Image shows the timber frame of a house which is being built.

Table of contents

Approximate read time: 30 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following motion on 5 September 2024:

Lord Moylan (Conservative) to move that this House takes note of the role of modern methods of construction in the housing construction sector.

Lord Moylan is chair of the House of Lords Built Environment Committee. The committee undertook a short inquiry into modern methods of construction (MMC) between October 2023 and January 2024.

In a letter to the government issued following the conclusion of its inquiry, the committee was critical of the previous government’s approach to MMC.[1] It said government policy was in “disarray” and that public money invested into supporting the housing construction industry in adopting MMC had not been backed by a coherent plan nor a set of measurable objectives.[2] The committee called for the government to acquire a better understanding of how the construction industry worked and the help that it needed to adopt MMC, as well as to set achievable goals and develop a coherent strategy for the sector. The committee’s findings and recommendations are explored in section 3.4 below, but first this briefing examines the use of MMC and how government policy towards it has developed.

1. What are modern methods of construction?

Modern methods of construction, or MMC, is a collective term for building methods that are designed to be more efficient and effective than the traditional ‘brick and block’ method of constructing buildings, including residential buildings such as houses and blocks of flats.[3] Building methods covered by the term range from factory-produced structures that are built entirely offsite to modular components that enable structures to be assembled more quickly or easily onsite, and other building techniques that increase productivity on construction sites.[4]

In March 2019, a specialist subgroup of a broader cross-industry working group on MMC convened by the Conservative government developed a new categorised definition framework for the different forms of construction methods considered to fall under the MMC umbrella.[5] The subgroup included the government’s housing and regeneration agency Homes England, the National House Building Council (NHBC) and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). In its final report, the subgroup defined MMC broadly as “a range of approaches which spans offsite, near site and onsite pre-manufacturing, process improvements and technology applications”.[6] It defined the seven categories comprising its new MMC definition framework, together with examples of what structures or components would fall within each category. These ranged from category 1 structural systems, comprising three-dimensional units produced in a controlled factory environment, through to category 7 site process-led productivity improvements such as lean construction techniques, physical and digital worker augmentation, workface robotics, exoskeletons and other wearables, drones and/or verification tools.[7] See the appendix below for a full listing of the subgroup’s seven categories together with examples.

2. How has government policy towards MMC developed?

In 2013 the coalition government published a strategy for the construction sector entitled ‘Construction 2025’. Developed in partnership with industry, this set several ambitions for the sector to achieve by 2025, including reductions in the initials costs of construction, overall completion times, greenhouse gas emissions and trade gaps for construction products and materials. The strategy suggested that MMC would support the sector in meeting these ambitions. It argued that smart construction and digital design could lead to efficiency improvements, facilitate offsite manufacturing and reduce waste. On the overall benefits of such changes, it said digital information would “enable more effective design for manufacture and assembly” and that this would make “offsite construction solutions, which are often precluded by current procurement practices, more readily applicable in the future”. It added that “other benefits of offsite construction can include greater precision and quality, reduced overall manufacture/assembly time, and safer and cleaner working conditions”.[8]

The strategy added that a new Construction Leadership Council, co-chaired by a minister and a construction industry executive, would take forward delivery of the priorities set out in the document.[9] The new council was launched following the 2015 general election.[10] In early 2016 it asked Mark Farmer, chief executive officer of the Cast construction consultancy, to undertake a review of the UK construction labour model with a focus on housing.[11] Mr Farmer’s report, entitled ‘Modernise or die: Time to decide the industry’s future’, was published later the same year.[12]

Mr Farmer’s report diagnosed 10 “critical symptoms of failure and poor performance” within the housing construction sector, including low productivity, a shrinking and ageing workforce and a lack of research and development and investment in innovation. In a press release accompanying the report, Mr Farmer added:

The construction industry is in dire need of change. What is clear to me following the nine months spent conducting this review is that carrying on as we are is simply not an option. With digital technology advancements pushing ahead in almost every other industry and with the construction labour pool coming under serious pressure, the time has come for action. The construction industry doesn’t have the impetus needed for this change, it requires external action to initiate change.[13]

