Welcome to MJ Gleeson's annual results presentation for the year to June 2026. I've hotfooted it here from my Radio 4 Breakfast Show, which I hope you're all listening.

It was very exciting, because Mark actually got me to go to the studio. I sat there with Nick and Justin and my headphones, all very exciting.

Then, even more excitingly, following on from me, Johnny Marr walks in! There was me and Johnny recognizing two aging rock stars.

The best bit was the text from my great old friend Andrew Duxbury, who said, "What a classic BBC link to go from the housing market to The Smiths, because heaven knows we're all bloody miserable now." It is certainly not the most propitious of economic backdrops against which to be presenting our results.

On the other hand, I'm actually really pleased and really excited with the changes and the improvements that we've made in Gleeson Homes this year. We can only affect what we can affect, but I will talk to you about that this morning.

There's a bit to get through, please bear with me. I think, with the market and with the changes we've made, it's worth sharing that with you.

I'll try and take it at some pace, but bear with me. I characterize the outturn as a robust performance against a challenging backdrop.

That was underpinned by good performance from Gleeson Homes selling 10% more homes than the previous year. The net reservation rate was poor at 0.51, nobody's writing home about that.

That figure was augmented by our first partnerships completions. Of course, that's a journey we began about two, 2.5 years ago.

Great work by the team to actually get those first scores chalked on the board. We will be looking to build on that.

We also did have some bulk sales as well, about 300 units. That was at an average discount of just under 16%, which is actually not bad.

Nobody likes being forced into bulk sales, but I think the relatively low numbers that we're looking to put in that market, and also the work that Scott and the team put in to get after that early, so that we're doing our business through the year in smaller quantities, rather than getting caught in the period-end carnage and some of the egregious discounts that we read about. Site openings, a bit disappointing, still constrained by slow planning.

I will talk about that. As I said, we have completed that operational restructure, and I'll give you some detail on that.

Gleeson Land's year was really defined by the slippage of the single large sale that we've talked to you about. I'll update you on that this morning.

There were two other smaller sales which we'd hoped to complete in June, and they really ran into the developer caution that we're all well aware of, that you're reading about in all the majors' statements. Happily, both of those sales are expected to proceed in the current year, one to the same buyer and one to a different buyer.

All is not lost in that market. We have, a strong business, we have a great portfolio.

When we're taking our high-quality sites to market, we are still seeing good interest. Very happy that we strengthened our pipeline even further with some 13 new promotion agreements and submitting 18 planning applications.

Blimey, eyes there. That's, as I say, strengthening the pipeline, which we're very pleased with.

Pleased that we also maintained our strong balance sheet with negligible net debt at the period end and continuing low land creditors. It really was a year of intense business improvement activity in Gleeson Homes.

It's been hard work. I do want to recognize up front the response and the support we've had from the team.

They've shown real resilience. They've embraced that change.

Happily, in the people survey that we completed just in the last few weeks, our engagement score, which was already strong last year, actually improved over the year and improved against the benchmark. That's a real tribute to the team, a real and a strong thank you from me to the team and to the leaders that have led them through that.

Very pleased with that. We've absolutely restructured Gleeson Homes.

We've massively strengthened our leadership team. We've changed process.

We've significantly reformed our land-buying process. We've rationalized the portfolio, and I'll give you some detail on all of that.

Very pleased that we successfully completed the transition to the new for us, NHBC, HBF customer scoring system. You shouldn't underestimate the achievement that was for the team, particularly against the rest of the change we were bringing through.

The quality of the product is still good, but it's a very different way of collecting the data and a lot of different things for the team to concentrate on. In calendar '25, which was our first year under that system, we achieved what I would class as a satisfactory four-star outcome.

That is quite an achievement with that transition. Obviously, what we want to be, what we need to be is five-star.

We're not settling for anything less. In the current year, which is calendar FY '26, we are currently trading at five-star.

Of course, there are a lot of surveys to pass under the bridge before that's closed out. We've grasped the nettle on legacy site adoptions.

I'll give you a little bit of detail on that. Now, looking forward, with Transform complete, we are looking at how we can continue to improve, and we're proactively looking at our marketing engagement, product, brand, etc., and I'll talk to you a little bit about that.

We're also looking to build on our success in partnerships, which is particularly timely given the government's recent recommitment to that mode of delivery. How are we seeing that market in Gleeson Homes?

Subdued, it definitely is. It definitely is.

I've picked out three reasons here. Rightmove tell us continually and have been telling us for many months now that the total available for properties for sale in the UK, in England, remains very high, an 11 or 12-year high, and that is clearly absorbing a lot of the demand.

Mortgage rates are increasing and likely to go higher. The cost-of-living challenges rearing their head again.

We're already seeing it in fuel and energy, and widely expected that we're going to get some sort of spike in food inflation. That's a particular worry for Gleeson customers at the lower end of the income band, as you've heard me say before.

