Accredited official statistics

English Housing Survey 2024 to 2025: housing and place - fact sheet

Published 9 July 2026

Applies to England

Introduction

The English Housing Survey (EHS) is a national survey of people’s housing circumstances and the condition and energy efficiency of housing in England. It is one of the longest standing government surveys and was first run in 1967.

This publication sets out key findings about how housing conditions and experiences varied across different geographies, including rural versus urban, and coastal versus non‑coastal built-up areas. It summarises differences in tenure, affordability, reported overheating and ability to keep warm. It then discusses comparisons between ACORN categories, looking at satisfaction, overheating and Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores.

1. Geography

Defining coastal built-up areas

A built‑up area (BUA) is a geography defined by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) based on the physical built environment. BUAs are identified using Ordnance Survey topographic data to recognise areas of developed land, including cities, towns and villages.

Coastal households were identified using ONS built-up area (BUA) classifications. Dwellings were matched to a specific BUA using postcode information, allowing households to then be assigned to coastal or non-coastal areas.

A BUA is classified as coastal by the ONS if it meets either of the following criteria:

• its boundary lies within 1 km of the statistical coastline AND at least 50% of its total surface area falls within 3 km of the coastline
• it has more than 2.5 km of its perimeter within 25 metres of the statistical coastline.

This means BUAs with large proportions of their areas within a short distance of the coast are included, while BUAs that are coastal but extend significantly inland are still captured.

A small number of isolated dwellings could not be matched to a BUA and were excluded from coastal analysis, therefore, the analysis compares coastal and non-coastal communities only.

Coastal properties

There were approximately 3.6 million households living in coastal properties across England in 2024-25, accounting for around 15% of all matched households, Annex Table 1.

The composition of households living in coastal built-up areas differed from those in non-coastal built-up areas. The household reference person (HRP) in coastal homes was less likely to be in younger age groups such as between 16 to 24 (2% compared with 3%) and 25 to 34 (12% compared with 16%) and more likely to be in older age groups, including 75 or over (18% compared with 15%) than those in non-coastal homes, Annex Table 2.

Reflecting their older age profile, coastal households were less likely to be couples under 60 with no dependent children (14% compared with 17%), couples with dependent children (17% compared with 19%) or one person households aged under 60 (14% compared with 16%). They were instead more likely to be one person households aged 60 or over (23% compared with 19%) and lone parents with dependent children (9% compared with 7%) than non-coastal households.

This older age profile was also reflected in patterns of economic status. For example, HRPs in coastal households were less likely to be in full-time work than those in non-coastal households (46% coastal compared with 52% of non coastal HRPs) and more likely to be retired (32% for coastal and 27% of non-coastal HRPs) or other inactive (9% coastal compared with 7% non-coastal).

Again due to their older age profile, coastal households were also more likely to contain someone with a long-term illness or disability, see chapter one of the age cohorts report for further information. In 40% of coastal households, at least one household member reported a long-term illness or disability, compared with 37% of non-coastal households.

Households in coastal communities were more likely to be one person households aged 60 or over, more likely to be retired, and more likely to contain someone with a long-term illness or disability.

Tenure by rurality and coastal built-up areas

The proportion of households that were owner occupiers increased with rurality, with the highest levels found in rural areas. Around 62% of urban households were owner occupiers, compared with 73% in suburban areas and 81% in rural areas. Much of this pattern was driven by outright ownership, which increased from 33% in urban areas to 52% in rural areas. By contrast, ownership with a mortgage was similar across rurality types, ranging from 29 to 30%, Annex Table 3.

Social renting declined with increasing rurality. It accounted for 17% of households in urban areas, 14% in suburban areas and 8% in rural areas. Private renting was most common in urban areas. Around 20% of urban households rented privately, compared with 13% in suburban areas and 11% in rural areas.

The proportion of households that were owner-occupied increased with rurality, while the proportion of rented sector households decreased.

Regional tenure patterns

This higher rate of owner occupation in rural areas than urban areas was seen in every region, largely reflecting higher outright ownership in rural areas. In most regions, social renting was less common in rural areas than urban areas, except in the East of England where there was no significant difference, Annex Table 3.

Private renting was generally more common in urban areas across regions. However, in the North, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, similar proportions of households were private renters in both urban and rural areas.

Tenure in coastal communities             

A similar proportion of households in coastal and non‑coastal areas were owner occupiers overall (65% and 64%, respectively). However, coastal households were more likely to own outright (38%) than non-coastal households (34%), while non-coastal households were more likely to own with a mortgage (30%) than coastal households (26%). These findings may also reflect the different age profiles in coastal and non-coastal BUAs, Annex Table 4.

Rates of private renting were similar across coastal and non-coastal areas (both 19%). The same was found for social renting (16% and 17%, respectively). However, renting from a local authority was less common in coastal (4%) than non-coastal households (7%).

These patterns were partly driven by London properties. When London was excluded from the analysis, coastal and non-coastal households were similarly likely to own outright (38% and 37%, respectively). However, coastal households were more likely to be private renters (19%) than non-coastal households (17%). Coastal households were also more likely to rent from a Housing Association (12%) than non-coastal households (10%).

