Modern methods of construction may be the answer to the housing crisis
The Government is aiming to deliver 1.5 million new homes across this Parliament. Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) could help to deliver these new homes and last Thursday members of the House of Lords debated its role in the housebuilding sector.
MMC allows most of the construction of a new building to be completed off-site. Units are built in a factory and then installed on site. This can allow homes to be built more quickly and with less reliance on traditionally skilled construction workers (who are an ageing sector of the workforce). The technique has been used to construct high-rise and non-residential buildings in the UK but has failed to take off in the residential sector, despite being widely used abroad.
The House of Lords Built Environment Committee, which I chair, held an inquiry into MMC after the closure of several high-profile MMC companies. Since the publication of our letter to the Government nine months ago, MMC companies have faced further trouble, resulting in wasted public funds and job losses. The current approach to MMC is not working. There are many reasons for this and our inquiry revealed that one of them was that Government support for the sector, while generous with money, was not based on a proper understanding of the sector and lacked a clear roadmap to success.
Homes England aims to support MMC through a “Five-S” strategy: scaling up, standardisation, safety and assurance, soft levers, and stimulating the market. We found failures in implementation throughout each of these which ultimately boiled down to a common thread. The strategy lacks clear objectives, has no metrics with which to measure success, and isn’t accompanied by a timescale for implementation. Without clear plans to implement its strategy, Government has thrown spent money on the sector without steering those funds to support growth.
Underlying this, we found a lack of understanding from Government of the issues which affect the growth of the sector. The question whether Category 1 MMC housing was more expensive or cheaper than traditional construction was contested by various witnesses who gave evidence to our inquiry – a crucial consideration when investing public funds. We also heard divergent views on two of the Five Ss – standardisation and safety – with concerns raised about possible risks to innovation and intellectual property, as well as the risk of unintentionally creating regulatory barriers for MMC homes.
We also found failures of communication between the Government and MMC stakeholders. Until we published the Government’s evidence to our inquiry, there was no publicly accessible information on the “Five-S” strategy for supporting MMC. Indeed, we learned that the MMC Taskforce never met and was ultimately disbanded. Such a lack of strategic Government leadership on its MMC investments precluded success in the sector.
Yet all hope is not lost. The new Government has made its housing ambitions clear. MMC remains not only a viable option but possibly – as described by Homes England – a revolutionary one. Not all investments are bound for success, but with clear objectives, metrics, and timescales, implementation can be vastly improved.
Our debate in the House of Lords was packed with speakers who recognise the value of MMC for constructing homes. The new Government must consider what role it thinks MMC can play in delivering the homes this country needs and how, if at all, it wants to support its growth. I, and I know many of my colleagues across the House of Lords, look forward to hearing more detail about these plans.
Lord Moylan is a member of the House of Lords and the Chair of the House of Lords Built Environment Committee.