The bulk market is active, but pricing, as I've alluded to, is very keen. Partnership opportunities, we are seeing them.

It's a competitive marketplace, but we were really pleased to see the recent announcement of the Strategic Partner funding, and the phone has started to ring off the back of that. Excited for what we can achieve there.

Selling price inflation, it is anemic. We got a bit last year.

Currently, Stefan's done a bit of an exercise. It's a low sample size, but we currently think we're running at about 1% annualized, which is very poor.

Obviously, the bigger story is around incentives. Happily, incentives still average just below 5% last year.

We are keeping that fairly tight. In fact, Scott and I find ourselves in the place of kicking them and saying push the incentives a bit harder.

It's a balance. As I say, we achieve what we achieve at sub-5% incentives.

Build cost inflation continues to go forward. We saw about 4.5% over the year.

It's currently running, we think, at about 3% to 4%. We are, because the market is weak, we're able to resist the more aggressive requests for 7%, 8%, 9% increases, but there's a residual level, let's say, we think about 3% to 4%, below which we won't be able to resist.

Sadly, difficult for us to rebuild margins into that environment. Current trading, well, it's on the slide, really poor.

August was very weak, 0.44 in the 9 weeks to last weekend. We've seen a bit of a tentative pickup.

You'd expect that once people come back from their holidays. The last couple of weeks have been better than that 0.44.

We do need it to be better again. Who knows how well that holds as we run into increasing mortgage interest rates and now the looming budget.

At that point, I'm going to hand you over to Stefan to run through the numbers, and then I'll come back and talk about the good things we've been up to in homes and land. Stefan.

Okay. Thank you, Graham.

As Graham said, the year to June '26, it was a robust performance by the group. We grew revenue by 12.1% to £410 million, but we did deliver lower group operating profit.

That was principally due to two things. The significant site delays in Gleeson Land, with one particularly large site sale, and margin compression in Gleeson Homes.

I'll take you through the divisional performance on the next few slides, just to highlight a couple of group items here. Group overheads reduced by £0.5 million.

That was due to tight cost controls, lower remuneration, and the unwind of a legacy construction provision. Interest costs increased by £1.7 million to £5.2 million, and that was due to higher average borrowings, higher interest costs on those borrowings, and also higher discounting charges under IFRS 9 for long-term payables.

As a result, group adjusted PBT reduced to £10.8 million, and adjusted earnings per share were 14.1 pence. Turning to the divisional results.

Gleeson Homes' volumes increased by almost 10% to 1,968 homes. That was driven by the 320 homes that we sold to partners, our first full year of partnership delivery.

That represented about 16% of total volume. We increased the number of homes that we sold to multi-unit buyers.

That was 301 homes, about 15% of volume. Selling prices were up 3.8%, and that was driven by 3.0% increase in underlying selling prices, a stronger house type and regional mix with a higher average number of beds, and that was partly offset by the impact of the lower prices that you get from selling to multi-unit buyers.

Now, incentives remained high. They were about 4.8% of open-market selling prices.

Including two land sales during the year, Gleeson Homes Gleeson Homes, totaling £4.4 million, Gleeson Homes' revenue was up almost 15% to £400 million. Now, gross profit increased by 3.3% to £74.5 million, but the margin benefit from higher volume and higher selling prices was significantly mitigated by those lower gross margins.

On other income, you'll notice there, we introduced our own part-exchange program in the second half of the year, and that's been very successful. We were break-even, and that helped deliver 58 additional sales during the year.

Now, we continued to improve overhead efficiency. Whilst cost increased by £4.5 million, which was a 9% increase that compares to a 15% increase in turnover.

Those cost increases, that was driven by pay increases, the full-year impact of higher National Insurance rates, increased IT spend, and higher recruitment costs. As a percentage of revenue, overhead costs fell by 80 basis points to 13.6%.

Operating margins were 140 basis points lower at 5.0%, and really that was driven by three things: significant build cost inflation, which is running at 4.5%, exceeded underlying selling price increases on reservations during the year, which were 2.2%, and the increase in multi-unit sales, which chipped away at margin. Now, we were able to mitigate about a third of that impact through overhead efficiencies.

Now, just touching on the exceptional items. We recognized £13.6 million worth of exceptional items in the year.

Those are listed out in the appendices, but just to set them out briefly here. £2 million comes from the cash costs from the restructuring activities during the year, in particular restructuring of Greater Manchester, Merseyside region, and the East Yorkshire region.

£4.5 million non-cash impairment from the impairment of 12 conditionally purchased sites and one owned site that we haven't developed, we won't develop, we will be selling, but we expect to sell at a loss to the purchase cost. Then £7.1 million, which is a provision we've booked for the legacy site adoption costs that we expect to incur over the next 3 to 4 years.

That's on 81 legacy sites, and those legacy sites date back, some of them, 10 years. Looking at the forward order book.

Despite a weaker market, we maintained our forward order book. In fact, it was up three plots.

