Subsidence risk: constituency figures are not a verdict on individual homes

What happened

Subsidence risk projections place properties in 246 English constituencies within areas of possible or probable future exposure, according to analysis published by Greenpeace UK on 7 October 2026. That represents 45% of England’s 543 constituencies. For homeowners and buyers, the important qualification is that these are geographical projections, not findings that particular houses are damaged or will need repairs.

Greenpeace calculated that 68% of Conservative-held constituencies in England contain properties within the projected risk areas. Its breakdown identifies 76 Conservative seats, 118 Labour seats, 39 Liberal Democrat seats and six Reform seats containing exposed properties. It reported no Green-held seats in that category, using party holdings recorded on 23 September 2026.

The threshold for including a constituency is low: Greenpeace counts it if any property falls within a subsidence risk area. A seat with a small pocket of exposure therefore qualifies alongside one where much of the housing is exposed. The headline percentage does not mean that 68% of Conservative voters’ homes, or 68% of properties in those seats, face the same risk.

Greenpeace also published figures for two constituencies represented by senior Conservatives. It said 50% of properties in shadow housing secretary Katie Lam’s Weald of Kent constituency and 56% in party leader Kemi Badenoch’s North West Essex constituency fall within the projected risk areas. Those property-level shares describe the geographical extent of exposure, rather than the likelihood that each building will develop subsidence.

The analysis was released during the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, as Greenpeace challenged the party’s approach to climate policy. The organisation linked the housing figures to Conservative proposals to remove the 2050 net zero target. Its release therefore combines an analysis of insurance-industry data with a political argument about reducing emissions.

The background

According to Greenpeace’s methodology note, the figures come from Aviva’s Building Future Communities 2025 constituency statistics. Those statistics use British Geological Survey data under the UKCP09 medium emissions projection and concern possible or probable subsidence risk by the 2050s. That emissions assumption is part of the projection, rather than a statement that future emissions or damage are already known.

Subsidence occurs when the ground supporting a building moves downwards. Greenpeace identifies changes in soil moisture as one important cause and says climate change is worsening the extremes of wet and dry weather that can contribute to it. Clay soils can shrink as they dry and expand as moisture returns, making ground conditions particularly relevant to the assessment of a home.

Greenpeace says clay-related exposure affects substantial areas of the South East, including places where the Conservatives hold seats, as well as Labour-held constituencies in London. The geographical pattern matters because parliamentary boundaries do not describe soil conditions or building foundations. The distinction between existing insurance losses and future projections also matters when reading reports such as UK subsidence payouts and London property risk projections.

The release describes the headline period as running to 2050, while its methodology specifies the 2050s. It does not provide a timetable for when any particular home might become affected, and Greenpeace explicitly says risk varies widely within constituencies. The organisation also says data was unavailable for Wales and Scotland, so the English results should not be presented as a complete UK assessment.

Read moreHome insurance after flooding costs £239 more a year in comparison study

What people are saying

Greenpeace climate campaigner Lily-Rose Ellis argued that reducing carbon emissions is part of protecting homes. She criticised the Conservative approach to oil and gas and warned about possible consequences for insurance premiums and property values. Those warnings are Greenpeace’s position: the constituency figures supplied with the release do not quantify future premium increases or changes in sale prices.

According to Greenpeace’s account, Lam claimed that removing net zero-related regulations could cut £50,000 from the cost of a new house. The release does not provide the calculation behind that claim or identify how the saving would be distributed across different developments. Buyers therefore cannot use the figure as an established reduction in the price of a particular new-build home.

Greenpeace also reported that the Conservatives had pledged to scrap the 2050 net zero target and maximise North Sea oil and gas extraction. It framed those policies as inconsistent with protecting constituents from climate-related housing risks. The supplied material does not include a Conservative response to the subsidence analysis, or evidence allowing the claimed construction saving to be weighed against future subsidence costs.

The figures also show substantial exposure in Labour-held areas, rather than a problem confined to Conservative constituencies. Greenpeace counted 78 Labour seats and 27 Conservative seats where more than half of properties fall within projected risk areas. It said most of the Labour seats were in London; outside the capital, each party held 22 seats above that threshold.

What happens next

Greenpeace says the underlying data is available on request, but the supplied release does not include an address-level lookup or a complete constituency table. Anyone assessing a particular purchase would need more specific information than the headline seat count. The projection alone cannot establish whether a building has moved, whether any movement is continuing or whether remedial work is necessary.

For buyers, a constituency statistic is best treated as a reason to ask property-specific questions, not as a substitute for a survey. As general home-buying practice, the seller’s information, the building’s condition and any history of investigation or repair can help establish what needs checking. A surveyor’s assessment addresses the property itself, whereas this analysis groups exposure across parliamentary areas.

Insurance is a separate check from the geographical projection: policy terms determine the cover available for a particular home. Homeowners and landlords should not assume that inclusion in a projected risk area either confirms a claim or rules out cover. Owners changing a property’s use can also consult the insurance checks before letting a former home, which concern a different but relevant source of cover uncertainty.

Buyers should also keep subsidence and flooding assessments separate rather than treating one environmental check as an answer to every hazard. The planned Flood Performance Certificate trials in England concern a different risk and should not be read as a subsidence assessment. Greenpeace’s release announces no new survey requirement, insurance rule or property-sale obligation arising from its constituency analysis.

Why this matters

For UK homeowners and buyers, Greenpeace’s English analysis highlights a long-term housing risk without establishing the condition of any individual home. The practical distinction is between exposure, existing damage and insurance cover: these figures address the first, not the other two. Buyers should use geographical risk information to guide questions about a property, while owners should avoid treating a constituency headline as either proof of a problem or reassurance that their home is unaffected.