Housing

[andrewducker]

Has there been a major, independent, enquiry into what makes the cost of building new housing as high as it is?

If so, where can I read it?

Comments

[sigmonster.livejournal.com]

1) Cost of land with planning permission (which just pushes the problem one layer down...)
2) Steadily improving building codes for insulation, wiring, and fire safety. Energy efficiency in particular is set to increase for all new build for the next few years. (There is a slight problem in that building inspectors are now paid by the builder and not by the local council, which is corruption just waiting to happen: this was one of Thatcher's changes and badly needs to change back.)
3) High cost of labour and low deployment of capital - people use hammers and hand saws instead of nail guns and chop saws. This isn't as bad as it used to be, though.
4) Cultural dislike of light-framed construction.

Don't know of any actual inquiry though...

[drplokta]

5) Section 106 agreements.

[andrewducker]

The thing is, I'd like to know _how much_ each of those things adds on.

Which probably does require a proper enquiry.

I'd also like to know why there hasn't been one, as the cost of housing has been an issue for decades.

[sigmonster.livejournal.com]

In some places the cost of housing isn't all that bad, though - e.g. my sister owns a three-bedroom terraced house in Yorkshire, buying on her own on a librarian's salary.

There is no national market, but plenty of regional and local markets, and the issues will be different, perhaps wildly different, in each place. I'm not sure a national enquiry would have any point.

[andrewducker]

A national enquiry can report on the variances in different areas perfectly well though, and it would be good to know what the differences were.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

Pretty funny when the government comes out and says "oh yeah, energy effiency in new housing, that'll solve problems!" forgetting that a] not as many (affordable) new houses are being built as should be and b] quite a lot of property is owned by people who can't afford to pay for everything that you need to be very energy efficient at home and c] as far as I know, there's little incentive for people making money from renting out property to make the property more energy efficient, since they don't pay the bills. They'd lose money making it more energy efficient, since they'd pay for that, but see no gains.

[skington.livejournal.com]

A lot of current property can't be made significantly more energy-efficient (barring possibly appliances). My late mother's flat in Edinburgh is currently on the market, and I got in the energy report. Its energy efficiency rating is D (64, out of 100 - higher numbers are better), as is its environmental rating (62, with a potential of 63).

The only affordable thing they recommended, and which would have an impact on either of the ratings, was fit more energy-efficient lightbulbs, which we had already as the old incandescents died. Replacing the boiler they rate as £1,500-£3,500 for a typical saving of £65 per year and another 3-4 points on both ratings; double-glazing would add another 3 points each, but the flat is in a conservation area so that's out, even if the £2,500-£6,500 cost warranted the £48 per year saving; adding internal or external insulation (if that's even possible in a sandstone tenement) adds 3-5 extra points, at £5,500-£14,500 for £59 per year savings. So you're talking about spending £9,500-£24,500 to move from mid-to-high D ratin to mid-C rating.

The only thing that's worth it is replacing appliances with more efficient versions when they break; arguably a cash-for-clunkers programme for boilers etc. might be worth it, but that's the only thing I can think of that would help existing property.