Archive for category: General News

Housing minister Esther McVey has named Mark Farmer as a champion for modern methods of construction as part of a major government drive to encourage the use of new housebuilding techniques.

Farmer has 30 years’ experience in construction and is tasked with advising ministers on how to increase the use of methods such as off-site manufacturing.

He will be responsible for developing what the government is calling the “Construction Corridor” in the North, where ministers want to see UK firms becoming world leaders in housebuilding innovation.

Farmer will also work as an ambassador to promote the UK’s construction methods abroad, seek trade deals and investment into a sector which the government hopes will eventually be worth £40bn to the economy.

The government previously commissioned Farmer to write a report on UK construction, which was published in 2016 under the title “Modernise or Die”.

He is founding director of Cast Consultancy and chair of the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government’s joint industry working group tasked with encouraging greater use of MMC in the residential sector.

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 4)

 

He is also a member of the Construction Innovation Hub Industry Board, the Construction Leadership Council Advisory Group and the Mayor of London’s Construction Skills Advisory Group among other roles.

Farmer’s appointment comes after McVey announced a £30m investment into offsite construction firm ilke Homes.

McVey says: “I want to see modern methods of construction – the new gold standard of building – being used up and down the country to usher in a green housing revolution. 

“That’s why it is such fantastic news that Mark Farmer has agreed to be our new MMC Champion – to really drive forward innovation, and to help the government deliver a new generation of green homes.”

Farmer says: “I am delighted to have been asked to carry out this new role. “This is a really important time for the construction industry and there is an urgent need to rethink how we build homes, delivering better quality, improved safety, carbon reduction and an array of exciting new career opportunities.”

 

By Graham Cleland, Managing Director of Berkeley Modular

 

Even at the most basic level, the manufacturing sector bears little resemblance to the construction sector. Significant differences exist between the sectors, typically manifest in terms of culture: operating philosophy; productivity; return on investment; employment and talent development rationale; and so forth. For some reason though, when ‘offsite’ is the prefix to manufacturing or construction, people often consider the resulting terms to mean the same thing. However, they do not – in fact, they imply very different things. This confusion regarding the terms offsite manufacturing and offsite construction suggests it is worth attempting to differentiate between the two.

Consider, for the strict purpose of being able to draw a transparent comparison, the concept of ‘lean’ might prove a useful vehicle because it chimes directly with the notion of sustainable business. In itself, ‘lean’ can be interpreted in multiple ways, but here we can assume it implies the elimination of unnecessary waste and so provides a basis for measurement. This should facilitate demarcation between the notions of offsite manufacturing and offsite construction. The intent is not to necessarily prove that one of these approaches represents a better business model than the other, since both have merit depending on corporate fit / maturity rather to provide a comparison in terms of lean performance.

To bring the comparison between offsite manufacturing and offsite construction to life and aid understanding it is best to hypothesise an artificial model, and use assumptions reflecting differences in the two approaches to generate data that might make interrogation and further analysis viable.

Suppose we assume that the two comparable approaches are based on an equivalent output of 5no fully-fitted modules per day with each fully-fitted module comprising 20 tonnes of materials (i.e. parts, components, equipment, etc.), wherein this notional material content amounts to £30k of theoretical cost. This theoretical cost of material per module in itself is arbitrary but will provide a baseline for subsequent adjustment of the artificial model contingent upon differences in logic between the two approaches. Again, for the purposes here, we will limit such adjustment to some key characteristics, rather than try to compile an exhaustive narrative that would not necessarily add value in creating transparency.

 

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 4)

 

Physical Material Waste

Offsite manufacturing is a process wherein physical material waste is associated with genuine yield as opposed to excess, and typically such yield might be fairly minimal and hence limited to 2 percent. Hence, offsite manufacturing-biased output of 5no modules per day with each module nominally weighing 20 tonnes implies a total weight of required material to produce of 102 tonnes (i.e. 100 tonnes plus 2 tonnes of yield). Assuming £30k of theoretical cost per 20 tonnes of material, then the total calculated cost of required material to output 5no modules per day would be £153k.

