Morning, everybody. Thank you for coming. Welcome to MJ Gleeson's results for the half-year ended 31st of December 2023. We'll follow the usual format. I'll give you a brief overview, Stefan will then run you through the detail of the numbers, and I'll come back and talk a little bit about operations, strategy, and the outlook. So, well, fair to say, things didn't get any easier. We achieved some 769 home sales. We did see an improvement in our net reservation rates, up to 0.41, which was better than the 0.36 comparative period. But of course, that was the period that benefited from the Liz Truss's premiership, so no great shakes there. 0.41, still a pretty anemic sales rate. But the business was resilient.
What I'm pleased about is that we continued to make good progress in a number of key areas on the strategic initiatives that we're putting in place to reshape and prepare this business for the growth that we see in front of us. Really important that we saw a strong return to five-star quality. We've rolled out our refreshed product range, which is looking beautiful, as you can see from the picture, and also that with that marketing to a much wider audience of potential buyers. We delivered on a number of operational efficiencies that we put in place this time last year, and pleased to see that coming through in a reduction in our admin costs in the first half.
Over in Gleeson Land, pleased that demand for our prime consented sites continues to remain strong. And we do continue to see that pattern of, as the majors are a bit more cautious, that gap is being filled by regional players and midcaps as they look to take advantage of the opportunity that creates for them. There are, we are seeing planning challenges. I'll talk a little bit about that as we go through, and both at the sort of local level and the current difficulties at the current local level and obviously the NPPF changes. We're also, I think, experiencing the difficulty; we're seeing it firsthand, the difficulty of the heightened challenge of planning in an election year.
We sold one site in the first half, and we have another four in a sales process right now, which is encouraging, and really pleased with the progress that Guy and the team are making in implementing the strategy that we set out at the Capital Markets Day. We'll talk a little bit about that as well. So, in January, we shared with you some issues of additional costs on historic sites. These were identified, in the main, by new management teams that we put in following the restructure that we announced this time last year. They were broadly in two regions.
They were at a time when the whole industry has got issues on margins that you're very familiar with, so flat selling prices, extended prelims as sites take longer, additional incentives to purchases in a challenging market, and of course, also some impact from bulk discounts on bulk sales. So margins generally under pressure. And then, as I say, we identified some additional costs on older sites. And with contingencies already used up, although none of these costs was individually material, they aggregated to a reasonably significant number, and it's not something we could just absorb in normal contingency. So they largely arose on older sites, and so sites concluding in FY 2024 and FY 2025, which means, again, there's no kind of smoothing effect. That impact hits us in these two periods.
So, what have we done about this? Well, you're well aware that, over the past 12 months, we've been working intensively to smarten up our processes, our people as well, and our reporting structures. So, in particular, we're much more rigorous around the technical and budgetary controls we put before we start on site. And we've also done a lot of work around our regular monthly commercial cost control disciplines. So I absolutely know that these issues are not being repeated now. We've also done a lot of work to scrub the existing sites, the projects currently on site, and I'm confident that we've identified those risks. So, I'm confident we've drawn a line under the issue.
Those process improvements are really they're also part of that wider thrust of, as I say, growing MJ Gleeson into a small volume housebuilder so that we can be confident in taking embracing the growth that we see in front of us. It's all part of that same process. So turning to recent trading, very pleased with what we've seen since the holidays, a sales rate in the last five weeks of 0.5 sales per site per week. That obviously compares very favorably with the 0.41 that we saw in the first half. It's also better than we saw in the corresponding five weeks last year, which was 0.46. So, the market's definitely got a bit more of a spring in its step. It's uneven at the moment. It's not in a straight line.
It's uneven, both kind of regionally and even within regions. Critically, it remains to be seen whether it will hold. My own view—we can talk about that. My own view is that I think we are beginning to see the beginnings of a cautious recovery. Interestingly, pricing is not under any general pressure. As it says on the Slide, on Boxing Day, we put through a general increase of 2.5% on some half of our available units. And at the same time, we put through a similar reduction on about 13% of our units. Of the sales that we've taken since that point, about 30% have been on the units where we reduced price. About 30% has been on the units where we increased price.
And obviously, the balancing 40% is where we didn't change the prices. But what you can see, as I say, is there's no general pressure on pricing. And this really is a phase of the market where there's no substitute for hard work. It's really important that we're absolutely granular about the pricing, about the incentive profile, and the presentation of every available unit. Okay. At that point, I will hand over to my colleague to take you through the numbers.
Thank you. Thank you, Graham. So we, we delivered a robust performance in the first half despite those market pressures on demand, on gross margins, and the congested planning system. And Graham, I think, is going to talk a little bit about that planning system later on. The group turnover for the first half of the year was just over 11% lower than the first half last year. That was driven by lower Gleeson Homes volumes, marginally lower reported ASP, partly offset by higher revenue in Gleeson Land. Now, the higher revenue in Gleeson Land includes recognizing the revenue on the final four phases of a site that we actually sold in 2019. That generated about GBP 5 million of additional revenue, very, very little extra profit. It was a site we had sold, 2019.
Now, I'll take you through the divisional operating performance on the next few Slides, but to highlight just a couple of additional points. Group overheads at GBP 2.4 million were 14% lower than first half last year due to lower share-based payment charges and lower professional fees. Interest gross interest costs increased to GBP 1.6 million, with higher interest rates and higher use of the bank facility during the period. Operating profit reduced to GBP 8.8 million at a group level, and PBT was GBP 7.2 million. Now, we expect a lower tax rate this year of just under 23%. The headline rate that you know for corporation tax is 25%. We expect this year to take advantage of Land Remediation Relief, which will reduce our effective tax rate to just under 23%. So looking at Gleeson Homes performance, completed 769 home sales in the year.
That included 169 under the multi-unit sale agreements that we entered into in June last year, about 22% of volume. Now, underlying selling prices are actually pretty robust given the market conditions. They were underlying prices. That's net of all incentives, or net of cash incentives, and including extras. Underlying selling prices were at 1.6%. Gross prices were actually at 4%. Of course, our incentives were higher and our extras were a little bit lower. I would stress that our incentives are still less than 4% of turnover. So relative to what a lot of other house builders are having to use as incentives, it's still relatively modest. That 22% of volume that was multi-unit sales, of course, that's at a discount to a typical open market sales price. That means that reported ASP was marginally down on the previous year.