Open-market orders were flat, exactly the same as last year at 402 forward orders. The eight additional partnership agreements we signed during the year increased our forward order books at the end of the year, and that offset a reduced multi-unit forward order book.

Now, turning to Gleeson Land. The division recorded five site sales during the year.

As we've said, three sales were delayed to this year, one of those particularly material. Those five site sales generated £4.8 million of gross profit, and we booked additional provisions against the portfolio of £1.4 million, meaning that we reported £3.4 million of gross profit for the year.

Overheads were in line with last year's overheads at £4.1 million. As a result, that division reported a loss for the year of £700,000.

Now, looking at the balance sheet. Inventories increased by £35.4 million year-on-year.

That was largely driven by three items. Build WIP in Gleeson Homes that was £18.8 million higher due to build cost inflation and some significant infrastructure investment on some large sites.

We have £7.1 million of part-exchange assets on the balance sheet, within the limit that we internally had set ourselves. That's some 46 properties that we own and that contributed to completions, particularly in June of the year.

We're quite confident that those, like in the first half, will continue to be sold at profits that mean that our part-exchange activity remains break-even. Gleeson Land inventories increased by £8.3 million, and that reflects the cost of securing those 13 additional promotion agreements during the year, significant spend on planning applications.

We had a very strong year in submitting planning applications. Also the lower charge to cost of sales for the site sales that didn't happen during the year, the ones that were delayed.

Land creditors remained low at £15.5 million. Other liabilities increased by £36.7 million, and there are a number of reasons for that: £7.1 million legacy site adoptions provision being one of them; we did have higher accruals, about £11 million; trade payables were £17 million higher, reflecting the timing of payments and, in particular, a very busy June build activity.

Now, with net assets of approximately £300 million and net borrowings of only £2.6 million and low land creditors, we continue to focus on the strength of our balance sheet. Forgive me, I think I skipped a slide a little prematurely there.

Just on cash flow. The group generated £16.9 million of operating cash flow.

That was entirely driven in Gleeson Homes, £22 million of operating cash flow in Gleeson Homes, offsetting a small outflow in Gleeson Land, essentially driven by the delay to those land sales and the cash flows on group overhead costs. Cash interest increased by £1.1 million, that reflects the higher borrowings and higher interest costs.

CapEx was £2.3 million higher. That reflects quite low spend in the previous 2 years, but also a step-up in investments in show homes, sales arenas, compounds, and equipment on site.

Now, to the dividend. We are proposing a final dividend of 1 pence per share, that is reduced on last year's final dividend.

That brings to 5p the total dividend for the year, which the board believes is prudent in this less certain market environment, and is consistent with our determination to maintain a strong balance sheet, and is also more in line with our dividend cover policy, which is that earnings will cover dividends by between three times and five times. A 5p total dividend for the year will be covered 2.8 times, close.

Thank you very much, and I shall hand you back to Graham.

Thanks, Stefan. Okay.

Operations and strategy, looking first at Gleeson Homes, then. A couple of minutes on on Project Transform.

It's we we have done a huge amount of work on this. We've signifi- significantly strengthened the leadership in the team.

As Scott joined us as divisional chair on the 1st of July last year. Scott is now responsible for running the whole of of of the Gleeson Homes business.

As you're aware, we've restructured into four principal operating regions. We have three new regional managing directors supporting Scott, two two of those are experienced external hires, one's an internal promotion.

We've made multiple experienced recruitments at regional and divisional director level. It really is a strengthened team.

This is really about moving away from that overly centralized, overly dependent structure that that was we had in in the group before, that really isn't effective at for a volume homebuilder. What we've done then is to empower our regions so that those guys are very much owners of their owners of their budgets, owners of their profit and loss account.

They have the ability to to make decisions, to be entrepreneurial in the in their local environment, quite clearly remaining very short reporting line to Scott, who's who's very close with with all of them, and they're working to very clear targets, KPIs, and and reporting, regular reporting, etc. We've also reinvigorated, but clarified, the role of our group central functions, which are at absolutely vital.

We've we've slightly reduced the center, but as I say, reinvigorated it. The role of those guys, they're sort of functional leaders, and their role is providing expertise and setting the standards by which our regions operate.

That's how we maintain control, that's how we maintain quality. Significantly improving the integration between center and and and the regions.

We've completely reformed our land buying. We've moved land buying away from a centrally controlled operation and and embedded that in the regions.

The critical thing there is that the regional management teams, you're getting full buy-in to every bid at bid stage. Before, as I say, it was it was too too centrally directed.

We've also refocused, importantly refocused, our land buyers onto areas of more chimney pot areas, as we call them, more densely populated areas, suburban areas, reversing that trend, that drift that we'd that the group had seen, I think, over the past 5 or 6 years into buying frankly too many rural and coastal in too many rural and coastal locations. We've sharp- definitely sharpened that that focus.

