either have to stretch themselves ever further, move somewhere else instead or else give up on buying a house and rent. Except, of course, the rental option is now becoming just as unaffordable. 

Where does this leave us? 

Towns and villages that are affordable only to the rich and children having to move away from their families because they can’t afford to live where they grew up. 

And no, this isn’t a political diatribe - I know people from all sides of the political divide who are equally worried about the divisive effects of our expensive housing market. 

You could try to restrict ownership to locals, but that’s probably illegal. 

You could restrict rents, but that’s also probably against the law. 

The best answer is probably to build more houses on the basis of supply and demand - the more houses there are, the less frantic the demand. 

That’s the theory anyway, but it requires two things - one; people agreeing to more houses being built in their area and two; homeowners accepting a decision that might slow down the rise in house prices is a good thing.

For the politicians who represent us at every level, this is pressing stuff.

Our position on the edge of London, with great road and rail links, makes this bit of the world very desirable and that’s why property is so expensive to rent or buy. 

But do we really want to put ourselves on a path that leads to our towns and villages becoming enclaves for the very rich? 

So the driving test might be in line for upheaval. The Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency is about to trial a new test that involves getting rid of the three-point turn and checking people can follow instructions using a sat-nav. But why? 

What’s wrong with a three-point turn? 

I’m baffled as to how it’s suddenly considered arcane when it’s something I find myself actually using in real life. 

Am I missing something here, but I’ve always thought the fundamentals of the driving test were fairly timeless - controlling a car, driving safely and following instructions.

And while it may have a been a few years ago since I took my test, I do at least have the benefit of multiple memories. 

I failed it twice, the first time in pretty spectacular style with a list of faults that included speeding. The second time was a more marginal failure and the third effort was the most gut-wrenchingly stressful hour of my life that ended, finally, in success. 

Since then the test has been improved and updated, with a written section that appears to work quite well. 

But you’ve always had to show you can drive a car going forward and backward, which is where the three-point turn comes into play.

And frankly, if you’re going to encourage people to use sat-navs then they’re absolutely certain to need a three-point turn at some point, having been cheerfully led down some farm track somewhere because TomTom decided you could shave 0.1 miles off the journey if you went that way rather than just sticking to that boring old motorway. 

No, if they want to change the driving test then they might want to add some other things instead.
Not staying in the middle lane of a motorway, for one, not driving round with your foglights on, for another, and perhaps a primer in basic manners for the third. 

Those would all be useful skills. But leave the three-point turn alone.

And finally - this is my final column before Christmas so it’s time to wish you all a very happy and peaceful festive season. 

May your turkey be succulent, your presents bountiful, your family healthy and the Doctor Who Christmas Special even better than last year. 

And let’s hope Watford’s footballers can put together the winning run they keep on threatening. 
See you in 2015.