Offsite constriction is a process more akin to traditional construction where physical material waste is associated with incorrect process / damage / defects / inefficiency, and typically such excess might amount to 15 percent. Hence, offsite construction-biased output of 5no modules per day with each module nominally weighing 20 tonnes implies a total weight of required material to produce of 115 tonnes (i.e. 100 tonnes plus 15 tonnes of excess). Assuming £30k of theoretical cost per 20 tonnes of material, then the total calculated cost of required material to output 5no modules per day would be £173k.

Administrative Resource Waste

Offsite manufacturing is an approach which borrows best practice principles related to supply / operations planning from other sectors such as automotive and aerospace. Accordingly, the sourcing, ordering, receipting and inspection of materials to support offsite manufacturing-biased process is typically very efficient, so we can assume the administrative resource required to support the sourcing, ordering, receipting and inspection of materials might be, say, 0.5 percent of the adjusted required material cost calculated previously. Hence, the adjusted cost of required material to output 5no modules per day at £153k would imply £8k of people cost generating a revised total calculated cost of £161k.

Offsite construction reflects an approach which borrows best practice principles the broader construction sector, often relying upon merchants and trade contractors for the supply of materials. Accordingly, the sourcing, ordering, receipting and inspection of materials to support offsite construction-biased process is typically inefficient, so we can assume the administrative resource required to support the sourcing, ordering, receipting and inspection of materials might be, say, 1.0 percent of the adjusted required material cost calculated previously. Hence, the adjusted cost of required material to output 5no modules per day at £173k would imply £17k of people cost, generating a revised total calculated cost of £190k.

Logistics Waste

Offsite manufacturing is predicated on the just-in-time delivery of materials on a daily replenishment basis to support the offsite manufacturing-biased output of 5no modules per day. In essence, a properly considered logistics strategy will facilitate optimisation of deliveries based on controlled logic wherein there is a plan for every part capturing how it is consumed; where it is consumed; when it is consumed; etc. So, assuming a cost of £1k per delivery (whether full or part-load), and optimised loads of 25 tonnes per delivery, the costs associated with delivery of 102 tonnes of required materials is £5k generating a revised total of £166k from the value calculated previously.

Offsite construction is inherently less efficient due to the nature of the supply chain relations and sourcing strategies. The scope to optimise deliveries is much reduced, primarily due to the wider number and variety of supply sources and there is no real scope to embrace plan for every part logic. Moreover, due to factors such as minimum order quantities, it is not as easy to hold buffer inventory in third party premises, so it is common to observe much more physical stock in the production facility. So, assuming the same cost of £1k per delivery (whether full or part-load), but loads of 15 tonnes per delivery, then the costs associated with delivery of 115 tonnes of required materials is £8k generating a revised total of £198k from the value calculated previously.

Disposal / Recycling of Physical Waste

Offsite manufacturing affords more opportunity to control what happens to surplus material, but irrespective there are often direct or indirect costs associated with dealing with this. Strategic supply chain relations also ensure that more material is likely to be recycled than disposed of, primarily because the plan for every part logic will capture the requirement to feed material back to source. Hence, assuming that these direct / indirect costs might amount to say £500 per tonne, then 2 tonnes of yield implies an additional cost impact of £1k generating a revised total of £167k from the cost calculated previously.

Offsite construction is inherently less efficient in terms of creating waste, and this can be related to the increased number of deliveries and associated off-loading; more sorting and increased inventory; etc. The lack of strategic supply chain relations also means that more material is likely to be disposed of than recycled. Hence, assuming that the related direct / indirect costs might also amount to say £500 per tonne, then 15 tonnes of surplus implies an additional cost impact of £8k generating a revised total of £206k from the cost calculated previously.

Summary

While it would be possible to continue extending this hypothetical logic based on other assumed differences between the two approaches, there is hopefully sufficient insight to create the intended transparency. In terms of elimination of unnecessary waste, the calculated values of £167k and £206k reveal that even a limited number of hypothetical adjustments show offsite construction can be shown to be 25 percent less efficient than offsite manufacturing to produce the same equivalent output. Of course, it might not be reasonable to try to defend the exact assumptions that have given rise to the differences in calculated value, but equally it would be difficult to argue a counterpoint that no difference actually exists.