We've also strengthened the process around our land our land buying. We're setting We've been much more specific on our requirements on on the appraisal, on layouts, on planning the the actual development itself, and on planning our con- our our completion and exit.

That's all about really sharpening the technical control of the land bidding and buying process. That's aimed at mitigating that kind of dissipating, disappointing situation whereby you commit to the site at at one at one margin, by the time you're bring- bringing it to commencement budget, the margin's dropped, and then it drops again through development.

That's just not something that we can that's not that's not a way for for the business to to prosper. Very pleased with what we've achieved in in in in land buying.

We've also taken the as as you're aware, we've rationalized the regions, as I mentioned, into four principal regions. We've taken the set the opportunity to rationalize the land portfolio as as well.

We're walking away from about 13 sites in in the Northwest and on the East Coast of Yorkshire that just no longer fit with our criteria or or or our or our hurdle rates. A a huge amount of work.

That really is a very short summary of of of what of what we've done. I'm convinced that the business is in is in much better shape than it was when I stood here 12 months ago, and I'm convinced I'm excited for how we can how we can take that forward.

It really that is really expediting that process that I've talked to you about before of changing Gleeson from an overly large small business into a into a well-controlled and efficient volume housebuilder. Legacy sites, I I talked to you briefly about this before, but this is basically an issue that frankly should have should have been dealt with before.

We you we're looking at something like 80 sites completed variously over the last 10 years, some one or two even even older than that, in parts of the country we don't even work in. These are sites where we haven't secured the adoption.

Why? Because in most cases, they require some sort of rectification.

I'll give you The most common example is actually where we've installed gravel drives, actually in line with our planning permission and meeting with regulations, but the highways engineers don't like them. Why?

Because the gravel spills onto the road, that means the road gets more damaged, they get has to be maintained more, costs them more, the highways engineer looks at you and says, "I can't adopt that. It's not not to standard."

We could have the fight. We've been advised it's not worth it.

We need to get on, get these roads into a state where they can be adopted. It's interesting, actually, just last week, the HBF has brought out our latest sort of protest on behalf of the industry, which is which is around the transparency and objectivity and the time taken to get roads roads adopted.

I thought, well, that's very very timely. We haven't I can't winge about it.

We've got to get on and and and deal with it. I'm not going to make the, "We can't kick the gravel down the road," joke.

That's going It's going to take us 3 or 4 years. We've hired kind of the best guy in the business, really, the an adoptions engineer to lead a small team.

It'll take us 3 or 4 years to deal with that. During the year, we were operating from an average of 67 build sites and and 56 sales outlets.

As we've said, that both of those will be slightly lower lower this year. Our prospective site numbers are frustratingly lower than I than I would like, and that's for three reasons.

One, the continuing challenge for slow planning. It's the same story.

The government, I think, is absolutely doing the right things at national policy level, but that is still that is not feeding through, for various reasons, that is not feeding through to pace and reliability of decisions at local level. Planning very much still an issue.

In addition, we've rationalized the portfolio, as I say. We have taken the proactive decision to walk away from from a number of sites that no longer fit our criteria.

The third thing is that, I suppose like others, and very I think very sensibly, we're managing our balance sheet. This is a a market where it pays us to be cautious.

We absolutely want to protect the integrity of the balance sheet. We're upping our our risk aversion, if you like, in the appraisals we're bringing through.

That's not to say we've stopped buying land. I've just talked to you about what we've done with that process, and we are still very much in the market, but we're being more cautious in in the approach we're taking.

Combining those those three reason- those three reasons, I our it our site opening profile is going to be slower than I would like, certainly this year and almost certainly into into FY '28. It is a difficult market, but we're absolutely convinced that there are there are things that we can do better.

It's vital that both in a weak market now and into any upturn, we're the best that we we can be. With the We've got the people and process fixed, I was talking to you I spoke about that just now, and I kind of see that as fixing fixing the factory.

What we're getting after now is the way we engage with the market, our product and our our customer experience. We're going to We're absolutely want to build on the success of our partnership strategy, and I'll talk about that in a moment.

I've talked about refocusing our land buying to make sure we're getting the right sites. Now, we're looking proactively and and at pace at our at our product, at our customer experience, and at our brand and brand brand perception.

This is we're trying to be absolutely rigorous, absolutely objective, and make this data-backed. We've got hand-picked teams from around the organization looking at each of those, each of those teams led by a member of the ELT.

We're actually using an AI data scrape of every piece of customer feedback that that we've had, because there's if you if you aggregate that, we'll pick up the themes and we'll pick up some good ideas, I'm absolutely convinced. We're also commissioning focus groups from our website users, both those who've gone on and bought a Gleeson home and those those who haven't, so that we're getting the best information that we can to combine with our own our own expertise.

Scott and the team, we've as I say, that strengthening has brought in a lot of experience as well from from elsewhere. On on product, we just we just want to make absolutely sure that we're delivering the product that our customers our customers want, our open-market customers.

