Taylor Wimpey plc (TW) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good afternoon, everyone. It really is fantastic to see you all, and thank you for joining us today. Today, we'll share a clear sense of the journey we're on and why Taylor Wimpey stands out as a compelling investment proposition. But before we get to the heart of today's presentation, then let me just briefly cover this morning's trading update. It's clear that market sentiment is not as positive as at the start of the year, though we've had a small seasonal tick up from the quieter summer period. Year-to-date, trading is tracking well, just ahead of last year, given the positive start to the year. And you can see that we've reiterated our full year U.K. volume and operating profit guidance. Current outlets were 215 at the 20th of September. Outlets will tick down a little in November. But as we said previously, we will open more outlets this year than last, though weighted to the year-end. And we'll end the year around 210 to 215. And as you'll hear, we are focused on driving outlet progress going forward and increasing average outlets year-on-year. So moving on to the main session and starting off with the agenda. Overall, we expect to take about 2.5 hours, including a break and some opportunity for questions. I'll kick off by taking you through where we are today and then move on to how well we are set up for the growth phase of the cycle. Critical to this, I will dive into our land bank and the ongoing actions which will drive volume and outlet growth over the coming years and achieve the land bank medium-term target. Shaun White, Divisional Chair of Midlands and Wales, will then talk you through how we're implementing these actions on the ground in his division, driving more outlets and improving our land bank efficiency. And the whole business is laser-focused here. After time for Q&A, specifically on these sessions, we'll then take a short coffee break. And next, Stephen Andrew, our Group Technical Director, who many of you will have met at our Sudbury Future Homes trials, will walk you through how we continue to drive operational excellence and build efficiency to support business growth, not least given the continually evolving regulatory backdrop. Getting this right is essential to maximizing returns for shareholders, and I'm confident that we are ahead of the competition here. The strength and breadth of the Taylor Wimpey brand is a further enabler of our business. And Ian Drummond, our Divisional Chair of Scotland, Northeast and North Yorkshire is going to give you operational insights on how we enable our outlets to serve the whole market with our strong brand. But let me be clear here. Our brand strategy creates clear value for our shareholders. And then finally, Chris will bring it all together and talk you through the detail of the medium-term targets that we've set out today and the drivers behind each target so that you can fully understand the way we see our business progressing in the coming years and the confidence we have in delivering this. We'll then have a final Q&A. And after that, we hope that you'll join the team and I for some drinks. So today, you'll hear how well we are positioned to deliver profitable growth and maximize shareholders' returns. First, you'll hear that despite the muted backdrop, we have the land, importantly, with a positive planning position to deliver outlet growth and in turn, drive volume and returns growth. This is without the need for net investment in land. Second, we will demonstrate how we are set up to deliver our medium-term targets. We've identified, invested in and embedded the operational levers needed to ensure that the business is ready to drive profitable growth. Third, we'll demonstrate the strategic benefits of our single brand. In fact, we are in an excellent position to capitalize on the significant opportunity that exists as we stand here at the start of new housing, land and planning cycles. And by doing so, are confident of creating significant value for our shareholders. At this stage in the cycle, we are well set to drive capital and land bank efficiency, which will, in turn, ensure strong cash generation. We will also articulate how we are prioritizing balance sheet strength and how our disciplined approach to investment has put us in a great position where we have significant capacity for growth and improved returns, and we reiterate our capital allocation policy, which is unchanged. We set up for through the cycle. And today, we reiterate and explain our confidence in this. So turning now to the targets. And just to be clear, what you'll hear today has been planned on the basis of current market conditions. Our planned growth is outlet led with assumed sales rates broadly in line with the rates we've seen through 2024 and 2025 year-to-date. There are short-term confidence risks posed by the delayed budget, but we remain strongly confident in the business' medium-term fundamentals and potential. Our plan over the medium term is to grow U.K. completions, excluding JVs, to around 14,000. I don't want you to think of this as a soft cap on our ambitions for growth though. If market conditions are more positive, we have the clear capacity to go beyond this. We have a great land bank, but it isn't efficient at current volumes. We will make sure that our assets are working harder for our shareholders in this cycle. And we have a much improved planning backdrop, and we are confident that with improved land supply and planning, we can target reduced land bank years of 4.5 to 5. Protecting and enhancing margin has been and remains a key focus for us, and we have charted a clear path to delivering operating margins of 16% to 18%. And finally, that margin improvement, combined with the accelerated asset turn, supports our ambition to increase return on net operating assets to at least 20%. So presenting alongside me is, of course, Chris, and we'll also be joined by Shaun, Stephen and Ian. So you'll have the combined benefit of about 127 years of experience, of which 94 have been spent at Taylor Wimpey. This goes to illustrate that we have a very stable management team, which is reflected the whole way through the business to our business unit management teams. And whilst there are quite a few of us from Taylor Wimpey here today, I think you will also have spotted some members of our senior team here. And if they could stand up, just so you know who they are, we have Dawn Wylie, our Group Land Director. We have Mark Skilbeck, our U.K. Planning Director; Ceri Pearce, our Group Sales and Marketing Director; and Nick Wright, our Group Supply Chain Director. Thank you, guys. So they're on hand, and they're very happy to answer any questions that you have in the break or afterwards. So the market in the last few years has been challenging for all market participants. However, I'm very pleased with the Taylor Wimpey's performance. And as you can see from the strong proof points on this slide. The quality of our sites and locations has driven an industry-leading sales rate throughout without the need to destroy value by over-indexing on bulk sales. In 2022, I first set out our strategy to improve operational excellence. That mindset is now clearly embedded, and we have significantly improved short- and long-term customer satisfaction, achieving our best ever scores in 2024 in both service and quality. We have best-in-class build quality. I am particularly proud that we have been consistently recognized as delivering superior industry-leading build quality in the independent construction quality surveys. This is a critical KPI for Taylor Wimpey as it ultimately results in a lower cost, higher quality business. On planning, we anticipate the changes to the planning system early and took steps to maximize value from them. We mobilized our strategic land teams, submitted early applications and got our short-term land teams focused on the opportunity. You'll hear more about that today, but the key point is this. Our proactive approach means that we're already benefiting from the updates to the NPPF and the momentum is building. That's why I feel confident about delivery through the next cycle. Next, back in 2022, I spoke about being agile. We read the market signals early, and we made the bold decision to pause land buying last summer. It was quick decisive action, which protected both value and margin. We also cut our cost base and delivered meaningful savings through 2023. Reducing land activity wasn't just reactive, it was strategic. And looking back, it was absolutely the right call because significant market uncertainty and affordability issues quickly followed. Throughout this, we have prioritized a strong balance sheet, having returned GBP 1.2 billion in dividends to our shareholders. And having done that, we started to plan for the next cycle, and we set about strengthening our operational platform in preparation for growth. Through our investment in timber frame factory, along with further investment in Taylor Wimpey Logistics, we've strengthened the critical supply chain enablers that will enable the scale up to support our growth ambitions. Skills and resources are always a challenge in a growth cycle, so we moved early to ensure that we are best positioned to attract and retain our valued and highly skilled employees. We rolled out a clear employee value proposition, and you'll have seen evidence of this on our increased LinkedIn channel and our continuing commitment to ongoing people development. At the same time, we continued investing in technology and strengthened our customer proposition through data-led insights and best-in-class digital capabilities, which we've talked to you about in depth over the last couple of years. These are all critical enablers to our growth, and we have an excellent platform ready to grow. So our strategic pillars of land, operational excellence, sustainability and capital allocation are unchanged and are absolutely the right priorities for the group as we look now forward to growth and maximizing returns for our shareholders. With each housing cycle comes different challenges and opportunities. And on this side, I'll now turn to the backdrop we are facing and how Taylor Wimpey is positioned. In essence, there are 3 core areas. Firstly, supply. Today, the most important element of the operating backdrop is the very positive changes to the NPPF and mandatory housing targets, which are now in place. These drive 2 important outcomes. First, it has tilted the balance of decision-making back towards prioritizing housing need and reestablished positive tension in the process between applicants and local planning authorities. And we are already seeing early signs of being able to process our existing land bank more efficiently and get on to site. Second, the changes will, by increasing planning decisions overall, improve the availability of land, bringing more certainty of outcome. As a result, we are seeing a greater number of opportunities going into planning and land availability is improving. In particular, in these early stages, smaller sites have the advantage of being more quickly prepared and are easier for planners to progress. As a result, we expect to see an increase in the supply of smaller sites in the near and medium term. I am confident of Taylor Wimpey's position here. We are seeing planning applications move through the system, and we are proactively positioned to recycle our capital into new smaller sites where we see opportunity. Next, let's discuss demand, where there remains significant underlying customer demand, effective demand or the ability to transact has