Are You a Chicken or an Egg? The off-site manufacturing industry has a problem. It has plenty of friends, but nobody - yet - wants to be its best friend.&nbsp; The broader housebuilding industry now seems to acknowledge that modernisation is at hand. Poor quality, aired like dirty laundry across the popular press in 2017, has undermined the faith and trust that consumers put into new build homes. Talk of the 'new build discount' is particularly concerning should buyers increasingly prefer secondary stock that has been 'debugged' by first purchasers. The problems are certainly more systemic than anecdotal. The problems are certainly more systemic than anecdotal. 2017 will be remembered as a low point for the housebuilding industry&rsquo;s reputation, with build quality issues, safety standards and the leasehold scandal all hitting headlines over the year.&nbsp;&nbsp; Change is most certainly not for change's sake and it is not simply because Government wills it so.&nbsp; Change may be about a deeper commercial imperative to drive efficiencies. It may be about faster build times to secure an earlier income stream on IRR-driven models. Whatever the reason, it is overdue, it is coming - and that leaves us with the simple question of chicken, or egg? No Joke&nbsp;&nbsp; "Did you hear the one about the labour force that crossed the road? "Of course not; nobody was left on site to hear the punchline." If you weren't convinced by Farmer's eponymous Review, IPPR's recent missive brings home the labour force challenge. In short, we're stuffed. Skills training and apprenticeships have been pandered to for years and at a more basic level, as once contractor put to me recently 'construction just isn't sexy anymore.' Anymore - err, right.&nbsp; There are plenty of anecdotes around subcontractors walking off site to seek a higher bidder. Attracting the attention-span-of-butterflies millennials to the sector means a better offer has to be set out. Digital Construction must be at the middle of any solution. 2018 will see some disruptive forces at play with respect to off-site manufacturing. The innovators will battle cynicism and the fast followers will watch and wait. Legal &amp; General&rsquo;s long-awaited factory will come on-line, providing desperately needed depth and covenant strength to the off-site supply chain. It will also silence the naysayers who say the delays prove it&rsquo;s all just too hard.&nbsp; By year end there will be some sense of the emerging winners and losers and to be clear, it isn't always the first-mover advantage that reaps the best commercial rewards. To want to lead, it matters very much whether your organisation is already feeling the discomfort of cost inflation and volatility, or whether speed of delivery is even desirable.&nbsp; In the end, this is merely a debate about the leaders and laggards, not the direction of travel for our industry. Board-level conversations need to shift so that they focus on how to start, not whether it&rsquo;s a good idea. So the question in 2018 is simple; are you a chicken or an egg?

Are you a chicken or an egg?

thumbnail

neighborhood-watch-paddington

The off-site manufacturing industry has a problem. It has plenty of friends, but nobody - yet - wants to be its best friend.

Twitter

twitter

Facebook

facebook

LinkedIn

linkedin

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580216/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/are-you-a-chicken-or-an-egg.jpg

Bright Side of the Road Collectively, the social housing sector is at a crossroads.&nbsp; That may be an overused term, but particularly for the leading and largest RPs, it has never felt more apt.&nbsp; The choices we make over a relatively short period in the next few months could come to define both our relationship with government, our position in the home building market; and our long-term legacy for years to come.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Let&rsquo;s look at the signposts around us.&nbsp; Demand for our core product of social or affordable rented housing is rising &ndash; the population is growing, both in absolute terms and in terms of household formation; and the proportion of our population able to meet their housing needs in the private market, without subsidy, is shrinking as the cost of housing grows in real terms and as real wage growth fails to keep up.&nbsp; On average, there are 25 households on the waiting list for every affordable home the sector provides, with over 80 in some London boroughs.&nbsp; This is despite levels of government financial support in the form of grant over this period which have, at least in government&rsquo;s eyes, been generous (although we know that the total amount goes less far than it did as costs rise). At the same time, the total sector surplus has been rising year on year, to well over &pound;3bn.&nbsp; That is, of course, a good thing.&nbsp; But we have to be careful how that is viewed by politicians and customers.&nbsp; The customer base is widening as housing need creeps ever upwards through the layers of income.&nbsp; On any measure of affordability, average house prices as a multiple of earnings are too high; and therefore housing costs as a proportion of total household income are unsustainably high for many.&nbsp; The sector is meeting that challenge through diversification, as clearly shown by the rising contribution to the surplus made by sales.&nbsp; But more private sales and market renting bring a greater risk of a pro-cyclical financial performance in step with the housing market.&nbsp; Since the 2008 crash, the sector has been fortunate in riding a benign cycle of house prices.&nbsp; Moreover, at a crude level, there is some correlation between RPs&rsquo; asset values and house price inflation, as well as the trend in market rents.&nbsp; This is particularly true, of course, of values on the basis of MV-T which should have led over this period to greater debt capacity for many (subject to that borrowing being serviceable).&nbsp; The latest figures from the HCA certainly show that that appetite is there &ndash; additional borrowing requirements identified by RPs to the HCA total about &pound;25.8bn over the next five years (net &pound;13.8bn).&nbsp; Asset values of course have a huge role to play in supporting that increased borrowing. So those are the signposts; what about the choice of roads ahead?&nbsp; First, as far as asset values are concerned, the deregulatory measures introduced in April put a good deal of power in RPs&rsquo; own hands in terms of freedom around asset management decisions and thus the creation of helpful market evidence.&nbsp; As has been well publicised during the year, valuers are engaged with RICS and other stakeholders to change the definition of EUV-SH, to bring it back into line with recent legislation.&nbsp; That could lead to increases in EUV-SH valuations, whether in support of debt or on balance sheets, depending on RPs&rsquo; behaviour and the evidence this generates.&nbsp; I appreciate, however, that funders need to come to terms with those proposed changes and the scale of any resulting increases in valuation. But they should take confidence from the sector&rsquo;s zero-default track record; the relationship between EUV-SH values and market values with vacant possession; and the unchanging ethos which underpins their borrowers&rsquo; management and governance. But it is not just about asset values.&nbsp; It is also about RPs&rsquo; ability to service that debt and there are certainly some challenges in terms of operational risk on the road ahead.&nbsp; Chief amongst these are welfare reform and the impact of universal credit on cashflow; the ability to drive efficiencies out of the current wave of mergers; and rent policy beyond 2025. Moreover, the tragedy of Grenfell Tower in June must be recognised as a watershed moment for RPs, councils and government.&nbsp; If any good is to come from the dreadful loss of life, it will be in political recognition of the need for investment in buildings to minimise the chance of it ever happening again.&nbsp; But, for many RPs and councils, the necessary investment will divert cash from other areas of investment.&nbsp; It is right and proper that the money should be spent, but unless the budget brings unexpected largesse from Mr Hammond (this article was written before last week&rsquo;s budget), it will mean some hard choices for many RPs. And, if we can overcome all those challenges, we have still got to build the new homes we need.&nbsp; The significant challenges of an ageing and shrinking workforce, compounded by Brexit; and building cost inflation running at almost 4% pa, underlines the scale of the task.&nbsp; The number of planning applications going in, and approvals given, are on the rise but implementing them is not going to be easy.&nbsp; Embracing the opportunities of modular construction will certainly have its part to play.&nbsp; Despite all these challenges, government has given us almost all we asked for as a sector in partial deregulation (yet still with the security of strong regulation); CPI plus 1% is coming back; &pound;2 billion of additional support is on offer; and there is some strongly supportive rhetoric, combined with some of the more challenging policies being kicked into the long grass.&nbsp; As a sector, we must therefore seize the agenda government has set out for us and get on with building.&nbsp; If we do not show that we can do that quickly, on a sufficient scale, with sufficient ambition, government of any colour is not likely to allow us to dither long at the crossroads.