A recent report by McKinsey suggested that offsite construction does not easily afford the scalability and productivity performance of offsite manufacturing, and typically requires a bigger factory footprint to output 5no fully-fitted modules per day (i.e. circa 1,000 modules per annum). This difference in scale of operation has not accounted for in the hypothesis, nor has the fact that offsite construction tends to rely on conventional trade skills and incurs labour rates which are no different to traditional, as the report highlights. These are important factors, and a recent UK Government report has urged new and existing actors in the offsite sector to think more radically to help create more technology-biased approaches which embrace digitalisation and provide appeal to an entirely new population of potential talent.

In conclusion then, it is useful to ask why it is so important to understand the demarcation between the notions of offsite manufacturing and offsite construction. For our purposes here, the distinction has been characterised by attempting to quantify a difference in terms of unnecessary waste. The key point, however, is that an offsite manufacturing approach facilitates predictability and repeatability, and more readily affords scope to embrace digitisation with an emphasis on Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) as opposed to just visualisation. By applying the right sort of thinking it is possible to envision a flexible offsite manufacturing methodology which can support the notion of mass customised product (i.e. non-template / non-platform solutions) with capacity for high conversion velocity (i.e. the elapsed time to convert raw materials to finished product). These sorts of outcomes can help to provide the necessary rationale for making the investment in capital equipment and developing a different sort of talent pool that might provide the foundation for a transformative industrialised logic.

www.berkeleygroup.co.uk

During UK Radon Awareness Week (4^th–10^th Nov), experts are warning that indoor levels of radon gas are increasing due to the installation of energy-saving measures and that unless this is addressed, an increase in lung cancer cases will be seen.

• Radon is the highest cause of lung cancer other than smoking and is responsible for over 1100 deaths in the UK every year.
• Research from Public Health England and UCL looked at almost half a million homes and deduced that current building practices are making things worse.
• The average radon concentration in homes with retrofitted double glazing was 67% higher than those without.

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 4)

 

Dr Aaron Goodarzi, the Canada Research Chair for Radiation Exposure Disease is extremely concerned by the latest research. He says: “Radon exposure is a worsening problem due to the evolving nature of our built environment. Lung cancer is the highest lethality cancer type known and rates continue to rise in non-smokers.” He added, “There is no reason why it should continue to take the lives of thousands upon thousands of people each year. The first step towards preventing cancer-causing radon exposure to yourself and your family is to test your home.”

Martin Roberts, TV & Radio property expert is backing the radon awareness campaign (see below for Radio day and interview options) which begins on 4^th November 2019. He commented “The lack of awareness about radon and its health dangers is shocking – and it’s something that could be in any of our homes.” He continued, “By installing double glazing or insulating our lofts we’re rightly doing our bit to help the environment, and our wallets, but people need to consider and counteract the knock-on effect it might have on our health.”

Martin summarised, “Checking your house for radon is a cheap and easy process and for the sake of yourself and your family you need to do it now. Improving home energy efficiency is a vital part of meeting carbon reduction targets, but simple measures can prevent the health of our nation suffering as a result.”

 

Midlands businesses encouraged to grasp multi-billion-pound investment opportunities at MIPIM 2020

 

Businesses across the Midlands are being encouraged to take part in the Midlands UK delegation at this year’s MIPIM (Cannes, 10-13 March 2020), the world’s largest property event.

 

Billions-of-pounds’ worth of investment is agreed each year at the international property and real estate show, with major regional projects such as Nottingham’s £2 billion Southside project, the City of Wolverhampton’s £185 million Brewers Yard development and Lincolnshire’s £80 million Grantham Southern Relief Road tracing their origins back to the event.

 

For the fourth year in a row, the Midlands UK delegation will bring together the region’s public and private sector leaders to showcase their most important regeneration and development schemes. This presence at MIPIM aims to grow the Midlands’ reputation as a globally competitive investment destination.

 

MIPIM provides the opportunity to profile businesses and projects, strengthen networks and share knowledge with industry peers. The show is the world’s largest real estate event, bringing together a global audience of more than 26,000 delegates from key markets such as the USA, Middle East and Western Europe.

 

Sir John Peace, Chair of the Midlands Engine, said:

 

“MIPIM offers an unrivalled opportunity for the private and public sectors to join forces and showcase our multitude of major developments and schemes to an international audience.

 

“The Midlands powers the UK economy, as a hotbed of talent, innovation and enterprise. Showcasing its strengths at MIPIM will help us to attract more global investment – helping to regenerate the region, create new jobs and deliver inclusive growth.”