There was a little bit of mix. Now, looking at gross profit, gross profit was 24% lower at just under GBP 35 million. That was due to the combination of lower volumes and slightly lower gross margin. That gross margin, 24.5%, reflects the impact of multi-unit deals we hadn't previously done, the multi-unit deals. It's the first deals that we had entered into in June last year. The first half didn't have any. There was an impact on margin as a result. Also, with prices, with incentives being higher, extras being a little lower relatively, that had an impact. Of course, as Graham has discussed, there was the impact of the additional costs on some older sites. Now, on overheads, the full impact of our reorganization, as we anticipated, kicked in from the 1st of July, and that reduced our overheads by almost 12%.
Headcount, just to give you some sense, we're averaging at about 500 overhead heads. That's including sales and marketing. That's admin and sales and marketing, reduced to an average of about 450. Now, we will continue to control overheads quite tightly while also ensuring we have the capacity to take advantage of what we see as quite exciting continuing a return to quite exciting growth levels. Now, we continue to generate a really small amount of other operating income. Just a reminder of what that is. It's the redemption by borrowers of shared equity loans that were entered into before George Osborne introduced Help to Buy many years ago. We didn't, unlike most house builders, we didn't sell our portfolio. We kept it. And that's generated a little bit of cash and a very small amount of profit each year.
That loan book now is quite small. It's about 50-55 loans and a book value of about a gross value of about GBP 1 million, net book value of GBP 0.2 million. As a result, operating profit for the first half, GBP 10.2 million, operating margin 7.2%. Now, turning to the forward order book, we've done a pretty good job of, let's call it, repairing that forward order book. Compared to December 2022, it's up 84%. The majority of that growth is actually in open market sale re-reservations. The forward order book at December does include 100 multi-unit orders. That's the multi-unit arrangements we entered into in June that we didn't complete in the first half. We still have 100 to complete. They will complete in the second half.
Assuming the spring selling season continues at this pace, we would expect to further build that forward order book with additional open market orders and additional new multi-unit arrangements. Now, turning to our active sites. You'll remember in the second half of last financial year, the first half of the calendar year, along with most of the sector, we paused land buying and paused site opening. The impact of this, along with the impact of a congested planning system, means that we opened few sites in the first half. We opened three sites for build. Two sales outlets were opened. We will be opening more sites in the second half. So we'll be stepping that up. But the real benefit in terms of sales outlets won't really be seen until FY 2026. So expect next financial year, FY 2025, sales outlets to be relatively flat.
Thereafter, we have a very healthy pipeline and I would anticipate sales outlets growing quite significantly. Now, this is what Graham will talk about on the growth agenda a little bit later. Looking at that pipeline, pipeline grew to 177 sites, over 18,000 plots. We're actively building on 76 of those. We own 12 more, which we haven't yet activated. We haven't started building on. And we have another 89 that are conditionally purchased. So that total pipeline grew by 1,600. And that puts us in a really strong position. The average cost per plot in that pipeline is just under GBP 15,000. It's about 8% of current average selling prices. That is one of the unique features of this business. It's a low selling price relative to it's a low investment when we open a site.
At 8%, we consume less cash than a traditional house builder in opening sites. And that is what allows us to grow at pace once we resume opening significantly more sites than we close. Now, turning to Gleeson Land, pretty quiet first half. That's not unusual for Gleeson Land. The division reported gross profit of GBP 2.9 million. Overheads were higher than the previous first half, reflecting our growth investment strategy. And we do have Guy Gusterson, the Managing Director of that division here today. And Graham will be talking about the exciting medium to long-term growth opportunities in that division a little bit later as well. I'm conscious I'm tearing Graham up to talk about an awful lot over, if I shall move swiftly on. Thank you for the prompter. Right.
Looking at the balance sheet, inventories increased quite significantly, by over GBP 31 million to GBP 358 million over the last 12 months. That reflects you'll remember the GBP 30 million investment we made ahead of the, building re-regulations, particularly the Part L Regulations, kicked in on the 15th of June, last year. About a third of that has unwound. So we still have about 2/3 of it in there. And we had quite increased build activity on the site. We were much busier builders in the first half of this financial year. And it reflects that we ended the year with, higher WIP and higher stock levels. Now, the average build WIP per site increased from GBP 2.2 million a year ago to GBP 3 million at the end of December. Quite a significant increase driven by the, that Part L investment and the increase in, in build WIP on the site.
We will continue to tightly manage that. I expect we will be reducing that to about GBP 2.7 million per site by June this year. Now, land creditors were GBP 2.5 million lower at GBP 10.9 million, representing just over 11% of land asset. Quite low for a house builder. You know we typically pay for sites that we when we purchase them on completion. We typically don't stretch creditors very significantly. Now, the group ended the period with a net debt of GBP 18.7 million as anticipated. That would reflect this investment in. There's GBP 30 million investment in Part L, of which 2/3 is still on the balance sheet. Lower plot completions in the first half and higher inventories. Turning to cash flow, first half first half operating cash flow cash outflow. First half is always typically an outflow. First half outflow was slightly higher.
That reflects this higher build WIP on site. But also, we had quite high creditors in December 2022 and much lower trade creditors in Gleeson Homes at the end of this December, the end of December just gone, as we now are very determined to pay all of our subbies and suppliers as quickly as we can. Interest costs, cash interest costs, increased. Again, it's due to the higher levels of borrowings and higher interest rates. So, on dividend, in line with the group's capital allocation policy, we will be paying an interim dividend of GBP 0.04 per share. Dividend will be paid on the 2nd of April. Shareholders are on the register on the 1st of March.
The final dividend and therefore the total dividend for the year, forgive me, will be paid such that it remains within policy of earnings covering dividends for the full year between three times and five times. Thank you. And I will now hand you back to Graham.
Very good. Thank you, Stefan. I'll try and remember all the things you've said. I'm going to say. Okay. So turning to Gleeson Homes. What are we seeing out there? Well, I always say I'm not a planning whinger, but it is getting worse. The system is just chronically under-resourced. Our average time from submission to consent is now at round about two years. So that does hamper the business.