Mr Farmer expressed concern that increasing awareness of offsite or modular pre-manufactured solutions could wane if the labour market cooled and build costs reduced, capacity did not keep up with demand, and/or innovation-led modernisation continued to be inhibited by a prevailing culture against collaboration.[14]

Responding to the report, the then minister for industry, Jesse Norman, said the review made a “strong case for change in the industry” and that the government would consider Mr Farmer’s recommendations.[15]

Four months later, in early 2017, the Conservative government published a white paper entitled ‘Fixing our broken housing market’. This set out the then government’s plans to boost the supply of new homes in England, including through encouraging MMC in house building. For example, it noted that low productivity in the housebuilding industry relative to the wider economy could be changed through making greater use of MMC. It added that industry reports suggested homes constructed offsite could be built up to 30% more quickly than traditional methods and with a potential 25% reduction in costs. It also said such homes were “high quality, reliable, more productive and can be highly energy efficient” and could “require fewer people on site, helping to mitigate the skills shortage”.[16] The white paper said the government would stimulate the growth of the sector through its ‘Accelerated construction’ programme and the ‘Home building fund’, consider how the operation of the planning system was working for MMC developments, and consider the opportunities for offsite firms to access innovation and growth funding and support.

The following year the government published its ‘Construction sector deal’ as part of its industrial strategy.[17] This included a number of measures aimed at improving the level of research and development in the construction sector, workforce training for MMC and digital technologies, and demand for MMC through public sector procurement. This included £170mn of funding through a ‘Transforming construction: Manufacturing better buildings’ programme to support these ambitions.[18]

In the March 2021 budget, the government announced that a new MMC taskforce would be created to “accelerate the delivery of MMC homes in the UK”.[19] The government later reiterated that MMC had the potential to “improve the quality of new homes, deliver more energy efficient homes, reduce construction waste, improve productivity and address the shortage in construction skills”, and that it was committed to encouraging the adoption of MMC by the housing industry.[20]

Homes England, the government’s housing and regeneration agency, launched an affordable homes programme the same month. It made adoption of MMC a condition of the scheme’s strategic partnership grant programme, with strategic partners required to deliver at least 25% of homes using MMC.[21] In 2023 the agency’s chief executive said it was “materially beyond” this and other delivery targets for MMC.[22]

Also in March 2021, the agency commissioned a research programme on the impact of MMC within the housing sector.[23] The agency’s most recent annual report, published on 29 July 2024, said this research programme continued.[24] It added that the overall aim of the study was to provide “impartial evidence and an objective assessment of the outcomes achieved by embracing the use of more advanced MMC technologies” for housing delivery. The agency further said key benefits of prefabrication that were already apparent included efficient materials use and waste reduction. It said an external study from 2020 comparing modular and traditional construction had concluded that modular construction “results in over 45% reduction in material use and over 50% reduction in waste generation”.[25]

In 2023 the government reiterated that MMC was contributing towards housing delivery and that its benefits included increased energy efficiency, quicker delivery of new homes and improving the diversity of the housing sector.[26] It also commissioned the British Standards Institution to develop a new standard for homes built using MMC.[27]

3. What have parliamentary committees said about MMC?

Committees of both Houses have considered MMC in recent years. This includes the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in a 2018 report, the House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee in a 2019 report, and the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in a 2022 report and during an inquiry that concluded in January 2024.

3.1 House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on offsite manufacture (2018)

In a 2018 report entitled ‘Offsite manufacture for construction: Building for change’, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee asserted that the “construction sector as it is currently constituted cannot efficiently meet the need for housing, and may struggle to meet the need for infrastructure, in this country”.[28] However, it added that offsite manufacture (OSM) provided “clear and tangible benefits which make a compelling case for its widespread use”. These included:

  • better quality buildings and infrastructure
  • enhanced client experience
  • fewer labourers and increased productivity
  • creating more regional jobs away from large conurbations
  • improved health and safety for workers
  • offering building safety advantages—making it easier to ensure buildings meet quality assurance standards
  • improved sustainability of buildings and infrastructure
  • reduced disruption to the local community during construction

The committee added that despite these benefits, however, the take up of OSM had “varied” and was “somewhat limited” in certain parts of the sector. It said this was “perfectly understandable given the regulatory, financial and commercial environment in which the sector is placed” and called for government intervention to change the situation. It also noted that the “current business models and the traditional model of financing and cash flow in the construction sector make it difficult to deliver the benefits of offsite manufacture for construction”.