Bright side of the road

Collectively, the social housing sector is at a crossroads. That may be an overused term, but particularly for the leading and largest RPs, it has never felt more apt.

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580213/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/Bright_side_of_the_road.jpg

<div id="residentialcontent_0_LeftColumn"><div>November 2017The UK isn&rsquo;t building enough homes. This may have been a shocking statement 30 years ago, but today it has almost become a clich&eacute;. Naturally the problem is most acute in London, where there is a striking shortage of affordable homes. A number of different approaches have been adopted to alleviate the crisis, each with varying degrees of success. However, what we have seen recently is renewed political impetus, exemplified by Sadiq Khan&rsquo;s ambitious housing targets and willingness to intervene in the planning process to get projects moving. JLL, on the behalf of DTZ Investors, recently secured planning permission for a mixed-use development in Wandsworth. The scheme involves replacing a large Homebase store with 385 residential units, 35 per cent of which will be affordable, along with retail and leisure space. Originally, the project faced opposition from local action groups and residents. It was twice rejected at planning committee level, despite the planning officer&rsquo;s recommendation for approval. Eventually, the mayor of London stepped in to grant approval. Stripped of authority? As Mr Khan outlined in his recent event at City Hall, this development will improve housing provisions in Wandsworth, make better use of space and help improve transport links by contributing to the new entrance to Wandsworth Town station. However, without the intervention it would likely have been held up by local planners. For local planning committees, the reality is that denser housing and more affordable homes need to be built. Holding this rising tide back is not a tenable solution, as the end game may see a centralisation of planning decisions. Put simply, standing in the way of more houses could see local committees stripped of their authority. To capitalise on political momentum, the property industry and planning bodies need to work together to create projects that satisfy local communities while tackling wider housing problems. A clear and open discussion is vital to providing affordable homes and a satisfied community. However, denser housing does not need to mean the tower blocks of the 1960s. It can involve flats designed for sharing or a more innovative use of space. The height of a development itself should not be a deal-breaker, as new materials and approaches to design can significantly reduce the visual impact of large buildings. There are no sides The best approach for pushing these developments forward is to involve all stakeholders constructively. We should not consider property developers and planners as &lsquo;sides&rsquo;, but as partners. Developers and designers need to understand local sensibilities; engage with community groups in areas such as heritage, public services and businesses; and be willing to offer innovative solutions tailored to the community. Meanwhile, planning committees need to forego NIMBYism and work with a more open mind. Centralised planning decisions may carry a greater risk of unforeseen consequences. On the other hand, intractable local committees can cause gridlock in the planning process &ndash; with national repercussions. Ironically, it is this highly localised view of planning that ultimately hurts communities by precipitating national infrastructure and housing problems. The best planning committees balance the needs of their communities with the national interest by collaborating with developers. But Mr Khan&rsquo;s intervention may be a sign of things to come. The above blog was taken from Ashley Perry&rsquo;s regular column with Construction News.<div> </div></div></div>

Mayor Flexes His Muscles over Housing NIMBYism

Renewed political focus and ambitious housing targets from Sadiq Khan highlight the UK&rsquo;s ongoing issue of insufficient home building.

The UK isn&rsquo;t building enough homes. This may have been a shocking statement 30 years ago, but today it has almost become a clich&eacute;. However, what we have seen recently is renewed political impetus, exemplified by Sadiq Khan&rsquo;s ambitious housing targets and willingness to intervene in the planning process to get projects moving.

Mayor flexes his Muscles over housing NIMBYism

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580173/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/mayor_flexes_his_muscles.jpg

October 2017Buried deep in the Labour Manifesto - on Pg 86 in fact - was the casual mention of a desire to explore a Land Value Tax. Had the Conservatives run a more effective campaign, it might have got a better airing. As it was, well&hellip;Let me start by saying simply &lsquo;not a fan&rsquo;. The economics are pretty ropey, the practicalities are pretty hopeless, and there have already been 3 failed attempts to bring about some version of LVT during the 20th century. So, why waste time even talking about it?&nbsp;For one simple reason. It&rsquo;s a pretty good idea.An LVT &ndash; narrowly defined &ndash; is an annual tax on the value of the property. It can be more complicated but it doesn&rsquo;t have to be. Just let it sink in that the highest value properties would take the biggest hit. Then consider what that might mean for UK towns and cities.It will not have escaped some of you that LVT did indeed get noticed during and after the General Election. In fact, it got noticed quite some time ago by classical economists who treated land as a factor of production (alongside capital and labour). Because land is finite, theories developed (notably by Riccardo) about the unearned value &ndash; or economic rent &ndash; that landlords accrue through no effort of their own.&nbsp;That word &lsquo;unearned&rsquo; is indeed debatable, but let&rsquo;s assume that land value gains were through the na&iuml;ve good fortune of land ownership in the right place, in advance of the right time. Someone puts in a road, someone else builds a factory and hey presto, you won the land lottery. Unearned yes; unfair &ndash; a matter of perspective.The problem is neo-classicists &ndash; in short, the guys (and it was nearly all guys) that came next &ndash; decided land was basically capital and subsumed it within that category. That upset a few people, who feel land&rsquo;s indivisibility means it really does deserve its own category.&nbsp;When the classicists split land out, national economies were largely agrarian. But we moved on. We built factories and had a revolution; we then built modern capital formation structures - had another revolution - and out the other side came our services and manufacturing-oriented economy.&nbsp;The inconvenient truth for those looking to reintroduce this outdated economic concept is that land is now highly divisible (ie density), and the 4th industrial revolution (the digital one) may make it infinitely so.&nbsp;But this needn&rsquo;t be about economic theorems &ndash; lord knows that economists are hardly on a pedestal at the moment anyway &ndash; there is a far more practical take on all of this.LVT makes no sense to retrofit on the existing urban form. For all the reasons that we use to instil balanced and mixed communities in cities, LVT is a poison pill. Highest bidder taxation means you exacerbate the haves vs have not story in city centres, not the reverse. What happens to the social housing in Kensington &amp; Chelsea, the 3* tourist hotel just off Deansgate, the artist studio in walking distance of Princes Street. How do we drive regeneration in our weakest towns and cities if they are hammered by higher tax rates?Perhaps more importantly, the city centre land market &ndash; for the most part &ndash; already de-couples land ownership from occupation. Land value is determined by a multiple of rents, which means that the use of and benefit from public and neighbourly investment is priced into the costs of being there. Even in residential, London is already majority rented (social + private) and going ever further in that direction. LVT just doesn&rsquo;t make sense.The Land in the Bathtub I stated at the outset that I am not a fan of LVT, but I do support this initiative or at least the thinking behind value capture, although appreciate I am doing a great job of making that hard to believe. Let&rsquo;s realign.In the housing world, there is no one solution that will solve the problem. However, LVT could be a potential game-changer, or more generally the ability to properly capture the uplift in land value as a result of infrastructure investment for NEW development.&nbsp;Local authorities, newly aggressive property investors, should engage in land speculation. Of course, with control of planning and infrastructure investment, it isn&rsquo;t really speculation at all.&nbsp;Cue the new, new towns, urban extensions, &lsquo;garden&rsquo; villages. Whatever you want to call them &ndash; whatever they ultimately look like &ndash; transitioning from agrarian rents to something more as a result of driving new infrastructure into the site is going to create value. It is simply stupid not to capture that along the way.&nbsp;We need more development. We need lower land values to get there. Somewhere along the way, with high demand and scarce supply, strategic land investment became damn good business.&nbsp;It might be time to cut out the middle man.