We've also taken the decision to design a specific partnerships range. That and I think that's We're working on that right now, that should be available to us in in in the second half.

That's avoiding that compromise, because partners do have certain slightly different requirements for their for the units, they're looking for a long-term rental product, and it's always a compromise if you're trying to use the same units for the open market. No, we'll have a separate range, effectively making it easier for partners to select Gleeson to work with.

On the customer ex- customer experience, we're looking at that from right through from marketing through the the customer journey through sales and on also looking at the the way that we're providing after-sales service. We know that we can improve in in all of those areas.

Quite exciting to see those ideas coming coming through. On brand, we know what it is, you know what it is that we do, we build a high-quality product that's affordable to customers at the lower end of the income spectrum, but we get We listen, we get feedback, we bump into people in the market, we don't think people are very clear on that, particularly that point that we are we build a high-quality product.

It's really important that all of our stakeholders understand what it is we Gleeson does today. That includes the market, land agents, for instance, recruiters, prospective partners.

It includes our own people, that's absolute absolutely vital. Of course, critically, it includes our our customers.

It's vital that we're listening to what the market's telling us and that we're led by the customers we we serve. Yes, it is a difficult market, but there are absolutely things we we know we can do to improve our performance, and we're we're we're working hard at that.

Just to touch on partnerships. As I say, really pleasing to see those first units, first completions coming through.

For me, the pleasing thing, we we've established our credibility in in the partnership space now. Just pausing on that, that's not a that's not a gimme, that's not a no-brainer.

If you put yourself in the shoes it's not just a a question of turning up at the conference and putting up your stand and saying, "Come and sign here for deals." If you put yourself in the shoes of the the investor, he's got quite a bit of due due diligence to do on a on a so a new firm offering themselves as a development partner.

Who are these guys? Do can what's the quality of their product?

How will it stand up as a long-term rental product? Can they actually build at the pace and to the quality that I need?

Do Will they do what they say? Do Do I trust them?

All of that is you you have to build that. We ac- we accept that.

I'm really pleased that with those first completions and the feedback that we're receiving from our partners, I think we've established our credibility, and certainly that seems to be how how how it's playing for us. The market appetite is certainly continuing.

It was great to hear Matthew Pennycook at the conference in Liverpool last week absolutely endorsing that this mode of delivery is and will continue to be important for the UK home homebuilding market. As I say, encour- very very much encouraged by the announcements under the SAHP last week.

What we need to do now, what we're focused on, if you like, with is to evolve to the next generation of partnership deals. Coming back to that establishing your credibility, they might get to the point where they'll take the units from you, but will they trust you with the cash up front?

You need to prove a little bit more before they'll do that. The first deals that we did, effectively yes, you're sacrificing a bit of margin, but the the benefit and the only benefit we were getting was the did the diversifying our market risk.

It was a forward sale, you're certain that those 40 units are are going to go to that partner, tick, but they're paying them for you when you paying for them when you deliver them. We've now evolved that model, within that 320 units was our first 60-odd under the golden brick model.

Now, that's better, because that's when you're getting starting to get paid during the construction period. That you're then getting the benefit not just of the forward sale, but now it's starting to improve your return, because you're getting paid sooner.

The next evolution, where we'll really mature, is when we increase the proportion of forward funding, we start to work with partner cash at the infra- implementation of infrastructure, and you can you can immediately see that that starts to that starts to really sing from a return perspective. Of course, the the the absolute maturity is when they'll join you at the land acquisition point.

Pleased to see Those are the kinds of conversations we're now having and and and a real opportunity for us, and you can tell, I think, we're we're excited about the progress that we've that we've made in that area. Turning to Gleeson Land, then.

I'll start with the with the market market headwinds. No secrets here, but probably two elements that I would I would bring out.

Planning planning is constant story, isn't it? It's always something slightly different.

Following the the the specific that I'm referring to here, following the local elections, obviously, the the the biggest shift was away from Labour control, a number of authorities where Labour where it either moved away from Labour completely or it's moved to no overall control. What that does is creates a fracture between national policy and the local implementation of that policy.

They're no longer the committee less willing to embrace, because you've now reopened that that sort of democratic competition of, "I can win votes by resisting national planning policy," so not moving the local plan through in at pace or and trying to resist the NPPF direction on their numbers, or, for instance, resisting green belt, etc., etc., etc. The effect of that is that we're is that where we had previously hoped that we might get a committee decision, now there's a good chance that it'll be filibustered, we won't get the local decision.

What do we have to It doesn't mean we we can't get it, because in the end, 9 times out of 10, national policy will prevail, but it means you've got to go to appeal, it takes longer, and it's more and it's more expensive. That's the planning drag that I'm that I'm referring to.

The developer caution, I've mentioned it already, you're all well aware of that, all of the majors are are referring to it, and that is restricting appetite for some for some bids. I don't want to give you the impression that the market's dead, it's absolutely not.

