British home prices to rise 3.5% this year; government to miss 5-year building target
LONDON, May 29 (Reuters) - The outlook for British home prices has barely changed in the last three months on steady expectations for falling borrowing costs, according to a Reuters poll of property experts who said the government would achieve around two-thirds of its construction target.
Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer has vowed to build 1.5 million homes over parliament's term, which ends in mid-2029 at the latest, but the poll median found the government would manage around only a million.
None of the 11 respondents to an additional question saw the goal being fully met. Responses ranged from 700,000 to 1.3 million.
"The government's pledge of 1.5 million homes by the end of 2029 is a fantasy," said Russell Quirk at estate agency eMoov, who predicted a range of 950,000-1,050,000.
"The top 10 house builders neither have the capacity nor the P&L (profit and loss) motivation to deliver."
There were around 817,000 housing completions in the five years to 2024, according to government data. The last time there were more than 1 million homes completed in a comparable period was in 1976-1981.
British homebuilder Persimmon (PSN.L), opens new tab did, however, say in March it would construct more houses this year and target improved margins after 2024 profit beat expectations, while rival Barratt Redrow (BTRW.L), opens new tab last month reiterated its target to build around 17,000 homes this year.
With homes in short supply, the cost of buying one is expected to increase.
Nationally, home prices were predicted to rise 3.5% this year, matching a February forecast but above predictions in another Reuters poll for overall inflation of 3.0%. Next year they will increase 4.0% and in 2027 3.5%, the May 19-29 poll of 19 housing market experts predicted.
In London, house prices were seen rising 3.0% this year, 4.0% next and 3.8% in 2027.
Asked what would happen to affordability for first-time buyers hoping to get on the property ladder, all but two of 15 said it would improve.
"Generally, mortgage affordability will improve for first-time buyers over the course of 2025," said Scott Cabot at real estate services firm CBRE.
"A continued fall in the base rate, along with an increasingly competitive mortgage market, will generally drive lower mortgage rates in 2025."
The Bank of England is expected to stick to one interest rate cut per quarter this year, with the next likely in August and then in November, ending 2025 at 3.75% compared with 5.25% before the reductions began.
Urban rents were seen rising even faster than home prices, making it harder for new buyers to save money for a deposit usually needed to get a mortgage. Many people, especially the young, prefer to live in cities.
Nationally, urban rents were expected to increase 4.3% this year while in the capital they will rise 3.7%.
"We expect rents to outpace inflation over the next few years, predominantly due to the lack of supply in the rental sector, but also due to higher costs eroding landlords' profit margins," said Aneisha Beveridge at estate agency Hamptons.
The government's planned Renters' Rights Bill will put additional conditions on landlords while tax changes will also have an impact, prompting some to leave the market.
Britain's housing market slowed in April after the end of a temporary tax break on home purchases which had seen buyers rush to complete transactions in previous months, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said earlier this month.
(Other stories from the Q2 Reuters housing market polls)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Conservatives are not yet finished, but they can no longer delay their next reinvention
Listen! Can you hear the death rattle of the world's oldest political party? Of the five most recent opinion polls, one has the Conservatives on 19 per cent, one on 17 and three on 16. It is starting to look as if the Tories might, in Dominic Cummings's curious Durham/Palo Alto dialect, 'have crossed the event horizon'. Political expiry comes suddenly. France's Gaullists had been the leading party on the Right for half a century when they were displaced by Marine Le Pen. At the last election, they won just eight per cent of the seats. And France's voting system at least allows smaller parties some parliamentary representation. Britain's, by contrast, keeps them out. What if the scales are tipping? What if first-past-the-post, for so long a Conservative prop, has become the party's doom? 'Vote Tory, get Labour,' say Reform supporters, gleefully turning the Conservatives' old argument against them. How might Kemi Badenoch avoid extinction? Hoping that Nigel Farage implodes is not a strategy. The Reform leader has always been an astute tactician and, as the years have passed, he has become tougher and more disciplined. Frankly, though, even if he were caught out in some monstrous scandal, his supporters, Maga-like, would dismiss it as a Deep State smear. In the end, the Conservatives can come back only by playing to their old strengths: sound money, balanced budgets, sustainable growth, economic aspiration. In parallel, they need to cauterise the immigration wound that caused their support to leak away in the first place. Apologising for what went before is a start, but they must also show that they have a plan to secure our frontiers – a plan that goes beyond leaving the ECHR, which both sides have turned into a shibboleth. Labour cretinously likens pulling out to Nazism, as though not wanting prisoners to have the vote were comparable to invading Czechoslovakia. Reform, meanwhile, treats withdrawal as a magic spell that would stop the boats. But quitting the ECHR won't remove our own Left-wing judges who, without the hassle of getting themselves elected, legislate from the