The committee welcomed the then government’s construction sector deal, as well as its ‘presumption in favour’ of offsite manufacture for infrastructure projects.[29] Lord Patel (Crossbench), then chair of the committee, said the government and the wider public sector would be “pivotal in a move to greater use of off-site manufacture”. He added that the committee had heard OSM could increase productivity in the construction sector by up to 70%.[30]

In response the government noted that the construction sector faced productivity challenges compared with other sectors of the economy. It said improving this could “deliver significant economic benefits, as well as producing better, safer and more energy efficient and sustainable infrastructure, public buildings and homes”.[31] However, it added:

[…] these benefits can only be delivered through greater industry investment in innovation, skills and new capital equipment, as well as changes to the business model of the sector, with greater supply chain integration and collaboration between firms and clients. This requires the transformation of the construction industry from its current business model, which is based on projects and short term, to one that is more strategic and sustainable and based on long-term investment. This will require the wide adoption of new construction technologies and techniques, including new digital and offsite manufacturing technologies, as well as new energy technologies and materials.

The government said it was working with the Construction Leadership Council to drive such changes. It added during the debate on the report that the adoption of techniques such as OSM would be key to the sector modernising and becoming more productive, both of which would be required for the construction sector to deliver on the government’s aspirations for 300,000 new homes a year.[32].

3.2 House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee report on MMC (2019)

In a 2019 report entitled ‘Modern methods of construction’, the House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee warned that a “significant proportion of homes must be built using MMC if we are to meet the target to deliver 300,000 homes annually”.[33] The committee’s main conclusions and recommendations included the following:

  • The Ministry [of Housing, Communities and Local Government] should report annually the total amount allocated to MMC developments across all its different funding streams and implement a coordinated strategy across all relevant government departments to increase MMC homebuilding.
  • The lack of long-term data on the durability of MMC homes in the UK is a considerable barrier to industry actors engaging with MMC housing schemes.
  • The government should develop a digital database that records the design, processes and materials used in the construction of buildings.
  • The government must ensure skills programmes, apprenticeship schemes and the new T-level give learners the skills they need for both traditional techniques and MMC and encourage more young people into the sector.

Commenting at the time, the committee’s then chair, Clive Betts (Labour MP for Sheffield South East), said that in order to “have any chance” of meeting its target of 300,000 new homes a year the government would need to “create the conditions to improve investor and consumer confidence […] That is why we have called on the government to collect and publish the data that prove new building methods work, and also show if they have failed”.[34] He added that the government would need to support the industry to “grow the capacity needed for MMC to play a greater role in national housebuilding”. He also said it would “need to ensure that the right training schemes and apprenticeships are in place so that we have the skilled workforce that can utilise MMC techniques”, while also working with the construction industry to “support the development of robust supply chains and support innovative businesses develop”.

In response the government listed a range of policy responses it had pursued in support of MMC since its 2017 housing white paper, for example a ‘presumption in favour of MMC’ across construction programmes in key departments; financial support for housebuilding, research and development into MMC and skills development; and mandating a proportion of MMC in strategic partnerships funded by the affordable housing programme.[35] On the committee’s specific recommendations, it said Homes England had public-facing key performance indicators, one of which would report the share of the total housing completions it had directly supported using MMC.[36] It added that a data tool operating in London could “unlock the much needed standardisation of products to allow greater interoperability between manufacturers”, with the possibility it could be adapted for use in other parts of the country; that digital tools and systems would allow information about the design, processes and materials used in the construction of buildings to be stored and used to ensure safer buildings; and that construction sector deal funding was supporting skills training.