That will hamper us, as Stefan's alluded to, as we try to accelerate growth and get ourselves, you know, start building back into this recovery. And that's at local level. That's, I'm not even on the NPPF. I'll talk about that in a moment. But so it is difficult. Build cost inflation, that's quite interesting. It's a very mixed picture. So over the last, over calendar 2023, I think when I stood in front of you a year ago, I said we expected to see some reductions. We did see those reductions. So over the calendar year, a reduction of about, so negative inflation of about 3.6%.
But within that, in the second half of that calendar year, so our first half, we saw an increase actually in inflation in building general inflation 1.3%. Within that, that was higher figures on labor and actually some further reductions in some categories of materials. A really mixed picture. But look, for me, I'm less interested in what the market's doing to us. I'm much more interested about what we can do to help ourselves. We are doing a lot of work. Mark and his team are doing an awful lot of work to make sure that we're tightening up on our procurement, that we're getting the very best deals that we can, and, importantly, ensuring that we're getting compliance to those deals right across right across our regions. Again, that's all part of the benefit of standardizing our processes and our structures.
Mortgage rates, you don't need me to tell you that. Thankfully, that seems to have stabilized. It's not in the headlines, it's not in the headlines every day. There may be one or two further reductions to come. I hope so. But the key is that affordability, certainly for our buyers, is now in a decent place. It is manageable. And I'll show you some stats on that in a moment. But that all goes to that final bullet, which is around buyer confidence. And an important element there. Finally, we're starting to see the press bring some positivity into their headlines instead of weeding out every negative they can find.
Although I was talking to my friend at the FT this morning and he, his first question was, "Well, we're majoring on the recession this morning." And, "Oh, Josh, what are you doing?" But all important, really important that the media plays its part and stops talking down the market into a position into a poor position. So what have we been doing? Well, again, as I said to you last year, we weren't going to waste a good recession. So lots that we wanted to do in the business, and we have made a lot of change. And I'm really pleased with the progress that we're making.
The new reorganized regional structure bedding down very well and people are settling to our new ways of working. Within that, good progress on several strategic initiatives that I've mentioned here, that product refresh, we've alluded to a lot, but really, it's really beneficial. The product looks really well in situ. And those of you that have been out to visit us, I think would agree with me on that. Important that we've rolled out that new marketing and branding to addressing the widest possible audience, and working hard on training and developing our sales teams. You've heard me say before that it's six or seven years, I think, since sales have really had to work at the sales. They've generally been coming to us.
Really important, therefore, that we focus on this and optimize the skill set of our sales teams. We're doing a lot of work, particularly around lead management. We don't think we've seen the real benefit of this yet. So actually, our sales rate has closed up on the average. We were traditionally a bit below the average, possibly, you know, 15%-20% below. We've closed up. We're much more in line with the average I'm talking about the HBF rates. I think there's further we can go. My view, you've heard me say it before, is that our value product and the parts of the country we're in and the part of the market we're in, we should actually be better than the average. That's certainly what we're targeting to be.
As Stefan described, we have got a strong pipeline of sites that will really support that growth in sales outlets. Stefan said really that you'll see that comes through in the numbers in FY 2026 simply because of the time that it takes to bring those sites through. But the reason for that, I suppose, is our own those delays, our own caution in not wanting to invest too much ahead of the recovery. And you're seeing that across the market. And of course, back to the planning point, you can't just throw that lever. You then have got that drag of several months. We will put in place, we're negotiating right now, one or two further multi-unit deals just to bolster that slightly tentative recovery in open market sales rates.
Really important, as I say, that the improvements that we've made in our customer survey scores. So as I stand in front of you this morning, we are a very strong five-star right across the piece. But I want us to go further on that. It's a big focus for the business. And we don't only look at the yes or no. We very much look at each of the categories. We've improved in all of the categories, but the real focus of the business over the next 12 months is going to be on that condition at handover and on the speed at which we remedy defects. Because if we can get those, even they have improved. If we can get those up to a really strong level, then that embeds a sustainable customer recommend score.
That's what we're all about. We're also doing quite a lot of work to prepare Gleeson for the new, more comprehensive composite score that's coming down the track at us as the CMA comes out with its recommendations. The New Homes Quality Board gets involved with specifying that score, which we welcome. But really important that we're on the front foot and ready for that when it comes. As I said, a Gleeson Home does remain highly affordable. It won't be lost on you that, as the cost of living crisis abates, it's our customers, the lower earners, who've benefited from the highest relative improvements in their income. And that's really significant.
It's illustrated nowhere better than by the National Living Wage, which in April goes up by a further, a second consecutive 10%. So that means a couple, earning the National Living Wage can afford a home costing over GBP 210,000. I mean, honestly, if they continue raising it at that rate, in a couple of years' time, they'll be able to afford a Vistry home. But seriously, that level is some 38% higher than our average two-bed and higher even than our average three-bed. We're some 20% lower than comparable on average, rental properties. You know what's been going on in the rental market. And really importantly, and back to that product refresh, in taking advantage of the value that Gleeson offers, there's no longer any sense of, well, I'm getting a slightly lower quality home.
They're not. You've seen the product. It's indistinguishable from any of the relevant competition in terms of quality. You know, white label it, and I think you would say, yeah, this is a lovely home. So, we think we're delivering great quality, a great value, and certainly affordability is not the challenge. So with all of that, with the progress we're making in, as I say, turning the company into a small volume house builder, with the affordability of the product, we are very confident about our route to our medium-term target of 3,000 homes per annum. We are operating a chronically undersupplied segment of the market. There is strong underlying demand. We've got, as Stefan described, a great pipeline of sites.
And we're already underway with a plan to be opening some 30 sales outlets per annum, which, as I say, will start to appear in 2025. You'll see it more, in, the benefit of that more in the numbers in FY 2026 for the reasons I've described. But really, really important that with the, the sort of restructured platform that we have in place and those standardized systems and process, we can embrace that growth with confidence and in a well-controlled manner. A quick word on partnerships. I said in I think it was in July that we were exploring opportunities. We're very excited for what that holds for us. And I'm increasingly convinced, actually, that this will be an important part of Gleeson's business, going forward. What does it offer? There are multiple benefits to having that alternative route to market.
