Morning, everyone. Welcome to the call, and thank you for taking the time to join this morning at short notice.

For those that don't know me, I am Adam Daniels, the Chief Executive of Vistry. I took over in that role on 13th of April, but have been with the organisation through the last decade, which is allowing me to work at pace in assessing the business and chart a course for us as we move forwards.

As such, alongside a run-through of the trading statement we have released this morning, I would like to give you some early thoughts and conclusions on the CEO review. will then open the line for a short Q&A session, to which I am joined this morning by Tim Lawlor, our CFO.

Since taking the role, I have been continually reassured by the fundamental strength and quality of the business. Despite clear market headwinds and external uncertainty, alongside consistent external focus on the business, our core KPIs remain extremely strong and robust.

We are operating at scale across the country, delivering over 6,000 homes in the first half, with more than half of them being affordable. We continue to deliver with great quality, including retaining our highly talented people, delivering strong customer service scores, obtaining very good partner feedback, and maintaining an excellent health and safety performance.

Alongside this, we continue to build industry-leading relationships with our partners, and great relationships with our suppliers and subcontractors. What I have observed during the first 3 months in this role is the business that is absolutely capable of delivering the capital-light, cash-generative, and profitable outcomes that were expected when we moved across to the partnership strategy, with large areas of the business performing well and generating the returns we would expect.

That said, it is clear that we have taken some missteps during that time, which we are appraising and addressing through my CEO review, to ensure we do more of the things that makes us a great business and less of the things that currently hold us back. As a group, we are completely committed to the partnership strategy.

As we were clear about in May, the greatest near-term focus has been on taking action that will reduce our debt. I am fundamentally of the view that if we are going to deliver the outcomes we expect from this model, we need to operate with a much lower average net debt than we have in previous years, and I am very pleased with the progress we are making in that regard.

We have been decisive and effective in taking actions to free up capital from inventory, land, and other initiatives. The extent of this has been significant and has had a clear impact on the first-half profit, but will have an equally significant positive impact on reducing debt in the coming weeks as these convert into cash.

I am also very confident that the refocus on this point and a change in behaviours within the group will deliver sustainable improvement beyond 2026. One of my main takeaways in the early time of my tenure is that too often our capital outflow has become too detached from our capital inflows, which leaves the business exposed to excess cash consumption in periods of market weakness.

We have built ahead of our sales rate and therefore increased WIP, which we are now working hard to reduce, and have purchased land that we had hoped to conclude deals on that have not yet transpired. Ensuring that we more closely align these positions as we move forward will ensure we deliver a less capital-intensive business.

Our initial initiatives to date have included pricing actions on slower-moving stock, reducing our exposure to higher ASPs, reducing the amount of private WIP, and targeted reductions in our landbank. These initiatives are well progressed, which positions the business to achieve a significant improvement in profitability in H2, as well as a stronger cash position.

Turning to the H1 outcome, the group expects to deliver a modest profit before taxation of £20 million, excluding the impact of specific actions taken to reduce debt levels and any actions related to CEO review. Cash-generation actions resulted in an adverse impact of circa £50 million in H1, including land impairments on low- or nil-margin sites.

Including the impact of these cash actions, but before the impact of any action relating to CEO review, the group expects to deliver a first-half loss before tax of approximately £30 million. As expected, indebtedness was behind the prior year in H1 due to higher land expenditure and lower volumes of part transactions.

We have also actively sought to normalise period-end working capital, including payment timescales to our suppliers and subcontractors, and as such the group's net debt at 30th of June was £470 million, and average daily net debt in H1 was £799 million. Within this figure, land creditors are expected to have reduced by over £100 million during the first half, reflecting a focus to reduce the overall leverage of the business.

The majority of the cash benefits from the actions being taken will be felt in H2 due to the lag between the action and cash realisation. We expect to deliver a significant reduction in average net debt levels in the second half, and a cash position at full year in excess of £100 million.

I will talk a little now about the CEO review, that we are partway through ahead of a wider update on the 24th of September. We have made good progress with the review, albeit, clearly, there are a number of things still to conclude and so we won't be able to give all of the detail today.