3.3 House of Lords Built Environment Committee report on meeting housing demand (2022)

In January 2022 the House of Lords Built Environment Committee published a report entitled ‘Meeting housing demand’. The report observed that 8% of UK homes were built using MMC. Among a wider package of proposals aimed at addressing an undersupply of new homes, the committee made two recommendations specifically relating to MMC:[37]

  • Official figures for the construction industry should include those employed in factories related to construction. This would more accurately reflect productivity levels in the industry, particularly as the sector moves towards modern methods of construction.
  • MMC can help to deliver more new homes with a reduced number of defects. The government and Homes England should help reassure consumers about the quality and safety benefits of MMC.

The government’s response was published on 28 March 2022.[38] On the committee’s first recommendation relating to MMC, the government said that although statistics were collected for construction products manufacturing, moving production activities that were undertaken in factories from one industry, such as manufacturing, to another could make a “small difference to productivity estimates for the construction industry but have a larger impact on manufacturing productivity estimates”. On the second, the government said it was stimulating demand through its funding and land programmes. It added: “We are also working to address strategic barriers, notably the lack of component standardisation across the industry and the difficulties in obtaining product warranties, and therefore insurance and mortgages”. It said this work would help to provide assurance around the quality and safety of MMC.[39]

3.4 House of Lords Built Environment Committee report on the future of MMC (2023)

In October 2023 the committee opened a short inquiry into the future of MMC. Launching the inquiry, entitled ‘Modern methods of construction: What’s gone wrong?’, the committee observed:

To increase housing supply and meet its 300,000 homes a year target, the government has stated that we need a diversified housing market which embraces innovation, including MMC. However, MMC manufacturers have faced major challenges over the past year and a number of companies have gone into administration or halted production. This inquiry seeks to understand the barriers to the increased delivery of MMC homes and to what extent the government’s approach to supporting MMC development is effectively overcoming and resolving these barriers.[40]

The committee held seven oral evidence sessions, visited a college and timber-frame company in Hemel Hempstead and took a range of written evidence before writing to the government with its findings.[41] In a press release summarising its key conclusions, the committee said:

The government’s approach to MMC is in disarray. Millions of pounds of public money has been invested, but the money has not been backed by a coherent strategy and set of measurable objectives. Some category 1 (modular) MMC firms have failed financially, though with the right approach it could still play an important role in the building of much-needed housing.

There is evidence of real barriers to MMC, such as risk aversion on the part of warranty providers, insurance companies and insufficient clarity for building regulations. However, the government appears to have made limited effort to understand and address these challenges.

If the government wants the sector to be a success, it needs to take a step back, acquire a better understanding of how it works and the help that it needs, set achievable goals and develop a coherent strategy.[42]

Commenting on these conclusions, the committee’s chair, Lord Moylan, added:

Our inquiry found that the government has not set out clear objectives for the funding it provided the MMC sector. Homes England has not given any clear metrics as to how success is to be measured and over what timescale.

The government needs to change tack. Simply throwing money at the sector hasn’t worked. If it wants to encourage MMC it must acquire a much deeper understanding of how it works, develop a clear strategy, and demonstrate leadership.

Two weeks after publishing its findings, the committee held an oral evidence session with Michael Gove, then secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities.[43] In its letter to Mr Gove, the committee noted that the MMC taskforce announced in the 2021 budget, which had been expected to take forward work on MMC data and standards, had never met.[44] During the session, Mr Gove said the government had assessed that the MMC taskforce was no longer required and would not be appointed. He also said the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) was conducting an inquiry into the housebuilding sector, and any final report may inform future policy on MMC in the sector.