The Problem with LVT (and Why I support it Anyway)

A Land Value Tax is proposed in Labour's manifesto, highlighting debates on effective tax policies and their impact on property markets.

Buried deep in the Labour Manifesto - on Pg 86 in fact - was the casual mention of a desire to explore a Land Value Tax. Had the Conservatives run a more effective campaign, it might have got a better airing. As it was, well&hellip;

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580191/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/the_problem_with_LVT.jpg

The government&rsquo;s announcement that increases in social housing rents will return to CPI plus 1% for a period of five years, after the current period of rent cuts ends in March 2020, is undoubtedly welcome.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, I think it falls short of government&rsquo;s claims &ldquo;to create a stable financial environment by setting a long term rent deal for Councils and Housing Associations in England&rdquo;.&nbsp;&nbsp;We need to remember that by the time this new regime is introduced, Registered Providers will have experienced four years of 1% rent cuts from April 2016.&nbsp; This means they have also foregone inflationary increases in those years so the actual loss is likely to have been closer to 3% or 4% per year.&nbsp; In fact following the recent release of the September CPI statistics, the difference at rent review in April next year is closer to 5%.&nbsp;The reasons for that policy are well understood and revolve around the reduction in housing benefit as well as encouraging operating efficiency; and the policy has undoubtedly done both.&nbsp;&nbsp; But, a return to CPI plus 1% for five years is going to do little more than restore RP&rsquo;s rent levels to where they were before the cuts were introduced.&nbsp; And five years does not amount to long term stability for businesses relying extensively on private finance and building social assets for the long term when both their business plans and financing arrangements are generally over 30 years.&nbsp;&nbsp; Moreover, returns from expensively built assets rented at well below market rates take far longer than five years before providing returns which justify the original investment; and therefore long term certainty is critical in terms of providing a stable platform for those investment decisions.&nbsp; There are many other sub-plots at work here, particularly around the vulnerability of supported housing schemes, where the vast majority of investment in new developments by RPs has been put on hold pending clarification of how the funding regime will work in relation to the LHA cap &ndash; so rekindling confidence sufficient to release that pent up investment is far more complex than five years of rent policy, particularly when belief in the government being as good as its word has been so badly dented by the sudden reversal of what should have been a 10-year certain rent policy of CPI plus 1% introduced in 2015.&nbsp;&nbsp; So I would give the government&rsquo;s announcement &ldquo;one cheer&rdquo;, which is to say it brings welcome relief and seven years of certainty in total, including the remaining years of cuts; but still leaves RPs and Councils expected to make long-term investment decisions off the back of short-term policy, the risks associated with which are exacerbated by the next general election due in 2022.&nbsp;&nbsp; The important point to note, from a valuation perspective, is that CPI plus 1% is already expressly assumed in all our valuations as a long-term rate of rental growth, so there is no immediate increase that will result, as would be the case if, for example, we had been assuming CPI flat.&nbsp; Leading valuers have concurred on this point since the rent cuts were introduced.&nbsp; Nevertheless, it will give us greater confidence in that judgement going forward and may therefore have some marginal beneficial impact on discount rates &ndash; but we certainly do not expect this to be material.&nbsp; It also remains to be seen whether, either at the end of this deal or even during it, the government opts for a two-tier system, offering CPI plus 1% rental growth to development partners who are meeting the government&rsquo;s agenda of delivering new homes; but CPI only (if that) for those who do not.&nbsp;

Will the recent announcement made by government announcing a return to CPI plus 1% make a noticeable difference?

The government's decision to link social housing rent increases to CPI plus 1% from March 2020 is a welcome change following a period of rent cuts.

The government&rsquo;s announcement that increases in social housing rents will return to CPI plus 1% for a period of five years, after the current period of rent cuts ends in March 2020, is undoubtedly welcome.

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580206/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/Will_the_recent_announcement_made_by_government_announcing_a_return_to_CPI_plus_1_make_a_noticeable_difference.jpg