not returned to previous levels, given constraints on affordability, particularly for first-time buyers. Our plan anticipates that demand remains muted. However, what gives me confidence is our quality of locations, which provide resilience. And the data-driven approach that we've embedded in the business and talked to you about previously has supported value and has allowed us to respond to the market and optimize the balance between rate and price. With this backdrop and the NPPF mandatory housing targets requiring local authorities to deliver more housing approvals, including many in attractive markets, which have seen little new build opportunities in recent years, more outlets will also expand market opportunity. And finally, on to returns. Land remains a key driver of returns with value realized through planning and effective delivery by an efficient business model. We remain very disciplined here and see significant opportunity to drive returns. We have a rigorous and disciplined approach to land investment embedded within our regional businesses, supported by our divisional chairs, and I sign off every land acquisition. Improving returns as the cycle develops is nonnegotiable, and we are confident of achieving our medium-term targets, including a return on net operating assets of at least 20% as we move forward. So before I move on to the land section, I would just like to pause and share why Taylor Wimpey stands out as a compelling investment proposition. We've been talking about setting up the business for growth from 2025. And now that we're here, it's the right moment to show you how we're set up to deliver growth, unlock value and maximize returns for shareholders. We've positioned the business with confidence for the medium term. And as we move through the presentation, we'll bring our investment case to life with tangible examples. You'll notice some icons throughout the presentation. Think of these as signposts to show you how each action will outline directly supports our investment case. Okay. So in this next session, I'm going to tell you how we're delivering growth from our land bank with a focus on maximizing returns. Whilst land remains competitive in many areas, and there is improving visibility of future pipeline and competitive pressure is easing. Research from Savills in August shows that land supply is improving, which is putting downward pressure on land values. We don't usually provide details of our pre-land approval pipeline, but I can see that it has a strong number of opportunities at about 58 sites with terms agreed and an average site size of about 210 plots, and that's a marked improvement over recent years. And the low policy and regulation-led viability issues are impacting some locations, our location quality matrix discipline continues to support positive investment decisions in markets we can be confident of through the cycle. We expect the NPPF to unlock land opportunities and can see evidence of a change in approach from local planning authorities. We are now seeing easier decisions coming through on smaller sites and expect this to continue before maturing into opportunities for larger sites as local authorities look for anchors to their local plans. There is real momentum here. We're seeing the most positive planning outlook since 2012. Mandatory housing targets are restored and there's renewed pressure on local authorities to meet their housing needs. That brings greater certainty in planning decisions and improved land availability, both of which will support a more stable land market. And that's why we're confident in reducing our land bank to 4.5 to 5 years. And more importantly, we're exceptionally well positioned to seize the full opportunity of the new planning cycle at every stage. So just taking a step back, how do we think about our land position today and what are our priorities looking forward. We have a consistent framework to assess our land position, and you may recall that I presented this in 2022. So let's take each of the measures in turn, starting with length. At the start of the change of the market in '22, '23, I said a slightly longer land bank was a positive given the challenging political and planning backdrop, and it was. It gave us room to act opportunistically at a time when land prices were stubbornly high. Now with increased housing requirements and an improving planning environment, planning consents and land availability will improve. So our assessment of how long a land bank we need also evolves. By reinvesting land recoveries in a greater number of smaller sites and a gradual shift in our geographical mix moving from the south to the north, we can reshape our land bank and increase outlets without increasing the gross value of land held on the balance sheet. At the same time, we will reduce our land bank years relative to completions to 4.5 to 5 years. At target U.K. volumes, this equates to 63,000 to 70,000 plots compared to the 76,000 plots held at the half year, with acquisitions running at below replacement level. So to be very clear, no net increase in land bank plots or net land investment is required over the medium term. That's a positive for cash generation and our returns profile over the medium term. And on next to it. Land cost as a percentage of asking price and the owned land bank was 13.3% at the half year, very low. That reflects our focus and discipline, but it also reflects the weighting to larger sites, which generally carry more WIP requirements, but also have a lower land value. Then shape. Our land bank is well spread across the country. It's focused on areas with strong population and demographic profiles. Crucially, much of it sits in locations where local authorities lack a viable 5-year housing land supply. One area to call out though is London. We've been cautious there for some time, first, due to planning challenges, more recently because of market viability and rising regulatory costs. Our medium-term strategy there is light touch. We'll complete our current high-density schemes and stay responsive, but we don't expect the environment to support meaningful new opportunities in the near term. At this stage in the cycle, we see value in continuing the shift towards smaller sites. Growing outlets, expanding market reach and recycling capital faster to drive asset turn and returns. This isn't new and the strategic shift is already showing. There are times in the cycle when large sites create greater shareholder value. They offer long-term visibility, strong margins. They're often strategically sourced, and they serve as an anchor site for our regional businesses. They continue to perform well. And if demand improves, we're ready to accelerate delivery with additional build teams and capacity. So to summarize, our near-term focus is more on smaller sites, but we expect larger sites to reemerge in the medium term as local authorities seek anchor sites for their local plans. And now on to efficiency. Carrying a longer land bank is inefficient. And although it has been helpful whilst planning has been tough, this does impact returns. As I've talked about, supported by a positive planning outlook, we will shorten and balance our land bank to unlock growth and returns. This will improve our capital efficiency through growth in completions and land purchases below replacement. We've embedded site level efficiencies and bulk deals, for example. We're not new to these structures and have strong track record with trusted partners, especially on larger sites where they improve return on capital. That said, our clear preference is to plan bulk deals from the outset to capture maximum value. And then finally, on this slide, to land quality. The locational quality of our sites is excellent. This is a real competitive strength for us in the market. It shows our sales rates, which have remained robust in tough conditions. Our teams buy land well, and we are very disciplined in the use of the location quality metrics. As a result, the majority of our land holdings are in AA to BB locations. I'm very comfortable with the quality of our land, and I'm happy that this discipline is strongly embedded across our businesses. Turning now to the current land bank. At half year, our short-term land bank stood at 76,000 plots, of which 82% is owned, and we had a strategic land pipeline of 135,000 plots either owned or held as options. The mapping on the slide shows a few things. Firstly, it shows population density and distribution. The deeper the red, the higher the population density. This is absolutely key for market absorption rates. Overlaid on the map on the left, we've mapped our short-term land bank and separately on the right, our strategic pipeline. Our assets are held in good markets with access to significant areas of market demand. Our strategic pipeline is an area that we have a very strong track record of delivering typically over 40% of our completions originating from this source. It remains a great strength to our business, and you'll see how we've been driving this ahead of the NPPF changes kicking in a little later. This slide takes us on a deeper dive into our owned land bank, giving you a more granular view into how we manage land bank assets to protect and unlock value. But we can't ignore planning in this regard. Planning is part of our everyday business, but we've lent into the positive NPPF changes. Last year, we launched a consistent and coordinated effort to benefit from the emerging planning opportunity across the business, codifying our processes. We actively manage and monitor all applications and progress to outlet openings, focusing on areas of delay and performance improvement strategies. We've introduced best practice tools to reduce delays in securing implementable planning permissions and tangible deliverables for our teams that are monitored closely by our management teams. Before we dive in and not on the slide, I just want to briefly highlight the opportunity of our controlled land bank. At the half year, this comprised 14,000 plots, all with either detailed or outline planning permission in place. So that's a strong position. But let's turn to the foundation of our confidence, the owned land bank, which is shown on the slide. This stood at 62,000 plots at the half year. The blue on the left-hand side shows the 35,000 plots, which have detailed planning permission. These are either live sites or quickly on the way to being open outlets. They're implementable, straightforward and represent a healthy position. On the right-hand side of the slide, in green, we currently hold 25,000 plots in our owned land bank with outline planning consent. This segment grew in 2021, peaked in 2024 and is now beginning to reduce. That shift reflects both the evolving planning environment, stretched local authority resources and strategic approach to changes in legislation that have influenced how we manage later phases of our sites. Briefly, by securing detailed consents for early phases and keeping later phases in outline, we can maintain significant flexibility through planning and regulatory changes whilst protecting long-term value, active asset management in a dynamic environment. So there are 3 different elements to this classification. Firstly, we have 13,000 plots with outline planning consent, which are part of multiphase sites. These sites already have phases with detailed planning permission in place. The principal technical and design issues are resolved, and they offer a clearer path to planning than a new location or application. They give our teams significant optionality. They can bring phases forward if demand improves, deliver