In March 2024, Lee Rowley, then minister for housing and planning, wrote to the Built Environment Committee with an interim response. He said the government was aware that the sector was “facing challenges”, and that there were “clear questions which now need to be reviewed, and answered in detail, about where the sector currently is, where it is going and what role the state will play in the future”. He said the government would therefore seek to respond with a “full update in late spring once we have undertaken further detailed work with the sector”.[45] The government had earlier said it was considering the committee’s recommendations.[46]

The following week, Lord Moylan wrote to Lee Rowley to highlight that there had been a further industry exit since his letter. He added that, given the “importance of this matter, and the need for the government to develop a deeper understanding of the sector before setting out a clear policy position, we understand your suggestion of additional time to prepare a full response”.[47]

4. Labour government position on housebuilding

In its 2024 general election manifesto, the Labour Party committed to building “1.5mn new homes over the next parliament”.[48] The party added that it would “take steps to ensure we are building more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes” and bring in a workforce and training plan for the construction sector.[49]

Following the July 2024 general election, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Angela Rayner made a written statement setting out the “first major steps” in the new Labour government’s plan to build more housing.[50] Alongside a number of planning changes, Ms Rayner said the new government would restore and raise housing targets to deliver approximately 370,000 new homes a year. She added that the government would publish a new long-term housing strategy “in the coming months”. This is expected alongside the forthcoming spending review.[51]

5. Other recent developments

The CMA opened a market study into the housebuilding sector in February 2023 and published its final report on 26 February 2024.[52] On MMC in particular, the CMA observed that a “lingering negative stigma” among consumers, builders, investors, and insurers had limited MMC’s uptake for residential properties since quality issues arising from modular homes built after the second world war came to light.[53] However, it added that “conversely, in non-residential settings the commercial MMC market is mature; market observers believe this is due to producers’ ability to build a consistent pipeline across the public and private sectors”.

Despite this legacy, the CMA observed that MMC adoption in the housing sector had “witnessed a notable uptick” in recent years. It said this shift reflected a “growing recognition of the need for more efficient, sustainable, and cost-effective approaches to meet the increasing demand for housing”. However, it confirmed that data on the use and number of homes delivered using types of MMC was not readily available across England, Scotland and Wales, making it difficult to judge how widespread the technique had become. On the available datasets, it noted:

  • Analysis undertaken by Savills using [Construction Industry Training Board] data estimated that between 6 and 10% of homes built in 2020 used MMC. However, different housebuilders appear to utilise MMC methods to different extents. Research undertaken by NHBC in 2018 outlines that, of 36 developers that were actively involved in MMC or considering its use, 25 of them (69%) were delivering housing using ‘advanced MMC’.
  • Use across the nations varies. England, Scotland and Wales have all sought to encourage the use of MMC for affordable and social housing. Scotland’s use of category 2 MMC, specifically timber frame construction, accounted for 75% of the NHBC-registered new build homes in 2015. This was attributed to timber frame being the conventional approach in Scotland as the materials are more readily available. By contrast, in Wales timber frame accounted for just over 30% share and in England its share was below 10%.
  • The information we have gathered from the top 11 housebuilders suggests that the majority of them have either invested in, acquired, or developed their own category 1 and 2 MMC providers. Among them, pre-manufactured timber frame construction (category 2) was the most popular.[54]

Meanwhile, Homes England published its most recent annual report on 29 July 2024.[55] On MMC, this said:

We continue to develop a growing evidence base for MMC and the opportunity it provides to create further housing delivery capacity. A factory-based offsite approach to construction also provides a permanent place of work, which enables a more diverse range of people and skills to participate in housing production and delivery. Among the most frequently cited reasons for adopting MMC are speed of delivery, improved energy performance and lower embodied carbon. We encourage the delivery of these important benefits through our MMC support in our Land, Investment and Grant programmes. We are also working on a multi-year research project with Atkins, University College London and the Building Research Establishment to evidence the impact of MMC deployment within the housing sector across six pilot sites. Evidencing the benefits of MMC use should provide greater confidence to the industry, investors, insurers and customers to support its use across the sector.[56]

The agency added that it had provided loans to MMC manufacturers to help develop the sector.[57] It also confirmed that reporting on the share of supported completions using MMC, as called for by the Built Environment Committee, would begin from 2024/25.[58]

6. Read more

7. Appendix: MMC category definitions

Table 1. Categories comprising the MMC definition framework

Category Definition
1 Pre-manufacturing: 3D primary structural systems A systemised approach based on volumetric construction involving the production of three-dimensional units in controlled factory conditions prior to final installation. Volumetric units can be brought to final site in a variety of forms ranging from a basic structure only to one with all internal and external finishes and services installed, all ready for installation.