Responding to the housing problem carries a new political imperative for Conservatives.&nbsp; &nbsp;It is hard to dispute the reception of Momentum by young people, but argument over the economic sense of Labour&rsquo;s housing announcements can be a moot point for those who have no capital, and therefore no stake in capitalism.&nbsp; Part of Labour&rsquo;s appeal is simply the offer of change.The Conservative response on this ongoing issue got off to a shaky start at the Party Conference in Manchester.&nbsp; Within a matter of hours, Theresa May&rsquo;s opening announcement of an additional &pound;10bn for Help to Buy was dismissed, with remarkable consensus, as "economic illiteracy" by the housing fringe.&nbsp; It was a demand side response to a chronic housing supply problem, which went down badly with everyone except the housebuilders, who enjoyed an immediate &pound;1bn boost to their market value.&nbsp; The follow up commitment to &pound;2bn for social housing, which is expected to deliver 5,000 more council homes a year, was swiftly criticised as inadequate, but represents a welcome start.Once the debates got underway, plenty of consensus did emerge.&nbsp; The industry made a clear call for policy decisions that offer certainty and continuity and Alok Sharma MP, the new Housing and Planning Minister, pledged his commitment to delivering the content of the White Paper and diversifying the delivery of new homes.&nbsp;There was strong acknowledgement that public private partnerships are part of the solution. The challenge of housing delivery is recognised as bigger and more urgent than the capabilities of either the state or the private sector alone.&nbsp; The Minister made it clear he wanted to see the development of more public sector land, the private sector to deliver more high-quality homes to market and both to benefit from the collaboration.&nbsp;The Minister indicated his support for the diversification of housing tenures and encouragement of institutional investment into the provision of high quality PRS units.&nbsp; The Minister also reiterated the Government&rsquo;s support for SME developers and their importance in solving the housing crisis.&nbsp; &nbsp;There has been an 80% decline in the number of small house builders over the past 25 years; a trend accelerated by the financial crisis in 2008.&nbsp; Growth in the number of SME's will diversify the delivery of new homes across the Country and this will also help with another issue &ndash; upskilling a new generation of construction workers.Thanks to Brexit, the skills shortage has been dubbed a 'burning platform' as, for example, circa 8% of UK construction workers and 40% of London architects are European nationals.&nbsp; The issue is so significant, that technology is seen as an essential part of the solution.&nbsp; The Farmer Review was called &lsquo;Modernise or Die&rsquo; for good reason and the benefits of digitalisation, robotics and modern methods of construction (such as modular construction) received notable mention at the Conference.&nbsp; Effective training will be crucial to producing a new generation of digitally aware multi-skilled workers.This strategy of diversification is logical and welcome, but it still feels like tinkering around the edges.&nbsp; Some other ideas to support housing delivery and greater home-ownership from the fringe include:&bull; A Secretary of State for Housing.&nbsp; Given the average term of a Housing Minister of late is just 10 months, delegates suggested a cabinet member for Housing to give continuity and commitment to addressing the problem.&bull; Cross-party buy-in to housing strategies.&nbsp; As Adam Challis, Head of Residential Research at JLL, succinctly observed at a fringe event - political cycles are generally shorter than property cycles.&nbsp; There is a material political risk to developers due to changing leadership and policy.&bull; Development of some green belt sites.&nbsp; The liberal conservative think tank Bright Blue has been arguing for strategic and sustainable release of some greenbelt sites in Local Authorities where there is proven housing need.&nbsp; Not all greenbelt is &lsquo;green&rsquo; and there are sensible arguments for the release of land on the edge of existing settlements to help young families stay in their neighbourhood and contribute to their local communities.&bull; A cut or significant reduction of SDLT for first time buyers.&nbsp; Advocated by Bright Blue, this would help first-time buyers across the country onto the housing ladder without suffering some of the market distortions created by Help to Buy.&bull; A call for young people to support the housing development they want and need.&nbsp; Planning committees are dominated by older constituents defending their interests.&nbsp; Young people should vote with their feet and turn up in support, or better still get more involved in their local politics.&nbsp; It might secure them that stake in capitalism after all. Alexandra Jezeph is a town planner and chartered surveyor working in the Capital Markets team at JLL and a Non-Executive Director at the liberal conservative think tank Bright Blue.Alexandra Jezeph&nbsp;@alexjezeph

Party Conference Season: What the Conservatives have promised to boost housing supply and increase home-ownership

Addressing the housing problem has gained political importance, highlighting the economic appeal of Labour&rsquo;s housing announcements amidst capital concerns.

Responding to the housing problem carries a new political imperative for Conservatives.&nbsp; &nbsp;It is hard to dispute the reception of Momentum by young people, but argument over the economic sense of Labour&rsquo;s housing announcements can be a moot point for those who have no capital, and therefore no stake in capitalism.&nbsp; Part of Labour&rsquo;s appeal is simply the offer of change.

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580178/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/Party_conference_season.jpg

It is often cited that what happens in Central London ripples out through this city to the shires and countryside beyond. I have always found this analysis a bit too simplistic, but it does seem to hold weight among a few of today&rsquo;s commentators. &nbsp; These days Londoners seemingly hate it when its doing well, but hate it again when its doing nothing. The former of course means that prices are growing, undermining affordability and stretching already stretched budgets, especially for first-time buyers and renters. In contrast, price falls may be a signal of underlying economic weakness and for owner-occupiers, a challenge to pension planning. &nbsp; I recall a conversation with a journalist a couple of years ago, who noted that he had to shift 'positive' news coverage of improving values as the growing share of voice from priced-out renters howled at the insensitivity to their plight. &nbsp; Well, as it is said, 'there's good news, and there's bad news'. I guess it&rsquo;s a matter of perspective. &nbsp; The news is this. The Central London market is back. Well, not quite - but at the same time I don't know that it ever really left. Clearly the top end of Prime London has adjusted down to the tune of nearly 15% and a few developers exposed a bit further down the foodchain also have been quietly unloading stock at more favourable prices than planned. &nbsp; It's not that incentive activity has stopped, it&rsquo;s that there are signs of improving demand which has made it less important. Clients are pushing values again, and their clients are buying. The signs of life-as-normal are becoming more common. &nbsp; And our numbers have begun to bear this out. Central London new build prices are up 0.1% over H1 2017, with volumes up 17% compared with H2 2016. Hardly figures to get too excited about, but when placed in context with -4.1% and -17% a year ago, you might say that someone has reached back and is about to fling a pebble into the middle of that pond. Cue that ripple, we hope. &nbsp; I say 'we hope' because the need to enable higher supply volumes is unabated. Figures there aren't quite so good. &nbsp; New starts are up by 3% in H1 2017 compared with H2 2016, but down 19% on H2 2015. The pipeline is flattered by several tall buildings that got going before the market softened and the wave of activity behind them is looking a bit less full. &nbsp; This is pretty important because it comes just as the Mayor has launched his new Housing Strategy for London. There's lots of good and well-meaning stuff in there and bears the broad strokes of Government's housing White Paper. More players, more innovation, more modular. Oh - and a lot more affordable housing. Mustn't forget that bit. &nbsp; 50% affordable housing ambitions are pretty steamy. However Sadiq Khan is well within rights to say 'I warned you'. He won largely on a 'housing for the many' ticket and while he has been hard-hat-ing and hi-viz-ing his way around live schemes, he has never softened on this ambition. &nbsp; Most developers have been running appraisals that, at least initially, work back from 35% affordable. But 50%? Don't think so. The land market impact may well push development activity backwards, just as momentum seems to be swinging back in favour of the sector. &nbsp; This would not be good news. Not good for anyone. &nbsp; So, signs of life in Central London. Its weakness has been largely a political creation. Let's hope that political intervention doesn't become its downfall before we get going again.