multiple factories while flexing schemes for new regulation when necessary without triggering new costs and obligations. This segment is a proven reservoir of opportunity from which our teams draw as sites progress. The second segment of 9,000 plots are those consents for single-phase sites moving their way through the planning system for reserve matters. Encouragingly, we are seeing momentum here with several sizable decisions going our way in recent weeks, but I will leave it to Shaun to give you some examples from his division. And then thirdly, there are 3,000 plots, which relate to multiphase sites yet to achieve their first detailed planning permission. These are recent acquisitions having been matured from our strategic pipeline and secured on good terms around the time of the 2024 budget and are progressing to plan. And finally, we have 2,000 plots in resolution to grant shown in gray. This is a fairly dynamic part of our land bank, which are making their way from resolution to grant. Some will drop into the detailed planning permission part of the land bank, some into the outline. Our planning and land bank profile reflects a disciplined asset management strategy, one shaped by planning activity, but also to an extent, reflects the mix of larger and more complex sites in our portfolio. As I've said, this land bank is the foundation of our confidence, not just in the near-term completions, but in driving sustained growth. As we continue our focus on increasing the number of smaller sites, we will see a meaningful improvement in overall land bank efficiency. Smaller sites move through the planning and development cycle faster, allowing us to recycle capital more quickly and reduce the time plots set in the land bank. Supported by the current planning environment, this transition supports a more agile, capital-efficient model, one that enhances delivery, improves returns and expands our market reach. And that deep dive, I think, sets me up nicely for this slide, which sets out the land and planning status as of August, supporting our medium-term growth to 14,000 completions. Our existing land bank provides strong visibility and assuming no major market deterioration, we're confident on land pipeline is delivering outlet growth and volumes. So breaking it down, near-term volume growth is already secured. We're well positioned for 2026 completions in terms of land, planning and ownership. We also own and control everything needed for 2027. Most of the land we're approving now, therefore, is typically for delivery from 2028 onwards. So the key takeaway from this slide is that we are in an excellent position to open outlets and deliver on our volume growth aspirations. Turning now to our strategic land position. On the map, focusing on England, everything that isn't dark blue represents an area without a 5-year housing land supply and therefore, an area of opportunity under the NPPF. We have real breadth and depth in our strategic land pipeline. The map on the left demonstrates this. It shows that substantial amounts of our strategic pipeline are located in areas of opportunity. In the short term, those local authorities without an effective 5-year land supply are going to need sites to fulfill their obligations in the near term. The location of our existing strategic sites under management, therefore, offers great opportunity and a competitive advantage. We are already active in these locations with sites already secured and under active management with relationships already established with local authorities, and this has provided us with the opportunity to act early. This is only possible because of our consistent approach to investment in strategic land, which has given us the platform to leverage these positive changes. So as you know, at half year, we already had around 29,000 plots in the planning system for first principle planning. These are imposed on the map on the right-hand side. As a reminder, these are over and above our business as usual applications for variations and reserve matters for detailed planning permission to start work. We closely monitor and track progress and local authority sentiment on these applications and though not universal, we are seeing positive momentum pick up as the year has progressed. So this slide is all about getting ourselves into the best position to benefit from the new planning environment and continuing to build momentum in the business. We are seeing a step change in activity. So focusing on our strategic land pipeline activity, the graph shows the early actions taken in anticipation of the NPPF in 2023, '24 and the first half of 2025. If I direct you to the chart on the left, in addition to our existing 29,000 plots in planning, which include applications made up to half year, we are well advanced with plans to submit a further 36 applications in the remainder of 2025, shown in the blue part of the bar for 2025 with an average site size of about 197. Naturally, the teams are already working on the 2026 pipeline developing behind these applications. And as of today, our assertive application strategy is targeting up to 28 further applications. That's the final blue bar on the chart, again, above business as usual. To see or set this activity in context, around 40% of our strategic pipeline is already in or in preparation for the submission of planning applications in the next 18 months. Our ambitious program will run until 2027. We are acknowledged active managers of our whole strategic land pipeline, but this represents an exceptional level of application activity over a short time frame. We are strategically advantaged here because of our strong and experienced teams. This work takes time and realistically, applications must continue to be prepared with a view to an ultimate appeal, but our strategic pipeline provides an excellent start. If I turn your attention to the chart on the right, we've had some small early wins. And though there are risks, of course, our current assessments are that we should see an uptick in decision-making towards the end of the year. We are closely monitoring 13 sites expected to go to planning committee for determination later this year. And we have 41 other sites expected to go to planning committees for determination during 2026. That is a step change. We expect the planning environment to drive more smaller site opportunities in the early stages of the new NPPF as a way of delivering homes more quickly in advance of new local plans, but we were not waiting for the NPPF. We've been driving a focus on smaller sites in our business via our regional investment strategies and land search activity, turning the dial since returning to the land market at the start of 2024, and we are seeing results. By way of illustration, you can see in the green box that the average size of site approved between 2020 and 2023 was 282 units, whereas since 2024, average site size has been 231 units. So you see it's not such a big change in site size terms, but an important one, which over the medium term will support the alignment of our land bank to match current market conditions. In fact, if we excluded the 5 larger sites that we drew down from our strategic land pipeline, the average site size was 184 since 2024. But the reason I'm making this point isn't to push the average site size down further, but really to illustrate that we remain opportunistic, and we have the ability to invest in larger sites should strong opportunities be presented in the market. By averaging down the site size of our investment as described, we can grow our market breadth, grow our volumes and increase our efficiency without net land investment. Looking to outlets in the medium term, we do not expect in-year progress to always be linear, but subject to market conditions remaining stable, average outlets will grow year-on-year through the medium term. Current outlets were 215 at the 20th of September. As I said, outlets will tick down a little in November, but we will open more outlets this year than last, though weighted to the year-end, and we'll end the year in the range of 210 to 215. And as you will hear, we are focused on driving outlet progression. And going forward, we'll increase average outlets year-on-year. So let me just pause and sort of pull this all together because what we have just covered in the last 6 slides demonstrates the scale of the momentum building across our land portfolio. Here are the 5 key sources of land that will drive our future outlet growth. Our owned land bank, the foundation of our growth with significant flexibility to accelerate further in the right market conditions. The controlled land bank with around 14,000 plots already progressing into the effective land bank. The already live strategic planning pipeline of around 29,000 plots in the system for first principal planning determination beyond business as usual. The short-term pre-approval land pipeline with terms agreed and though subject to due diligence and appropriate approvals represents momentum in the short-term land market. And finally, continuing our early actions in liberating our strategic land pipeline, actively progressing to planning and unlocking future potential. Together, these sources represent significant momentum and give us confidence that we will grow our outlet numbers, support higher volumes whilst unlocking the value of our existing land, reinvesting land recoveries into smaller sites and increase efficiency by reducing land bank years. And by so doing, enable us to capture opportunity across the cycle. So just switching topics now as I wind up my section, I want to make a point or 2 here about brand. Our single unified brand is a deliberate strategic choice that delivers real value and brand recognition and efficiency. This is important in a market where secondhand is our main competitor. And ultimately, customers still are primarily driven by the balance of location, affordability and space. It supports us across a market ranging from starter homes to 5- and 6-bedroom homes and offers cost and efficiency savings beyond just marketing costs. But it isn't about brand alone. It's about our whole approach, how we assess the available market opportunity at a local level. So we've spoken already about our location quality matrix, and you will have heard from us in the past about using data to understand the characteristics of the catchment of demand and defining the optimum house price -- house type mix and specification that is right for each location. So a strong strategic brand offers high recognition, but the offering is honed locally in the knowledge of the site and its specific market characteristics. That said, we do not take anything for granted, and we'll continue to invest in further elevating the Taylor Wimpey brand. I'm going to leave this to Ian to demonstrate our brand ethos with some examples later. So bringing it all together, we are well positioned to deliver growth and maximize returns as we move into the next phase of the cycle. We have a clear path to increase outlets without net land investment by unlocking the value of our existing land and reinvesting land recoveries into smaller, faster-moving sites. Momentum is building, driven by a targeted and proactive strategy and a more supportive planning environment. Our single brand is a strategic asset, delivering recognition, efficiency and reach across all our customer segments. And finally, we have the operational levers in place to convert these opportunities into profitable growth. So I'll now pass over to Shaun, who will bring a number of these points to life with some operational examples from his division. Thank you.