The system includes structural performance. Full volumetric units in apartment buildings can include apartment space and common area space. Mini volumetric structural units can include bathroom pods and the like which are structurally stacked and loaded.
2 Pre-manufacturing: 2D primary structural systems A systemised approach using flat panel units used for basic floor, wall and roof structures of varying materials which are produced in a factory environment and assembled at the final workface to produce a three-dimensional structure. The most common approach is to use open panels, or frames, which consist of a skeletal structure only, with services, insulation, external cladding and internal finishing being installed onsite.

More complex panels—typically referred to as closed panels—involve more factory-based fabrication and include lining materials and insulation. These may also include services, windows, doors, internal wall finishes and external claddings. The system includes structural performance for primary walls and all floors (note: this excludes unitised or composite external walling systems that are not load bearing included in category 5).
3 Pre-manufacturing: Non-systemised structural components Use of pre-manufactured structural members made of framed or mass engineered lumber, cold rolled or hot rolled steel or pre-cast concrete. Members to include load bearing beams, columns, walls, core structures and slabs that are not substantially in-situ workforce constructed and are not part of a systemised design.

This category, although focused on superstructure elements, would also include sub-structure elements such as prefabricated ring beams, pile caps, driven piles and screw piles.
4 Pre-manufacturing: Additive manufacturing The remote, site-based or final workface-based printing of parts of buildings through various materials based on digital design and manufacturing techniques.
5 Pre-manufacturing: Non-structural assemblies and sub-assemblies A series of different pre-manufacturing approaches that includes unitised non-structural walling systems, roofing finish cassettes or assemblies (where not part of a wider structural building system), non-load bearing mini-volumetric units (sometimes referred to as ‘pods’) used for the highly serviced and more repeatable areas such as kitchens and bathrooms, utility cupboards, risers, plant rooms as well as pre-formed wiring looms, mechanical engineering composites, would fall into this category.

Conventional masonry constructed schemes utilising conventional building products such as windows and door-sets—which might otherwise be part of the fabrication process in the other pre-manufacturing categories—should not be included as sub-assemblies or components in this category unless there is a further level of consolidation from traditional configurations. Also excludes any structural base elements that composite assemblies are fixed to and which are to be included in categories 1–4. Any structure in this category is purely to support the sub-assembly in transit/install phase.
6 Traditional building product-led site labour reduction/productivity improvements Includes traditional single building products manufactured in large-format, pre-cut configurations or with easy jointing features to reduce extent of site labour required to install.
7 Site process-led labour reduction/productivity improvements This category is intended to encompass approaches utilising innovative site-based construction techniques that harness site process improvements falling outside the five main pre-manufacturing categories 1–5 or materials innovation in category 6. This category would also include factory standard workface encapsulation measures, lean construction techniques, physical and digital worker augmentation, workface robotics, exoskeletons and other wearables, drones, verification tools and adoption of new technology-led plant and machinery.

(Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, ‘Modern methods of construction: Introducing the MMC definition framework’, 29 March 2019, pp 5–17)

Cover image by Sandy Millar on Unsplash.

