Feature first definition, where homes are built in a factory, Ensures the construction industry is caught up in a regulatory quagmire which facilitates a zero sum game on opportunity.
For example substituting existing supply ambitions with offsite housing rather increasing ambitions to give off site housing its own growth trajectory. And this becomes even more important when you consider that should an offsite business fail, A lack of standardisation will ensure tens of thousands of homes may struggle to be maintained in the future.
And in the contexts of maintenance MMC has a considerable opportunity to revolutionise how we retrofit our existing housing stock. New roofs, panelised walls, innovative insulation solutions, robotics, craned in rooms, Building health analysis structural solutions and much more will all come via the non volumetric route. And with 16.5 million homes built before national building regulations, these innovations will be key to ensuring that buildings delivered via several construction methods, particularly those with traditional skills, can be renovated and retrofitted to the benefit not detriment of its occupants health and finances. In the renovation of the House of Commons government does not have to look far to understand how problematic the wrong construction method is when used on existing buildings.
As a broad concept, MMC should be at the forefront of every government department’ s mind, in particular HM Treasury. British innovation has a habit of exporting successfully and with the international carbon taxes placing a greater need for onshoring of product manufacturing, a healthy construction industry able to deliver a variety of projects more quickly and with British materials benefits the construction industry in every region and locality.
Such a move also ensures that investors who require an appropriate built environment for their ambitions, for example factories, warehouses, housing for local employees, material transport infrastructure and much more, are not waiting years for it to be delivered; a level of uncertainty which has seen thousands of jobs move abroad.
MMC is already here
MMC is already used in most projects, yet because there is such a strong focus on offsite volumetric housing, most construction companies do not consider that they are integrating it. Lightweight foundations, digital twins, pre-fabricated components and pre-hung door sets are just a few examples of MMC, yet record these on a form identifying MMC and most politicians will sadly ask,“ and do you need cranes to fit them?”. This speaks to a lack of understanding about how projects are delivered and a simplistic vision of how MMC should look.
The Crown Commercial Function‘ Modern Methods of Construction: Guidance Note, publish in 2022 is keen on using all seven framework categories. It also cites the Construction Innovation Hub’ s Platform Rulebook, with paragraph 2.7 stating:
A platform approach is not an alternative form of MMC, and might involve using some, all, or none of the construction solutions from the seven categories in the MMC Definition Framework
Despite the clear recognition that MMC is not simple volumetric offsite, the note also focuses on outcomes which infer a lean toward volume, with guidance to reduce carbon and pipeline certainty as case study examples. The new town programme would deliver this but not in the platform, component manner described in the note but instead, it is likely that we see a number of factories being given contracts to deliver buildings, with the promise of tens of thousands of orders.
This is not inherently bad but wastes an opportunity to embed MMC standardisation across all buildings, old and new. A strong example of this would be roofs, where the addition of a new story or two to a building would do a lot to densify existing communities, while exposing a building’ s fabric, while speeding up the delivery of new build.
Joineries would benefit, carbon sequestering wood and the steel industry would be given a boost, solar panels could be integrated more easily and consumers would be treated to a market competing for their cash. For those who care about aesthetics. It would also reduce the number of dormer loft conversions by making heritage designs, such as the Mansard roof, more affordable.
On a technical level, standardisation and maintenance would be easier to advance and control, with stronger reasons for insurers and warranty providers to back a product; a challenge the industry currently faces.
There are so many reasons the Government should pursue MMC as a concept, rather than obsess with offsite volumetric and the HBA and NFB will be making this point at every opportunity, even if it is puts a few noses out of join.
How many times should taxpayers fund a business model which needs pump priming and sustaining to exist? There is plenty of room for volumetric offsite building and it will thrive in a planning positive world. Sadly, it seems that we are taking another ride on that rollercoaster.
Issue 22 | 2026 67