Good afternoon. So you've heard from Jennie on our strategy to target improved land bank efficiency. And it's my job to bring this to life and to show you how we are applying this approach to my division and give you examples of the progress we are making as well as highlighting the future opportunity. Starting with a quick overview. My division spans from South Wales on the Western side all the way across to Lincolnshire in the East. On the southern edge, we go down as far as Northamptonshire, Worcestershire and Warkwickshire. And on the northern boundary, we trade in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and Shropshire. We engage with many local authorities across the division, including the mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority. And throughout the division, the majority of our build activity is focused around the major population areas and infrastructure links. Average outlets at the half year were 45, and we are currently trading off 46 outlets. We completed 2,000 homes last year, and we are well on track to increase that by around 10% this year. Picking up on what Jennie outlined earlier, for some time, we have been focused on adding smaller sites to our portfolio to drive growth in outlets and completions. Smaller sites will improve our efficiency of our land bank and support the larger sites that we already have in our short-term portfolio and the ones that are coming out of our strategic land. There are still some larger sites such as our Northeast Card Scheme, which had excellent opportunity, and we hold that about 1,500 plots in our own land bank, and this is in an area of significant land scarcity. This site is, therefore, a great opportunity for us and an opportunity we will continue to have the capacity to take. However, we are now in a period where the planning system is likely to favor smaller sites. Since the issue of the draft NPPF, we are targeting our land searches on local authorities that are embracing the change in planning approach, those with a less than 5-year housing land supply, including targeting the gray belt areas. To date, we have seen good signs of progress. We currently have a pre-land approval pipeline of 14 sites, averaging around 138 plots, whereas a year ago, we had 8 plots -- 8 sites, sorry, at an average size of 227 plots. We want to ensure that we can be the solution to the local authorities' housing target shortfalls. Whilst we are ensuring that our location matrix supports every acquisition in every area, we are always mindful of the locational quality. Since the changes to the NPPF, land availability in the open market remains steady. We have not yet seen an increase in overall supply. And as Jennie outlined, we expect to see progress here as planning reform begins to impact and my teams will continue to track future opportunities coming through the planning pipeline. The strategy to target smaller sites will obviously drive our outlet growth alongside helping our financial metrics by being more WIP efficient and driving a quicker asset turn. At this point, it's also worth highlighting that we are driving engagement with key landholders and promoters. We recognize that the value of political engagement, and we manage this closely because it is important given the relationships and contact points result in increased opportunity. Importantly, we have experienced and settled teams across the division that are driving this. So we're already well progressed on this journey to drive growth in my division. We have the right strategy and the right people in place, and we're already seeing signs of progression. As Jennie outlined, we have a coordinated approach to land strategy to drive progress through the business, and I will now walk you through how we're applying it in my division. Firstly, our teams have reassessed the land strategies and are targeting specific local authorities where land supply shortages and local demographics are favorable. We have also reappraised all of our strategic assets planning provenance, for example, highlighting the sites with potential grey belt designations to assess whether a faster planning program is possible. This enables us to identify the sites with a better opportunity for faster progress through the system. We have accelerated and submitted early applications as part of our planning strategy alongside the NPPF changes. This year, in my division, we have already submitted 8 strategic sites planning applications in front of our initial expectations, and we will submit another 8 in the final quarter of this year. From a short-term perspective, we purchased 10 sites in the second half of 2024 with the expectation of getting 8 of them through planning this year. 6 have already been approved and the final 2 are very close to approval. From experience, the planning process in the first half of this year has been better, but there is still a variation in the level of service between local authorities. This improved service needs to be maintained as more applications enter the system. As part of the planning approach as well as a reflection of the more positive planning backdrop, we are seeing a strong increase in engagement with local authorities. In fact, we were recently approached by Solihull Council and asked to submit an early application on one of our strategic assets. This not only is beneficial to us, but it helps them manage where they are going to deliver houses in their boroughs. It protects them for speculative applications in areas where they would rather not have housing. And from our perspective, it accelerates the release of outlets. This may sound unusual and improved sentiment is not universal, but we are confident in the quality of our proposals and believe that they will translate into opportunity because local authorities realize they have to move the dial on planning to meet the government's needs. And in most cases, they would rather do this with a reputable and trusted partner. So to summarize, we are driving outcomes with a targeted land strategy. We are aligned to the changing planning backdrop, allowing us to accelerate the right applications. And our approach is resulting in stronger engagement, improved sentiment with the local planning authorities. Okay. On this slide, I just wanted to give you a sense of progress. Our pipeline gives us confidence that we can grow new outlet opening strongly in the years ahead from the low base of '23 and '24. On this chart, 2023 and 2024 reflect the lower impact of slower land buying and a difficult planning backdrop. But you can see there is a clear progress reflecting in the strong land investment in 2024. We expect to open 13 outlets this year compared to 9 in 2024. We are planning to open a further 17 next year. And we are currently seeing these progress well through the planning system. With these outlets, we will be on site quickly due to the smaller nature, requiring less infrastructure. And as the land has been bought well, these sites will drive our margins in the medium term. For the larger sites in our portfolio, we have the ability to drive them harder with extra factories and in selective cases, dual outlets. The faster pull-through of strategic land will help us drive the number of plots coming from this source from the division's current 30% to around 50%. The clear message here is we have good visibility of the progress in both the short-term and long-term land banks, underpinning our confidence in outlet growth and in turn, driving an increase in land bank efficiency and WIP turn as we pull through the smaller outlets. Okay. With my first case study of 2, I will illustrate one of our opportunities to cycle into smaller outlets. The NPPF signals an opportunity to drive into these and the benefit is the lower infrastructure cost upfront and therefore, a lower WIP investment throughout the project. This will also offer us a quicker route to outlet and sale. A good example of this is our site in Redditch, Worcestershire. We contracted this in the second half of last year with a view to submitting planning as soon as possible after acquisition. The local authority welcomed the application ahead of expectations, and the application was approved in June of this year. As already mentioned, this approach to gaining planning on sites already designated for housing is the best defense against unwanted speculative applications for a local authority. Building has already started ahead of our estimate at the time of purchase with the first sale expected early next year. The build program has taken us around 2 years -- will take us around 2 years, meaning we will quickly generate and recycle cash for investment elsewhere. By way of an example, the normalized WIP for a site of this size is budgeted around GBP 4 million. This site has seen a markedly quicker progress than has been possible over the last couple of years, and it could be helped further by an improved market. We are already progressing similar opportunities and looking to build on this positive experience. The message again is smaller sites that are aligned to the NPPF opportunity and local authority need will increase outlets and a better WIP turn. So as stated, we still see excellent value in the larger sites for several reasons. While small sites will enable us to cycle into the capital quicker, we can target increased asset turn from our larger sites such as Burleyfields in Stafford. Sites like this highlight other aspects of our capital-efficient approach as well as the flexibility afforded by our current sites. Burleyfields is a 163-acre site, delivering around 1,500 plots that we started promoting through the planning system back in 2011. We started building on site in 2019. Currently, we have 2 build teams, both delivering up to 75 plots a year to drive build efficiency, and we have seen a combined sales rate of around 1.5 homes per week. Over the 5-year period on site, the rate has been supported by some small bulk sales with 5 deals being completed. These range from 12 to 50 plots. This approach helps our on-site build efficiency, and it also helps us to manage build cost inflation risk, which comes from selling too far into the future. Just to slightly step back, I thought it would be helpful to show some numbers on how Burleyfields has progressed in terms of investment. Back in April this year, work in progress was around GBP 13.6 million per outlet. This was at the high point after the second phase of infrastructure implementation. If I look at the site now, WIP currently sits at just over GBP 11 million per outlet, and it will fall back further by the end of the year. And by 2027, we expect it to be down around GBP 8 million. You can see how WIP efficiency progresses through large sites and why a pivot towards smaller sites, a journey we have been on for some time, will release further capital for investment in the business. More generally, we always carefully consider the cash flow characteristics of our larger sites, and we have sold 2 land parcels at Burleyfields already. These were both in the orange parcel around the local center and the school, which are the light blue and red areas, which has helped us bring cash forward to meet infrastructure requirements and improve our return on capital. We timed the sales to when the green infrastructure and players were completed at the front of the site to maximize value. This gave us a chance to open our sales area prior to competition being on site, so we could take advantage of the initial market demand as well. Stafford continues to be a good sales market for us and because of its good transport links and employment in the area. Should there be future growth in demand, we have the ability to turn up the dial and take advantage of the market by securing our future phases reserve matters planning ahead of our need and maintaining a structured approach to placemaking and infrastructure delivery. So while we are pivoting towards smaller sites in order to generate outlets, we are pleased to have excellent larger sites, which provide visibility and potential additionality. So to summarize, what should you be taking away -- what you should take away is the tangible progress we are making. I can clearly see the momentum in terms of new land and outlets. This is something we have been driving since the return to the land market at the start of 2024. And this is a balanced approach, which identifies the opportunity for the new planning environment and prepares us for profitable growth. I'm very confident that this is just the start. The strategy focused on smaller outlets is attuned to best align us to the need of the local planning authorities, and the proof is in the more positive engagement we are seeing from local councils. However, this is balanced with progressing our excellent larger sites in areas of land scarcity that offer great opportunity for my division. As ever, relationships are key, particularly those with key landowners and other stakeholders, and I have spoken about how we're ensuring that our teams are focused on maintaining these and that they are delivering opportunity. The ultimate aim is driving growth and improving balance sheet efficiency over the medium term. To conclude, my division is focused on continuing this momentum, and I can see tangible progress in the division and look forward to taking advantage of future market opportunities. I will now hand back to Jennie for Q&A.

