Share this post:
The UK government is going to allow houses to be built too quickly, too cheaply, and in the wrong places, according to research by Vox Political.
If that happens, there is a real and growing danger that Labour won’t be solving the housing crisis – it will simply be cementing a new one into place.
This isn’t just political rhetoric. I was recently speaking to a man in the construction trade at a pub. When I mentioned Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes, his response was immediate and blunt:
“They won’t be worth living in.”
He wasn’t talking about house prices or mortgage rates.
He was talking about what goes into building a home: materials, craftsmanship, time, care.
He told me that construction firms too often rush to get properties completed, failing to allow proper time for the foundations to settle.
The result: Cracks in walls that run top to bottom. Structural weaknesses. Poor insulation. The kind of problems that don’t just cost money – they cost people their peace of mind and quality of life.
That conversation stuck with me.
So I began looking into whether he was right – whether the UK really is producing homes that are fundamentally flawed, and whether the places we’re putting them make sense.
The evidence I found was deeply disturbing.
I. Quality concerns are not isolated: they are systemic
The idea that new homes might be rushed or poorly built isn’t just pub talk – it is well-supported by industry data, independent research, and complaints from homeowners across the UK, and we may enumerate that data as follows:
1. A stunningly high rate of defects
According to a study backed by the Home Builders Federation and the University of Reading, a staggering 93 per cent of new homeowners report at least one defect in their new-build home.[1] Many report far more.
Independent snagging inspectors say the average new-build home has 157 individual issues – nearly double the average recorded just 15 years ago.[2]
These issues aren’t just cosmetic.
They include poorly fitted insulation, ill-sealed windows, faulty boilers, cracking walls, and improper drainage.
While not all of these are structurally critical, many can contribute to long-term degradation of a property and create health and safety risks for residents.
2. Settling foundations and the rushed build cycle
Structural engineers have raised repeated concerns that major homebuilders are not giving groundworks time to settle before completing buildings above them.
A house that settles after being built can shift out of alignment, causing cracks in the walls, destabilisation of door and window frames, and long-term foundation problems.
This aligns with my source’s concern: that foundations are not given time to “bed in” to the soil.
This is especially problematic when building on reclaimed land, clay-rich ground, or areas with high water tables.
3. Warranty claims and industry risk pools
In 2023, the NHBC (National House Building Council), which underwrites more than 90 per cent of new-build warranties in the UK, paid out more than £100 million in claims and earmarked an additional £147.5 million for anticipated future risks.[3]
These figures are not just statistics; they represent real households with real problems – and a system under strain.
The NHBC has also found recurring workmanship failings in its Construction Quality Reviews (CQRs), carried out across 150,000 new homes.
The reviews point to substandard installation of fire barriers, poor sealing of service penetrations, and inconsistent quality in thermal and acoustic insulation.[4]
4. Developers in the dock
Some of the UK’s largest developers have been publicly shamed for poor build quality:
- Barratt Redrow was forced to earmark nearly £250 million in 2025 to deal with structural defects across multiple developments.
- Persimmon Homes, one of the UK’s most prolific builders, was found in an independent 2019 review to have systemic failures in quality control, particularly in timber-frame construction.
- Bellway and Bovis have also faced widespread customer backlash over flooding, loose fittings, missing insulation, and sub-par finishes.[5]
II. The wrong homes in the wrong places
Even if the homes were of good quality, there remains another major concern: where they are being built.
1. Labour’s revised targeting formula: a red flag?
Labour’s new formula for assigning housing targets is based on the number of homes in an area and their affordability, rather than future population projections or employment need.[6]
While this may sound progressive – prioritising areas where homes are most expensive – it risks misallocating supply.
As economist Tim Leunig noted in Prospect Magazine, this approach is a deeply flawed proxy for real-world demand.
It doesn’t factor in infrastructure capacity, proximity to employment, or even basic viability of transport connections.[7]
2. Local councils are already pushing back
Many local authorities have pushed back against the centralised targets, calling them unworkable. They cite:
- Inadequate infrastructure (roads, schools, healthcare)
- Lack of construction industry capacity in their regions
- Environmental and flooding concerns
The result could be homes built in places where people don’t want to live, or where they are effectively stranded by a lack of local services.
3. Case study: Tempsford
The village of Tempsford in Bedfordshire has become a flashpoint.