Central London Development - A Bumpy Ride

Central London&rsquo;s influence reaches beyond the city, shaping housing markets in surrounding areas according to some commentators.

It is often cited that what happens in Central London ripples out through this city to the shires and countryside beyond. I have always found this analysis a bit too simplistic, but it does seem to hold weight among a few of today&rsquo;s commentators.

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580161/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/Central_london_development.jpg

<div>I have been inclined lately to proffer up yet another commentary &ndash; to add to the legion &ndash; on government plans to boost housing supply. I like to think it would be a well-reasoned critique, with a planning nip here and a land value tuck there, alongside yet another clarion call for more money. The presumption would be to spend wisely of course, these are still austere days after all &ndash; and away we go. Except &ldquo;we&rdquo; never do go very far. Except housing supply never does respond very much. This, as a result, will not be that commentary. Readers of this blog will know that I have been a big supporter of the Housing White Paper. Where others see a damp squib, I see a document that finally acknowledges the unspoken truth. To move the needle on housing supply, we need to do things differently. Nip and tuck fine, but the time has come to move beyond precision surgery. It&rsquo;s time for &ndash; and even this has become a clich&eacute; in housing circles &ndash; bold action. When you think about it, it&rsquo;s pretty obvious isn&rsquo;t it? Need 100,000 more houses each year for the next&hellip; well&hellip; forever? I&rsquo;ve got it: planning reform. No wait, planning reform with a slice of accelerated land release. No wait &ndash; planning reform, accelerated land release and a BIG pot of money. The current big pot is the &pound;3bn home building fund, which amounts to roughly &pound;3,000 per additional home needed over the next decade in the form of a recoupable loan. That is not a lot of money. That is even less government commitment. I appreciate I&rsquo;m being a bit simplistic, but given that the Conservative manifesto offers no new capital, it would suggest that solutions to the housing crisis will somehow be conjured up by doing the same old things, just a little bit better. Really? Surely we can see that the same incremental improvements will yield the same (at best) incremental results. We need bold leadership and bold action. This isn&rsquo;t a tub-thumping, soapbox moment. It&rsquo;s just facing the facts. We aren&rsquo;t taking the problem seriously.</div><div><div>Hands off my policy At this point, many critics of modern housing policy will point, with dewy eyes, to the good old era of council housing delivered in the 1950s and 1960s. Surely that&rsquo;s it &ndash; we need councils to build again. No, we don&rsquo;t. This era also coincided with the new towns era. If only we had more Stevenages and Harlows, right? OK, so not a ringing endorsement, but then I would argue they were of their time and today&rsquo;s masterplanning and placemaking adopts a very different set of priorities. The model will evolve. I have been pretty critical of new town ideas in the past, with the succession of failures in the modern era spanning all three major political parties. Yep, even the Lib Dems had a failed crack at it under the coalition government only a few short years ago. But what we have not seen, and this is the lynchpin for me, is cross-party support for solutions. Housing policy &ndash; well, housing policy with the scale of the new towns ambition that we need &ndash; takes time to get right. Inevitably, that means successive governments, probably with a few different flavours along the way. But is it too much to ask for a bit of non-partisan spirit, in the interest of actually getting something started, to gain cross-party support for the bold housing solutions. Nobody&rsquo;s going to win or lose an election over it; we&rsquo;re all in it together. Then &ndash; just maybe &ndash; we can stop playing politics with housing policy, but have politicians taking more ambitious steps in the right direction for longer than the nanosecond that governments seem to last for these days. So to the new government I say this: strong and stable my foot, get the foundations in place first.</div></div>

Stop playing politics and go all in on housing policy

Critiques on government plans to boost housing supply suggest spending wisely on planning, land value adjustments, and increased funding.

I have been inclined lately to proffer up yet another commentary &ndash; to add to the legion &ndash; on government plans to boost housing supply. I like to think it would be a well-reasoned critique, with a planning nip here and a land value tuck there, alongside yet another clarion call for more money. The presumption would be to spend wisely of course, these are still austere days after all &ndash; and away we go. Except &ldquo;we&rdquo; never do go very far. Except housing supply never does respond very much. This, as a result, will not be that commentary.

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580187/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/stop_playing_politics_and_go_all_out_on_housing_policy.jpg

After more than a year of facing some uncomfortable truths of a market on the wane, there is a change in the Prime London residential market that is worth noting. To the chorus of 'you would say that', I'm going to say it&hellip; there are signs of a market on the turn. Transactions have been driven down to record lows and despite the legion of estate agents looking to put a brave spin on things, the truth is the market has been pretty dire for most of 2016. There are well-rehearsed arguments around Stamp Duty changes to high-value property and investor purchases, which have been disproportionately negative for Prime markets and in particular the new build space. Everyone would like to know what the market impacts of Brexit have been. In truth, it was the housing market equivalent of kicking a man while he's down. Yet, it should not be overlooked that - despite calls of huge oversupply in Central London - only 110 units were completed in the 'golden postcodes' last year. Further, only a modestly higher number were sold off-plan. I can probably find a dozen articles in the past week alone touting similar figures to highlight the dire straits in which the market finds itself. I see something different. A lack of completions, and more importantly a lack of new-build sales, means a lack of secondary product to drag on prices when demand improves. Lower off-plan sales volumes also means a lack of development funding to underwrite the next wave of delivery. In other words, no sales today means no delivery tomorrow. Meantime, repricing - my favourite agency term for falling prices - has carried on a pace. Admittedly many developers have been able to remain stubborn in an era of cheap debt. Certainly our headline price indices don't reflect the fullest extent of incentives and inducements that are being used to prop up weak sales momentum. But if we say for arguments' sake and easy math that prices have fallen by 10% for trophy properties, then that provides some measure of the market adjustment that has already taken place. Except, that isn't quite the full story. A weak pound sterling has meant that buyers in this most international of markets are seeing even bigger price reductions of closer to 25% over the past 18 months for dollar-pegged currencies. Remember the last time we had Prime price corrections of that scale? It was in 2008/09. Now, remember what happened from mid-2009? So began the most extraordinary rise in Prime capital values ever, peaking at an annualised growth rate of 24% in Q1 2010. The 'V-shaped' market recovery that nobody saw coming. But don't get too excited. I'm not about to become the lone voice of optimism amongst the columns and columns of negative opinion. However, I will stick my neck out and say while there is still further to go, post-Ramadan and summer hiatus, the Prime price floor will be found. What happens from there will be dictated by a whole range of domestic and international market and geopolitical factors. The demand is there and at a certain point this confluence of factors will align to drive interest. There are plenty of schemes covered in plastic that will be uncovered at the right price to soak up this early pool of buyers. That overhang of supply I noted is not wrong, it&rsquo;s just not in the form of committed projects - for now. I am not about to recast our price forecasts just yet. However, the lack of quality product currently available may well drive enough support under-pricing to see Central London sales volumes tick back up. Add to this the job creation, the S106 contributions - including swathes of new affordable housing - and we have something that deserves a wider airing beyond tabloid press. I for one look forward to some positive Central London residential commentary in the near future. Like it or not, the rest of London needs it.