We are moving at pace, and while I am excited to deliver the results of that review in September, my early view is that there is a significant opportunity to deliver a more focused Vistry, with improved profitability, a stronger balance sheet, higher returns on capital, and more consistent delivery. As I've said, the partnership strategy is the right one for the business, but can be delivered more effectively and sustainably in a number of areas.

These encompass our operational delivery and capital efficiency, together with a firmer commercial approach. Firstly, under operational delivery, we know there is significant variance in profitability and return on capital across our regions.

I believe there is a sizeable opportunity for moving to a more focused footprint, allowing us to optimise profitability and improve operational execution. We have done some of this work already, which has proved successful, and have allowed us to put our high-quality people in positions to best support the success of the business.

This will ensure that future development activity is focused on specific sites and relationships that are best suited to our business model. It was encouraging that we have already been able to implement an annualised overhead saving of £25 million, and I believe there is more to do as the CEO review progresses.

Secondly, on capital efficiency, I see three sizeable buckets of opportunity which will contribute to a net cash position through the second half and beyond. On our landbank, we will reshape and reduce land to better align our land ownership with our differentiated partnerships model, which will allow us to generate significant cash opportunities and improve margins by developing more of the mixed-tenure, focused sites that we do best.

Albeit the land market is subdued for larger sites, there remains a strong market appetite for smaller parcels of land that is well progressed in planning, of which we have plenty. I am of the view that our owned landbank is too large, and we need to reduce this in order to lighten the balance sheet, and we will want more land sitting controlled as we move forward, we can better manage the interrelationship between outflow and inflow, as I mentioned earlier.

We started 2026 with some £600 million of unsold private stock, either wholly owned or in JV, which is fundamentally too high for a business of our size, and we have a clear focus on reducing it and maintaining a lower WIP position for the long term to permanently reduce debt requirements. The actions we have taken have already reduced this number by half, with around £190 million of this reduction still to flow into the business during H2.

Furthermore, we have substantially exited our part-exchange portfolio, which historically locked up around £50 million of our capital at any one time. An element of this £50 million upside was secured in H1, with the balance to follow during Q3.

We will continue to offer alternative sales products to ensure we maintain our sales rates while reducing our debt position. Finally, on commercial approach, I believe among other things, we can optimise our returns through refining the mix of our business with smaller, more affordable private houses, better suited to our mixed-tenure sites.

Going forward, there will be greater flexibility on the mix of private sales on each site, and we will flex the model regionally, buying sites in the right locations best suited to our partnerships model. Hopefully this just gives you a flavour of some of the workstreams under the review.

There is an immense amount of work going on. We are treating 2026 as a transition year to reposition the business to operate with significantly lower financial leverage and healthy profitability going forwards.

Turning now to trading. After a positive start to the year, it has been well documented that open market conditions deteriorated in the second quarter, reflecting increased uncertainty and lower customer confidence triggered by the Middle East conflict.

While the outcomes of SAHP for individual RP have remained uncertain in H1, demand levels have therefore remained constrained. That said, we have, encouragingly, been able to complete a number of transactions across the country, where the terms meet our commercial requirements.

In addition, we are seeing our partners preparing for the award of grant later this year by looking at their development pipelines, and continue in detailed discussions with many partners as to how to support their delivery moving forwards. We therefore believe the near-term prospects for the partner market remain very attractive, and registered providers demand should be stimulated by the completion of the grant allocation under the Strategic Affordable Housing Programme in September.

We continue to operate in a challenging trading and uncertain political environment. However, we expect the decisive cash actions taken so far this year and those yet to be taken during the rest of the year, the expected improving partner-funded transaction activity and higher volumes, to result in a materially improved H2 performance.

As a result, the board expects adjusted profit before tax for FY 2026 will be in line with the current market consensus of circa £200 million. This forecast excludes any impact from the ongoing CEO review, the findings of which will be detailed on 24th of September in the half-year results.

Finally, before I open for Q&A, I would just like to say a few words regarding this morning's news about Tim's departure. We are sad to see Tim go, but Tim has decided to move on to work for a private company outside of the PLC environment.

I would like to thank Tim for all his significant contribution to Vistry during his tenure of over 4 years. He has played an important role in the integration of Vistry and Countryside and the transition to partnerships strategy.

He is around until October, and so will support the balance of the CEO review and will finalise the interim results, I'm sure we can keep him busy during that time. I personally thank Tim for his support since my appointment.