With a current population of just 600, it is being earmarked for up to 350,000 new homes as part of a government-backed new town proposal.[8]
Locals are aghast.
There are no major employment centres nearby.
There is no confirmed funding for new schools, shops, or transport links.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and other campaigners have slammed the plan as an example of planning without foresight or consultation.
4. No shops, no schools: ghost estates in the making
A Guardian investigation revealed that thousands of homes across England are being occupied before essential amenities are in place – schools, GPs, parks, shops.[9]
One development in Surrey was occupied for over a year before any public transport connection or health service was operational.
In such cases, residents become car-dependent and socially isolated, particularly those on low incomes.
Housing becomes less a solution, and more a symptom of planning failure.
III. What needs to change
If Labour’s 1.5 million homes are to serve the British people, rather than merely enrich developers or meet abstract quotas, several changes are needed urgently.
1. Location must be based on demand, not abstraction
Targets should align with:
- Job availability and economic growth centres
- Transport and commuting viability
- Local authority infrastructure readiness
- Environmental sustainability (e.g. flood risk, greenbelt protection)
2. Build quality must be enforced
- NHBC or government-appointed inspectors should have the power to halt developments showing systemic quality issues.
- Developers should be legally required to fix faults within set timeframes, or face financial penalties.
- Independent inspections should become standard practice before handover.
3. New towns must be community-first
New towns or garden villages must have:
- Timetabled delivery of schools, health centres, shops, parks
- Proper environmental impact assessments
- Guaranteed affordable housing quotas
4. Local authorities must be empowered
- Councils must have a real say in where and how homes are built.
- Planning departments need increased funding to handle higher volumes.
- Public consultation must be genuine, not tokenistic.
IV. What comes next
This article began in a pub with a builder’s blunt warning:
“They won’t be worth living in.”
After doing the research, I believe he was right to be concerned.
We are at a critical juncture – get this right, and we alleviate the housing crisis; get it wrong, and we spend the next 30 years fixing homes built in haste, in places nobody asked for, using methods and materials nobody should accept.
So this is a call to action:
- To readers: If you work in construction, have bought a new-build with serious defects, or work in local housing policy – I want to hear from you[email protected]. First-hand accounts will help build a clearer picture and push for reform.
- To the government: This is not a partisan attack. It is a public interest plea. Before the first brick is laid, we must have safeguards and assurances:
- That homes will be built where people can live good lives.
- That they will last.
- That they will serve the country for decades, not become problems we’re forced to solve again in five years’ time.
This is not just about housing targets. It’s about the kind of country we want to live in.
Footnotes
- University of Reading / Home Builders Federation homeowner satisfaction survey (2015)
- The Property Daily, “Snagging Issues Increase 96%”, Nov 2021
- NHBC Annual Report (2023)
- NHBC Construction Quality Reviews (2023)
- Independent Review of Persimmon Homes, 2019; FT and BBC reports on Bellway, Bovis, Barratt 2023–25
- Labour housing policy briefing, 2024 manifesto; BBC News, Dec 2024
- Tim Leunig, “Labour’s Housing Conundrum”, Prospect Magazine, July 2025
- The Guardian, “Tempsford: From Hamlet to Megacity”, July 26, 2025
- The Guardian, “No Shops, No Schools: Thousands of Homes Built Without Basic Amenities”, July 27, 2025
Share this post:
What good are a million homes if they’re built badly – and in the wrong places?
Share this post:
The UK government is going to allow houses to be built too quickly, too cheaply, and in the wrong places, according to research by Vox Political.
If that happens, there is a real and growing danger that Labour won’t be solving the housing crisis – it will simply be cementing a new one into place.
This isn’t just political rhetoric. I was recently speaking to a man in the construction trade at a pub. When I mentioned Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes, his response was immediate and blunt:
He wasn’t talking about house prices or mortgage rates.
He was talking about what goes into building a home: materials, craftsmanship, time, care.
He told me that construction firms too often rush to get properties completed, failing to allow proper time for the foundations to settle.
The result: Cracks in walls that run top to bottom. Structural weaknesses. Poor insulation. The kind of problems that don’t just cost money – they cost people their peace of mind and quality of life.
That conversation stuck with me.
So I began looking into whether he was right – whether the UK really is producing homes that are fundamentally flawed, and whether the places we’re putting them make sense.
The evidence I found was deeply disturbing.