Re-primed

The Prime London residential market shows signs of recovery after a challenging 2016, despite low transaction volumes and market difficulties.

After more than a year of facing some uncomfortable truths of a market on the wane, there is a change in the Prime London residential market that is worth noting. To the chorus of 'you would say that', I'm going to say it&hellip; there are signs of a market on the turn. Transactions have been driven down to record lows and despite the legion of estate agents looking to put a brave spin on things, the truth is the market has been pretty dire for most of 2016.

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580202/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/Re-primed.png

<div id="residentialcontent_0_LeftColumn"><div>Henry Ford famously asserted that his cars came in any colour you like, as long as that colour was black. Hold that thought. For a Government seemingly doing and saying a lot of sensible things on housing, it isn't half taking a lot of flak for it. Is our scepticism of those in charge so high that we default to 'something must be wrong' anytime a new announcement is given? OK, fair enough &ndash; there is plenty of precedence. But maybe not this time. Dull is the New Exciting A nothing Budget announcement was, ironically, both radical and good common sense. The least-worst thing a Government can do in times of uncertainty is to provide consistency, with only small adjustments to the tiller where needed. A bit of money given to stave off some of the looming care home crisis, a bit of money taken to correct the tax system that favoured the self-employed. I don't think the word &lsquo;housing&rsquo; was even uttered. Unprecedented stuff and such a relief given the amount of upheaval we have become accustomed to in recent years. The point here is between the Autumn Statement and the Housing White Paper, Government feels it has done its job to drive structural change in the industry. Over to you, folks. I for one did not join the chorus of disappointment regarding the White Paper. I was asked by a journalist on the day to work out what was missing (as clearly there must be something missing). My response &ndash; gimmicks. We are so used to politicking through housing policy that it felt a bit odd that the White Paper was full of good, sound, straightforward ideas and a lack of populist programming. There are in fact some bold strokes in there, if you are willing to read the full 104 page document. However, if you haven&rsquo;t read it at this stage, you aren&rsquo;t going to. Tell you what - let me summarise. For housebuilders, you may want to stop reading now. You do your job and Government has acknowledged that you can&rsquo;t do much more to ratchet up delivery rates. This White Paper is not for you. <ul><li>For Registered Providers, Build to Rent creators of Private Rented Communities, and SMEs; there is more direct and indirect support on the way, alongside a willingness and capacity at the HCA and in Local Planning Authorities to work with you. Engage. If you want to build more and in more locations, Government wants to help.</li><li>For the modular construction industry, get ready. You have been patronised by the industry for years and years. Now, the best of you will grow rapidly. You will also be disrupted by much bigger players. You will be flavour of the month for big capital seeking exposure to UK housing. It's sink or swim times and for those up for the challenge it should be pretty exciting.</li><li>Finally, Local Authorities. Under localism, many of you will play a political game on housing delivery. That is understood, so there is a standardised formula that ensures you play by Central Government&rsquo;s rules. Housing delivery targets by the back door. You will have the opportunity to raise a bit more money to pay for a lot more work. Localism will also mean you need to explore &ndash; pretty aggressively &ndash; local solutions to generate revenue streams through your existing estate. With that lack of capacity, many firms including my own will be offering you a range of solutions around land disposal, asset management and in the capital markets.</li></ul>Now back to Henry Ford. This is a Government that has adopted a mass production mindset. It would seem that the UK's industrial strategy is about to disrupt the housebuilding sector in a major way. It won&rsquo;t happen quickly &ndash; the best changes rarely do. But this is a Government that is clearly ambitious on solving the housing crisis. There is a kaleidoscope of solutions out there, and those that have merit will find support. But, there is also only one acceptable outcome.</div><div></div></div><div>&nbsp;</div>

The Rise Of Mass Production Housing

The government's housing initiatives face skepticism but may hold potential for meaningful change in housebuilding.

For a Government seemingly doing and saying a lot of sensible things on housing, it isn't half taking a lot of flak for it. Is our scepticism of those in charge so high that we default to 'something must be wrong' anytime a new announcement is given? OK, fair enough &ndash; there is plenty of precedence. But maybe not this time.

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580204/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/The_rise_of_Mass_Production_Housing.jpg

<div id="residentialcontent_0_LeftColumn"><div>By Richard Valentine-Selsey, Senior Residential Research Analyst, JLL There is an ever-growing list of amenities that can be provided within Private Rented Communities (PRCs) ranging from the functional parcel storage room or bike spaces to the aspirational private dining and cinema rooms. But what impact do they have and can they result in a rental premium? Pushing the rental envelope The inclusion of amenities is expected to allow PRCs to establish a rental premium over the current local market level. To unpick this, JLL Residential Research recently undertook analysis of 25 PRC schemes across London, which turned up some interesting results&mdash;these schemes are, on average, achieving a rental premium of 11% over their respective local markets. However, it is difficult to accurately define what proportion of this premium is specifically linked to amenities. Part of the challenge is the immaturity of the UK PRC market. Currently, many tenants are unable to value the benefit of access to a communal lounge or cinema room due to never having had the option in their rental properties before. The experience of the more mature US multifamily market, however, indicates that this will not always be the case. The US National Multifamily Housing Council undertook a survey in August 2015 that collected responses from 120,000 private renters across the country looking at &lsquo;what apartment renters want&rsquo;. As part of the survey respondents were asked what amenities they were interested in and importantly how much more rent they would expect to pay for these. The results showed that tenants, saw a direct link between access to amenities and additional rent; examples include paying an extra $40pcm (&pound;32) for a fitness centre and $34pcm (&pound;27) for additional onsite storage. These equate to premiums of 4.3% and 3.6% respectively of the US median multifamily rent, which according to the National Multifamily Housing Council is $940pcm (&pound;755). The US example indicates that as the UK PRC market matures and tenants become accustomed to the service and amenity offerings then they will start to attribute a value, allowing operators to begin charging a rental premium for their inclusion. If not yet, when? This is all well and good, but when might the UK market reach the point at which tenants are able to attach a premium to amenities? As mentioned earlier, part of the problem is that very few renters across the country have been exposed to PRCs and therefore are not able to value the benefit of amenities. Of the nearly 900,000 private rental households in London, less than 1% currently live in a PRC. However, looking forward, there are 10,200 PRC units under construction and a further 16,800 with planning permission in the capital, which means once they are all completed 4% of London&rsquo;s rental population will be living in a PRC. The exponential rise of PRC development across, not only London, but the country will mean that more of the rental population will experience living in a fully equipped PRC and begin to understand how much amenities are worth. So while the UK still lags the USA in being able to attribute rental value to amenities, we are firmly on the way and with every completed scheme we move one step closer.</div></div><div><div><header><h5>&nbsp;</h5></header><div></div></div></div>

Will tenants pay more rent for amenities?

