Hello, Alex. How are you doing?

 

Very Good, yes. Not too bad. Some interesting times in the world at the moment, which we seem to be navigating our way through. Keeping our head above water...

 

Yes! Very good. Well, I shall keep it to the apolitical in this case; I think it's probably safest, isn't it? 

I wanted to ask you about one of your latest schemes. The project being I think, 200 homes in total for Greenwich Builds. And I think 16 of them are completed so far. Could you tell me a little bit about the project and a little bit about their environmental performance, which I think is probably connected to the benefits of using off site methods of construction, would you say?

 

Of course, yeah, no, I think a large part of it is that. The contract is quite revolutionary in the fact that it's a local authority-backed scheme. It's completely publicly funded through a delivery vehicle called Greenwich Builds. And it's a £300 million contract. It's five years initially; it can be extended to 10. And within that, there is an element as you alluded to, of MMC, so offsite manufacturing, and also direct delivery. But of course, we're very much involved in the kind of MMC side of that. And the off-site manufacturing. I think the revolutionary part of it for the public to invest or for councils to invest so much public money in something such as volumetric, which is, of course, you know, very tried and tested in the continent in Europe, but in the UK, probably less so. 

Our first shedkm volumetric scheme was probably about 18 years ago, and that was the first private sale volumetric scheme. So, to trial volumetric on a mass scale. using public money for affordable housing has been very interesting, but also very forward thinking from the council to try to trial these new types of new tools and technologies. So, very much working under that umbrella over the last three to four years where we have delivered, as you already pointed out, 16 homes with a further 190 plus, on site at the moment actually, or in the factory. It has not been without its challenges. It has been quite (laughs) challenging along the way. But very, very interesting. And fantastic as you pointed out, on sustainability credentials. I think one of the biggest, or one of the big reasons why Greenwich Builds and the council were going to move forward with this was because of its efficiencies in terms of environmental credentials. I think there are a lot of aspects to that, not just in terms of its operational - it is zero carbon operational - but also in terms of the efficiencies in the factory, which you also alluded to. And I think what the factory allows on many different levels is an efficiency in terms of materials, and how those materials are procured, but not only procured, but also cut to exact sizes. The system behind the production and design of these homes is done in a way so there's quite um...it’s a bit like the car industry, which I suppose MMC is compared to all the time, but it's quite methodical. And it does bring about a very sensible and clear use of computer aided technology, which helps through using the BIM platform all the way through to the factory production, and then the buildings themselves. 

So, the material usage, the wastage ,is cut down to an incredibly low amount compared to traditional build. And it also, to some extent, allows the use of different materials. So: a timber structure, for example, can be used to some extent, but we are now moving away to metal structural systems, due obviously to fire and life safety. But there are various different materials you can use. And within that every single element – from the screws and bolts to the plasterboard lining, to the roofing systems to the paving on the terraces – all of that is controlled, defined from very early on in the system. And that allows us to then reduce any waste, as I say, through the actual process of building these homes within the factory. And it also...

 

...Yeah, sorry, I just wanted to interrupt a little of your long flow (laughs) Obviously, you're enthused by the project, which is great! But I just wondered, because you laughed a little bit when you said and it has been 'challenging', what the downsides of using this method of construction are in terms of its challenging nature, I presume. What are were those, in a nutshell?

 

I think in a nutshell it comes down to just how well prepared you are from day one to deliver, utilizing volumetric, especially. Not MMC generally, but volumetric as a specific part of MMC. 

In terms of day one to realisation there is an idea that volumetric elements can be procured and delivered almost instantaneously. For a quickfire solution, a bit like ‘Portakabins’ as a very kind of high-level example. Not that we want affordable housing to be like ‘Portakabins’ at all in any way whatsoever. But the fact that the speed in which you can get into a site is very, very quick. And I think it is very, very quick, once you have a methodology and a pattern book in place to develop them and build them. And you have a manufacturer that's a trusted partner. And the manufacturer needs to be brought along the journey with you, which we have done. Very much so with Greenwich Builds. But it’s taken a while to get to a pattern book that's accepted by all parties. And when I say all parties, not only the client, not only the manufacturer, but also the local authority funding department, so that everyone is tied up in the same journey, to make sure they're getting the best architecture, the best architectural delivery, with the best spaces for these people that most need homes, but also from a client perspective. So they're getting the product that they want, with the specifications they have for this type of housing, whilst maintaining a sensible approach to the urban and public realm. Sometimes, volumetric, when I'm being honest, can fall down a little bit because it's not as well considered, as maybe it should be. Whereas with Greenwich Builds, it's been very, very highly considered as to how that works. So some of the challenges are just derived from that process. Quite an intense process.

 

You say in some of the blurb on your website that one of the aspirations was to challenge design stereotypes of socially rented housing. Do you mean by that that these look a lot "better" and they have higher quality and bigger generosity of space in the schemes?

 

Yeah. What we're saying is we've gone to great lengths to make the spaces and quality of those spaces through the use of huge windows, bringing as much daylight in; good floor to ceiling heights, high quality materials internally, bringing in quite modern Scandinavian-feeling materials to houses that don't often have the hugest budgets behind them. And it's being clever with how you use those materials; what they are, how much of them to use, and also the spaces themselves. And then knitting that all back into these kinds of places this placemaking, this urban fabric, that Greenwich has a huge historical context of, of course. And making sure they don't stand out too much, but also are modern and suitable for purpose.

 

And lastly, I note, again, from the blurb about each of these projects on different sites within the borough that underutilized garage sites seem to be a recurring theme. Is that the case? And if so, is this something that more local authorities should be looking at as a way of their small sites initiatives?

 

Yes, I think it definitely has its place there, once, as I said before, the typologies have been developed for these houses. And what it does give you is houses that are compact, but spacious in terms of their use, but just compact in terms of fitting into these sites. And a bit of variety and flexibility in terms of the components that make up a house. So, as we understand it, a traditional build house is, you know, bricks and mortar, in many cases, and it's built to a certain footprint. These houses that we have developed have different components: an energy component, a living component a roof component. And they can be set out in different ways to adapt to these smaller sites. So yes, I think councils should definitely have a big interest in it in the future. I also think that it does lend itself to volumetric especially, very much so, to large sites, as well, in terms of the efficiency you get from the cost efficiencies. But also, once you have that perfect pattern book of homes, that kind of catalogue, if you like, of these amazing spaces, then you can deliver quite a lot of those quite quickly, while still creating places. And some of the schemes that we're bringing forward now are very much about creating new neighbours, new places, new parks, for the community with a lot of public consultations along with it. So, I think it can be used at both scales. And I think councils should embrace modern technology with a view that they go to someone that does have the ideas and mindfulness to go through it in the right way. And to make sure they get the best products out of it, at the end of the day.

 

Well, congratulations. It looks great scheme, and I look forward to seeing it spring up in its entirety. So well done.

 

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All the best.

 

Nice to speak. See you. Bye.