But critically, it enables us to access larger sites, which are intrinsically more efficient to develop, but then can themselves be more efficiently developed by de-risking a significant proportion of the exit, when you take the site on. So it absolutely makes sense for us, as an economic proposition. We are seeing significant interest from a number of potential partners, a good number of housing associations. And at this point in the market, significant interest from institutional PRS. They like our products, our homes. They like our developments. And of course, they like our price points. On the Slide, you can see a picture of a site we've just secured, which is Spilsby in Lincolnshire. It's the single largest site that Gleeson Homes has ever acquired, some 600 units on that site.
And so a natural example for us to look at as a potential partnerships opportunity. So, as I say, we are seeing significant interest from a number of potential partners. And I would hope to have something specific to talk to you about during the second half. But really important that we do this, we're selective about the partners that we work with. And important as well that we're honest with ourselves about capability and capacity to deliver at the pace and quality that a partner is going to expect. We are confident in that, but it's really important that we take these steps sensibly, and you know, we're honest with ourselves about how we deliver this. So very exciting opportunity for us. Turning then to Gleeson Land.
I said, really pleased with the progress that Guy and his team are making in implementing the strategy that Guy set out, back in July. We've reorganized the business both regionally and functionally. We're now our land buying is now organized into those three areas, southern, western, and central. We now have as senior leaders on the ground in each of those regions. Really important to have that local expertise and knowledge. Our planning and technical functions still remain in Fleet, and they will continue to service all three regions. We've also continued to invest in our market-leading research and data analytics capabilities, which support us both in identifying opportunities and also in winning competitive bids.
So, yeah, as I say, really the point of all of that is that that is exactly the sort of maturing of the business that will put us in a good place to grow this business and enable it then to become a reliable contributor to the group's profitability on an annual basis. It's all about maturing the business in that way. We've seen some good success in site acquisitions. It's the market is very competitive, but we are now seeing a good number of opportunities coming through after it dried up quite a lot last summer, I presume, because landowners were holding back with what was going on in the housing market.
We secured one site in the period, but, more excitingly, we've got terms agreed on six more, which would, and those six would add a further 2,800 units to our pipeline. It's really important that we retain our discipline, and make sure that when we're bidding and taking on sites, we're, as it were, selling our services, selling our bid on our differentiated, successful offering rather than just chasing the market because some of the premiums we see being bid, some of the fee levels we see being accepted, are just getting the premiums getting too high, fees getting too skinny. So we're retaining our discipline around that. And importantly, we regularly win when we're not the highest financial bidder. On the Slide is a site, fantastic site in Chipping Norton.
Really appealed to the market both because of its location but also because there's a chance it could come forward quite quickly. I think there were 25 bidders for that site, Guy. Enormous competition to get hold of it. We weren't the highest bidder, but we won the bid because they liked the quality of our proposition. The NPPF. I had to smile when I was reading, drinking my coffee on Sunday morning and reading the Sunday Times, where the Secretary of State put out a dire warning that if the young people of this country can't access the homes that they feel they deserve and need, they will abandon democracy. This from the same Secretary of State whose, I suppose, lasting legacy in office will be the fundamental undermining of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Whatever spin he put out on the day, whatever coverage you saw in the media, and the welter of peripheral announcements that we've seen since, make no mistake, planning has been subject subjugated to local politics. That will fail the country, and it will fail precisely those young aspiring homeowners whose position he was lamenting on Sunday. So it is a really important, significant negative change. A future Labour government say that they will overturn it. It's to be hoped that they do. They'll need a significant majority to do it because it will be quite difficult once an unpopular piece of legislation has been taken away, quite difficult to reinstate it. And they'll need to be confident of their own electoral arithmetic.
But it is. It will be a real problem if it's not amended. Gleeson Land is pretty good at navigating that system. We achieved planning permission on four sites in the first half, which was great and is feeding through to our sales. We did see further four reversals, so negative outcomes, during that first half. And again, as I alluded to earlier, I think we are seeing perhaps the heightened difficulty of bringing through challenging sites in an election year. We've currently got a further 11 sites waiting planning decisions, and it's to be hoped that we win our fair share of those. So turning to summary and outlook then.
As I say, I would characterize it as a robust performance that first half, a robust performance in a difficult market. But more interestingly for me is the progress that we're making in improving our own operations so that we can become really efficient and embrace that significant growth opportunity in a well-controlled way and with real confidence. I am very encouraged by the recent trading uptick. I think that, as I say, for what it's worth, I do believe that we're seeing the, you know, a gradual recovery. The wider industry indicators, and here I'm Rightmove, RICS, Zoopla, this week Hamptons are all pointing, coalescing around a similar view. You're also seeing improvements in general consumer confidence. So for me, and this is a forecast, I hope I'm not wrong, I think that's what that's what we're starting to see.
So, we've got a lot of work to do in the second half. We do need the sales rate to continue where it is. We don't need to see a massive uplift from here, but we don't want it to fall away as it did last year. We have some planning consents that we still need to obtain in Gleeson Land. It's February. That's quite normal for this time of year. But on that basis, we are confident about our expectations for the current year. And perhaps more importantly, I'm even more confident about achieving that medium-term growth target. And at that point, we will happily take your questions. Adrian, you were very quick with your first hand up there. Nine questions. Fantastic. I'm going to see if I can use my pen.
Morning.
Morning, Adrian.
I'm Adrian, Panmure Liberum currently. Yeah, I've got a number of sites, but I'll just keep it to three if I may. On Land, we've seen elsewhere in the market a number of comments about deferred consideration for schemes. Are you presumably seeing a similar trend, and is there anything you can sort of comment on that? Jumping around a bit, heat source pumps. You know, you were early adopter of that technology. I just wondered, you know, if there's anything you could sort of say in terms of that. And perhaps then, in terms of the costs relating to the older sites, you made sort of a comment that it principally relates to two regions.
Is that based on the old regional distribution, you know, the regional map or the new regional map? And of the number of sites that you're impacting, you said it'll carry on impacting in 2024 and 2025. Are you able to sort of quantify how many sites in 2024 and then how many in 2025, and then assuming that it's zero in 2026?
Very good. Well, let me pick up, well, give you some comments on all three, and maybe Stefan will take through that last point on timing of the margin impacts. Deferred consideration, less of a feature for Gleeson because, of course, as Stefan mentioned earlier, we tend to pay less for our land, the types of land that we buy. So we don't run huge land creditors.
