Complaints about alleged defects in new homes are increasing, despite a slump in the number of properties sold in the recession. Complaints to the National House Building Council (NHBC), which offers warranties on 80% of new homes, topped 64,000 in 2008/09. This is up only slightly from 63,000 in 2007/08 but comes in a year when there was a 40% drop in the number of new homes sold because of the credit crunch.

Forty four per cent of all households surveyed say they do not have enough space for small children to play safely in the kitchen while meals are being prepared, and 37 per cent say they or their children do not have enough space to entertain guests privately.

Seventy two per cent do not have enough space for the three small bins required to recycle properly; and 35 per cent do not have the kitchen space for basic cooking appliances such as a toaster or a microwave. Fifty seven per cent do not have enough storage, and 47 per cent cannot accommodate all the furniture they have, or would like to have.

The research points to lower-income households suffering from more of the problems associated with a lack of space. Ninety per cent of the householders surveyed had a spare bedroom, and so the situation is worse for those in fully occupied properties.

While we see partnerships between local authorities and developers as key to unlocking the urban land supply that is needed to deliver housing growth, it is essential not to neglect other parts of the market. In the past, it has been the smaller and medium sized housebuilders who have delivered much of the volume growth.We must continue to support and encourage this segment of the market and provide opportunities for the small and medium sized firms to be part of the industry’s growth.We have made a variety of recommendations to achieve this, including securing a supply of smaller sites and ensuring that they are viable.

We have recommended that no general action should be taken to force the faster build-out of land banks; we are clear that this will put production at risk, not add to it. However, there is no reason why Government or other public agencies should not stipulate faster build-out rates when disposing of land for housebuilding or within partnering agreements, so long as they can justify any loss of value this may incur. We have also made some recommendations for more transparency in the use and status of land for future housebuilding.

Similarly we have not recommended that Government stipulate the use of specific methods of construction. Our view is that over time the industry itself will determine what are the most cost-effective techniques.We welcome the new higher performance standards now being required by both the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships. This is certainly the right approach to promoting innovation and quality. In the current housebuilding market, however, there are insufficient incentives for quality. The returns to housebuilders for investing in quality barely justify the effort.

In the drive for increased quality, we are recommending that within the next two years, housebuilders seeking Government grants or other public subsidy must achieve customer satisfaction standards which have been established by an independent led survey. Efforts should be made to make sure this stipulation does not inhibit small and medium size builders and developers. The existing regulatory and warranty frameworks are an inadequate substitute for market disciplines.We are therefore recommending new arrangements for design review and for construction which incentivise good quality and impose real penalties for poor quality.

One of the most challenging aspects of our Review was to consider the increase in housebuilding alongside the Government’s aspiration to be world class in the delivery of zero-carbon homes by 2016.

We conclude that with multiple technical options and long lead times in the production supply chain, the industry itself will be stretched to meet the goals in this very tight timeframe, but with the Government demonstrating strong leadership, direction and being firm in its commitment, the industry and its supply chain, including construction products manufacturers and energy suppliers, can meet our zero carbon targets. We have provided a delivery timetable which shows a number of actions that need to be set in hand now to make this happen. In particular we consider it is essential to establish a delivery body which will lead and co-ordinate the efforts of all parties towards the zero carbon target.

In conclusion, our Review shows clearly that the housebuilding industry and its supply chain have the potential to deliver 240,000 new good quality homes a year by 2016 and to achieve the zero carbon targets. However, the industry is answerable only to its investors and shareholders and not to the public interest. This is why most of our recommendations are addressed to central and local government. It is their business, not that of the industry, to deliver public goals.We are clear, however, that by following our recommendations Government will put in place a framework of incentives and opportunities which will create a strong commercial motive on the part of the sector and its shareholders to deliver the Government’s targets for 2016 and beyond.

Full Report

We purchased our dream House, ‘bespoke’ claimed the builders, it would be ready to move into in January. There were numerous problems along the way but we finally moved in on April 12. When we were given the keys we were told of a few minor problems that would be sorted out asap. To give credit where it’s due, some have been (although taking two or three attempts ).

Relationships with Greatworth Propertys PLC have now completely broken down so I have set up a web site as a focal point for people to complain through www.notsogreatworth.co.uk. (site not live) I have met with people from other Greatworth developments and have found out that they leave a trail of destruction and unhappy customers and communities behind them.

Whether you go for a period piece or a shiny newbuild, don’t forget the extras. Gwenda Brophy does the sums

Until recently there were two separate camps of buyers – those who would only consider period properties with their “character” and original features, and those who favoured the easy-living low-maintenance of newbuild. Period properties were derided as a black hole for money by new-home fans, while newbuild equalled bland for Victorian property aficionados.

There has since been a thawing of attitudes, as house builders broaden their offerings – and appeal – while even the most ardent Victorian house owner can balk at the fuel bills for their high-ceilinged homes.

A woman who bought a flat in a new £200 million city development has spoken of her nightmare move.

Gemma Bernard splashed out £300,000 for a swanky apartment in Brighton’s City Point Development and was due to get the keys on September 14.

But the day before she was due to move in she was told the flats had been wrongly numbered and there was no power.

It means that despite exchanging contracts more than a month ago she is still living at her home in Bognor.

Hardline councillors have told a developer to find alternative accommodation for families caught up in a planning row, rejecting a plea to allow them to move into their new Exeter homes.

As the Echo revealed last week, 11 families have been prevented from moving into houses they bought in Kings Heath, Digby, until developers provide an open space and play area as part of a planning obligation.

An additional 39 recently completed homes stand empty and cannot be sold before the amenities are complete.

Official figures reveal that the housebuilding industry is on a build-rate to start about 172,000 homes this year.

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has launched an investigation into the £20 billion industry amid claims that companies have been manipulating the planning process in a bid to inflate
new house prices.

Bryant Homes would not let us into the property until 10 days before completion “for health and safety” reasons! We were pressed to complete on December 21st and since then have been the owners of a property that is quite frankly NOT FIT TO RESIDE IN!! There is currently scaffolding to the whole front elevetion so that the !DODGY! brickwork can be rectified and there are workman requiring daily access to the house to attend to the endless remedial work required to bring the house up to scratch.

I have an 11yr old son who is unable to venture out of the house due to the continuos traffic af all manner of construction vehicles driving up and down our entrance and access road. There are piles of masonary on every corner, with collapsed metal fencing and many other damgerous obstacles! I am going to my local newspaer and t.v. news station with this story! My advice is DONT BUY A BRYANT NEW HOME AS YOU WILL BE LIED TO, DUPED AND END UP WITH A SUB STANDARD BUILDING!!!

WT