Thank you, Shaun. So I'm happy now to open up for questions on this first session, after which we'll grab a coffee.

It's Allison from Bank of America. Two questions from my side. So on the smaller site strategy, I wonder because you would expect more supply of this kind of sites, but do you also expect more competition? Because I would assume some SME developers might be able to compete in those smaller sites as well. That's number one. Number two is on the planning because I remember previously, we -- the question is, when do you expect the planning to have a material impact on your P&L? And I think that time everybody consensus is probably going to be late 2026 or even '27. But right now, do you think right now, the time line probably going to be sooner than you have expected? Because I see it was a positive progress on the planning right now.

Okay. Thank you for that. I mean, firstly, in terms of competition, yes, one would expect there to be sort of equal competition, but we would expect to see an increase in smaller sites. If you think about planning as a cycle, the same way as you think about housing cycles, in this early part of the NPPF, what local authorities and what Shaun described for Solihull, for example, is they can take an offensive, defensive approach where they don't have a 5-year housing land supply. But they have to progress it quickly. They have to be able to demonstrate, for example, in the face of the inspectorate that they have an effective 5-year housing land supply. And the fastest way for local authorities to do that is to process smaller applications. And look, we've got proof points and history to demonstrate that, that will be the case also. But we are seeing promoters, landowners, ourselves submitting more small applications into the system. And so even if there continues to be competition, and we're not expecting no competition, we expect to see an increase in the overall supply. And in terms of our medium-term targets, it's probably worth sort of reaffirming that we're not expecting and we haven't planned for land prices to fall, for example. So although Savills are reporting some downward pressure on land prices, that's not built into our assumptions. On planning and material impact, we are already very well set up for 2026. You'll have seen on the slide that we have all the land planning ownership in place for 2026. So we see this continuing as we go forward. And as I also mentioned, Allison, really now, the land that we're buying now is for -- typically for 2028. Obviously, there's benefit, we have the potential to pull that forward, which would be helpful, but that's not sort of built into our assumptions. But we are starting to feel momentum picking up. And you can see that we are expecting to see decisions starting to move progressively over the coming months. And I mentioned just very quickly in passing, we've had a few fairly positive wins in the last couple of weeks -- and those are applications which authorities have processed really very quickly. I think, Shaun, your Redditch example, it was processed in about 6 months, which is what I would consider normal in my 30 years of experience, but in the last 5, 6 years is quick. And we've seen some other applications progressing similarly quickly, particularly where local authorities are feeling under pressure for their 5-year supply. Okay.