References

  1. House of Lords Built Environment Committee, ‘Letter to Michael Gove, then secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, ref modern methods of construction in housing’, 26 January 2024. Return to text
  2. House of Lords Built Environment Committee, ‘MMC sector may continue to struggle without a fresh approach from the government’, 26 January 2024. Return to text
  3. Homes England, ‘Capital funding guide: Modern methods of construction (MMC)’, accessed 5 August 2024; and Zurich, ‘What are the types of modern methods of construction?’, accessed 5 August 2024. Return to text
  4. Department for Communities and Local Government, ‘Fixing our broken housing market’, 7 February 2017, Cm 9352, p 54. Return to text
  5. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, ‘Modern methods of construction working group: Developing a definition framework’, 29 March 2019. Return to text
  6. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, ‘Modern methods of construction: Introducing the MMC definition framework’, 29 March 2019, p 19. Return to text
  7. As above, pp 5–17. Return to text
  8. HM Government, ‘Construction 2025’, 2 July 2013, p 61. Return to text
  9. The council still operates and is currently co-chaired by Minister for Industry Sarah Jones and MACE Group Chairman and CEO Mark Reynolds (Construction Leadership Council, ‘Co-chairs’, accessed 5 August 2024). Return to text
  10. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, ‘Government welcomes new Construction Leadership Council’, 16 July 2015. Return to text
  11. Cast, ‘The Farmer review of the UK construction labour model’, accessed 5 August 2024. Return to text
  12. Mr Farmer was later a government champion for MMC in housebuilding and chaired a working group examining assurance, insurance and mortgages for MMC (Cast, ‘Our cast’, accessed 5 August 2024; and House of Commons, ‘Written question: Housing: Construction (124260)’, 29 January 2018). Return to text
  13. Cast, ‘Cast consultancy press release’, 17 October 2016, p 2. Return to text
  14. Cast, ‘Modernise or die: Time to decide the industry’s future’, October 2016, p 36. Return to text
  15. Cast, ‘Responses to the Farmer review from government, industry bodies, clients and the construction industry’, 17 October 2016. Return to text
  16. Department for Communities and Local Government, ‘Fixing our broken housing market’, 7 February 2017, Cm 9352, p 54. Return to text
  17. HM Government, ‘Industrial strategy: Construction sector deal’, 5 July 2018. Return to text
  18. See also: House of Commons, ‘Written question: Construction: Productivity (168051)’, 17 September 2018; and UK Research and Innovation, ‘Transforming construction’, accessed 5 August 2024. Return to text
  19. HM Treasury, ‘Budget 2021’, 3 March 2021, HC 1226 of session 2019–21, pp 60–1. Return to text
  20. House of Lords, ‘Written question: Housing: Construction (HL1619)’, 14 July 2021. See also: House of Lords, ‘Written question: Affordable housing: Construction (HL1328)’, 11 July 2022. Return to text
  21. Homes England, ‘Affordable homes programme 2021 to 2026: Information for partners’, updated 19 April 2024; and ‘Capital funding guide’, accessed 5 August 2024, chapter 9, section 3.5. See also: Burges Salmon, ‘Affordable housing programme and MMC: How should we measure value?’, 8 September 2021. Return to text
  22. James Riding, ‘Homes England exceeding its target for delivery of modular housing, boss says’, Inside Housing, 28 June 2023. Return to text
  23. Homes England, ‘The impact of MMC use on home building delivery phases’, 5 March 2021; and ‘Homes England’s MMC research study takes shape’, 5 March 2021. Return to text
  24. Homes England, ‘Annual report and financial statements 2023/24’, 29 July 2024, p 87. Return to text
  25. As above. See also: Burges Salmon, ‘Modern methods of construction (MMC) and net zero’, 21 April 2020. Return to text
  26. House of Commons, ‘Written question: Housing: Construction (192723)’, 11 July 2023. Return to text
  27. British Standards Institution, ‘Boost for modern homebuilding as government launches work with industry to set UK-wide standard’, January 2023; Fire Protection Association, ‘Development of new standards for MMC commissioned by government’, 26 January 2023; and House of Lords, ‘Written question: Housing: Construction methods (HL2013)’, 6 February 2024. Return to text
  28. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, ‘Offsite manufacture for construction: Building for change’, 19 July 2018, HL Paper 169 of session 2017–19, p 3. Return to text
