Homelessness spending hits record high

If my income was well over £60 million I would provide some housing.

I promise.

Ahhh but… they still dont understand the draw… free electric, heating and cleaning done. I’ve just offered a house to a council and the tenant is not bothering to even VIEW the property despite being in walking distance from the hotel he is in now. The council have seen the property, confirmed it fits his needs fully.
He will of course have to pay all the bills if he moved… why bother. 8 months in a hotel and he’s clearly happy to stay and the council can’t be bothered to push it. Why? Because it’s more paperwork and process they have to follow. Easier to let him stay than bother… so temp accommodations costs spiral as a result. Councils can’t even be bothered to secure accommodation when it’s offered . In this environment!!!

I would be cheaper for the councils to send the homeless to a B&B in Spain for 6 months of the year

Nottingham Council are now spending £8 million a year JUST in B&B's, never mind the other temporary accommodation. This is overtaking what they receive in Selective Licensing fees. It's not worth it, all this over regulation.
£22k a day on B&Bs and hotels for homeless.
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/nottingham-families-now-offered-high-8834472

In a balanced population there's no need for more homes. Elderly pass on at roughly the same rate as younger people need homes.
But last year legal net migration 606k =5000 new homes needed every week 😮
+illegals
All the urban sprawl we see happening + much or all of the homelessness is due to mass immigration. Goodbye greenbelt

Reply to the comment left by Robin Pearce at 21/10/2023 - 09:15
Only about 5% of the UK is actually built on, this doesn't excuse building on green belt though. This is only done becuase its cheaper than building on brown field sites

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 21/10/2023 - 09:39
1] So you won't be a NIMBY then if houses needed due to mass immigration are proposed on green space near you then?

2] How many people here's enough for you 80m 100m 500m or 1bn?

3] What do you like most about greenbelt destruction & more traffic congestion?

Where do we build the millions of homes we needed due to mass immigration?
4] Farmland, you want more mouths to feed & less land to grow food?
Plus land having to be taken out of farm use to offset the nitrates from more sewage.
[Sunak's ditched that rule so his chums can make money from concreting over more of England]

5] Flood plains. So you want more flooding?

6] Woodland, parkland, conservation areas, so you have no respect for nature & amenity?
More people = More sewage = More algal blooms from excess nitrates.

7] What use are more traffic jams & more fields concreted over to you?
England's already the highest population density country in Europe.
Our main roads can't cope. We need more people here like a man on fire needs petrol.
Only the rich benefit from population increase
It's a joy to wander through some of our unspoilt wilderness. Why would we want to sacrifice it to host millions of immigrants?
This country thrived in 1950 when our population was 18 million less.
More GDP due to more people is no more GDP/capita. Just further degradation of our quality of life. We don't need ever denser living & we were never asked.
UK's overcrowded.
Net migration needs to be ZERO 1 in 1 out & only the very best let in with skills we badly need & on min £35k salary otherwise they're not net contributors
If you want England to be like Hong Kong then go live there instead & let us enjoy what's left of our green & pleasant land.

1) If you live on a large housing estate (as I do), then I can hardly complain when I moved into a new house that had been built on a greenfield site.
2) We actually need a large population of PRODUCTIVE workers (very important) to support our aging population (that will be me)
3) Yes, there is greenbelt destruction, but there are also plenty of brownfield sites to build on - thats up to the local planners to enforce - don't like greenbelt destruction vote out those trhat support it.
4) More and more farmers are selling up to developers - it's their choice.
5) I live at the top of a hill so flooding isn't an issue BUT yes, building on a flood plain is stupid and if you are flooded then any insurance shouldn't pay up (Flood Re wont cover you for any properties built after 2009)
6) My housing estate has a wood in the middle of it that is protected and I only have to walk 5 minutes and I am in farmland, the issue being farmers selling up
7) We need MORE roads and less bicycle lanes which cause serious congestion. Due to my hard work (self employed and running my own business) and property investments which I am now selling, I am quite comfortable thank you.
Immigration, YES I agree we need to restrict it to PRODUCTIVE workers.

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 22/10/2023 - 08:31
1] Arguing for more of something undesirable on the basis it's already happened is hardly sound logic

2] Migrants eventually get old so increase the size of our dependent elderly population to more than it would have been. Robbing other countries of their youth & workforce does them no good.
More GDP due to more people is not more GDP/capita. Just ever denser living.

3] Even if one builds on brownfield sites instead, that doesn't solve overburden on infrastructure, our roads, environment, nitrates in waterways, etc due to mass immigration.
Why do you want ever denser living?
It's no more GDP/capita
The countries like Switzerland have highest wealth per capita, best quality of life & low population density.
You need to move to HK if you want high pop'n density

4] Farmers are selling up the breadbasket of England to coin it in. Aided by Tories relaxing greenbelt protection so their corporate masters profit. More mouths to feed & less land to grow food. Not very wise!

5] In a balanced population elderly pass on roughly at the same rate as young need homes so no need to build more homes. All the greenbelt destruction you see & motorways no longer able to cope is due population increase due to mass immigration

Endless problems due to trying to squeeze more & more people into England.

Legal net migration last year = 606k = a population the size of Leeds. + illegals. Meaning we have to build a Leeds worth of housing & infrastructure every year. For what ?
To make rich people richer:
House builders
Land bank owners
Big business
Employers who don't bother to train or who want a cheap labour force we subsidise with more council housing & infrastructure
Globally owned infrastructure companies

We now have 8 lane motorways yet the average speed driving on motorways is 40mph rather than 60 or 70mph. The main arteries of our country are clogging up with too many cars due to too many people.

UK pop'n increase since 1995 = 10m = a extra population the size of Portugal mostly squashed into England !

We now need zero legal net migration. One in one out.
And zero illegals. Asylum laws are obsolete

Reply to the comment left by Robin Pearce at 22/10/2023 - 13:30
I don't have to justify anything really, Its the size of your bank balance that counts and I am not complaining. I am not a NIBMY , I am alright Jack.