• Faster delivery. While some elements of the development process (such as planning) remain the same whatever the type of construction, the ability to pre-manufacture elements away from site can generate significant programme savings. Estimates for this vary, but around one third to one half of the construction period itself can currently be eliminated by utilising MMC systems.

• Faster delivery of homes/income/return on investment. The natural consequence of shorter programme times is that homes are available to use sooner. This means residents can be housed sooner and that the investment in new homes can be recouped through rent sooner. This latter point is a key reason behind MMC being used widely in the Build to Rent and Student Accommodation sectors, where the initial investment in construction can be realised sooner by the institutional investors who build and own the homes, meaning they can develop more homes more quickly using MMC. The same logic and benefit will apply to affordable housing providers, who are building to own and rent an asset.

• Quality. An assembly led manufacturing process can help to alleviate the potential for poor oversight of build and appropriate supervision that can happen in traditional construction. Employees are easier to oversee when they are completing tasks at a consistent workstation, supervision is easier to achieve as one inspector can monitor many builds, and a factory setting with permanently employed staff means that training and competency in workers is easier to control. Clear checking points in an assembly line are easier to sign off for quality assurance, for example confirming the presence and proper installation of fire barriers. 

• The construction workforce. There is insufficient capacity within the construction industry in its current form to significantly increase the volume of homes it delivers. The industry is amid a skills shortage which is affecting both the volume and the quality of homes being delivered. This has been demonstrated most recently by reports showing that 46% of skilled foreign construction workers have been lost as a result of Brexit and the Covid crisis. MMC utilises a largely different workforce to traditional construction, encouraging the sustainability of the sector and the clean factory-based working conditions have been shown to be effective in attracting a new demographic to the industry and diversifying the workforce. 

• Funding. Government policy has been moving to a position of support for MMC for at least the past five years and this is now most visibly seen in the requirement of Homes England (HE) that strategic partners deliver 25% of their programme as MMC, and more generally in both HE and the Greater London Authority (GLA) encouraging all bidders to consider MMC as an option on sites. 

• Costs come down over time: the procurement process has been set up in a way to rigorously test and find the partners that will drive efficiency through the course of the framework, thereby reducing costs over time. VfM is also driven by the early engagement made possible through the Framework Alliancing Contract, which all stakeholders will be signed up to and which will reflect the shared objectives.
• Members will be supported with comparing Building Better schemes with traditional construction as an additional check and balance.
• VfM will not only be captured through the build process but also be evidenced by fewer defects, a better standard of homes for people to live in and a reduced carbon footprint. 

The short answer is no as it depends on a number of factors. There has been a huge reduction in capital costs over the past decade and these will continue to come down, as our pipeline grows bigger and longer.

We know the real cost reduction is in improved quality, but there is little data backed evidence of this. Building Better will continue to collect and investigate means to link the capital cost of new development to ongoing costs of housing management, maintenance and service charges.

In principle, no. In fact, with the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and other digital technologies which are inherent in the manufacturing process, repairs and renovations could become proactive, more efficient and less intrusive.

In practice, our asset management teams need to be involved in the development process from the beginning to ensure repairs are not attempted in the same way as would be the case with a traditional brick / cement structure. 

The biggest challenge is around insurance and the risks associated with

• Design – for example, how materials respond to fire and how firefighters might respond to the materials, such as flooding with water and creating content damage
• Habitation – how people use the home requires understanding of how structures are different from traditional brick

This is a myth, which has been busted since the market moved on from pre-fab buildings made in the post WWII era. It is possible to standardise performance, processes and even layouts but still retain differences in how homes look on the outside.

In fact, the more we standardise across defined criteria, the greater the ability to customise additional elements.

A closely controlled factory environment allows complete control and assurance over quality management. Some manufacturers have modelled how these practices lower future costs, however, there is simply not the volume of homes to prove this point.

Given the lack of repeatable and scalable evidence, Homes England has launched an in depth study in addition to independent research projects such as Homegroup’s Innovation Village in Gateshead.

Building Better members used the procurement process to compare manufacturers on both capital costs and evidence of improved quality via metrics such as Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) and Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) ratings and air tightness.

Modular buildings are made from the very same high-quality materials as traditional structures and so no more harmful for the environment. In some cases, they are significantly less harmful through the use of less cement and fewer bricks, both of which are toxic to create. In some cases, materials can provide better durability and insulation, lowering the carbon footprint of the end use. 

As homes are manufactured in controlled factory environments, away from site, there is up to 90% less waste of materials, providing a more sustainable and eco-friendly way of building. Days on-site are also far fewer than traditional construction projects, so there is less use of heavy equipment and machinery, reducing power consumption.