bench. In these pages last month, the former Conservative and UKIP MP Douglas Carswell offered a considered plan to deal with immigration, including letting the Lord Chancellor fire activist judges. Whether the Tories opt for his scheme or a different one, they need a convincing programme, not a slogan. You might object that programmes are the last thing they need. The public, you might maintain, is in no mood for detail. Trumpy one-liners beat costed proposals. Voters, you might tell me, want to take their politicians seriously, not literally. That is why Farage, when promising his incredible tax cuts this week, cheerfully declared that 'you can probably argue that at no point in the history of any form of government has anybody ever thought the numbers added up'. You would have a point. We live in an angry and impatient age, when the average time spent on a TikTok video is seven seconds. A chunk of the electorate wants a party that radiates anger about wokery, immigration and failing public services rather than producing plans. Just as Trumpsters never expected Mexico to pay for the wall, and don't seem bothered that it hasn't been built, so Farage calculates that British voters prefer colourful headlines to feasible policies. When he says, for example, that scrapping DEI programmes will save £7 billion (one of his MPs even claimed £35 billion), he does not expect to be taken literally. Most of the organisations that have looked into it, including the heroic TaxPayers' Alliance, find savings only in the tens or, at most, hundreds of millions. But Farage is not trying to balance the budget; he is trying to articulate anger about DEI. He has the advantage of not having been in office, and so not having had the chance to break any promises. Badenoch may have spent her political career fulminating against anti-white racism, the trans madness and identity politics in general. But, however long-standing her convictions, she can always be outbid by the taunt of 'Yeah, well you had 14 years to do something about it'. Can the Tories recover, then? If criticism of their party turns on its past behaviour rather than its present attitudes, is there anything they can do? They have reinvented themselves before. Churchill repudiated Appeasement, Thatcher buried Heathism. Boris Johnson managed to present his as a new government despite taking over between elections. But none of them had to deal with an alternative party of government on the Right. Does Badenoch, I wonder, feel the spectral weight of her predecessors' expectations? Is she haunted by Churchill's shade, his bellicose jaw set in disapproval? Does Salisbury seem to grumble from the depths of his ghostly beard? Is Disraeli's wraith composing a damning quip? And what of the earlier Tories, the country gentlemen who kept the party going through the long decades of its 18th-century proscription, men such as Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn (who died in the most on-brand way possible, thrown from his horse while hunting rabbits)? Do they see three-and-a-half centuries of tradition coming to an end? Possibly. But Badenoch should not yet despair. The party of Bolingbroke and Peel has weathered worse storms. Commentators declared two-party politics dead when, after the 1962 Orpington by-election, the Liberals surged 20 points in the polls and took a string of other seats. Something similar happened in the early 1980s, when the SDP/Liberal Alliance polled above 50 per cent. The key to electoral success is seriousness. Spending cuts might not poll well, but, at the same time, most people have a sense that countries must live within their means. That sense becomes more pronounced as the effects of excessive tax and spend become palpable. By the next election, the weight of a bloated government will be unbearable. Growth will have dried up and unemployment will be rising. There may have been a bond strike, sparking an immediate budget crisis and occasioning emergency cuts and more tax rises. In any event, the betting must be that the electorate will be keener by then to have adults in charge – serious types who can say no to pressure groups, take unpopular decisions and restore order to our finances. Farage has left that space open. Promising to spend more on benefits might make electoral sense: 89 of the 98 seats where Reform came second last year are Labour held. But it does not position him as a financial saviour when the collapse comes. The Conservatives are not there either, of course. But they could be if they start putting in the work now. Their opposition to unlimited child benefit is a welcome step away from their regrettable support for the winter fuel allowance (every party has now flunked that test). If they show in the next three years that they are prepared to put long-term prosperity over immediate convenience, they might find that they are the choice for an electorate desperate to end economic chaos and return to growth. For that to happen, though, Badenoch needs to focus on the economy – something she has so far been reluctant to do. It is never a popular thing, in the abstract, to be the party of businessmen and bankers; but there are times when voters want hard-faced hommes d'affaires in charge. What if Reform ends up as the dominant party, leaving the Conservatives to fall in behind their one-man band? Even then, it would not be the end of Toryism. Canada's Reform Party swallowed the Tories in 2003; but the merged party eventually ended up being called the Conservative Party of Canada, and dates its foundation, not to 2003, but to 1867. Toryism is not so much a political programme as the expression of certain attributes and instincts: level-headedness, patriotism, tradition, self-reliance, love of order, irony, detachment. There is a reason it has been around for as long as it has; and its song is not yet sung.