I feel that we have made some very good progress in a short time, and I know that whoever succeeds Tim will take on a business in the right shape to deliver moving forwards. We have started the search for a replacement, which will be an external appointment, to add the relevant experience to the role and the executive and be best placed in order to support me into the future, and we will update further on this in due course.

To close, Vistry remains a high-quality business. We are taking important steps now to enable more consistent performance in the future, but the long-term value of the business is undeniable.

The demand for housing in this country is growing by the day. The long-term supply deficit has been growing, not declining, over the last year, and the fundamental undersupply of housing is evident and at the forefront of the national consciousness: 1.3 million people on a housing waiting list, over 175,000 children in temporary accommodation and many more adults, and a private housing market that has a huge desire to buy, but needs a more supportive market backdrop to do so.

These are all clear indicators of the opportunity that lies ahead. We will ensure over the coming months that we are well placed to play our part in the delivery of that housing for customers and partners alike.

Operator, back to you, please, to take the Q&A. Thank you.

All right. Thanks very much.

Good morning. Two for me.

Just wondered if you could give a bit more detail around the kind of nature of the possible one-off impacts on the strategic review. Is it land asset write-downs, changing accounting policies?

What should we expect in terms of what's driving those one-off impacts? Then the second question, just on the banks.

I don't think I ever saw anything in the statement just regarding kind of how the banks see things, yeah, how you see the risk around banking covenants and maybe a bit more color and context around there. That would be great.

Thanks.

Hi, Aynsley, it's Tim here. Good morning, everybody.

I'll take those two questions. In terms of the content of the CEO review and the impacts, it could come in multiple areas, and don't want to be too specific at this stage of exactly what those impacts will be.

It's to say they could be some as we review some site strategies, that might mean that we need to look at the margins of those sites going forward, particularly if we're accelerating or taking a different sales strategy on those sites. There'll be some margin impacts, potentially some landbank impacts if we are changing the mix on sites.

There could also be some costs around the restructuring as we look at how we might organise differently. Then as you say, there could be some accounting policy tweaks.

I don't think anything too substantial, but just some reviews on accounting policies to ensure that we've got accounting that best aligns with the commercial behaviours that we're trying to drive out of the business. That's probably all we can say at this stage, and we'll give full detail on that with our results in September.

On the second question, on the banks, we've got really positive relationships with the banks. We met all of the banks in our banking syndicate over the course of the last couple of months.

They're very supportive, of course, wanting to stay close to the business. We're keeping them close to all of our developments and we'll keep them very closely aligned as we go through the CEO review process.

In terms of our future plans, we are talking with them about what we might do about the refinancing or otherwise of our £900 million of facilities. They're not due until April 2028, and we've got options about either a full refinancing or amending and extending by a year to give us more time.

Various options under consideration, but at the moment, generally the banking discussions are all very positive.

Sorry, just one follow up if I could on that. In terms of the kind of potential impact from the CEO review, and if H2 trading's a bit weaker than hoped for, what's the risk of a breach of banking covenants?

Is that a high risk, or something you're fairly comfortable that you can avoid?

I think the first thing is that we've got significant headroom. The covenants that is most of interest there is our interest cover ratio, where we've got significant profit headroom, probably over £100 million of profit headroom based on our latest forecasts.

Then the interest cover ratio is based on adjusted EBITDA, it excludes exceptional and non-recurring items. We need to work through during the course of the summer the nature of those CEO review adjustments, but we'd expect that the sizeable one-off adjustments would be considered non-recurring or exceptional, would fall outside the covenants.

Again, we'll work through with the banks to make sure, and the auditors, to make sure that we are monitoring that as we go. No expectations of a covenant breach as a result of any CEO review actions.

Very helpful. Thank you very much.

Morning. Cognizant of time, just one question.

You committed to the partnership strategy. What gives you the confidence that that actually is the right strategy?

Within that, you talked in your statement about large areas making good returns. What are those areas?

Are they regional? Are they certain site mixes?

Is it regeneration rather than greenfield? What are the elements that are making good returns, where you think actually the business should be focusing in on?

Thank you, Glynis. Thank you.

We've done a lot of work since the 13th of April. We started the review, we've got some external help in doing that, and that's allowed us to review in detail a very large number of sites across the group.