We also buy conditionally always conditionally on planning, so we pay right at the last minute. We hold that ability you know, we exchange contracts, subject to planning at our discretion. And so that's so we as I say the answer is we don't make it a huge deal out of deferred consideration. Of course, if we can get it, we will. And if it's a larger number, we'll go we will certainly look to postpone some of that cash. Air source heat pumps, yes, going well, he said tentatively. So we were early adopters. It's important for us. You know, we're completely committed to that as the technology for the way forward. And I would say I've been pleasantly surprised by the feedback that we get.
So we've had. I feared, and I'm going back two and three years. I feared that the house builders would bear the brunt of customers, you know, fiddling with the dials and expecting water to heat up really quickly and what have you. And we would get, you know, the heating system doesn't work, basically. Not a bit of it. Where we get specific comment, it tends to be very positive. People enjoy the technology, and so we're not getting great pushback. I hope I'm not proved wrong when we start to roll them out in greater numbers, but certainly the evidence to date has been positive. And Mark and the team are actually outsourcing some rather more sleek-looking product because the first of them looked like old 1970s aircon units nailed on the back wall. Horrible.
But, yeah, so that market's evolving and improving. Costs on older sites. Great question. Was that two? It was four regions, actually. But it's two of the two of the new regions. So there were two of the combined regions. So yeah, that probably makes a bit more sense to you. In old money, it would have been four regions. Yeah. Stefan, I don't know if you want to comment on the periods.
Yeah. Yeah. And those, so the 11 sites in those two new regions, those 11 sites, they're all, they all have completions this year. And depending on how sales go over the next 18 months, the majority of them have completions next year as well. But some of them will stretch only into Q1 next year, others right up to June. It's possible some might fall into FY 2026, but it would be quite minimal. The impact is really spread across both years with a little bit more in this year than in next financial year.
[audio distortion] Mark.
Yeah, thanks very much. Mark Howson from Dowgate. Just a couple of questions, if I may. Just on the forward sales rates, obviously it's improved, you know, up over 20% on the sort of the last period. That's very encouraging. Some of your peers have been mentioning that, obviously, with the general election on the horizon, that they'd probably like to keep the sort of incentives on for a bit longer, to basically make sure you're covered for any hiatus. Is that something that you're thinking of doing as you go into the looking into selling into next year?
Yeah, so look, the very short answer would be yes, but it's important to that point I was making about being absolutely granular. So, we are seeing better demand, but that demand is uneven and there's absolutely no substitute for having your finger on the pulse of every region, every site, every customer. And that's why we're also doing the work with the sales teams. You know, this is. It's not meant to be easy. The point is that affordability is in a good place. The customers are there. Their confidence is growing. We just have to make sure that the profile of each plot is exactly right, so that, you know, and that's around local competition. It's around what's going on in the local area. Have we got it right?
There are sites where I know we haven't got it right and we're having to push harder. But there are sites whereby we are absolutely pushing the prices up and keeping those incentives very tight indeed. So as a general principle, yes, but there isn't really a general principle. It's part of the toolkit. We'll keep using the toolkit, but we will take the sweeties away as the market improves.
Okay. Just on land acquisitions, can you just talk about how you're finding the current land market in terms of your, you know, gross margin targets on acquisition?
Yeah, well, I've been saying this. It's, you know, I keep hearing that the land market is weak. And there are, you know. So, as I talked about with Gleeson Land, if you are I would it would be odious to mention names, but one of our mid-cap customers or regional customers, you might go, "Blimey, there's a chance for me to get this site because normally Barratt or Greg would have whipped this away before I even got to the numbers." And so you have got that dynamic, but it's not to the extent that, in my view, land prices are any softer than they've been.
So then, Mark's team, Gleeson Homes, when we're if we are not up early and sharpening our pencil, we'll get laughed out of court with the bid we put in. I mean, it is tight. It is competitive. And so there is no kind of weakness. There's no 2008 weakness in the land market at all. And I think, you know, that's been a consistent feature throughout this supposed downturn.
Finally, could you just give us a feel for current, sort of like-for-like, materials pricing? Because I've one of some of your peers recently been saying that that's sort of gone from inflation to flat to deflation. What's your experience on that? Thank you.
So the answer, Mark, is really, as I said in the presentation, it is so mixed that I would have to go through, almost, line by line, to give you the answer. So we are, as I say, in the first half, overall, materials probably a bit lower. But that would be, you know, timber pulling it down, bricks desperately trying not to move, and anything that's got cement in it is still pushing pretty damn hard upwards. So a very mixed picture. But overall, as I say, it's not a disastrous picture by any means. 1.3%, you know, let's not be getting too excited about that. It's much more about what we can do to control our own costs.
And I am really pleased with the work that our procurement guys are doing and with this better compliance throughout the regions to our group deals. That's where we can really smarten our own performance.
Great.
Oh, Greg. Morning.
Morning. Could you just talk a bit about how customer demographics are changing and the success of the broader marketing strategy? And then just on partnerships, obviously it's early days, but with the intention to put a sort of medium-term target on that business in the next 12 months and what sort of scale do you think that could get to?
Interesting. So, customer demographics, Stefan may have stats to give you on that. Probably too early to say, well, yeah, because we sort of started rolling this out in about October. So too early to say, oh, this is exactly what's happened as a result. But as I think I said in September, that we'd noticed a wider demographic coming to us. So the change in the marketing was more about not discouraging any particular type of customer.
So it would be disingenuous for me to sit here now and say, yeah, and you know, we've got 20% of over 55s because Mandy changed the marketing and branding. We were starting to see that shift, and that's why we've put in place the wider marketing. Do I think that it will play an important role for us over the next three and five years? Absolutely, I do. But I don't want to pretend that I can point to that as I sit here this morning. I don't know whether you've got any specific comments on that.