Zaim Beekawa, JPMorgan. The first one would be just given the positive planning environment, why is 4.5 to 5 years the right number? And could it be lower? And then secondly, on the strat land conversions, I think you mentioned 40%. Can you just remind us on the economics of that it has on margins? And are we still expecting it to be 40% going forward?

Sorry, your second question was about the...

The strategic land conversions.

Okay. So 4 or 5 years, it's the comfortable sort of position that the industry has operated under in the past, and we would see that if it was less than 5 years, 4 years owned, 1 year in control. It allows us to make good investment decisions rather than sort of precipitous decisions, perhaps with not sort of the best of protection in valuation. And it gives us an opportunity to sort of mature sort of through the cycle. So 4.5 years is getting, I think, to that tighter. It's absolutely deliverable, but the 4.5 to 5 years, I think, is entirely achievable, and something that we will have operated on the past with a functioning planning system. And that's what we're seeing now. We're seeing the planning system starting to -- sort of the friction starting to move. In terms of strategic land conversions and completions, we've been as high as sort of 52%, 53% in terms of strategic land completions in the past. It's been dropping off. That's entirely reconcilable with the challenges that we've seen in planning over the last sort of 4 or 5 years in particular. We're sitting at around 40% now. I expect in the sort of 2026, perhaps that to drop just a little bit. But then it would be my expectation that we would see that percentage climb again.

Will Jones from Rothschild & Co, Redburn. A couple, please. The first, just around land availability where you've made the point of improving planning generates better land supply. Just when we put our historian's hat on with regard to when NPPF came in 2012 onwards, how quickly do you usually have to wait until that better planning environment feeds land supply? And the second, just around strat land again, I think you outlined 14,000 applications that could be decided upon by the end of next year. Is there any risk you end up with too much in your favor if planning does ease a lot and it could compromise some of your efficiency metrics? Or can you control the flow of those if need to be?

Okay. From a 2012 perspective, and a lot of you know the type of business that I was involved in back then, the transmission rate can be quick, and it can be quicker in the smaller sites. So this is real lived experience, and we're now seeing that starting to play through in the planning system and the way that we're seeing our own planning decisions coming through. I think in terms of transmission rate into completions, I'm still very much where we were at the start of the discussion about NPPF changes last year that really the first decisions that are being made are those that were applications in the system before NPPF existed. And we are seeing those, a lot of appeal decisions, a lot of decisions starting to come through. We wouldn't really expect it to be hitting volume completions until '27 and beyond. And as I say, we're in a really good place for 2026 and also a very good place given how far out we are for 2027. In terms of the strat land and the acceleration we have, we've run some scenarios if all my dreams came through and everything dropped in. You'll know the strategic land, there's a degree of acceleration and deceleration that we have control of, Will. And so we'll be watching that carefully. But we have -- we continue to have the capacity as a business to draw down sort of good opportunities. But I'm comfortable that we've got good levels of control around those.

Ami Galla from Citi. A few questions from me. The first one was on your targets. When you talk about medium term, I think in one of the slides, you kind of listed out your time line till 2029 on the land bank. Is that what you -- we are looking at coming closer to the midterm level? The second one is on outlets. Like when we think about 14,000 units and we kind of back work what outlets are needed to kind of settle into, is 280 largely the level that we can realistically expect to normalize to into your growth journey that you talk about? One technical question on your current landbank. When you talk about this focus on small sites, can you give us some mix as to where does the current landbank, both on owned and controlled, the mix between large and small that sits today? And a follow-up from the question on competition in the small site, what sort of comfort can you give us in terms of achieving the right hurdle rates when you're looking to acquire smaller sites?

Okay. So in terms of medium term, I wouldn't state an end date. And certainly, we tried to sort of extend the RO there. But look, 3 to 5 years would be what we're working on. On your back solve, my number would have been a bit lower, probably 270 to 275 based on an estimation of average outlets this year of sort of 205 to 210. But look, that's the -- you're in the right ballpark, certainly, Ami. And we are driving the business to increase our outlets to get to that quantum of level. For small sites, and look, maybe this is a good place for me to say, Shaun gave a site of about 100 units. Small for us can also be 200, 225, maybe around that level. So we're talking about smaller, not pivoting into very small. And that's -- we're a volume housebuilder, and we want to ensure that we're driving good value out of our sites. So at that level, there's still a reasonable breadth in the market that we would be able to generate. I believe that we can be really competitive at that level. And there's -- I'm not expecting, as I say, there are not to be others in the market, and we factored that in. And we've, as I say, got that pre-approval pipeline with terms agreed, offers accepted that demonstrates that there's capacity for us at that point of the market. And then in terms of sort of small -- at the smaller end of sites, if you look at sites that are sort of sub 300, 370 units, I would say about 60% or more of our land position sits in that scale of site already.

Alastair Stewart from Progressive Equity Research. A couple of questions. You mentioned that competition had dropped and land supply had gone up according to Savills. Was the falling competition a case of the absolute number of competitors falling? Or is it just there's more land around? And if the competition has dropped, who's -- the absolute number of competitors has been dropping, which type of companies are falling out of the bidding as it were? And the second question is you implied the preponderance of small sites recently was, let's say, the low-hanging fruit had been addressed first. At what point -- how far away do you see the planning pipeline going back to larger sites? And what's your optimum site size?

