Kick Start The Jams

Figures released last week by the BBC show that Councils in Britain spent £3.5billion on temporary accommodation for homeless families over the last five years. The annual cost has, over the entire country, risen 60% in five years - with huge rises especially seen in London.

That is clearly an unsustainable position.

For that money, you could easily build 35,000 houses - 40% of the entire need at the present time and the same amount of social housing as in the entirety of Nottingham. £3.5billion is also a similar figure to that being spent on the refurbishment of the Houses of Parliament - as the bottom end estimate. The true figure could be double that.

There are now significant areas of  London that are no longer affordable to the average family in minimum wage jobs looking for private sector housing, and the problem is now creeping to several other parts of the country also.

Difficult decisions need to be taken, not just by the state but by the individuals involved. Some people have to accept that their lifestyle - whether by choice or whatever - is no longer sustainable in the place they are currently living.

There needs to be an acceptance that just as people move to London for higher paid jobs, those in London that are employed for lower wages must move outside their family's traditional area for a sustainable life.

According to home.co.uk, a three bedroom house in Hackney - considered to be the poorest borough of London - is at an average of £2,500 a month in the private sector - £30,000 a year. Deposits are often 6 weeks rent - £4,000. Working London Minimum Wage 40 hour jobs, a couple would have £150 a month left after rent. Then there's the Council Tax, utilities etc that would mop up that little bit left. Where would they dream of getting the deposit from?

People rely on benefits in this situation just to get by. They have no choice. There's nothing wrong with them, no illnesses or disabilities. They just can't financially stretch to their needs.

So why not take the £3.5billion, and the benefits paid out to those stuck in a hole, and build new housing stock in affordable areas? You'll stop making the already rich private landlords richer, and start making the country rich instead.

A ten year building plan, producing 3,500 homes a year. If the temporary accommodation bill was reduced by just 4% for each year of housebuilding, £28million in year two, £56million in year three etc etc, the project would become self-funded within a quarter of the lifetime of the newly built houses.

And then we could carry on, funding further building with the 'profit' of the savings. By the end of a ten year building project nearly half of it would have already been funded by savings on temporary accommodation costs.

Then, in Year 18, we will have saved enough to cover the entire cost of the project. With the houses still to give value back to the economy for another 70+ years and producing £280million of savings a year in money not spent on temporary accommodation.

And that's assuming we stop at ten years of building. Go for 100% of current demand, and the project breaks even on Year 14 and is in profit by Year 26 - generating £700million of savings each and every year thereafter on current spending rates.

These figures, of course, assume that the current housing crisis doesn't get worse. And there aren't many experts predicting an improvement.