Yeah. So actually, we're seeing a little bit of a change. In some areas, a swing back. So you'll remember we were previously 80% first-time buyers. Four out of five customers were first-time buyers and had been for years. And then, post-Truss Kwarteng, we started to see that reduced shortly before September 2022, but then it really really fell significantly to below 50%. In the last six months, we've seen for reservations, that's ticked up to about 55% first-time buyers. So we're seeing a slow recovery, if you like, in first-time buyers. We don't expect and are not aiming to get back to 80%. That's not what we want to do. We, as Graham said, we've widened our marketing proposition. We welcome all buyers, not just young low-income first-time buyers. So, the average age or indeed the median age, actually, we've seen that continue to go up.
So again, a few years ago, it was 29 was the median age. You know, pretty young for first-time buyers. That has been ticking up, over the last three years. For the reservations in the last six months, they're getting quite old. They're now 34 years old. So we're seeing some change, and it's a, if you like, it's reflecting that widening of the demographic.
Stefan's just shown off pretending that he still thinks 34's old.
Yeah.
On your question on partnerships, too early, Greg, for me to be saying I think the proportion is going to be X and Y because obviously, A, we're new into this, and it will depend on the nature of the partners. And say we're having some very interesting conversations. It'll depend on the nature of the partners. And dare I say as well, we're about to go into potential significant political change post-election. So I think that whole framework, the whole marketplace could see a different disposition, if you like.
So it would be foolish of me to say, all right, I'm I'm expecting it to be this by then. As we start to realize some of the, you know, some of these current negotiations into transactions, I will I will try to be more helpful. But what I would say is I absolutely since we've started to explore it, I'm absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do, and I do see it being, as I said, additive to our growth, not cannibalizing our business, but an important part of our growth. Steve.
Sorry. I'm sorry. Come back to you. Hi. Steve Rawlinson from Applied Value. Two two questions from me. One, you've described the plot costs. Could you just delve into a for one minute or two whether that plot cost equals actually creating a ready-made plot? In other words, are your infrastructure costs, remediation costs higher than what you'd expect them to be having come from a number of other house builders, or are they just on a par with the other house builders so that we can get an identification of what it gets to how much it's costing you to get an oven-ready plot ready, you know, done? Have you got higher remediation costs, etc.? The second one is with regard to brownfield.
Obviously, part of what was said on Sunday in the Sunday Times was in and around deflecting from annoying people in the Green Belt in the southeast of England. All the pictures in what you've said and done today seem to be on sites in the countryside. We were doing quite a lot of brownfield sites. Is it a deliberate switch away from that I've not seen in the data lately, or are you still doing the sites like the one we saw a few years ago in Toxteth? Because quite a lot of the pictures there show green, what looked like to be greenfield sites, plus seem to be a lot of Irish names as well. We'll come back to that. I don't know why it's Erin Court in Dublin and Kildare, but there may be a story behind that as well. But I don't think that's necessarily material.
But around your ability in brownfield and actually your actual pros plot costs to get to a ready, oven-ready site.
So I'll defer to Stefan on those plot costs, but if you ask me specifically, is it low? Our plot costs are lower than I am used to in a Vistry environment because we build in lower-value locations deliberately, as you know, you've known us for a long time. That is what we do. So genuinely, our land costs are lower. But I'll let Stefan give you that, if you like, the sort of arithmetic on that number. To your second point, absolutely, we're not changing where we go.
I think what's interesting, and I can see Mandy in the back row there, I might have a word and just say come because we obviously put the prettiest plots on the screen, but we could show you Central Middlesbrough. So, absolutely, brownfield is what we do every day of the week. Of course, if you go to somewhere like Petersmiths Park, that is, you know, that is as Ollerton is as deprived as it gets. But actually, just because you're in Ollerton, you know, where the miners' strike played out in its full ferocity, nonetheless, there are fields there, and that site looks absolutely gorgeous. But we are about regenerating local areas, areas of deprivation, and brownfield is definitely an opportunity for us. So we welcome any enhancement of the ability to develop on brownfield.
Of course, we do. Yeah, I don't want to get back into what's been said in the press recently, but no change. We are not migrating to Surrey anytime soon.
Graham, a lot of the housing things that they're doing, even though the footage looks nice and green and lush, they're normally on the edges of mining settlements and, if you like, regeneration areas. And under that nice green turf is littered with voids and caverns and ex-mining bits that they're grouting and turning over and having plenty of remediation done to them. So pictures aside, there are pure brownfield. There are Gleeson Brown. And then there is some green just because of the locations we're building in particularly.
Yeah.
It's a really interesting debate, actually. Do we build on brownfield sites? Do we build in areas of deprivation, or do we build for low-income buyers? And actually, it's that last metric that's the most important one. So there's a lot of deprivation in the countryside. So what has happened, actually, over the last few years, we were maybe 75%, if not 80%, brownfield. We are slightly lower proportion brownfield. Still majority brownfield. Slightly lower proportion. But that reflects that we're now buying sites and building homes in areas of deprivation in Cumbria, where there's not an awful lot of brownfield sites, or in Lincolnshire, where there's not an awful lot of brownfield sites. So it, I wouldn't get too hung up on the brownfield. We are buying land, building homes in areas where low-income buyers can afford to buy them. And we have an acid test on a site.
When Graham and I review sites and make a decision whether to bid and what to bid, we have a single acid test. And that is, can a couple working full-time afford to buy a home on a meaningful number of homes on that site, even if they're only earning the National Living Wage?
Can we just get back to that plot cost issue? Obviously, Mark mentioned filling in holes where there used to be coal and there isn't anymore. Is that costing you more than your rivals? That's where I'm trying to get to, is the oven-ready cost of plots.
So yes. So the answer is yes because we're still building on sites that have more remediation requirements on average than most other house builders. Yeah, absolutely. So we have a very, very significantly lower land cost per plot, and we do have higher abnormals.
Yeah, absolutely.
[audio distortion ] . So sort of quite overlapped with Greg's. Has the improvement in sales rate has that been driven by any particular demographic? Has it been first-time buyers or older older generations coming back and downsizing? Sort of essentially asking, is is the first-time buyer back? And then secondly, in terms of partnerships, do you would you develop out existing land, using a partnership strategy, or would it be part of a broader land acquisition strategy to build a, you know, using the Vistry example, 65% forward sold, 35% the rest?