Okay. Look, I'm not going to comment on, Alastair, who's dropping out of -- Look, there's a range of factors sort of happening. We've been very active in the planning environment. We're seeing a lot of planning promoters, land promoters and landowners also sort of active in the market. It is -- and it will always be variable. And if we look at the map of where the 5-year housing land supply stress is, there's a level of dynamism around that. And those -- we will operate around that dynamism as well to ensure that we have a good level of opportunity to achieve sites. But land supply will increase, and it is visible that the small sites are seeing -- those smaller sites are seeing much more activity and there's more availability of those in the market. From when would I expect the sort of small sites, if you were in a fully matured planning environment, what you'd expect to see is, at this point, the small sites being available. Think of it again as that offense, defense for local authorities trying to fill their 5-year housing land supply and ensure that they're getting developments in areas that they choose rather than being chosen for them by the inspector. As they move to prepare their local plans, then the tendency is for local authorities to look for, I call them anchor sites, so larger sites to underpin their local plan. What we missed in the last planning cycle was a degree of political consistency just as we were getting to a point where local plans were stalling. You would have expected that as local plans were delayed and their 5-year housing land supply was dissipating that they would have been forced to take some small sites again while waiting for their plans, but they were giving a degree of protection. There was the reduction in the housing numbers, the tension that was delivered by the NPPF was wound back just at the point where you would have considered to see those coming through. So even as the planning cycle matures and larger sites become more available because of the way that local plans operated, you'd still expect to see smaller sites being used on that offense, defense basis by local authorities through that period. But it's reasonable to assume that larger sites factor in the medium term. And if we look at the transition arrangements and Mark Skilbeck is around and he's the expert in this, that you really -- we would expect that to be sort of '28 to '29 as local authorities are bringing their local plans. And in the meantime, many of them will need to ensure that they've got smaller sites driving their land supply. And I think that probably covers all your questions, Alastair? Optimal, yes, optimal site. Well, look, I do want to make it clear. We're not lurching here. We're rebalancing. You've heard from Shaun that we still see benefit and opportunity and optionality in our larger sites and the ability to scale those up in the right market conditions. We're fine-tuning. And we can see that there's an opportunity for smaller sites and that they'll serve a purpose in helping us drive more outlets and as I said, more market opportunity during a period where market demand is perhaps a little bit more muted. Aynsley has very much been asking. No, no, go ahead, this time.

Charlie Campbell at Stifel. I've got 2, maybe best to do them one at a time. I guess sort of just in terms of sort of what's not in the strategy maybe, and this is an odd question to ask, but it seems to me you want to persist with a generally sort of quite a high sales rate compared to the peer group and the industry perhaps. I wonder if a lever that you might have pulled is to sell more slowly and try and get more price inflation, and that might be a way of managing as well. So I just wonder why that's not something that you are thinking about? That's the first question.

I think that we're fairly good, Charlie, at managing our rate and price. I talked a little bit about the systems, the investments that we've made in dynamics and other sort of platforms to support us in that process. I do -- I want to repeat, I think that we, as a business, choose really good quality locations. It's part of a process that's well embedded in our business. And I'm sure those of the DCs around the room, we are happy to talk to you at the coffee break about that. So I think that we really do optimize the location and we optimize the mix in order to ensure that we're achieving that strong sales rate. And although we always have to watch price, I don't think that we are giving away price to achieve our build rate. I think that we're working hard to ensure that we're driving that sales rate based on really good fundamentals of our locations.

And then the second one was you mentioned sort of almost in passing that you'd tilt the landbank sort of away from the south and into the north. I mean, as we think about kind of the 4-year progress, should we think about the business being materially more weighted to the north in 3 or 4 years than it is now?

No. And look, the reason that I haven't sort of given it too much volume is, again, we're talking about rebalancing. We had some really good opportunities in the South. It's meant that we're carrying just a bit more heavily than we think is necessary. There is now a greater opportunity in the North. You can see that from an affordability point of view, it's more robust. And from a planning perspective, some areas that had relatively low housing numbers are now coming back with opportunity. So rebalancing, we're not lurching. This is really just ensuring that we're smoothing out the distribution of our landbank. Aynsley?

Aynsley Lammin from Investec. I think we've just got 3, please. First of all, interested to hear a bit more color, if you could elaborate on kind of autumn selling season, how that's been relative to -- have we seen a step down in confidence? Are you having to work harder incentives and pricing, et cetera? Second question on your targets. I mean, how much of the constraint was around the balance sheet? Did you start with the dividend first and get back to kind of 14,000 target completions given what WIP you might need, et cetera? Or actually, was the balance sheet not a constraint at all given release from the landbank, et cetera? And just on 2026, given what you said, you kind of sound confident that site number -- average site numbers in '26 will be up year-on-year, even though you're not willing to give a number. Is that fair?

So I think, first of all, I mean, I just -- we give obviously some current trading this morning, but it's only sort of 6 weeks before we have a trading update again. Look, there is definitely a feeling of hesitancy at the moment sort of related as far as we can see to some of the sort of budget or the pre-budget sort of discussions. We talked at the half year about sort of resetting our campaigns and sort of leaning in, stepping into the marketing around the customer environment, and we continue to do that. I'm not going to get drawn on incentives. We'll talk about that at the trading update in November. Around the targets, I'm absolutely clear that we have built our targets, Aynsley, in the appropriate way. But I'm going to leave it to the second session when the guys will take you through some of the other bills, but Chris will take you through the medium-term targets. And I think that you'll see the very logical way that we've built our medium-term targets. And in terms of 2026, I want to again be really clear that we're not guiding on '26. This is very much about our medium-term targets today. But you have heard me talk about our intention to grow average outlets year-on-year, and that would include all things being equal in the market to 2026. And then I'm going to -- maybe, Sam, after your questions, we'll stop for a coffee break because I don't want to be responsible for the day running out of control. And if you just make a note of your questions, and we'll deal with them in the second section.

Sam Cullen from Peel Hunt. I've only got one actually. Just going to your comment around no assumption an improvement in sales rate and then also a move back towards larger sites perhaps in '28, '29. Is there, therefore, an implication that margin -- net margin should improve '28, '29 versus '26, '27? And what's the gap there to keep the return profile the same?

