Britain’s housing stock offers the worst value for money of any advanced economy, according new analysis published by the Resolution Foundation.
The think tank uses international data to compare various housing metrics across advanced economies to assess the scale and uniqueness of the UK’s much discussed housing crisis compared to other similar economies, many of whom frequently bemoan their own housing problems.
The report notes that the share of household income spent on housing is the most common way to assess housing costs. However, such a measure is less useful for international comparisons as it is affected by a country’s share of outright owners, who don’t have ongoing housing costs.
For example Italy, Spain and the UK (61, 49 and 36 per cent respectively) have a far greater share of outright owners than Germany and the Netherlands (26 and 9 per cent respectively).
To make an international comparison of the actual market cost of housing, the analysis examines what it would cost to rent all homes – incorporating the imputed rents, or what owners would pay if they rented their home at market rates – to show how the market price of housing varies across a range of countries. It finds that housing represents a greater share of consumption on this basis in the UK than in any other advanced economy bar Finland.
In theory, these high housing costs could reflect the cost of a superior quantity or quality of housing in the UK, but the foundation claims they do not and says: “People instead pay more and get less.”
The report shows that English homes actually have less average floorspace per person (38 metres squared) than many similar countries, including the US (66 ms), Germany (46), France (43) and even Japan (40).
The foundation also claims that English homes have less floor space, on average, than homes in New York City.
“Overall Britons get 24 per cent less housing per person than Austrians and 22 per cent less than Canadians, both of whom have similar consumption levels overall” says the new report out this morning
UK housing stock is also the oldest of any of European countries, with a greater share of homes built before 1946 (38 per cent) than anywhere else. For example, just 21 per cent of homes in Italy, and 11 per cent in Spain, were built before the end of the war. Older homes tend to be poorly insulated, leading to higher energy bills and a higher risk of damp, says the Foundation.
The Foundation concludes that high cost and low quantity leave the UK’s housing stock offering the worst value for money of any advanced economy.
UK households pay 57 per cent more for the same (quality-adjusted) housing as their counterparts in Austria, for example, and 36 per cent more than those in Canada. Housing in New Zealand offers the second worst value for money, followed by Australia and Ireland – all countries also gripped by housing crises.
Adam Corlett, Principal Economist at the Resolution Foundation, comments: “Britain’s housing crisis is likely to be a big topic in the election campaign, as parties debate how to address the problems of high costs, poor quality and low security that face so many households.
“Britain is one of many countries apparently in the midst of a housing crisis, and it can be difficult to separate rhetoric from reality. But by looking at housing costs, floorspace and wider issues of quality, we find that the UK’s expensive, cramped and ageing housing stock offers the worst value for money of any advanced economy.
“Britain’s housing crisis is decades in the making, with successive governments failing to build enough new homes and modernise our existing stock. That now has to change.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
😂🫣😂 State the obvious will you 🏡🤷♂️🏡
Think this is an report sponsored by the developers of both Private and Social housing.
The uniqeness of British housing is you can see that the housing stock if looked after lasts for 1000 years. Can you say that about a new build or an estate in the sky which the ones from the 70's lasted 20 years..
It is what it is
The fact that many council estates built in the sixties and seventies are now demolished is a scandal.
Jo, the one I grew up on was built mid-fifties and all had good sized rooms and gardens. Still going strong too.
However. The Report says Outright Owners don’t have on going Housing Costs, are they living in cloud cuckoo land. They didn’t factor out all the external costs imposed on Renters & Landlords, The huge Government take in taxes and now more with introduction of S.24. Councils milking it as well with all kinds of Licensing Schemes, VAT on everything we do to maintain or comply with new requirements, a huge lump of everyone’s Council tax to Mayor of London. Ok take all this out & more we are cheaper than Council Housing who pay no tax and no licensing Schemes for them.
The price is principally driven by land costs more than the build quality, that whey the same house in County Durham cost 25% of the cost in London.
As with many headline stories we are not privy to the details. As they say everything is in the detail. I would challenge that UK housing is small. The country is crying out for one bed homes that developers are not building because there is more profit per Sq M in selling homes with 2 and 3 beds.
I am completely confident that my Victorian house will out live any house built post 1940.
The quality of British new build is worse than atrocious.
They don't quote the cost in terms (financially and environmentally) of the overall lifetime of the property. Like your home, my 1920s build brick home will still be standing in 200 years time, the lifespan of a new build is a minimum of 60 years.
Presumably you mean a maximum of 60 years?
No, the recommendation is min 60 years, but even though it's a minimum developers are unlikely to go much over spec.
Builders can only build what they can get Planning Permission for. I used to spend quite a bit of time looking at new developments and chatting to the sales staff. Again and again they complained about the Planning department refusing to allow them to build the type of houses they could easily sell and woefully inadequate parking provision.
Planning departments have some truly bizarre ideas. A house behind one of mine had all sorts of structural issues and a planning application was made to demolish it. Application refused.
My son owns a house in a parking courtyard that was built in 2007 and by 2010 was featured in the Local Authority Supplementary Planning Document as an example of "a lost opportunity to create an attractive mews character". It's supposed to be a 3 bed but only one of the bedrooms is large enough to satisfy the LA current guidelines on room sizes. He submitted a planning application for a bedroom over the garage which would rectify all its shortcomings and create the mews style the SPD had said was missing. Application refused.
