{"id":1071603,"date":"2026-07-06T08:30:21","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T08:30:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/1071603\/"},"modified":"2026-07-06T08:30:21","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T08:30:21","slug":"new-build-stock-levels-fall-across-most-british-cities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/1071603\/","title":{"rendered":"New-build stock levels fall across most British cities"},"content":{"rendered":"

Swansea (+8.4) and Bristol (+6.3) posted the largest quarterly rises in demand, while London (+1.9), Newport (+1.8), Glasgow (+1.5) and Manchester (+1.4) also improved. Portsmouth saw the steepest quarterly decline, down 18.7 percentage points, followed by Sheffield (-13.1), Southampton (-11.9) and Edinburgh (-9.3).<\/p>\n

Annually, Swansea recorded the strongest improvement in demand, up 15.1 percentage points on the second quarter of 2025, followed by Plymouth (+8.5), Bristol (+6.6), Bournemouth (+5.5) and Nottingham (+4.5). Southampton posted the largest annual decline, down 15.8 percentage points, ahead of Newport (-12.1), Leicester (-9.0), Portsmouth (-8.4) and Edinburgh (-5.5).<\/p>\n

Leicester and Aberdeen had the weakest buyer take-up of the cities surveyed, at 1.2% and 1.9% respectively, while Liverpool and Newport both recorded a rate of 3.2%.<\/p>\n


\n\t <\/p>\n <\/p>\nNew-build demand in Q2 2026 in Britain<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nLocation<\/td>\n

<\/p>\nDemand<\/td>\n

<\/p>\nQtr change<\/td>\n

<\/p>\nYr change<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nBristol<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n25.7%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n6.3%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n6.6%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nPlymouth<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n21.3%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n0.8%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n8.5%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nNottingham<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n21.1%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-3.5%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n4.5%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nSheffield<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n21.0%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-13.1%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n0.4%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nBournemouth<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n20.5%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-2.3%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n5.5%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nPortsmouth<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n19.6%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-18.7%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-8.4%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nSouthampton<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n19.5%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-11.9%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-15.8%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nSwansea<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n16.2%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n8.4%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n15.1%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nGlasgow<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n14.9%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n1.5%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-4.6%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nCardiff<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n12.4%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-1.0%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-2.3%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nEdinburgh<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n12.0%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-9.3%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-5.5%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nLondon<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n10.3%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n1.9%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-1.2%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nManchester<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n10.1%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n1.4%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-1.2%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nBirmingham<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n10.1%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n1.0%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-0.5%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nLeeds<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n8.0%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n1.1%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-0.5%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nNewcastle<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n5.6%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-1.8%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-1.0%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nNewport<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n3.2%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n1.8%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-12.1%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nLiverpool<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n3.2%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n0.4%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n0.2%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nAberdeen<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n1.9%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n0.1%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-2.4%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nLeicester<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n1.2%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-2.7%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-9.0%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n

<\/p>\n <\/p>\nGreat Britain<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n16.3%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-0.1%<\/td>\n

<\/p>\n-1.8%<\/td>\n


\n\t\t<\/tr>\n


\n\t <\/p>\n

\"Si\u00e1n\u201cWhile the overall picture remains relatively stable, the continued decline in new-build stock<\/a> suggests that developers are bringing fewer homes to market in some areas, even as buyer demand remains selective,\u201d said Si\u00e1n Hemming-Metcalfe (picutred right), operations director at Property Inspect.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat stands out this quarter is the contrast between local markets. Some cities are seeing buyers engage with new-build homes at a healthy rate, while others continue to face much tougher conditions<\/a>. This reinforces the importance of understanding local demand dynamics rather than relying on a national picture alone.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cToday’s buyers are taking more time to assess value, quality, and long-term confidence before committing. In that environment, transparency and trust remain essential. Developers who can demonstrate quality and provide reassurance throughout the buying process are likely to be best placed to convert interest into sales.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Want to be regularly updated with mortgage news and features? Get exclusive interviews, breaking news, and industry events in your inbox \u2013 subscribe to our FREE daily newsletter<\/a>. You can also follow us on Facebook<\/a>, X (formerly Twitter)<\/a>, and LinkedIn<\/a>.<\/p>\n