Okay. So on the sales rate so you refer specifically to the sales rate improvements over the five weeks. Probably too early to give you a stat on any, you know, fundamental shift in buyers. It is across the board. But as Stefan said, we are seeing, if you like, that the first-time buyer is waking up again. That proportion is picking up, and that's obviously welcome. I suspect that is across the market, and that's obviously great for the whole market. But probably too early to give you trends in that five weeks and question how, you know, whether they would be reliable. Partnerships is interesting. So, well, you can approach it in that there are various ways of approaching structuring a partnership transaction.
So we have sites in the portfolio now in that 89 sites that Stefan was referring to that, you know, we that we have under control, that we're saying we're already challenging the teams and saying, well, could we bring that forward more expeditiously by introducing a partner because that is now a, you know, a new string to our bow. And you would take so the site that I put on the screen earlier, Spilsby, that was, you know, we were assembling that site. Fantastic piece of work by the East Yorkshire team, long before we got up and said anything about partnerships. But does it offer a cracking opportunity for a partnership's development? Yes, it does. And but so we would consider both bringing in partners onto existing sites.
But equally, now that we are looking at this, yeah, absolutely, we will work with; we will look to acquire sites for that specific purpose. And in fact, I was having a conversation, just yesterday with one of the people that we've been talking to, and a name that you would know, and they said to us, you know, we obviously like the business. We like what we're looking at right now. But equally, where we'd like to get to with you, Gleeson, is that, you know, you're showing us sites before you've even bought them because, you know, we can then enhance the transaction itself. And obviously, that's a fantastic place to be because then you're optimizing the position for both parties. Oops. Sam.
Thanks. Morning. Morning. Sam Cullen for Peel Hunt. I've got two, if possible. Firstly, on the forward order book in homes, I think you've given a plot number. Is there anything you think you've given a plot number in the forward order book for homes? Is there anything you can give on ASPs or mix within that? I know you have some bulk in there, but is there anything we should be thinking about?
So we haven't published the ASP. It's quite a different bed mix, actually. It's quite a low bed mix. But that's not untypical for our forward order book. We tend to have a higher proportion of two-beds sell earlier than four-beds, so it's a lower ASP. I can't tell you off the top of my head what it is. But it's lower.
Okay. Thanks. The second one is on the medium-term guidance. Obviously, you're not going to tell us what medium-term means, but let's suppose it's five years from the time the fun starts of a normalized market. Yeah. Is that predicated on the planning system as it currently is or on a reversal to NPPF?
Great question. We will. That is not, so let me start again. We have to plan for bad planning. So as I always say, I don't like. I would not want to be characterized as me standing up telling you how difficult life is, you know, as a house builder because planning's really tough. You know, shut up, Graham. It's what you do, okay? So, no is the answer. I don't think we will achieve that medium-term target. We have to so it makes for another bump in the road.
That's why I can't say to you, right, it's great. We've taken the reins off and, you know, second half of FY 2025, we're going to have XD more sales outlets because we've got to, as someone else in the industry said, walk through some treacle, before we can get there. But no, we will manage that. We plan for difficult planning. I think my point about the NPPF is more a national point and looking out over five, seven, 10 years.
Okay. Thanks.
Yeah. Hi. Paul at Investec. That was the long-term question. I'll do the short-term question. Yeah. You've obviously taken planning, taking the election, taking that you want to be fully humming in 2026. What happens if you have a much better spring selling season? Does the business accelerate from there?
Right now?
Yeah. So we've got the spring selling season we're about to see. And once again, who knows?
Yeah.
But a materially better spring selling season means you have to bring quite a bit of that plan forward. So can you just discuss how that potentially happens?
Yeah. I mean, look, we're not holding any sales. But it's a question. And it's one that I think about in my idle moments because I'm kind of in the camp that it could be materially better. So look, that's only going to be good news for us if that improves our sales rate in the second half.
Probably what that might do, I mean, it's an interesting challenge for us because, and I'm already hearing, actually, out in the market that one or two of our peers are already just thinking twice about some bulk deals that they were doing. So it could change that mix, which would have a bit of a margin improvement. It would change our expectations for FY 2025. So, but other than that, I don't think it would change what we're doing strategically because we are already pushing our land teams like hell to get the planning and to get the sites open. So I think we've made that call, that, you know, we are moving into a stronger market.
Whether that shows in the sales rate in three weeks, three months, or nine months, we've made that call that that's where we need to be, certainly where we need to be by FY 2026. So hopefully that kind of answers the question. But it is an interesting one. I'd be surprised if we saw anything like the 0.89 sales rates that we were seeing kind of post-COVID. But you're right. You could go quite quickly to 0.6, dare I say even 0.7. Alastair?
Thank you. Three questions, please. First on, probably following in from the last question, you gave quite encouraging rise in reservation rates for the first five weeks, sorry. Can you give some sort of indication of the momentum there? Is it getting better per week, or it just started off, the period at that level and stayed there? So that's the first question. Then on Gleeson Land, you mentioned you're not always the highest bidder. When you're not, what sort of rivals are you losing to who are offering more? Is it about their size or their balance sheet or both that's the concern?
And finally, a bit more of a philosophical question. If Redrow disappears, on the back of Linden and Crest, there's now a massive gulf between number five slot, you know, with capacity to, you know, bear weight to capacity to build 12,000, 13,000, 14,000. You've got forget about Berkeley, but you've got Bloor at about 4,000. Then there's yourself and a whole rump of others at 2,000-3,000 as far as I can see. How will life be in that new environment where you've not got this industrial machine behind you that can deal with the planning complexities, higher material efficiency, buying power, and so on? What's life going to look like in that new 2,000-3,000 environment?
Good questions. So net res, no pattern at all. As I said, it's uneven. Some weeks better than others. Some regions better than others. Some sites better than others. It's stop-start. As I say, that's why we are being so granular. We are working the teams very hard. But I wouldn't want to pretend that it's, you know, in a straight line. I will ask Guy in a moment to give you a bit more color around that bidding process and other bidders in on Gleeson Land.
But let me just maybe pick up the third point. It's an interesting one. But what I would say is yes. So at, you know, 2,000 units, we're at the smaller end at the moment. As you know, we've got big ambitions. Critically, we're not an SME. So we are above that level where it really does where the features you described so a small number of sites, you know, lose one to nutrient neutrality, you're in trouble. Planning holds you up too long. You're up against your banking facilities. That's really difficult. And you know, there are builders out there now being throttled by the slow planning system. We know that. We're not in that space.