  29. For further information, including the call for evidence and summary of responses on the ‘presumption in favour’ proposal, see: Infrastructure and Projects Authority and HM Treasury, ‘Proposal for a new approach to building: Call for evidence’, updated 8 December 2020. Return to text
  30. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, ‘Construction sector needs overhaul to meet housing and infrastructure needs’, 19 July 2018. Return to text
  31. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, ‘Offsite manufacture for construction: Building for change—government response’, 14 September 2018, p 1. Return to text
  32. HL Hansard, 12 December 2018, col 1375 Return to text
  33. House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, ‘Modern methods of construction’, 3 July 2019, HC 1831 of 2017–19, p 3; and ‘Government must embrace modern methods of construction or risk missing 300,000 homebuilding target’, 3 July 2019. See also: ‘Modern methods of construction inquiry’, accessed 5 August 2024. Return to text
  34. House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, ‘Government must embrace modern methods of construction or risk missing 300,000 homebuilding target’, 3 July 2019. Return to text
  35. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, ‘Government response to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee report on modern methods of construction’, 18 September 2019, CP 168. Return to text
  36. Homes England’s most recent annual report confirmed reporting on this indicator would begin from 2024/25 (‘Annual report and financial statements 2023/24’, 29 July 2024, p 40). Return to text
  37. House of Lords Built Environment Committee, ‘Meeting housing demand’, 10 January 2022, HL Paper 132 of session 2021–22, pp 72 and 92. Return to text
  38. HM Government, ‘Government response to the House of Lords Built Environment Committee report on meeting housing demand’, 28 March 2022. See also: House of Lords Built Environment Committee, ‘Letter from Robert Halfon to Lord Moylan ref committee report and industry training boards’, 9 June 2023. Return to text
  39. HM Government, ‘Government response to the House of Lords Built Environment Committee report on meeting housing demand’, 28 March 2022, p 23. Return to text
  40. House of Lords Built Environment Committee, ‘Modern methods of construction: What’s gone wrong?’, accessed 5 August 2024. Return to text
  41. House of Lords Built Environment Committee, ‘Letter to Michael Gove, then secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, ref modern methods of construction in housing’, 26 January 2024. See also: ‘Oral evidence transcripts’, ‘Engagement documents’ and ‘Written evidence’, accessed 5 August 2024. Return to text
  42. House of Lords Built Environment Committee, ‘MMC sector may continue to struggle without a fresh approach from the government’, 26 January 2024. Return to text
  43. House of Lords Built Environment Committee, ‘Corrected oral evidence: Secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities’, 6 February 2024, Q1–28. Return to text
  44. House of Lords Built Environment Committee, ‘Letter to Michael Gove, then secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, ref modern methods of construction in housing’, 26 January 2024, p 13. Return to text
  45. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, ‘Letter from Lee Rowley to Lord Moylan ref committee recommendations and modern methods of construction in housing’, 20 March 2024. Return to text
  46. House of Lords, ‘Written question: Housing: Construction methods (HL2013)’, 6 February 2024. Return to text
  47. House of Lords Built Environment Committee, ‘Letter from Lord Moylan to Lee Rowley ref modern methods of construction in housing’, 26 March 2024. Return to text
  48. Labour Party, ‘Labour Party manifesto 2024’, June 2024, p 36. Return to text
  49. As above, pp 39 and 42. Return to text
  50. House of Commons, ‘Written statement: Building the homes we need (HCWS48)’, 30 July 2024. Return to text
  51. The spending review settling budgets for 2025/26 is expected alongside the budget on 30 October 2024, with a multi-year spending review following in spring 2025 (HM Treasury, ‘Chancellor statement on public spending inheritance’, 29 July 2024). Return to text
  52. Competition and Markets Authority, ‘Housebuilding market study’, accessed 5 August 2024; and ‘Housebuilding market study: Final report’, 26 February 2024. Return to text
  53. Competition and Markets Authority, ‘Housebuilding market study: Final report’, 26 February 2024, pp 45–7. Return to text
  54. As above, p 47. Return to text
  55. Homes England, ‘Annual report and financial statements 2023/24’, 29 July 2024. Return to text
  56. As above, pp 55–6. Return to text
  57. As above, p 87. Return to text
  58. As above, p 40. Return to text