The prices of homes with the best energy labels rose faster in a year up to the end of September than those of less energy-efficient homes. More sustainable homes yielded more than 10 percent more than one year previously. These are houses with energy label A, B or C. The increase was less significant for less energy-efficient homes. The price increase of homes with an E and F label was approximately 6.5 percent. The increase was less than 4 percent for the least energy-efficient homes (G).
The difference in price development seems to be a direct consequence of the increased energy costs. At the end of September 2021, older homes (pre-1940) were still the frontrunners in the housing market, with prices rising by almost 21 percent on an annual basis. But now the rule is: the younger and more sustainable, the better. Homes built after 2010 now form the leading group in terms of price increases, with more than 16 percent in one year.
Making (especially older) houses more sustainable is therefore not only good for the climate and the energy bill, but also good for the resale value of the house, as the Kadaster research seems to show. The latter insight is often still lacking in the calculation of the financial return of energy-saving measures. According to the Land Registry, the financial obstacles to sustainability ‘probably only increased due to the increased mortgage interest and inflation’.
More sustainable homes sold
The difference in price development between more and less sustainable homes is particularly significant for larger homes. The difference is smallest for the smallest homes (up to 80 square metres). Because the energy bill of larger homes is higher, the difference in price development will also be greater if the costs of gas and electricity rise.
Fewer and fewer of all homes sold have a bad energy label, according to the Kadaster. The share of houses sold with a bad label has fallen from over 43 percent at the beginning of 2015 to over 33 percent this year. The percentage of A homes among homes sold rose from over 14 percent to over 24 percent.
Kadaster cannot exactly explain this shift, says researcher Joost Zuidberg in an explanation. ‘It is likely that the entire stock will become more sustainable, so more sustainable homes will also be sold. It is also possible that less sustainable homes will be on the market longer.’
An energy label has been mandatory since 2015, but only when the house is sold. Less than 60 percent of all Dutch homes have a registered energy label. The Land Registry percentages are only based on homes with a label. More than 30 percent of the energy statements issued is an A label.
Old inner cities have bad labels
More than a quarter of the Dutch homes with a label are still as leaky as a basket from an energy point of view. These homes have an energy label D or worse. The owners themselves live in more than half of the homes with the worst labels (F and G). Small landlords own 17 percent of these houses.
Owning a home in a historic city center is not a pleasure in every respect. Municipalities with a relatively large old city center in particular have an above-average number of poor energy labels. This concerns, for example, Delft, Haarlem and Maastricht. Younger cities such as Almere have more sustainable labels.
Of the four major cities, The Hague has the largest share of homes with a poor energy label: almost 38 percent. That is well above the national average of 27 percent. In rural areas, the province of Groningen in particular scores poorly, followed by Limburg and Zeeland. North Brabant has an above-average number of homes with a good energy label.
One in three houses with a bad energy label is owned by a housing corporation. The foundations are working on a major sustainability drive. They want their entire property to be sustainable in less than thirty years. 43 percent of all sustainable homes with a label are owned by a corporation.