As we have a high-quality portfolio, and when we put those sites out to the market, we're still getting good interest and we are seeing bids. The pricing is definitely modera- moderated a bit.

The technical due diligence process is being elongated, always will in a buyer's market. We're seeing a lot of bids conditional on registered provider partner participation, and that's all to do with the hiatus in the Section 106 market, and obviously people asking for deferred payment terms.

What's the impact on Gleeson Land? I've said not if, but when, and that really is that we are still seeing the demand, but the predicting the actual timing of completions is is difficult.

Just to touch on FY '26 was obviously the the biggest single impact was the deferral of the large deal, which I've talked about, and just 1 minute on that. We are that you shouldn't see this as, well, it's a big standoff and, the local authority just don't want this.

That's not not the situation we're we're in. We are working very very closely with the prospective buyer of the site and, actually, alongside the local authority and and and their advisors, but it is it's a massively complex technical resolution that we need.

The number of sort of open items gets ever smaller. I think I've said to you before, it's a bit like when you know when your phone updates and that and that bar goes across and you think, "Blimey, it must be finished now."

It's a bit like that with with this technical consent. We fully expect, I'm looking at Guy, that we will get that technical consent this calendar year, and that should trigger the well, that does trigger the terms in the option.

Remember, we sold an option to the buyer of the site in June '25. They've got about 6 to 8 weeks post that technical resolution to to exercise exercise that option.

I'm hopeful that we will I say get that technical resolution before for the year end. I've certainly learned more about roads, signs, drains, and what have you than I ever imagined I would need to learn about.

As as I've said, both planning and transactions are taking longer, and what that does, it it makes the effect for us sitting here scratching our heads is it makes the timing, calling the timing of completions even more difficult than than than normal in that business. It's just the way it's just the way it is.

As I stand here this morning, we've got over 9 9 months of the year still to go. We've been we go we do this regularly, we've been through every site, no reason to to say to you we're not going to make our numbers in Gleeson Land.

We're standing by the the numbers that you have, but it has to come with that heavy note of caution. Given that there, as I say, there is very much still a market, and having said what I've said about planning, the National Planning Policy Framework remains remains fav- favorable.

They have done the right things, and so we are working very hard to take to take advantage of that. Steam coming out of the the planning team, and they've got they did really well, that's a record number of applications, it's a small team.

That was a hell of a lot of work to get those 18 applications in. We've got 24 sites currently awaiting a decision, and as I say, all to all towards strengthening that portfolio.

To the same point, we were delighted to exchange some 15 new promotion agreements in the year, two of those conditional. Just to stress, that that absolutely does not come from relaxing our our standards.

In fact, in this market, we're probably pushing up our our our risk aversion, as you would expect, but this comes from the effectiveness of the the local team, the local structure that the guys put in place, that really has upped our upped our game, and also backed by our fantastic, market-leading data research and analysis team, which really does strengthen the bid and and and also strengthens our ability in to to get the planning permissions well in front of the local authority. Not relaxing our standards, we're still only bidding kind of well, we're rejecting 95% of the sites that we see that we're shown, they go straight in the bin.

Because of the quality of the team and and the data research, we are winning about a third of the bids that we actually make. Really pleased to see that portfolio strengthening.

In in terms of characterizing that, we are absolutely confident for the medium-term future of the of the Gleeson Land business, just have to put caution on the, what you're expecting in each 6-month period, as as we as we always do. Summary and and outlook.

We delivered a robust performance in in the year. Project Transform has overhauled Gleeson Homes into a much-improved business.

We've got a dual focus now on managing the business as efficiently as we can in in anticipation of that continuing subdued market, but we're pursuing a number of strategic initiatives to enhance our own performance and and and, so far as we can, mitigate that margin attrition. Gleeson Land continues to face a more cautious land market, the timing of land sales lacks visibil- the visibility we'd hope for, but the quality of the portfolio continues to attract strong interest.

The board ex- therefore expects to to deliver an overall result in 20 FY '27 in line with current market expectations. I'll read you the quote, because I think it's fair: "Following a year of intense activity implementing fundamental business change, we now have a homes business that's operationally much stronger and a land business well placed to meet the needs of developers for high-quality, consented sites.

With the focused and disciplined approach we're now taking, we're confident for the future prospects of the group." Thank you for bearing with me on that, and we'll now be pleased to take your questions.

Morning. Greg from Singer Capital Markets.

A few for me, please. Firstly, on the land rationalization, obviously you've moved away from 13 sites in the Northwest and Yorkshire.

Did you also do a wider land review in the other divisions? Or if not, is that likely to be extended this year?

No. In any year, we keep an eye on every site every month.

I think the total was about 25, about 25, but so 13 specifically in those two those two regions. To your question, we probably have walked away from more this year, a few more this year than we normally would, and that's as a consequence of the shifting into regional control and Scott's had an opportunity to give it a good comb.

Thanks. Then, on land, could you just talk about concentration within the numbers for this year?