There is an ever-growing list of amenities that can be provided within Private Rented Communities (PRCs) ranging from the functional parcel storage room or bike spaces to the aspirational private dining and cinema rooms. But what impact do they have and can they result in a rental premium?

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580222/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/will-tenants-pay-more-rent-for-amenities.png

Desperate times call for desperate measures, they say. Personally, I've always thought that notion was not terribly good advice. My suspicion is Theresa May might agree with me. The PM is has stayed firm by not allowing herself to be pushed or pulled by the howls to make Brexit mean something. 'When I'm good and ready' you could imagine has rattled around her head quite a lot in recent months. This week we learned more about plans for Brexit, allowing a good 6 weeks for the details to be debated before the official firing of the Article 50 starter&rsquo;s pistol. The same patient approach could be said for the newest tome planned from Government to save us from the desperate straits of new build paralysis. The long awaited housing White Paper has been variously trailed to be delivered prior to the Autumn Statement, as part of the Autumn Statement, just before the Christmas holiday break and again last week. Admittedly, these are just rumours and this is not a time to spread more false news. However, it would seem that there is just enough credence to the idea that early drafts simply haven't had enough substance to meet the challenge. When I&rsquo;m good and ready, indeed. Less is More LSE Professor Christine Whitehead recently totted up the number of new housing policy initiatives since 2010. The number she arrived at is 180. That line is worth repeating; the number she arrived at is 180. Wow. It seems there is no shortage of energy being poured into housing initiatives. (180 - seriously!) Don&rsquo;t get me wrong, as the research guy I get paid to unpack changing markets and the things that influence them. So you might expect me to be cheering a White Paper that seems increasingly likely to offer a whole new raft of ideas to work through. Based on what we know so far, I have decidedly mixed views. On one hand, despite all that effort, the market clearly still isn&rsquo;t working to deliver the homes this country needs. Something needs doing differently, no doubt. There was actually a lot of really good stuff in the Autumn Statement leaders and some bold strokes in clearing away the less-credible stuff from the Housing and Planning Act. Or so I thought, until Starter Homes was re-announced at the dawn of the New Year. And even deeper from the recesses, we had &lsquo;Garden Towns and Villages&rsquo;, with the quaint notion that the thinking which inspired low-density, car-dependent delivery from the 1920s had even the vaguest relevance to today&rsquo;s housing need. My stomach hadn&rsquo;t felt so empty since Christmas Eve. Blank White Pages Maybe the bold idea here isn&rsquo;t to pile on yet more new layers of thinking to the old ones &ndash; maybe what is needed is less. If I was struggling to find faith in Theresa May&rsquo;s Government or her new housing champion then this idea would feel like the least-worst option. However, Gavin Barwell has done a remarkable job of getting across his brief in his first 6 months on the job and as a result the regurgitation of old, widely panned ideas is nothing short of a disappointment. Let&rsquo;s not forget that as Eco-towns, this iteration goes back to 2007 and Gordon Brown &ndash; when he was Chancellor. I believe Barwell and DCLG Secretary of State Sajid Javid can and will do better in time. Now we all know that the number 180 is feared in political circles and it may be that this throat-clearing exercise before the main event has been to &ndash; technically &ndash; avoid a U-turn. Let&rsquo;s hope so. Because the truth is, I still remain an optimist. Accelerated Construction, Housing Infrastructure Fund, modular/ off-site and BIM support all feel like good, solid programmes to expanded delivery by addressing supply bandwidth and the resilience of the supply chain. It&rsquo;s a focus on the right side of the equation and it&rsquo;s a focus on long-term restructuring of an industry approach to delivery that has struggled to modernise at the pace of other manufacturing industries. A shake-up would do it some good and importantly this new direction appears to have the financial backing of the Chancellor. One of the political challenges of trying to boost housing supply is that the fruits of any labour, whether good or bad, tend to take years to bed-in. 5 year political cycles come around just a bit to quickly for supporters to claim the credit of successes and often new governments can get rid of &lsquo;failing&rsquo; schemes just as they are bedding in. Long-term policies and short-term politics are poor bedfellows. The current woeful state of the official opposition suggests that Government doesn&rsquo;t have to look to 2020, but perhaps to 2025 and beyond. So, with a cool head and steady hand, Theresa May realises that extra months getting it right are worth years of righting the wrongs of bad policy. Keep calm and issue the White Paper. Now that&rsquo;s fighting talk.

Fighting Talk

Despite numerous new housing policies since 2010, mixed views prevail on the effectiveness of upcoming White Paper proposals.

LSE Professor Christine Whitehead recently totted up the number of new housing policy initiatives since 2010. It seems there is no shortage of energy being poured into housing initiatives, so you might expect me to be cheering a White Paper that seems increasingly likely to offer a whole new raft of ideas to work through. Based on what we know so far, I have decidedly mixed views.

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/v1569580173/resi/gb/cms/Blogs/Photos/Fighting_talk.png

Site Settings[Updated]

Homepage SEO Article 1 - Properties for sale

Homepage SEO Article 2 - Properties for rent

Homepage SEO Article 3 - Get a valuation

UK Contacts

title="Price"
metric="£"
type="minmax"
name="Price"
order=1

[min]
[min.0]
label="No Min"
value=""
[min.1]
label="£1,000 pcm"
value=1000
[min.2]
label="£2,000 pcm"
value=2000
[min.3]
label="£3,000 pcm"
value=3000
[min.4]
label="£4,000 pcm"
value=4000
[min.5]
label="£5,000 pcm"
value=5000
[min.6]
label="£6,000 pcm"
value=6000
[min.7]
label="£7,000 pcm"
value=7000
[min.8]
label="£8,000 pcm"
value=8000
[min.9]
label="£9,000 pcm"
value=9000
[min.10]
label="£10,000+ pcm"
value=10000
 
[max]
[max.0]
label="No Max"
value=""
[max.1]
label="£1,000 pcm"
value=1000
[max.2]
label="£2,000 pcm"
value=2000
[max.3]
label="£3,000 pcm"
value=3000
[max.4]
label="£4,000 pcm"
value=4000
[max.5]
label="£5,000 pcm"
value=5000
[max.6]
label="£6,000 pcm"
value=6000
[max.7]
label="£7,000 pcm"
value=7000
[max.8]
label="£8,000 pcm"
value=8000
[max.9]
label="£9,000 pcm"
value=9000
[max.10]
label="£10,000+ pcm"
value=10000