What gives me confidence in the strategy is that a large proportion of those sites are delivering returns in line with our expectations that we've previously talked about. That gives me good strong reassurance that as those schemes are delivering those returns, we can do that across a wider footprint if we change some behaviours and we change some decisions as we move forwards.

The returns where we've seen the strong returns are focused in for a number of different reasons. There is some regional differences.

There's some regional differences, particularly as the market has been subdued. The north and Midlands has performed more strongly than those sites further south, there is some regional difference in some of that performance.

I think a lot of it is down to site mix and the execution of the types of sites that we buy, the mix of which we put on those sites, and therefore the delivery that those sites return. I think it's a combined picture between geography and site mix that is differentiator between successful sites that fit our partnerships model and perhaps those that have been less successful.

Just to follow up. What sites have been more successful?

Is it the ones that have more additionality, more forward sold? Is it ones that have more private?

Is that the difference between what's successful and what isn't?

No, I think as we review the mixed positions, the variability of the mix is one determining factor. Another factor, for example, is how we've paid for the land.

If we've paid for a lot of land upfront, and then we've traded through the scheme, clearly those sites tie up more capital and deliver lower returns on capital. That will be another element of a site being performing and underperforming.

I don't think it's as simple as saying that it's all about the mix or it's all about the geography. The partnerships model is sophisticated, and you have to execute it in a sophisticated way.

In large, the sites that have performed better have been a mix in line with our previous assumptions, around 30% to 40% of private, with the balance being additionality. They've been in locations that support private sales and additionality, and they've been areas where we've been able to pay for the land alongside our capital inflows, with more closely kept together those capital outflows, capital inflows that I mentioned earlier.

There's some themes that I think where it's working better. I wouldn't say there's a determining factor between regen and greenfield, I wouldn't say there's a determining factor that you could describe for all, but they're some of the themes that mean that we can see the best-performing sites versus the poor-performing sites.

The other point I made in what I said earlier is where we focused on lower ASPs, more affordable private housing, sit alongside our mixed-tenure products, that has worked better than when we have focused on higher ASPs, I think that is a theme that will continue.

Thank you.

Sorry, it was on mute. Schoolboy error.

Morning, everyone. Just wanted to ask on the capital structure and whether you think there's any justification for Vistry running a more levered position than the traditional house builders, given we have seen quite a lot of volatility in recent years?

That's one. The second one is whether you think there'll be any diseconomies of scale on build as you slow the business down, given that was one of the reasons put forward by your predecessor, how you were getting better build rates than peers?

Thank you very much.

I'll pick up the second question first, Chris, if that's okay. Just on scale of build, that's a more of a site-by-site benefit than it is a more wide benefit.

Clearly, the overall volume supports the business, but no matter what the volume, we're still a business of scale, we're still going to be able to drive those better returns by having that scale across the business. The benefit of the pace and scale is on a site-by-site basis.

If I give you an example of a 400-unit scheme, we presell 60% of that scheme, over half, 200-odd plots. When we are talking to our supply chain, our subcontractors, and making that site efficient, we are be able to concentrate on building those plots at pace alongside the element of private, which is a very different approach to a standard housebuilding site.

The efficiencies you gain from going at pace in that way, the pricing of the supply chain, the pricing of the subcontractors, the leanness of the prelims, etc., is on a site-by-site basis, not just on a sort of national what your volumes are. We'll continue with those sort of focuses and we'll continue to deliver that presold at pace, which gives us a good element of efficiency.

Tim, I don't know if you want to pick up the first question, please?

Sure. Capital structure is one of the things that we're looking at as part of the CEO review process, from which we want to understand what our balance sheet options are.

For now, I think we can clearly state that we're looking to reduce our average daily debt, but it's premature to be talking about exactly what that level is, we'll give more information in September. To avoid ducking the question, to give you a sense on I guess our thinking, the first is that with our partnerships model, we should have greater certainty of income, and we should also once we have a stable platform and set to go forward, we should have more visibility and confidence in our cash flow profile during the course of the year.

Our focus is going to be very much on the average debt, or the debt profile during the course of the year rather than the traditional view of what we've got levered at December 31st and June 30th. I think what that means is the partnerships model should allow for greater leverage than traditional housebuilders, where there's greater uncertainty over these income streams and there's more volatility in the market.