Affordability by rurality and coastal built-up areas

Affordability by rurality

Affordability differed across rurality, with private renters in urban areas spending the largest share of their household income on housing costs. Urban private renters spent the highest mean proportion of income on rent at 35%, compared with 26% in suburban areas and 30% in rural areas. Social renters in urban areas also spent a higher proportion of income on rent than those in rural homes (28% compared with 26%), Annex Table 5.

Owners buying with a mortgage spent similar proportions of income on mortgage costs across rurality (between 17-19%).

Urban private renters spent the highest mean proportion of income on rent.

Affordability in coastal communities

Coastal and non‑coastal households spent similar proportions of household income on housing costs across most tenure types. However, social renters in coastal areas spent a smaller share of income on rent (an average of 26%) than those in non‑coastal areas (an average of 29%). This difference was largely driven by housing association renters who spent an average of 26% of their income on housing costs in coastal areas compared with 29% in non-coastal regions, Annex Table 6.

When London households were excluded from the analysis, private renters in coastal areas spent a higher proportion of their household income on rent (34%) than non-coastal households (31%) and the difference between coastal and non-coastal social renters disappeared (26% coastal and 27% non-coastal).

Overheating by rurality and coastal built-up areas

Overheating by rurality

In the EHS, we asked respondents whether their home got uncomfortably hot at any time of the year, and if they were unable to cool it down. We refer to this as ‘overheating’.

Throughout this section, the questions are asked to either the HRP or main respondent, and therefore the focus is on the number of households.

Overall, overheating was more common in households living in suburban rather than in urban homes although this pattern did vary by region. Approximately 15% of households in suburban areas experienced overheating compared with 12% of urban households. This pattern was present in the North West (16% vs 7%) and the South East (24% vs 15%). However, reported overheating was more common in urban than suburban households in Yorkshire and the Humber (15% vs 9%), the East Midlands (23% vs 13%). In the South West, suburban households were more likely to report overheating (18%) than rural households (10%), Annex Table 7.

Across England overheating was more common in suburban properties than in urban homes. In the South West overheating was more common in suburban properties than in rural homes.

Overheating in coastal communities

Overall, rates of subjective overheating were similar in coastal and non‑coastal (12%) households, Annex Table 8.

Ability to keep warm by rurality and coastal built-up areas

Ability to keep warm by rurality

The English Housing Survey also includes a question about the ability of a household to keep comfortably warm in their living room during the cold winter weather. This question is included on the interview questionnaire and therefore the focus of this section is households.

Suburban and rural households were more likely than urban households to report that they could keep the property warm during cold winter weather. More than nine in ten (92%) suburban households and 93% of rural households said they could keep warm, compared with 88% in urban areas, Annex Table 9.

Suburban and rural households were more likely than urban households to report that they could keep their home comfortably warm during cold winter weather.

This pattern was found in the South West, however, it varied across other English regions. For example, in Yorkshire and the Humber, the East Midlands and the West Midlands, the reported ability to keep warm was similar for suburban and urban households and only differed between rural and urban households. In the East of England, urban and rural households were more similar. In the South East, rural households were more likely than suburban households to report they could keep warm. There was no difference across rurality in the North East and North West.

Ability to keep warm in coastal communities

A similar proportion of coastal and non‑coastal households said they were able to keep the property warm during cold weather. Nine in ten (90%) coastal households and non‑coastal households (89%) reported they could keep warm, Annex Table 10.

2. ACORN categories

Satisfaction with accommodation by ACORN segmentation

ACORN is a segmentation tool that categorises the UK’s population into demographic types. ACORN provides a general understanding of the attributes of a neighbourhood by classifying postcodes into a category, group or type. See the glossary for further information.

ACORN is split into the following categories:

• Luxury Lifestyles - The most affluent people in Britain, confident consumers with high levels of savings and investments, living in the most expensive properties.
• Established Affluence - Wealthy and successful people living in large houses which they own in affluent, high status areas of the country.
• Thriving Neighbourhoods – Comfortable, stable families and empty nesters who have a good standard of living, on an income above the UK average.
• Steadfast Communities - This category contains much of middle of the road Britain with working families on incomes just below the UK average.
• Stretched Society - Traditional working class areas of Britain containing younger families, flat sharers and students privately renting their homes.
• Low Income Living - This category contains the most deprived areas of towns and cities across the UK, with the lowest incomes. It contains a higher proportion of single people across the age groups, socially renting their flats.
• Not Private Households - These are postcodes where the bulk of the residents are not living in private households such as students halls of residence.

This section explores the EHS data broken down by ACORN classification and uses the household weight.

Satisfaction with accommodation varied by ACORN group, with lower satisfaction among households in the less affluent ACORN groups. Overall satisfaction was highest among households in the Luxury Lifestyles group (98%) compared with 77% among those in Low Income Living. Similarly, dissatisfaction with accommodation  was lowest among Luxury Lifestyles households (less than 1%) compared with 13% among Low Income Living households, Annex Table 11.