Obviously you had one large land transaction delayed last year. Are there any larger deals in the numbers for the rest of the year?

There is one, it's not as large, but it's bigger than the average. Guys' gravy is always a bit lumpy, but...

Yeah. Then, lastly, just on partnerships, obviously you've made good progress last year on that strategy.

Can you talk about access to funding from affordable housing providers and how that's improved? Then, linked to that, with the dedicated products that you bring to market, is the intention to utilize that product in dedicated partnership sites, or will it be utilized alongside your open-market offering?

Great questions. The access to funding, that's the $64,000, isn't it?

The answer is, they took ages to announce the funding, the £39 billion, then they sat on that announcement, then they put out the statements sometime in the summer saying, "Oh, we just need people to push there. We can't spend it too soon.

All defense and what have you." Then last week, 3 weeks ago, they came out with the announcements of the Strategic Partner funding.

I can't say to you, and somebody asked me this earlier this morning, I can't say that I've got a check that's come out of the £39 billion, I can't, but it was only 3 weeks ago. What I can say is that we are receiving much enhanced and live interest from a good number of prospective partners both before the announcement and certainly since the announcement.

It's too soon, because you simply couldn't agree a deal and get the cash flowing. It's too soon to say are they actually going to get the folding stuff in their pocket and start handing it over to us.

I hope so. I think it would be very odd, very disingenuous to have that big announcement, but then still hold the funding back.

I can't confirm it. That visibility will come over the next few months.

On the partnerships range, the range of homes means that we can offer to partners, homes that absolutely work for them. We don't have to have the spec that they need.

The slight different aspect to your question is, will that be for dedicated partnership sites? In the main, no.

We wouldn't rule that out, and as I've said to you before, every deal is quite specific. You might do that in a particular area if you've got a cluster of sites.

The partner says, "I'd like all of that site," well, you might do that. We're not setting out to be partnership contractors, but it's all within the context of a relationship, if you see what I mean.

Thanks.

Sam.

Morning, it's Sam Cullen. Two for me as well, please.

On your point about the evolution of the partnerships business and moving towards more of a forward-funded model in time, what's the gestation period of that? Is that a 2, 3-year story, is that a 5-year story?

We're talking about it now, Sam, but I'd be a fool to say to you, "Right, I'm going to be announcing the first one by Christmas," but I might be. There are a couple where on existing sites we've got people talking to us.

Obviously, these conversations proceed over a number of months, and then they accelerate and they slow down. We have some deals in prospect.

I'll be honest with you. In July, I said to Scott, "Are you going to have anything I can announce in September?"

and he said, "Maybe." We haven't.

Will we by Christmas? Maybe.

There are deals being negotiated. Kind of goes to Greg's last question as well.

Would I be disappointed if I wasn't sitting here next year with a couple to tell you about? I'd be really disappointed.

Thanks. The second one, given your decision to protect the balance sheet and slow down net new openings, do you think the other kind of partner in this relationship is listening to what you're doing, in terms of the government?

Are they taking heed of what you are telling them?

Do I'd really like to think so. I don't know whether you're pulling me onto the point of a Help to Buy question there.

There's an onus on us to make the business the best that we can be, and we are absolutely on with that. The more specific request I would have of government would be stop adding your Section 106s into the viability challenge, and by that I am referring to building safety levy, and I am referring to the full implementation of Future Homes.

Both of those, it is still in their gift to alleviate that pressure, because you're just adding to viability pressures in an already viability-challenged market. That would be a specific request.

Whether or not they choose to put in place some form of buyer support is really a decision for them. What we're focused on is what we can do, because we think we can improve our sales rates with the work that we're doing.

I'm not going to manage to move a natural rate of 0.5 to 0.8 by polishing up my product, but I can certainly do better than I am.

Thanks.

Alastair.

Thank you. Alastair Stewart, Progressive.

A couple of questions, one on homes and one on land. On homes, you mentioned less activity in the coastal and country, rural settings, and more of a focus on urban.

What's the thinking behind that? I presume in coastal and country, you've probably got higher selling prices, but lower densities of potential buyers, and those buyers are probably more discretionary, whereas it might be different for urban.

That's question one. On the land business, you mentioned technical due diligence stretching out.

Is that a delaying tactic or is it preempting reductions in pricing from the buyers?

Okay. Taking the first one, then.

I don't want you to see this as Gleeson Homes turning away from what it does. If you step back and look at the portfolio that effectively Scott inherited, There's absolutely a place for less densely populated areas.

We have a good business in Cumbria. What had happened, for various reasons, I won't bore you with, there had been a drift, we had too high a concentration of those sites, which tend to sell slower for all the reasons that you've set out.

Also they're just less densely populated, they're just the pace, the churn in those markets is slower. We needed to rebalance to get back to some more chimney pot areas to have a good balance of faster-selling sites.

Not being picky, we're not going urban. It is definitely suburban.