We'll also need to look at the cost of debt. We need to look at the appetite of lenders to lend to us for the business that Adam will lay out at the end of September.

Summary to all of that is, I think we can be more levered than the traditional housebuilder, but the precise level of leverage that we're aiming for is too early to articulate at this stage.

Got you. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Morning, both. Got a couple of questions just for me as well.

Adam, on the SAHP program and the timing of that, obviously we're going to have a new face in Number 10, and he certainly seems to be talking about a bigger focus on social rent. Are you worried that there could be a delay in terms of allocations and consequently, projects being sort of signed up to by the registered providers over the balance of this year and that it kicks into '27 at all?

That was the first. The second one was really around incentive levels.

You've obviously pushed very hard to move some of that slow-moving stock. Do you think you've now got to a point where those incentive levels across the group start to drift lower?

Thank you, Clyde. Thank you both.

On SAHP, the SAHP being worked through is well progressed. They've had their bids in, they've done some clarification work, and then they're working through quarter three to confirm to partners the values that they get and and when that will arrive, which is due to happen in September.

The noise we continue to hear is that they're on track for that date in September, and I think we've got to understand that the RPs have made progress already on readying for that funding. They've got their pipeline ready, and they've started to do some of the groundwork.

It would be a very, very big shift if suddenly, we moved completely away from that. Is there a chance that the balance of that SAHP, maybe some of the future funding is reshaped because of perhaps a move towards more social rent?

Who knows. A lot of what is to come is unknown.

We've not seen any policy, we've not seen any sort of definitives, we've seen some opinions and some views. My opinion at the moment is that the timescale is tracking to the September date that we previously anticipated, and that's what we hope will happen during quarter three.

I think that's where we are on SAHP. We're certainly seeing the sort of noise and movement from the partners getting ready for that date, in any case, in my view.

On incentive levels, yeah, pretty strong in the first half. We expect to see them winding down through the second half.

Clearly, the market conditions are underwhelming, we will have to continue to keep that under review, but the expectation is that that will wind down through the second half and become more normalised.

Great. Thanks very much.

Morning. Peter, it's Seda Ekblom at Morgan Stanley.

Just two questions. First, I just wanted to ask around what the business might look like in the future.

While I appreciate we get more details in September, when I read the statements, land purchases and selling land, would it be fair to assume we are probably looking at a lower capital employed position, but with a lower margin if private units are a much smaller part of the business? Potentially a higher return on capital, but on a much smaller book value?

Maybe in other words, Vistry is a much smaller business in future, but more profitable business? Then the second question is just around to get from net debt to around £100 million of net cash, you've talked about some of those levers, could you help us understand perhaps the expected contribution from each lever, we can better assess the execution risk around the different mechanisms?

Thank you.

Thank you. I'll take first question and probably pass to Tim for the second question.

Just on what it might look like in the future, I wouldn't use the words "much smaller business," etc. I think there is a chance you're looking at a leaner, smaller, more efficient business as we move forwards.

Clearly, we'd want to finally conclude all that during quarter three. In relation to margin, I still think private sales is a big, core part of the business and core part of that mixed-tenure model.

I think the challenge is we want to try and make that private sales more reliable, a shift or a focus on smaller ASPs, more affordable private product, will make that private element of our business more reliable as we move forward, which will support returns. I don't think it'll be an offset of driving for more ROCE at a less profit.

I think we'll be looking to improve returns by focusing in the areas that we do best, but I think that a more efficient business as we move forward is probably one of the end goals. On cash bridge, Tim, pass over to you, please?

Okay. Hey.

I think there's three chunks, really, the drivers from the half-year net debt of 470 to over 100 million of cash at year end. The first is that we're expecting a highly profitable second half of the year, which will be cash generative.

The second part is the WIP release. We talked in the update about how we have significantly reduced the unsold private homes WIP, and a lot of that cash comes through in the second half of the year, it's sold in the first half, but it completes in the second half, so that's part of the cash story.

We'll be looking at other areas of WIP as well in the second half of the year. Then the third is the wind-down of the landbank.

