INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER: SOLVING THE HOUSING CRISIS VIA OFFSITE CONSTRUCTION 49


SOLVING THE HOUSING CRISIS WITH OFFSITE CONSTRUCTION


Have you ever worked on any projects using offsite building techniques?


(See page 50 for more on this finding)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I


n the last few years, the need for an increased pace of housebuilding has not diminished.


The Government’s 300,000 homes a year target has put been into uestion  and recently reaffirmed  yet the three challenges ousebuilder  eveloper focused on in its first ndustry iewfinder on odern ethods of onstruction  in 2021 – speed, cost and skills – remain unsolved. Providing an alternative to conventional building and a potential solution to these issues,  centres around the use of offsite construction techniques – ranging from timber frames pieced together on site, to entire homes mass produced in a factory.


The technologies have been hailed by many as efficient in terms of both time and build cost, enabling developers to reduce construction times by up to half, reduce risks, improve quality, minimise disruption, and reduce the performance gap between design and as-built performance. s highlighted in our first white paper, the maority of our respondents believe the advantages of  give it the


potential to address all three of these ey challenges speeding up the pace of building, providing a more attractive working environment, and reducing costs.


Despite this, in 2021 40% of our respondents reported they had never wored with any , and  never anticipated doing so in the future – with a range of concerns preventing them from adopting the methods, from initial costs to a lack of Government support. Two years later, we have again sought the views of housebuilders and developers about  to see how their perceptions have changed. Are the technologies being adopted more widely? Or are they still being ignored by a third of the industry? In this white paper, Housebuilder & Developer reveals that the same significant barriers are still prevalent  with those surveyed having utilised  even less than before  compared with the  study, and those who have being less liely to do so in the near future    and provides data that go some way to explaining this.


PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92