Rent - Price

Price

title="Currency"
metric="currency"
type="currency-select"
name="currencyType"
placeholder="GBP (£)"
order=1
[[options]]
label="GBP (£)"
value="gbp"
[[options]]
label="EUR (€)"
value="eur"
[[options]]
label="USD ($)"
value="usd"
[[options]]
label="HKD (HK$)"
value="hkd"
[[options]]
label="CNY (¥)"
value="cny"
[[options]]
label="AED (د.إ)"
value="aed"


Currency

currencyType

title="Price"
metric="£"
type="minmax"
name="Price"
order=2

[min]
[min.0]
label="No Min"
value=""
[min.1]
label="£100,000"
value=100000
[min.2]
label="£200,000"
value=200000
[min.3]
label="£300,000"
value=300000
[min.4]
label="£400,000"
value=400000
[min.5]
label="£500,000"
value=500000
[min.6]
label="£600,000"
value=600000
[min.7]
label="£700,000"
value=700000
[min.8]
label="£800,000"
value=800000
[min.9]
label="£900,000"
value=900000
[min.10]
label="£1,000,000"
value=1000000
[min.11]
label="£2,000,000"
value=2000000
[min.12]
label="£3,000,000"
value=3000000
[min.13]
label="£4,000,000"
value=4000000
[min.14]
label="£5,000,000+"
value=5000000

[max]
[max.0]
label="No Max"
value=""
[max.1]
label="£100,000"
value=100000
[max.2]
label="£200,000"
value=200000
[max.3]
label="£300,000"
value=300000
[max.4]
label="£400,000"
value=400000
[max.5]
label="£500,000"
value=500000
[max.6]
label="£600,000"
value=600000
[max.7]
label="£700,000"
value=700000
[max.8]
label="£800,000"
value=800000
[max.9]
label="£900,000"
value=900000
[max.10]
label="£1,000,000"
value=1000000
[max.11]
label="£2,000,000"
value=2000000
[max.12]
label="£3,000,000"
value=3000000
[max.13]
label="£4,000,000"
value=4000000
[max.14]
label="£5,000,000+"
value=5000000

Sale - Price

title="Beds"
metric="bedrooms"
type="minmax"
name="bed"
order=3

[min]
[min.0]
label="No Min"
value=""
[min.1]
label="Studio"
value=0
[min.2]
label="1 bedroom"
value=1
[min.3]
label="2 bedrooms"
value=2
[min.4]
label="3 bedrooms"
value=3
[min.5]
label="4 bedrooms"
value=4
[min.6]
label="5 bedrooms"
value=5
[min.7]
label="6 bedrooms"
value=6
[min.8]
label="7 bedrooms"
value=7
[min.9]
label="8+ bedrooms"
value=8

[max]
[max.0]
label="No Max"
value=""
[max.1]
label="Studio"
value=0
[max.2]
label="1 bedroom"
value=1
[max.3]
label="2 bedrooms"
value=2
[max.4]
label="3 bedrooms"
value=3
[max.5]
label="4 bedrooms"
value=4
[max.6]
label="5 bedrooms"
value=5
[max.7]
label="6 bedrooms"
value=6
[max.8]
label="7 bedrooms"
value=7
[max.200]
label="8+ bedrooms"
value=8

Bedrooms

Beds

title="Property Type"
metric="propertyType"
type="select"
name="type"
placeholder="Any Type"
order=4

[[options]]
label="Any Type"
value=""
[[options]]
label="Flats"
value="flats"
[[options]]
label="Houses"
value="houses"
[[options]]
label="Developments"
value="developments"

Property Type

type

title="Must be"
type="checkboxes"
name="flags"
order=5

[[options]]
label="New homes"
value="new-home"
[[options]]
label="First time buyer"
value="first-time-buyer"
[[options]]
label="Coming soon"
value="coming-soon"
[[options]]
label="Stamp duty promotion"
value="reduced-stamp-duty"
[[options]]
label="Shared ownership"
value="shared-ownership"

Sale - Options

flags

Must be

title="Options"
type="checkboxes"
name="flags"
order=5

[[options]]
label="Short Term"
value="short-term"
[[options]]
label="Furnished"
value="furnished"
[[options]]
label="Unfurnished"
value="unfurnished"

Rent - Options

Options

There's the conventional way of doing things. And then, there's the JLL way. A more innovative, intelligent, and human way. Find out how you can SEE A BRIGHTER WAY with JLL.

Property Enquiry(DEPRECATED)

PRIVACY NOTICE
Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, is a leading global provider of real estate and investment management services. We take our responsibility to protect the personal information provided to us seriously.
Generally the personal information we collect from you are for the purposes of dealing with your enquiry.
We endeavor to keep your personal information secure with appropriate level of security and keep for as long as we need it for legitimate business or legal reasons. We will then delete it safely and securely. For more information about how JLL processes your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.jll.co.uk/en/privacy-statement" target="_blank">privacy statement</a>.

Arrange View

anythingElse

date

email

firstName

generalEnquiry

intlDialCode

lastName

marketingOptin

submit

telephone

time

userAction

videoOption

Let us know your preferred time for a viewing and we will get in touch with you to confirm a time.

Fill out the form or call us at {{ phone }}

Arrange a viewing

PRIVACY NOTICE
Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, is a leading global provider of real estate and investment management services. We take our responsibility to protect the personal information provided to us seriously.
Generally the personal information we collect from you are for the purposes of dealing with your enquiry.
We endeavor to keep your personal information secure with appropriate level of security and keep for as long as we need it for legitimate business or legal reasons. We will then delete it safely and securely. For more information about how JLL processes your personal data, please view our&nbsp;<a href="https://www.jll.co.uk/en/privacy-statement" target="_blank">privacy statement</a>.

General Enquiry(DEPRECATED)

Gated Content Form

Mount St form

Office Form

Valuation(DEPRECATED)

Valuation

message

Property Enquiry

General Enquiry

service

Contact our Agents a more personalized service, and more accurate recommendations that save time.

Freespee PROD

Greenwich

Glasgow

Finsbury Park

Exeter

Elephant and Castle

Edinburgh

Default

City

Chelsea

Canary Wharf

Bristol

Birmingham

Kensington

Knightsbridge

Leeds

Liverpool

Lochrin Quay

Manchester Deansgate

Manchester High Street

Manchester Piccadilly

Mayfair

New Homes

One Eighty

Nine Elms

Queen Street

South Kensington

Southampton

Stratford

The Horizon SE10

The Hub

Warwick Street

Westminster

Your new home for new chapters

UK Site Localisation

https://res.cloudinary.com/jll-global-olm-np/image/upload/q_auto/f_auto/v1739528600/Union_pvjdn9.svg

Insights

Our analysts turn data into actionable insights giving you an effective view of the residential property market. View and use our reports, tools and infographics.