The reduced spend on land will take another couple of hundred million out of land in the second half of the year, slightly offset by the fact that we do expect our land creditors to continue to come down in the second half of the year. Actually we're expecting land creditors to be over £150 million down at the half year within that, and we're expecting a further £100 million reduction in the second half of the year.

The combination of those three sort of similarly weighted numbers: land, WIP, and profit are the key drivers of that cash improvement.

Thanks. Maybe just a quick follow up in terms of maybe just a guide on future kind of private versus affordable mix, what that would look like?

I think, again, we wouldn't want to commit to a percentage at this stage. If in a mixed-tenure model that we're looking for, you try to presell more than half of what you build, the flexibility beyond that is there to be used.

What I would want to create is a more flexible delivery model that, depending on market conditions, geographic locations, consumer confidence, you flex the balance of the private depending on where you are. Perhaps in some areas we'll be targeting being more like 50%, and in some areas we'll reduce the risk, to take less private.

I think it's trying to balance the private delivery versus the risk profile, but I wouldn't want to commit to an overall percentage at this stage, but I will be doing that when we get to September. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Morning. Two questions for me.

Would you be able to give some numbers in terms of how many people have exited the business in terms of head count? The second one is in terms of your expected cash contribution into joint venture structures, do you envisage that will change going forward, and/or do you envisage that joint venture commitments will mean that the cash commitment from Vistry will remain broadly unchanged on a like-for-like basis?

Thank you. Sorry, I'll take the first question.

We didn't quite hear the second question, I'll ask you to repeat that in a minute if that's okay, apologies. On the first question, less than 5% of the business applied, and so therefore less than 5% of the business that will sort of leave under that process.

That's been a successful process. It's worked well with the teams to ensure that those people who perhaps wanted to depart can do so, while we've been able to retain all of our highly talented staff that we wanted to.

Less than 5% of the business through VES, and a successful outcome and a round in line with our expectations. Sorry, if you could repeat the second question, we'll take that.

No problems. The cash contribution that Vistry make into the joint ventures, do you envisage that on a like-for-like basis, that cash contribution will stay the same, or do you see an opportunity for less cash to be put into those joint ventures going forward?

Adrian, why don't I have a go at that? I think the commercial models for the business are part of the CEO review.

Again, to avoid dodging the question, putting it out to September, I think JVs will continue to be a core part of the business. They work well for risk share, for capital share, and for access to land and perhaps other assets for us, they'll be a particular share.

I think it's unlikely that we're going to define a particular proportion of the business that we want to go into JVs, we want to leave our options open because we'll look at it on a case-by-case basis depending on the individual sites, the individual location. We do, though, in terms of the cash management, manage JVs in the same way that we really manage the wholly owned stuff, that we don't want cash to be sitting there redundant in bank accounts because it's trapped in JVs.

What we have are a series of complicated loans in and out to ensure that both ourselves and our partners don't have cash trapped in there and have unnecessary debt and drawings outside the JVs in order to fund JVs. We don't really see that JVs are a particular cash tie-up, but we'll continue to focus on ensuring that as we set new ones up, we don't allow that to become the case.

The other thing just to add to that, slightly from more operational point of view, in my opinion, we are an excellent JV partner. Got great access to land, got a great skill set in developing and building houses, and so we just want to make sure we're doing the right JVs that add value to the business because that's the value that we can add to the joint venture partner on the other side.

JV will remain a core part of the business, but we'll ensure we're doing the right JVs with the right partners for the right returns, bearing in mind the value that we can add into those relationships.

Thank you.

Thank you, just a couple, please. First, just in terms of the kind of H2 reliance, is there any way of pulling together what you require on the sales rate in the second half compared to that roughly 1 mark in the first?

Also related to the second half, could you confirm what you're budgeting for in the way of grant funding coming in that period? Then the second one was really just back around the balance sheet, and obviously we've talked about the various levers you're pulling today, but one that would obviously get you to where you need to be quicker would potentially be an equity raise.

I just wondered to what extent that is being considered as an option? Thanks.

On sales rate, we had a very good start to the year on sales rate, that's declined as we've gone through sort of quarter two really, following the Middle East conflict. Our second-half sales rate is lower than our average sales rate in H1, the requirement, because if you balance out a very good, strong start to sales rate in Q1 and a declining sales rate in Q2, the sales rate to go is less than what we've achieved so far year to date, albeit we still need a supportive private backdrop in order to deliver that.