I make that point because Gleeson doesn't do city center, and we won't. Definitely there are plenty of suburban areas where we need to rebuild our pipeline, and it's to get that right balance in the portfolio.

On the technical due diligence, well, all I would say is you would expect there to be an absolute level of technical due diligence, which every developer would do on every site they ever buy. The reality is it's a marketplace, and in a strong land market, you have to be damn quick and move.

Otherwise, the guy has trampled over you and bought the site already. In a weaker market, you can afford to take your time.

You can afford to say to a guy, "Look, here's my bid, but I need 6 weeks to look through all of this lot." Then in that 6 weeks, is he going to find something that's going to buy him another 3 months?

He will. That's the difference between a buyer's and a seller's market.

Specifically in sites that have been stretched because of the due diligence, have prices been going down, or are you standing your ground?

No. Price, as I said, prices have come off a bit, but they've come off a bit because people are forecasting a more difficult sales market.

They're not halving in value. They're just, they are taking the froth out of their selling price inflation expectations, and they're looking at the same cost inflation that Gleeson Homes is.

You're not seeing the hope value in their onward selling price expectations, which all feeds back to a lower land value. It's not capitulated.

I don't want you to think of that. Think of what were we saying, Guy?

5% to 10% 5% to 10% sort of off the bids that we would be getting. These are still good sites, if you come in with a 20% discount, someone's going to beat you.

Thanks.

Charlie.

Charlie Campbell, Stifel. Just two questions, both pretty quick, I think.

Your comments on sites, FY '27 into FY '28, you said it sort of continues into FY '28. Does that mean they get a fall again '28 against '27, or they stay at that lower '27 level in 20 '28, if you see what I mean?

If you throw the question...

Stefan, do you want to take that? I will caveat that we're still in the window.

FY '28 is not yet set in stone, be gentle with us on making forecasts for '28, but Stefan...

It's just to understand the wording, really.

Yeah.

Yeah. It perhaps could have been clearer.

It was intended to indicate that we expect to open the same number of sites as we close, roughly, and therefore we would anticipate the average number of sites we're selling on in FY '28 is the same as FY '27. As Graham says, that feels a long way away at the moment, but that's what we were intending to communicate.

Again, with the same caveat, I guess, thinking about the percentage of bulk and partnership units '27, '28, I think you're guiding us to the same sort of number. Partnerships is eventually 20, 16 now, it maybe drifts up a bit, is that the right way of thinking about that?

On partnerships, I would very much hope so. On bulk, I very much hope not, but I expect so.

If that makes sense. Bulk, nobody wants to do it, but yes, we are planning that there will be a level of bulk this year.

Yes, similar. Partnerships, we're looking to push that harder.

Yeah. Sorry, one other question.

In terms of mortgage rates, it looks as if mortgage rates probably have gone up again in the last month. What's the sort of sensitivity you're hearing from customers around mortgage rates at the moment?

Just trying to, yeah, figure that out and I'm

glad you asked that question, because it prompts me to remind everyone about the lack of a problem on affordability in the housing market in the North and Midlands, even at higher mortgage rates. The proportion of a first-time buyer's take-home pay that is spent on mortgage payments is the same now today at these current mortgage rates, if you were to borrow today, as it has averaged over the last 40 years.

There is no bubble in prices, there's no unaffordability problem. There's a confidence issue, and there's some challenges on deposits.

Back to the question. The slightly higher mortgage rates at the moment, in the appendices you'll see I always have a slide on what are the weekly mortgage payments compared to weekly rents, demonstrating that it is cheaper to buy than rent.

The impact actually is not that significant, it's about £3 a week in terms of additional mortgage costs to the costs in here. In terms of what we're seeing in cancellations and the reasons for cancellations, it's a mixture.

We're not really seeing mortgage costs or rate rises as an issue, not yet. That may well come, but we're not really seeing that at the moment.

All of that, I absolutely agree with and endorse. What you've heard me say before, my issue is less with the pounds per week and it's absolutely right, it's the conversation in the pub that hurts us.

Right now, that conversation is about mortgage rates have gone up and they're going up, and it's about food price inflation coming. I think at the moment the mood out there in market land is weakening because of the conversation, even if what Stefan says is true.

It's not what we're hearing, Scott, in the sales offices, is it? We've got no one sort of pulling out because of mortgage increases.

No.

Cancellation rates are pretty in line with where they've been previously, the slide that we showed was slightly less, we monitor cancellations every week in detail, and there's not so much noise about mortgage rates.

No.

There is some noise, but it's pretty balanced, I would say, in terms of the reasons as to why people are cancelling.

Yep. Yep.

Okay. I don't think there are any more questions in the room.

Tilly, do we have any questions online? No.

Sam, I thought you were going to ask a question then. There'd have been a row.

Very good. Thank you very much for bearing with us.

A lot of content there. Thanks for your time.

Great to see you all. I hope we manage to deliver on all of this.

Thank you.