I. Quality concerns are not isolated: they are systemic
The idea that new homes might be rushed or poorly built isn’t just pub talk – it is well-supported by industry data, independent research, and complaints from homeowners across the UK, and we may enumerate that data as follows:
1. A stunningly high rate of defects
According to a study backed by the Home Builders Federation and the University of Reading, a staggering 93 per cent of new homeowners report at least one defect in their new-build home.[1] Many report far more.
Independent snagging inspectors say the average new-build home has 157 individual issues – nearly double the average recorded just 15 years ago.[2]
These issues aren’t just cosmetic.
They include poorly fitted insulation, ill-sealed windows, faulty boilers, cracking walls, and improper drainage.
While not all of these are structurally critical, many can contribute to long-term degradation of a property and create health and safety risks for residents.
2. Settling foundations and the rushed build cycle
Structural engineers have raised repeated concerns that major homebuilders are not giving groundworks time to settle before completing buildings above them.
A house that settles after being built can shift out of alignment, causing cracks in the walls, destabilisation of door and window frames, and long-term foundation problems.
This aligns with my source’s concern: that foundations are not given time to “bed in” to the soil.
This is especially problematic when building on reclaimed land, clay-rich ground, or areas with high water tables.
3. Warranty claims and industry risk pools
In 2023, the NHBC (National House Building Council), which underwrites more than 90 per cent of new-build warranties in the UK, paid out more than £100 million in claims and earmarked an additional £147.5 million for anticipated future risks.[3]
These figures are not just statistics; they represent real households with real problems – and a system under strain.
The NHBC has also found recurring workmanship failings in its Construction Quality Reviews (CQRs), carried out across 150,000 new homes.
The reviews point to substandard installation of fire barriers, poor sealing of service penetrations, and inconsistent quality in thermal and acoustic insulation.[4]
4. Developers in the dock
Some of the UK’s largest developers have been publicly shamed for poor build quality:
II. The wrong homes in the wrong places
Even if the homes were of good quality, there remains another major concern: where they are being built.
1. Labour’s revised targeting formula: a red flag?
Labour’s new formula for assigning housing targets is based on the number of homes in an area and their affordability, rather than future population projections or employment need.[6]
While this may sound progressive – prioritising areas where homes are most expensive – it risks misallocating supply.
As economist Tim Leunig noted in Prospect Magazine, this approach is a deeply flawed proxy for real-world demand.
It doesn’t factor in infrastructure capacity, proximity to employment, or even basic viability of transport connections.[7]
2. Local councils are already pushing back
Many local authorities have pushed back against the centralised targets, calling them unworkable. They cite:
The result could be homes built in places where people don’t want to live, or where they are effectively stranded by a lack of local services.
3. Case study: Tempsford
The village of Tempsford in Bedfordshire has become a flashpoint.
With a current population of just 600, it is being earmarked for up to 350,000 new homes as part of a government-backed new town proposal.[8]
Locals are aghast.
There are no major employment centres nearby.
There is no confirmed funding for new schools, shops, or transport links.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and other campaigners have slammed the plan as an example of planning without foresight or consultation.
4. No shops, no schools: ghost estates in the making
A Guardian investigation revealed that thousands of homes across England are being occupied before essential amenities are in place – schools, GPs, parks, shops.[9]
One development in Surrey was occupied for over a year before any public transport connection or health service was operational.
In such cases, residents become car-dependent and socially isolated, particularly those on low incomes.
Housing becomes less a solution, and more a symptom of planning failure.
III. What needs to change
If Labour’s 1.5 million homes are to serve the British people, rather than merely enrich developers or meet abstract quotas, several changes are needed urgently.
1. Location must be based on demand, not abstraction
Targets should align with:
2. Build quality must be enforced
3. New towns must be community-first
New towns or garden villages must have:
4. Local authorities must be empowered
IV. What comes next
This article began in a pub with a builder’s blunt warning:
After doing the research, I believe he was right to be concerned.
We are at a critical juncture – get this right, and we alleviate the housing crisis; get it wrong, and we spend the next 30 years fixing homes built in haste, in places nobody asked for, using methods and materials nobody should accept.
So this is a call to action:
This is not just about housing targets. It’s about the kind of country we want to live in.
Footnotes
Share this post:
you might also like
Osborne wants a ‘year of hard truths’. Here’s one: He’s HIDING the truth
Was Stephanie Bottrill a victim of corporate manslaughter?
Sink, Britain, Sink! – the cost of privatising water management