We're not assuming a sort of huge pickup in conditions in order to achieve that sales rate in the to-go basis. On grant funding, the forecast assumes that the grant funding is announced and rolled out as per the previous plan set out through the SAHP.

We're just assuming that that happens in September. Clearly, we get an element of the grant funding ourselves, but that is not sort of all of the picture because the bigger picture is how much grant funding our partners get, we're just assuming that the grant funding flows out as per the previous announcements and is confirmed in September so that people can move on with spending it.

On your second question, on equity raise, no plans for an equity raise, something I think we can be clear on.

Thank you.

Hi. There's been a couple of reports that Homes England has imposed annual caps on project spending of the SAP.

I was just wondering if you could comment on the impact to the business and your partners there? Then second question, on land sales, what's the expectations for the full year, and could we expect this to increase in coming years just given that you're aiming to, I guess, decrease that capital employed in the business?

Okay. Just on the SAHP, during the period in which they were sort of analysing and querying the bids, Homes England went out to partners and requested some remodelling based on slightly different funding profile, which still questions unanswered.

We've had no confirmation as to whether they stick with the prior funding profile or the revised funding profile. In the revised funding profile, what it means generally for the partners and for us is that it takes slightly longer for that affordable housing to be delivered, still a very big injection in grant funding, but slightly extended period in which it's delivered over.

We haven't seen the outcome of whether they go with their first sort of assessment or their clarified assessment, that will be confirmed in the next 3 months. It still means that there'll be a big injection of funding into affordable housing, but in scenario two, it flows at a slightly slower rate.

In relation to land sales, we have heavily invested in land in the business in the last year or so, bought a lot of land in quarter four of last year, bought a lot of land in quarter one of this year. The advantage of that is we've got a lot of very high-quality land, which is good, and some of the land sales that we do are a core part of the business because we buy big sites and we section them off and sell a bit, etc.

Some of that is core part of the business. That said, there will be some additional land selling during H2 of this year and perhaps as we move into the first half of '27, focused on reshaping the landbank that I talked about earlier.

There will be some additional land selling outside of core business in H2 of this year, perhaps as we move forwards, with that end goal of having a smaller owned landbank but trying to control as much land as possible, just to keep that balance sheet as light as we can.

Can I just put some numbers around that, Rebecca? Last year we did £180 million of land sale revenue.

Previously, we would have expected this year to be slightly lower than that due to just the business as usual, the core stuff that Adam just talked about. I think now we would expect it to be slightly higher than the 180, but not massively so, as we go through some of the more strategic landbank actions in the second half of the year related to the CEO review.

Slightly higher than last year, but not massively so.

We've extended slightly just because we've started slightly late starting, just one more question if that's okay, please, and then we will close.

Morning, everyone. Thanks very much for squeezing me in.

I'll just do one question. Just some further breakout on the current period special item charge of £50 million, whether specifically that includes the price discounts that you've applied to housing, and you mentioned the delay between WIP and sales, lower land purchases, but that's just sort of seems like rather a timing issue than a sunk cost, just interested in some color there.

Thanks.

Hey, Lewis. Sorry, I didn't catch all the second part.

The first part of the question I got, I think, which is asking about the £50 million of cash recovery actions. That's the impact, yes, primarily of the discounting, also some asset sales where we've taken a different view in order to accelerate cash, there's been some impairment there.

That's the £50 million recorded in the first half. In the second half, it'll be a lower number, but there will still inevitably be some impacts related to the cash recovery in the second half as well, but that's factored into the guidance that we've given for the full-year profit.

Do you want to try again just with the second part of the question about the WIP? I didn't quite catch that.

Just sort of when you said about the special item charge, you mentioned that's relating to cash initiatives and you mentioned in the release that there is a delay between WIP and sales and lower land purchases, but that just seems rather a timing issue, you will sort of get that money eventually. Just to see whether that's

recorded in

the special item charge then.

The £50 million £50 million includes some profit impacts where the profit impacts us in the first half of the year, adverse profit impacts in the first half of the year, but the beneficial cash of that is largely in the second half, particularly in the third quarter. This is, as you say, it's a timing issue.

Great. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you very much, everyone.

Thank you for joining. Have a good day.

Thank you.