In other countries property is so cheap it isn't worth upgrading it. Far easier to just abandon old buildings and build a new one. Areas of France have numerous beautiful abandoned houses that no one wants. It simply isn't economically viable to modernise them.
Having renovated older houses in both France and Italy I can say it’s perfectly possible.
Like all property deals, you have to pick your building correctly. The majority of older properties are salvageable although a minority are definitely unviable.
Another waste of space lefty think tank. Just stating the obvious. If all what they say is true then so what? We are one of the oldest established nations on the planet. Of course some of our stuff is old. Who is going to pay to knock it all down and replace it? Citizens don't have the money. Businesses & the rich can't / won't pay. The government can't keep printing money. There aren't the resources in terms of labour and material etc.
People just need to suck it up. As Warren Buffett says people now live better than those 100 years ago including JD Rockefeller (the richest man in the world at the time; a billionaire). We have more healthcare, technology, transport and access to education etc. His houses whilst massive weren't insulated either!
Probably a combination of thousands of small terraced houses built for workers in industrialised areas and post war council house building. Those are the properties we have in this country, so I guess people have to live in them or we can knock them down? Locally an old council estate with semi detached houses with large gardens was bulldozed and terraced houses build instead. Also last report I saw said there is not enough housing for single people, longest council waiting lists are for single people, so maybe we need more smaller properties or shared properties??
WL - yes, there is definitely not enough homes for single people. Many single people are having to rent two bed flats when all they really want is a small flat with one bed.
Yet still foreign investors line up to buy
💵💵💵👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 because they know, come what may, we will NEVER build enough houses for our population…… so……. 🎉 it’s party time 💰. We are increasing our people close to a Nottingham or a Leicester every couple of years. 🫣🫣 Potty.
Expensive, small and old?
Sounds like my wife, and with the excellent care and maintenance provided by yours truly, she's built to outlast many more modern structures who are just far too high maintenance!
You choose well Robert, far too many high maintenance ones out there I had a lucky escape from a few of them back in the 70s
Andrew
I met my wife in 1971 but previously had a few high maintenance flings in my student days. I well remember one girl insisting on pints of Guinness when a half pint should have sufficed and been more lady like!
Well if you want small, there’s always the Shipping Container Conversion.
Omg. How sexist. Women work have babys and I still drink halves to his pints when we have enough money to go out. Our housing stock is neglected. The fact is that asians own a lot of it infact I read more than any other nationality. Shipping containers I saw the complaints about those. Lets not forget how many people are on our streets. The government need to get over themselves.
Catherine. It was just a throw away remark I suppose I shouldn’t be so flippant still a great deal better than the tent or umbrellas on the street.
The Sabotage Act, 2024 by Mr Michael Gove Housing Secretary now making its way through Parliament but completely unnecessary as he has filled the on-line Auctions to Capacity already driving out Landlords in hundreds of thousands, is he oblivious to the fact we had sitting Tenants before and nowhere to Rent, think on.
I appreciate your comments. I am now in debt since mum died and had to sell my house that was part in trust. I had to pay for bith since dec2020 some £13,000. My mothers retirement flat is a leasehold Firstport. Need I say more. Raw sewage pouring out over the premises. Absolutly no concern for the elderly retired occupants here. No warden. No TVSignal for 6 months no WIFI which is expected in this day and age. Trapped and struggling. A flat in Worcester that is another lease. Nightmare estate agents unreliable conveyancing solicitors. Dishonest business practice. We have both experienced homelessness in the past. I sound ungratefull but it breaks my heart. I would love to leave this country.
My mother looked at a leasehold retirement flat, thankfully she didn't go ahead with it, they really are a nightmare, best of luck to you Catherine
Catherine, so sorry for your situation and the loss of your dear Mum RIP, bereavement is always very difficult whenever it happens even if expected we all get a blast.
This Housing Report as Simon says stating obvious still 38 m2 per person is not small double or cramped and is the size of many traditional Terraced Houses
but always more than 2 people living in them so the Report is wrong to start with and a waste of time. The HMO Regulations invented by Gov’ & local Authorities to make a mockery of PRS says 6.8 m2 is enough for one person or 10.2 m2 for 2 but 13.5 m2 with cooking facilities in rooms, so even add washing facilities it’s still less than half your 38 m2 that they are moaning about & that’s 2 people, hello what are they on about ?.
The other point that is loss is we only take up approx’ half the residential space as the yanks so that must mean we are twice as energy efficient as them and we are the ones expected to take all measures to save the Planet morons.
Catherine I understand your predicament regarding lease holds it certainly came as a shock to me as I always owned Freehold including Flats until very recent years when I dabbled with that the shock of my life when I bought an individual Flat in a Block that’s a whole other story with Freehold’s, Service Charges, Court Cases, eventually Enfranchisement to 999 of original.
Anyway when people dies the ones left behind virtually always have to sell part of the Estate to pay Death Duty (inheritance tax) yes that’s what it is even though the tax was paid over & over again it stinks and should be scrapped.
I meant double the 38 m2 and it’s equal to many Terraced houses if you understand my Irish.
Please login to comment