 

To date, major businesses including platinum partners Birmingham Airport and St Joseph have signed up to join the Midlands UK delegation for MIPIM 2020. Others include Bruntwood, Lovell Partnership and Arup.

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 4)

 

 

Tony Pidgley CBE, Chairman of St Joseph, a Berkeley Group company, said:

 

“The Midlands is a fantastic place to invest, with strong leaders, a clear vision for the future and ambitious regeneration programmes well underway.

 

“We are proud to be part of this growth story and to be working in partnership to create the new homes and opportunities local communities need.”

 

In 2019, £11 billion of major development schemes were presented at the Midlands UK Pavilion to potential investors, partners, clients and suppliers. A busy event programme, comprising 43 events and 97 speakers, also highlighted the region’s most significant investment opportunities.

 

Conversations and meetings between industry and public sector leaders at MIPIM have led to a number of projects starting across the Midlands including:

         Nottingham’s £2 billion Southside project, which has resulted in the largest number of cranes in the city centre for a generation and almost 4,000 new jobs during the first phase of the project;

         The City of Wolverhampton’s £185 million Brewers Yard development, which will generate £250 million Gross Development Value by creating 1,200 houses and apartments, plus 60,000 sq ft of new retail and commercial space;

         Lincolnshire’s £80 million Grantham Southern Relief Road, which will unlock £1 billion of sustainable growth by improving connectivity and journey times, whilst securing significant housing and employment opportunities for Lincolnshire

Lorraine Baggs, Head of Inward Investment at Invest in Nottingham, said:

 

“MIPIM offers us a great platform to showcase investment opportunities to thousands of potential investors from around the globe.

“Nottingham is midway through one of the largest city centre regeneration programmes of any UK city, which has had a catalytic effect on driving further interest and investment into the area.

 

“MIPIM allows Nottingham to collectively target specific individuals and companies and being part of the wider Midlands delegation brings increased scale and profile allowing us to collectively take our place on the global stage.”

 

The West Midlands Growth Company is organising the Midlands UK presence at MIPIM 2020. To find out more about becoming a partner for MIPIM 2020, please get in touch by emailing mipim@wmgrowth.com or visiting https://midlandsukmipim.com/mipim-2020-packages.

Court Collaboration’s application for the 51-storey One Eastside was deferred by the city council’s planning committee.

It was confirmed Birmingham Airport still maintain their objection that construction cranes could pose a danger to airplanes flying on a newly established flight path and have sought a further assessment.

The £160m development, on the former college and university campus site at Jennens Road and James Watt Queensway, would also include a 15/16 storey tower and separate pavilion building.

but the design of the tower in particular was questioned.

Councillor Gareth Moore said: “It’s 51 storeys, it’s incredibly tall, I don’t have an issue with that but given it’s going to be quite iconic because of it’s height it’s very much just a giant box, there isn’t anything interesting about it.

“There’s no intricate design or any kind of features that other tall buildings in Birmingham and elsewhere have.”

Attention then turned to the fact that only 20 of the scheme’s 667 apartments (three per cent) would be allocated as affordable housing.

“That’s not just pathetic it’s appalling,” said Cllr Lou Robson.

“This has been marketed as a luxury building. It is known Birmingham has 35 per cent affordable housing (policy), perhaps that should be looked at from the very start of the design process.

“There’s a lot of marble on this, perhaps a little less marble and a few more affordable flats would be nice.”

Councillor Julie Johnson concurred describing the affordable housing provision as ‘staggering’.

But council officers who recommended the scheme be approved defended the proposal, which would ultimately be taller than the BT Tower.

 

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 4)

 

City centre planning officer Jo Todd confirmed the council’s head of city design had concluded the scheme to be ‘acceptable’ and stated that the development would not be viable if it delivered any more affordable homes.

She confirmed that Birmingham Airport had requested a National Air Traffic Services assessment of the ‘saddleback’ cranes which Court Collaboration now propose to use for construction.

Ms Todd said: “The airport has not raised concerns in terms of the height of the tower, they have raised concerns only in relation to the cranes.

“The idea of a saddleback crane is that it does not extend above the tower itself. However they (the airport) have now confirmed they do still want that assessment which the applicant has commissioned and is seeking to demonstrate there would be no issue.”

Source: Express & Star