Nottingham's flats are far more likely than its houses to hold a decent energy rating — except in one postcode district, where the gap almost disappears. Across 51,857 Energy Performance Certificates matched to Land Registry addresses inside Nottingham City Council's boundary, flats rate EPC C or better 64.6% of the time against 32.9% for houses, a 31.7 percentage-point gap. But split that citywide figure by postcode district and the gap ranges from 3.4 points in the historic core (NG1) to 47.7 points on the southern edge of the city (NG11) — and the reason has nothing to do with being a flat or a house, and everything to do with when the building went up.
This follows two earlier tests of the same question in Leicester and Bristol. Leicester showed the flat-vs-house gap narrowing the further you moved from the centre. Bristol showed a gap that stayed roughly constant across its inner districts. Nottingham does neither: the gap here is smallest in the centre and widest towards the edge of the city — the reverse of Leicester's shape.
The citywide picture
| Property type | Certificates | EPC C or better |
|---|---|---|
| Flats | 2,964 | 64.6% |
| Houses | 47,893 | 32.9% |
Figures use the most recent certificate per address (energy_rating), restricted to addresses whose postcode sits inside Nottingham City Council's boundary (ONS code E06000018). Several NG postcode districts extend into neighbouring Gedling, Rushcliffe or Broxtowe councils, where the mix and figures may differ — this analysis counts only the Nottingham City Council side.
District by district
| Outcode | Flat certs | Flat C+ | House certs | House C+ | Gap (points) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NG1 (city centre) | 159 | 38.4% | 294 | 35.0% | 3.4 |
| NG8 (Wollaton/Aspley) | 189 | 59.8% | 10,543 | 33.8% | 26.0 |
| NG3 (Sneinton/Mapperley) | 379 | 56.2% | 5,420 | 31.0% | 25.2 |
| NG7 (Lenton/Radford) | 875 | 56.9% | 7,527 | 26.9% | 30.0 |
| NG2 (The Meadows/Trent Bridge) | 141 | 67.4% | 3,867 | 32.6% | 34.8 |
| NG5 (Sherwood) | 680 | 70.6% | 8,546 | 34.8% | 35.8 |
| NG6 (Bulwell/Basford) | 141 | 77.3% | 6,386 | 34.2% | 43.1 |
| NG11 (Clifton) | 400 | 86.3% | 4,867 | 38.6% | 47.7 |
NG9 is omitted from this table: it has 443 house certificates but fewer than 30 flat certificates inside the city boundary, too small a sample to compare.
Why NG1 breaks the pattern
The usual explanation for a flat-vs-house EPC gap is build era, not property type itself: UK building regulations tightened sharply after 2002 (Part L), so anything built from 2003 onward clears EPC C far more often than older stock, regardless of whether it's a house or a flat. In most cities, flats skew newer than houses — purpose-built flats and converted blocks are disproportionately recent construction, while the house stock includes large shares of pre-war terraces and semis. That mismatch in age, not the property type itself, is what usually produces the gap.
NG1 is the exception that proves it. Of NG1's certified flats, 50.9% are recorded as built before 1930, against 53.1% of its houses — almost identical. Only 3.8% of NG1 flats and 5.8% of NG1 houses date from 2003 onward. With flats and houses sharing almost the same age profile in Nottingham's historic core, they also land on almost the same EPC outcome: 38.4% versus 35.0% C-or-better.
Contrast that with NG11 (Clifton), where the gap is widest. Of NG11's certified flats, 58.8% date from 2003 onward and none are recorded pre-1930 — a modern estate. Its houses are the opposite: just 3.3% are post-2003, while around 60% date from the 1950s-66 era, consistent with a post-war council-era estate. Two very different building generations occupying the same postcode district produce the widest flat-vs-house gap found anywhere in the city.
The same pattern shows up at smaller scale elsewhere. NG6 (Bulwell/Basford) pairs a comparatively modern flat stock (41.1% built since 2003) against older houses, for a 43.1-point gap. NG2 (The Meadows/Trent Bridge) pairs newer-skewing flats (93.6% built from 1930 onward, almost none pre-1930) against a house stock that's 57.2% pre-1930 — among the oldest house stock measured here — for a 34.8-point gap.
What this confirms across three cities
Leicester (published separately) found the flat-vs-house EPC gap narrowing from the centre outward. Bristol found a gap that held fairly steady across its inner districts. Nottingham adds a third, different shape: a near-zero gap in the historic core and widening gaps further out, driven by whichever district happens to have the widest age mismatch between its flat and house stock. None of the three cities move in lockstep, and the common thread is the same in every case: it's the age of the building, not what kind of building it is, that an EPC certificate is really picking up on.
An EPC rating reflects a standardised assessment of a property's modelled energy performance, not its actual running costs or condition — two homes of the same age and type can still differ in their real bills.
Try the postcode tool for a specific Nottingham address — NG2 2EF covers part of The Meadows, one of the widest-gap districts in this analysis — to see a property's own energy rating, last sale price and council tax position.
This follows the same flat-vs-house comparison already run for Leicester and Bristol, and extends an earlier look at Nottingham's flat EPC ratings by postcode. For more area-by-area comparisons like this, browse Homecost's location planning guides.