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The California city with the most 'rich renters' as affluent residents ditch buying houses for savvy reason
San Jose, California, has been named the US city with the most 'rich renters' as wealthy Americans ditch home buying for a savvy reason. The tech hub topped a new study that found affluent Americans are increasingly abandoning homeownership as mortgage rates soar to 7 percent and property prices hit record highs. Wealthy renters are now choosing to lease rather than buy despite earning enough to purchase million-dollar homes, according to a Redfin study. Housing experts say wealthy renters are prioritizing flexibility and freedom in an uncertain economic climate. Redfin Senior Economist Elijah de la Campa said: 'With mortgage rates near 7 percent, renting frees up cash for other investments that may be more lucrative than real estate.' Redfin analyzed rental data from 2019 to 2023 and discovered that high earners now make up a growing share of America's rental market. San Jose beat out Orlando, Florida for the top spot, with San Francisco, New York and Seattle rounding out the top five cities where the wealthy are ditching homeownership for rentals. In San Jose, the median home sale price has reached a staggering $1.4million - the highest in the entire United States. Now some affluent residents have decided that renting makes more financial sense. The typical wealthy person living in San Jose would need to spend just 10.5 percent of their income to afford rent on a median-priced apartment, compared to a 21 percent to afford buying a median-priced home. 'Many affluent Americans are choosing leases over mortgages because the cost of buying a home has jumped significantly more than the cost of renting one in recent years,' said de la Campa. And Juan Castro, a Redfin Premier real estate agent in Orlando, said: 'For a lot of folks, renting is all about opportunity. The U.S. economy and job market are in flux, and people want to be able to move and flow as things change. 'I have friends who sold their home in favor of renting because they want the flexibility to move fast if their dream job surfaces in another state.' Housing experts say wealthy renters are prioritizing flexibility and freedom in an uncertain economic climate. Renting can 'free up cash for other investments that may be more lucrative than real estate' The typical wealthy person living in San Jose would need to spend just 10.5 percent of their income to afford rent on a median-priced apartment, compared to a 21 percent to afford buying a median-priced home 'They believe many employers won't offer remote work moving forward, and don't want to be stuck with a home that may be difficult to sell quickly.' At the other end of the spectrum, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma had the lowest share of affluent renters as of 2023, followed by Cincinnati, Ohio; Hartford, Connecticut; Cleveland, Ohio; and Providence, Rhode Island.
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Don't carry on regardless! Ofcom are accused of censorship in free speech row over old TV comedies
Ofcom has been accused of censorship by TV bosses amid a row over the airing of old TV comedies. Smaller TV channels have said the regulator's powers can disproportionately affect them as the prospect of even a single fine for a breach of rules could put them out of business. Campaigners have slammed the 'lottery' of rules for old classics including Carry On films such as Carry On Regardless! Ofcom does not have a list of banned words or phrases, but those in the industry have criticised its guidelines for changing frequently with little rhyme or reason. Responding to criticism, Ofcom this month released a statement denying any censorship, and insisting broadcasters had editorial independence to decide what they air. Jonathan Moore, chief executive of RewindTV, told the Telegraph the response 'blatantly ignores' the reality of broadcasting, and is calling for old TV favourites to have special protections under the code. Mr Moore said: 'Many broadcasters live in permanent fear of falling foul of Ofcom guidelines – small companies could fold if they're hit with a fine and so, inevitably, they are forced to take a 'safety-first' approach when it comes to censorship. 'That means more and more content ends up cut, damaging the authenticity of classic shows needlessly.' He would like to see a 'presumption of innocence' implemented which would protect companies if something offensive was broadcast in an isolated incident, but would punish repeat offenders. RewindTV is among a number of channels including Talking Pictures TV and That's TV that have built up modest but loyal audiences through their slate of nostalgic hits. But it means much of their content contains offensive or outdated views and language. In an example of the type of minefield broadcasters face, a recent showing of the 1983 comedy Brass starring Timothy West saw the word 'queer' cut from the edit, but 'nancy boys' and 'pansies' were left in. Mr Moore has argued that viewers of his RewindTV are far more likely to know exactly the type of content they will be viewing that if it was broadcast in primetime slots on major channels. He told the paper: 'The chances of our viewers being upset by shows such as Doctor in the House or Carry On Laughing are small – they are far more likely to take umbrage at the sort of adult language that is now the norm on mainstream broadcasters. 'But it's not appropriate for us to dictate to those broadcasters' audiences any more than it is appropriate for others to dictate to our audience.' A spokesman for Ofcom said: 'Ofcom is not a censor. Freedom of expression is at the heart of our broadcasting rules – and these rules do not prevent the broadcast of content that may be offensive or controversial to some audiences. 'Each broadcaster has editorial freedom to decide the type of programmes or films it airs.'
