A million homes 'unhealthy' (+video)

$22,000 repair bill per household suggested

Last updated 00:49 01/12/2008

Relevant offers

National News

Shining light on a viable alternative Kiwi trainer top dog of screen Internet law change 'unjust' Tribute for 'forgotten' service Cricket to crack down on chuckers Six-week wait for Barlow verdict Waiting on lords' word Lieutenant-Colonel demoted after indecent assault Barlows wait for Privy Council news Army officer guilty of indecency

A million substandard homes are each up for a $22,000 bill to meet recommendations from a new national housing performance report.
View video: People's homes making them sick

The survey found one in four Kiwis say the poor quality of their home has made someone living in them sick, and indicated the severe cost of poorly performing homes.

The survey of 3526 New Zealanders, conducted in October and November, is the culmination of a two-year $300,000 research project by the Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Council chief executive Peter Neilson said the country was paying $54 million to admit to hospital 50 people a day with respiratory illnesses, losing 180,000 worker days to illness, and spending $475 million a year more than it needed to on household power bills.

Proposing a mandatory rating system to apply to all homes when they were sold or rented, the report estimates the cost of bringing homes up to minimum health and efficiency standards would be $20 million over a decade, or roughly $22,000 a household.

Two-thirds of New Zealand's 1.6 million homes were built between 1900 and the 1970s, before insulation became mandatory in 1979, Mr Neilson said.

Registered Master Builders Federation chief executive Warwick Quinn said the report wrapped up a widespread issue, but solutions were fragmented across disparate pockets of the community and industry and had little government support. "Having a consolidated approach would be very helpful," he said.

Most homes built before 1979 would not meet current building code regulations, he said. "The [suggested] efficiency rating would help bring that to the surface."

While there were 80,000 homes renovated every year, Mr Neilson said the odds were stacked against New Zealanders doing up their homes for their own good because the benefits were largely unknown.

"Most people assume the cost is much more than it is and the benefits are much less," he said.

The survey showed 69 per cent of people thought they could not afford to upgrade their home and half said they were too uninformed to do it.

Mr Neilson said the residential real estate market did not value "invisible" improvements like insulation and water efficiency, so house owners' priorities lay with marketable benefits such as decorating, improving fixtures or adding a deck.

Ad Feedback

Statistics from Seattle showed that a mandatory home-rating system had added a 5 per cent premium to sale prices and cut selling times by 25 per cent, Mr Neilson said.

Domestic Energy Users Network spokeswoman Molly Melhuish said harnessing 80,000 annual home renovations to improve living standards was a huge opportunity and a mandatory rating system was the only way to do it.

The estimated average $22,000 bill to make a home energy-efficient and warm was realistic, and might become more palatable if householders could see the long-term benefits as energy prices rose.

"There is a limited number of householders who are driven by eco-thoughts - pricing issues are a major motivator."

Ms Melhuish said there was a strong lobby against mandatory rating but she believed it was a fair approach in order for house hunters to get accurate and dependable information.

The report was admirable but ignored the need to improve home-heating solutions to battle dampness, a greater health threat than cold, she said. Research showed the worst places for ill health caused by living conditions coincided with poor local populations who avoided using electric heating because of the cost.

"Their houses, even if you insulate them, are not going to become healthy houses."

HOME SWEET HOVEL?

* New Zealand has about one million under-insulated homes.

* 26 per cent of those surveyed report that their homes have made someone in them sick.

* Kiwis believe looks and lifestyle are more important for their house than energy savings.

RECOMMENDATIONS

* Mandatory home performance rating system.

* Building-code reforms to encourage innovative solutions for better performance.

* A government building-sector strategy to promote "whole- home" solutions.

Source: NZBCSD Better Performing Housing report

- © Fairfax NZ News

5 comments
M. Berghuis   #5   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Every houseowner is responsible for the quality and comfort of their home, whether it is rented out or lived in by owner. Insulating a home is not so expensive that it is only for high earners possible. We have done it one room each year and the difference in comfort and a drop in electric bills is worth more than the cost involved.I can not see that the Governement has to foot the bill.

Murray   #4   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

During the election campaign, the National Party did not commit to a review of the Home Insulation Programme - they absolutely and categorically scuttled it. "Money could be better used", JPK effectively said.

Labour and the Greens must be sitting on his words - what absolutely shocking judgment? Who are we trusting to guide our country through this recession?

With all due respect, JPK and National are in a quandary. The National-led government has to come forward with ideas for economic stimulus, and more pointedly, ideas that will maintain deployment of human resources with minimum borrowing and debt.

Treasury Dept are not giving the Government sound advice and Bill English is as questioning of it as was Dr Cullen, but as he is just kicking off again, I suppose Bill English is a little more circumspect with his criticism. Dr Cullen called them "ideological burps", but essentially Treasury's advice is that of swats and theorists who lack pragmatism. They will not be looking past the notes they have made from the writings of Alan Greenspan et al.

And the Government's other problem is that in opposition they cruised around the country smiling nicely and saying anti-things that people wanted to hear, but were absolutely devoid of imagination. In opposition, National was unable to envisage anything beyond the next round of tax cuts, and the fact that the media had been converted to the same vein of thought had meant that Dr Cullen's speaking about the wisdom of reducing debt, creating reserves and warnings about "paper" revenues was like a morepork's midnight echo.

National-led is going ahead with its mindset tax cuts - politically, it has no option; and the outmoded advice of Treasury is to even increase these.

The Government has to change tack, but it would like more time in which to do this. Bill English realises that the indiscriminate consumer spending which results from tax cuts is not the way to go. He realises that the desired alternative is selective, labour intensive, government investment spending, or subsidised desirable private investment spending.

The worst thing is tax cuts and the best thing is the Home Insulation Programme, and both are contras for National/Act - how do they sell it?

JPK is home now - he might have some ideas?

Sean   #3   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

I haven't had a close read of the report, but it is available here, perhaps it has some details. http://www.nzbcsd.org.nz/housing/NZBCSD_Building_web.pdf

And there further links here. http://www.nzbcsd.org.nz/housing/content.asp?id=446

George Heath   #2   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Surely $22,000 dollars per home multiplied by 1,000,000 homes is $22 Billion.

How can a country with abundant hydro power, coal, wood, natural gas and oil have 1,000,000 damp and underheated homes? By all means improve the insulation, but you still need some heat input.

Expand the gas network with coal seam gas and take the strain off the overloaded electricity network. It is senseless to put the instantaneous peak heating load onto the already overloaded power grid when a gas network can absorb peak demands so much more easily.

Kirstie   #1   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

$22,000 per home? Could we see a breakdown of those costs before we collectively have kittens?

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content