So at 2,000 units and hopefully, you know, quite soon, pushing up well beyond that, we're in a place whereby we can get strong group procurement deals. We are serious players in the land market. We can weather the odd storm. You know, sites get held up. We had one of our sites in homes go to appeal recently, a cracking site. And yet we just held up. We're not going to get on there as quickly. But it doesn't. We're big enough that we can wear all of that stuff. So I think, as a 2,000-unit player and as we grow, I don't see that there's going to be any sort of particular fracturing of the market that's going to impede us. I hope I'm not wrong, but that's how I would see it.
Guy, do you want to just talk about the bidding process and, you know, our disciplines and who you're losing to when you're losing and what's going on?
Can I just get some clarity of the question? Was it what sort of promoters are we losing to where we're not the highest on the commercial terms, Alastair?
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Are they bigger companies? So sorry. Are they smaller companies that have weaker balance sheets? Are they just don't deal with the landowners so much? I'm trying to figure it out.
Sure. Yeah. I mean, I think it's fair to say there's no that there isn't a pattern that I could sort of lean on to say this is the trend. Going back to the example at Chipping Norton, Graham alluded, I think, 25. There was actually 36 bids on that site.
I would say that is at the extreme end of the spectrum. I've never come across that before. But I think it's fair to say there is probably a good 10 or 15 bidders on any strategic land site where it's got, you know, potential. And of course, we would not be looking at it if we didn't think it had potential. Those are often then shortlisted down to four to five for interview and best-in-file offers. And those competitors are, I think, of varying sizes. As I say, there's no trend. But I do think what landowners are looking at, especially given how challenging the planning environment has been over the past 18 months, is Cullen, that partner, because it is a long-term relationship. We're typically signing up for five to 10 years.
Do they have confidence that that partner is going to be there at the end of that five- to 10-year period? So I think one of the you know, one of our strengths, one of the things we do say is obviously we are a PLC. We have a strong balance sheet. And a lot of those private promoters do not. So, you know, I see that as a great strength for us. But there's no real pattern. So.
Thanks, Guy. Oh, Mark Howson back in the ring.
Thanks. Just sticking with the theme of the day, obviously industry consolidation. I'm not going to ask whether you've had enough yet from Persimmon, but I also imagine you're more going to ask it too. I'm back to that theme of SMEs and, you know, finding it tough with planning and, you know, up on it with regards to banking. I mean, are you seeing any sort of these SMEs you know, could you see some of these small SME players as potential better land deals to actually buy these companies as a better as a land deal rather than actually, you know, in these in competition with these open-market sites? Could that be are you seeing some of these companies coming to you as potential opportunities?
Short answer, yes, we're seeing them. The other part is nothing that to date has presented us as an opportunity that we would like to look at. But, you know, you've known me long enough. We'll look at absolutely everything. And if an opportunity presented itself that made sense, well, why wouldn't we take advantage of that? But, nothing that we've seen to date.
I wouldn't say there's a huge number of SMEs flying across mine and Stefan's desk on a daily basis. But we are seeing a few. We would do it if it was worth it. We wouldn't overpay. I never have. Yeah, nothing at the moment, for sure. Adrian, we're going back around again.
Adrian from Panmure again. Slide 12, sorry, no, Slide 9 gives the detail, the breakdown of two, three, and four beds, split by percentages of total. It would appear from the sort of the mental maths that the number of two-bedders has stayed broadly stable. What has, but it's gone from 21%-26% of the total. Yeah. What's driven that? Is it site mix? Is it geography? Is it just coincidence? Or is it bulk deals?
So, it's a combination of things, actually. So you'll remember quite a few years ago, we changed our standard bed mix for planning applications and moved to slightly more four-beds than we previously were planning out and slightly fewer two-beds. That impact is still kicking in. I know that's kind of slightly going in a different direction, but that impact is still to feed through. Open-market buys at the moment, slight preference for lower-cost homes. So two-beds. So a slightly stronger preference there. The multi-unit agreements are predominantly two- and three-beds. So a handful of four-beds, small handful of four-beds. So it is that combination is having and that mix we expect the mix to be slightly richer in the second half and then, next year, possibly marginally richer again.
When I say richer, as in the average number of beds to be point some point naught something higher.
Very good. So we seem to be through in the room. And what about online, Rachel? Do we have?
Yes, we have a couple of questions from online. Our first question is from Harry from Berenberg. He says, "Do you expect any new housing policy pre-General Election, such as a relaunch of a rebranded Help to Buy?"
Well, it would be rash of me to expect anything. What I know is the case, Harry, is that politicians use the media to run a number of flags up the pole and see how many people salute. So I really don't like getting drawn into that discussion.
What I would say is we're not basing any plan, anything that we do or any predictions on any assistance from the politicians. Do I think you'll see Help to Buy? Well, it certainly wouldn't be called Help to Buy. Would I smile if they brought one out? Well, yes, I would, because, you know, obviously it would have an impact. You don't want my views here and now on some of the things we've seen. 99% mortgages, for instance, would be the wrong thing in my view. So, I'm not going to get into those idle predictions. But it wouldn't at all surprise me to see some sort of last-ditch attempt to become the party of house building.
And I don't want to get political on this because, you know, so we go to a Labour government and, you know, it will be there for them to prove what they can do. At the moment, everybody's claiming what they're going to do. We just have to get on and do what we do, as well as we can. And I think we're making a decent fist of it.
Thank you. And that leads on to the second question that Harry has asked from Berenberg. He said, "Secondly, what do you think a potential future Labour government would need to do if it is serious about making a material increase to midterm housing output?"
Again, well, I've been pretty clear. I think they need to do what they said and reverse that change to the NPPF, which will become increasingly impactful if left as it stands today. Over time, that will reduce the numbers of housing being built. And that the numbers of homes required tells you that number needs to go up. However you estimate the target, we are running below it. And critically, we're running below the required supply of affordable homes. So, if you ask me philosophically what should a new government look at, they should certainly reverse the change to the NPPF. And I would be supportive of increasing the focus and the grants available for affordable homes and support for the private rented sector, as well.
Thank you, Graham. That's everything from the webcast.
Great. Many thanks. Well, as always, thanks very much for coming to see us.