Households in the Luxury Lifestyles group reported the highest satisfaction with their accommodation with 98% satisfied overall, of which 81% were very satisfied. This contrasted with households in the Low Income Living group, where just over three quarters (77%) reported being satisfied overall, of which 40% reported being very satisfied.

Households in Steadfast Communities were less likely to be satisfied than the more affluent categories, but more likely than those in Low Income Living areas. Nine in ten households in this group (91%) reported being satisfied overall. Only 5% reported being dissatisfied with their accommodation.

Overheating by ACORN segmentation

This section looks at overheating in properties broken down by ACORN classification. This section uses the same EHS measure as the previous one to measure whether households felt any part of their home got uncomfortably hot. The household weight was used for this analysis.

Overall, more than one in ten households reported their home became uncomfortably hot (12%). Households in more affluent ACORN groups were more likely to report overheating. Between 12% and 15% of households in the Luxury Lifestyles, Established Affluence, Thriving Neighbourhoods and Steadfast Communities reported their homes became uncomfortably hot, Annex Table 12.

In contrast, overheating was less common among households in less affluent groups. Only 9% of households in the Low Income Living group and 10% in the Stretched Society group reported that their homes became uncomfortably hot.

Households in more affluent ACORN groups were more likely to report overheating.

Tenure and energy efficiency rating (EER)  rating by ACORN segmentation, 2024-25

The government’s Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) is used to monitor the energy efficiency of homes and is referred to as EER (energy efficiency rating) within this report. It is an index based on calculating annual space and water heating costs for a standard heating regime and is expressed on a scale of 1 (highly inefficient) to 100 (highly efficient, with 100 representing zero energy costs). Findings presented in this report were calculated using Reduced Data SAP (RdSAP) version 9.93.  For more information on this, see here.

This section looks at questions from both the interview and the physical survey so the analysis uses different weights. Tenure analysis uses the household weight and the energy efficiency rating (EER) analysis uses the dwelling weight.

The housing tenure mix varied substantially by ACORN group. Most households in the Luxury Lifestyles neighbourhood classification were owner occupiers (94%), with smaller proportions of private renters (5%) and social renters (1%). In contrast, most households in the Low Income Living neighbourhoods were social renters (59%), followed by owner occupiers (24%) and private renters (17%), Annex Table 13.

Overall, more than half of all occupied homes were in the highest energy efficiency rating (EER) bands C and above (57%). This is higher than the proportion in the 2024 Headline Report on housing quality and energy efficiency because this is based on occupied dwellings only and excludes vacant dwellings, as does the rest of the analysis. Low Income Living homes were more likely than other groups to meet higher energy efficiency standards. Nearly three in five of Low Income Living households lived in social rented homes (59%), where SAP ratings have traditionally been higher, as reported in the 2024 Headline Report. This pattern is partially related to housing tenure, Annex Table 14.

Nearly three quarters (71%) of Low Income Living homes had an EER rating of C or above. This was higher than for all other ACORN groups, including Stretched Society (61%), Steadfast Communities (56%), Thriving Neighbourhoods (53%), Established Affluence (51%) and Luxury Lifestyles (46%).

Low Income Living homes were more likely than other groups to meet higher energy efficiency standards, with larger proportions of homes with an energy efficiency rating of ‘C’ or above.

In contrast, Luxury Lifestyles homes were more likely to have lower energy efficiency ratings. Over half (54%) of homes in this group had an EER rating below C, which was higher than all other groups.

Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2019 decile ranking of areas by ACORN segmentation

The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is the official measure of relative deprivation in England and captures a broad range of living conditions. The IMD 2019 combined 39 indicators across seven weighted domains to produce an overall measure of deprivation. IMD 2019 was the most up to date measure available at the time of writing.

These domains covered:

• income

• employment

• health deprivation and disability

• education and skills

• crime

• barriers to housing and services

• living environment

Deciles are used to categorise these areas into ten equal groups based on their deprivation scores. Each decile represents 10% of the LSOAs ranked from the most (1st decile) deprived to the least deprived (10th decile). For more information on this see the 2025 English Indices of deprivation.

This section explores the EHS data broken down by ACORN classification and uses the household weight.

The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) decile ranking varied by ACORN group. Unsurprisingly, Luxury Lifestyles households were more likely to be located in the least deprived areas (33%) compared with the most deprived (0%). On the other hand, Low Income Living homes were concentrated in more deprived areas, with 35% compared with 1% in the least deprived areas. Low Income Living households were more likely to live in the most deprived areas than any other group, Annex Table 15.

This pattern was reversed in the least deprived areas. Low Income Living and Stretched Society households were equally least likely to live in these areas (both 1%), compared with Luxury Lifestyles and Established Affluence households (33% and 28%, respectively).

Technical notes

Further details on the English Housing Survey methodology and glossary of terms can be found in the Technical Notes and glossary.

Underlying data for this report are published as Annex Tables

If you have any queries about this report, would like any further information or have suggestions for analyses you would like to see included in future EHS reports, please contact ehs@communities.gov.uk.