13 Jim Martin, Senior Partner, Martin Arnold, who chairs the The Housing Forum’s Working Group, Smarter Supply: Smarter Resources, says: “MMC invariably produces higher quality, because these homes are built under cover in benign conditions. A year ago, using offsite systems was more expensive, but this year the cost is the same. However, these systems bring the benefit of speed, and by next year they could be cheaper.” The sentiment is echoed by contributors to our technical case studies beginning on page 27. Though rising costs of labour and materials, coupled with increased capacity and Government support, is helping drive momentum for more use of offsite manufacturing, there are still barriers to be overcome for the various technologies to become mainstream amongst the major housebuilders. The Offsite Housing Review found that there were a number of factors holding offsite back, views shared by members of The Housing Forum, who have been discussing how offsite manufacture can become more mainstream in housebuilding. These include: Who pays upfront costs for the factory units. Procuring units fabricated in the factory requires upfront payment, which runs counter to traditional practice in that housebuilders will generally subcontract a lot of the work and then pay for it after it’s been completed. Public perception of poor quality product. Historic problems have blighted the ‘prefabrication’ brand. There is concern about systematic failure. Just because it’s been built well in the factory does not mean the units will be put together well on site. And if there is a problem, this could be amplified. Confidence in the product and process. While system certification is addressing concerns of insurers and funds and mortgage providers, product life and whole life performance continue to be major concerns. The Meadows, Essex University built by Bouygues UK. Images by Hufton+Crow Offsite manufacture in university accommodation — Offsite prefabricated units have long since been used in university accommodation for students; they provide examples for housebuilders to learn from. Mayflower Halls (shown on page 8 and 9) at the University of Southampton comprises three residential tower blocks over a 1.5 acre site reaching up to 17 storeys high, positioned around a central piazza. The £42.6m scheme was completed in September 2014 in 20 months and was constructed using reinforced concretre frame with SIP infill panels. 8,000 plus square metres were installed per week of programme. Principal partners: Architecture PLB (architects), Osborne (contractor), Innovaré Systems (designer), Innovaré Systems (manufacturer) and the University of Southampton (client). The Meadows, at the University of Essex in Colchester (shown above), is a 15,826 sq m student complex providing accommodation for 648 students. It comprises 19 town houses for 228 students plus ensuite cluster flats for a further 420 students. There is also a social pavilion housing a common room, a launderette and a convenience store. The total cost was £23m with an average cost per unit of £35,000. Completed in September 2013, a mixture of construction techniques were used – including ensuite bathroom GRP pods, in situ concrete frame (three blocks – five to seven storeys high) and timber frame townhouses. The developer was Uliving, a consortium made up of Bouygues Development, housing provider Derwent Living and investment company Equitix. Principal partners: Bouygues UK (contractor), Lewis & Hickey (architect), MLM (structural consultant), Kane Heating (mechanical contractor) and INEO (electrical contractor), Altor (pods supplier) and Stewart Milne (timber frame manufacturer and installer).
16 Publizr Home