search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
6 INDUSTRY NEWS


Three- quarters of buyers would consider a ‘green’ home


New research has shown that more than three quarters (77%) of home buyers are likely to choose a green home for their next purchase, and 70% of people looking to get on – or move up – the housing lad- der are also willing to pay more for better energy effi ciency. The ‘Green Homes Report: What Buyers


Want’, commissioned by law fi rm Shakespeare Martineau, included a survey of more than 00 fi rst time buyers and those on the property ladder looking to move into their next home this year. Top reasons for wanting a green home included it being “better for the environment” (39%), that it would “save me money in the long run” (27%) and also that “I want to reduce my energy bills .


More than a third (34%) of homebuyers also wanted to reduce their carbon footprint and get ahead of the curve, stating: “I think eventually all homes will need to be green, so I will preempt this. Despite a signifi cant uptake, more than one in three (35%) respondents who were likely to purchase a green home said they wanted to understand more about how it would benefi t them in the future, indicating a “gap in knowledge and understanding.


When it comes to availability, just 14% of respondents in the Midlands said there were green homes available in their desired location, compared to 25% and 2 in the north and south, respectively. The results also showed that age was an in uencing factor in demands and expectations of green homes. The age group most likely to consider a green home was 35 to 44-year-olds at 84%, for example, followed by 25 to -year-olds . ore than three quarters (76%) of 18 to 24-year olds would opt for a green home, in contrast just 6 of respondents aged  and over. First time buyers were also more likely to consider a green home (80%), compared to  of second-time buyers. urrently the average age of a fi rst time buyer is .


Neil Gosling, head of residential devel- opment at Shakespeare Martineau, com- mented: “Our results show that not all is lost when it comes to getting more people


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK


on board with green homes. I believe those on the fence can be convinced with the right information and education.


OUTPUT RISING


Ups and downs in activity recorded for February


According to Glenigan, a gradual increase in construction activity during the last three months suggests a sector “on the brink of resurgence. he latest  fi gures showed overall construction output during the three months to January increased 3% against the preceding three months, up 6. higher than a year ago. Glenigan said that repair and main- tenance (R&M) output increased, rising 1. during the same timeframe and up . on the previous year. rowth in this area was predominantly driven by a 2. rise in non-housing , and a 1.1 increase in public housing  work. ew work output also increased .0 against the previous quarter, and . compared to the previous year. A rise in industrial work has been a main driver, growing by 11.2 and 0.. Private housing and infrastructure also strengthened. Infrastructure output grew .2 against the last three months and 0 compared to a year ago. rivate housing output increased . and 11. in the same periods. Finally, commercial output rose .2 against the preceding three months but fell . compared with the previous year.


The value of underlying and major pro- ject starts experienced “sharp declines” in the three months to February (-17%), over a quarter lower on 2021 (-26%), but a “rallying development pipeline should give the sector reasons for cau- tious optimism, according to Glenigan’s arch 2022 onstruction eview. Covering all projects with a total value of £100m or less, the report revealed that the value of detailed planning approvals rose by 11% to average £8,991m against the previous three months. ajor project approvals “performed strongly” against the same period (+26%); and underly- ing approvals witnessed growth of 10%, standing 2 higher than a year ago. Despite a “modest” industry-wide dip in main contract awards (-5%), those for “major projects” were up, increasing by 6 during the three months to ebruary. Partially offsetting what Glenigan said was an “abnormally weak start to the year” in terms of construction perfor- mance, this boost in planning approval and contract awards sits in line with Glenigan’s most recent forecast, indicating “potential market revival in the second half of 2022.


MIXED SECTOR PERFORMANCE Glenigan said that many construction sectors were still heavily affected by materials and skills shortages, caused by ongoing supply chain issues and geopolitical disturbances. Overall, housing was one of the worst performers in the three months to February, with project starts 21% lower than the preceding three months (Oct-Nov 2021), plummeting 46% compared to the same period in 2021.


Private housing starts fell once again (-23%), contributing further to the ongoing downward trajectory which has characterised this sector over the last few months. ocial housing project starts fared little better, falling 16% during the three months to ebruary.


REGIONAL BREAKDOWN


The North East managed to buck the declining trend, experiencing 6% growth on both the preceding three months to February and on the same period in 2021. his was, in part, attributable to a number of large projects coming online, said lenigan.


Scotland and London also saw growth on the last three months, at +13% and +9% respectively but were still down -6 and -26 on fi gures a year ago. Elsewhere, the majority of regions have performed poorly during the three months to ebruary, lenigan reported.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92