Chris will take you guys through the margin progression comment. What I will correct is the 28, 29 larger sites, that's not larger sites landing on the balance sheet or larger site. That's larger sites making their way into local plan processes to come out later in the planning cycle. So I'd just try to separate the two issues. I think that we will talk about margin progression. And I think that you will see that there's margin progression, but we wouldn't be leaning into the large sites as part of that. Potentially, there's some sort of positive benefit. But the two things actually is slightly different. Local plans starting '28, '29, delivering later. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you very much, everybody, for your attention. Really appreciate it. And I think we're going to take about 15 minutes for a coffee, and then we'll get started on the second session. Thank you. [Break]

Good afternoon. I'm Stephen Andrew, I'm the Group Technical Director. Today, I would like to share how we are positioning our business to thrive amid regulatory changes. So before I begin, let me just lay out the way we think about regulatory change at Taylor Wimpey. We approach collaboration and engagement as core strategic levers for shaping the future of housing delivery. We take a leadership position, maintaining strong partnerships with key organizations, including HBF and Future Homes Hub, where we lead multiple working groups to address systemic changes and develop solutions. It is always our plan to get ahead of change. We want to help shape regulation, not just follow. We assess potential costs and where possible, mitigate this in land decisions, house type and site design. We also assess potential opportunities to positively differentiate and use change to our advantage. We collaborate with supply chain partners to optimize solutions and create opportunities for savings and efficiencies. Regulation rarely stands still. So we see continuous business benefit and efficiency savings as business as usual. For example, we began discussing Future Home Standards back in 2019 when the first government consultation was launched. We set up a strategic focus group to develop our road map to zero carbon shortly afterwards. We then released our specification into the business in 2022 to meet the interim future home standard for energy ventilation and overheating alongside our net zero transition plan in the same year. We then launched industry-leading live site trials in Sudbury in 2023, putting us ahead of competition. With Future Home Standards set to be released later this year and effective in 2026, we are already well prepared to capitalize on opportunities and ensure efficient business operations. So the areas I would like to talk you through today, we actively engage with government on consultations on regulatory and policy changes, addressing unintended consequences constructively to drive positive, practical and realistic change. Our ultimate goal is to provide more housing in line with government ambition and the country's needs. We focus on technology and design innovation to address challenges and seize opportunities for business improvement. This includes Future Homes Standard, modern methods of construction and innovative solutions for challenging sites. Improvements made at one site are rolled out as best practice across the rest of the business. On supply chain readiness, our Supply Chain Director, Nick Wright, is here today, but I will touch on this briefly. Build efficiency is also crucial and depends on standardization across designs and operations, including house types. We are proud to be setting the pace for the sector, not just by responding to government consultations, but by actively shaping the agenda. Our net zero transition plan is now the benchmark for industry, and we have been instrumental in developing shared sustainability metrics that are simplifying and raising standards across the sector. Our technical innovation team leads the way in trialing and rolling out new construction methods and technologies. This slide illustrates the unprecedented pace of regulatory change across the sector, and we are very well prepared. Related costs have been incorporated into our land procurement process for some time. We benefit from our work in standardization and from TW Logistics and TW Manufacturing and our industry-leading trials have been conducted to explore innovative new approaches. These milestones are all important. However, I won't run through all of this, but we'll pick out a couple to illustrate how we have prepared. The building safety levy is expected to come into force in October 2026. Sites with building regulation applications registered before that date will have 3 years exemption from the levy. So most of these costs are not expected to arise before late 2029 into 2030. By 2030, updates to approved Document M, access to and the use of buildings are anticipated. With government likely to implement a higher standard of M42 to improve housing accessibility and adaptability, it is notable that 90% of our national house type portfolio already complies with this enhanced standard. So again, we are very well prepared in advance of change. We are proactively advancing zero carbon ready homes. Our experience shows that transitioning from older energy regulations through 2021 LNF and into Future Homes Standard adds around GBP 10,000 per plot, which we have reflected in land acquisitions for some time. The more recent proposal from government for more PV panels would push this up slightly, albeit we await the final outcome of the future home standard consultation. About 5% of our completed homes are fully electric with many with air source heat pumps, and we're reducing the reliance on gas infrastructure to future-proof our projects. Our innovation and trials put us ahead of the competitors and have given us the insight to influence policy and the confidence to plan for regulatory change. We have a strong evidence base to feed into government consultations, ensuring our voice is based on real-world delivery. We are very well prepared, having delivered the sector-leading first live site trials in 2023. Our technical teams have leveraged the insights and learnings from those trials to build knowledge. We have developed an understanding of the construction skills requirements for future homes and the trials have strengthened supply chain collaboration throughout the organization. Homeowners were positive about the technology, especially the energy-efficient features. However, the mix of technologies can be overwhelming. So we've developed better ways to explain systems like heat pumps and smart energy setups. Energy savings were a major motivator with some bills dropping from GBP 230 to GBP 130 per month once the customers became more familiar with the technologies. Customer feedback has been essential to informing our next steps and lessons learned and is something we will continue to prioritize as we progress. These trials have shaped our internal readiness and responses to government. The live site trial we did at Sudbury was highly regarded across the industry, and we received a number of external awards for this initiative, including Best Sustainability Initiative and most sustainable building project at industry awards in 2024. Innovation is integral to our Future Homes Standard strategy, and we are industry-leading. We are developing 3 key solutions to enhance cost efficiency, sustainability and customer value. SmartPUC is an award-winning off-site manufactured utility covered, which we have co-developed with Smartroof. It relocates key mechanical appliances into the loft space, providing more sellable square footage, enhanced customer storage options and with revenue uplift exceeding marginal costs. This near cost-neutral solution complements our Future Homes Standard solution and will undergo further monitoring in late '25, early '26. And through our early collaboration, we have first-mover advantage on supplier volumes. In-roof Air Source Heat Pump is a variation that some of you may have seen at Sudbury. This compact air source heat pump fits in the loft and addresses noise and vibration concerns. It simplifies installation, maintenance and replacement and is currently undergoing independent testing for scalability and market competitiveness. The Brick alternative is used with timber frame. This system reduces on-site skills demand, improves build speed compared to traditional methods and cuts embodied carbon by up to 50%. The solution developed with Mower addresses potential challenges posed by Future Homes Standard regarding increased wall depths for enhanced insulation. It enables us to preserve our existing planning consents while ensuring compliance with upcoming requirements. Early supplier engagement and on-site trials are now complete with the cost to be confirmed after detailed design reviews. In addition, our industry-first heat network trial with our infrastructure partner, GTC, reduces maintenance and frees up internal space with RSL approval. It can integrate multiple low-carbon sources such as air source heat pump and energy from waste. It's competitively priced against plot-based air source heat pump solutions, and the system is already in use with 70 homes occupied in Sudbury and resident videos are underway currently. Our new ground source heat network site is getting underway in Scotland with completions expected in 2026. And we also have a number of other pipeline sites being planned with heat networks. These innovations reflect our leading role in the sector and our commitment to thoughtful R&D, focusing on long-term impact, operational feasibility and customer experience. So taking a moment to step back, the pace of regulatory change in our sector has been unprecedented. Yet we have consistently anticipated and adapted ahead of the curve. Through early engagement, industry-leading trials and a commitment to innovation, we have not only prepared thoroughly for Future Homes Standard, but have also set the benchmark for others to follow. Our proactive approach, shaping policy, collaborating across the sector and embedding learnings from live trials means we are exceptionally well positioned to meet the challenges ahead. Now turning to how we are mitigating cost pressures and how we drive efficiency through our supply chain to support our growth. By optimizing costs, we enhance financial performance through standardization and route-to-site efficiencies, leveraging Taylor Wimpey Manufacturing and Taylor Wimpey Logistics. Our innovation efforts are moving from start-up to scale up, targeting 30% timber frame usage by 2030 to deliver homes quickly and in volume. We see build time savings of 6 to 8 weeks. We proactively manage risks to safeguard business continuity and regulatory compliance. Strengthening supplier relationships is key to supporting long-term collaboration and value delivery and by partnering, sorry, with KPMG, we have improved our risk management. Over the past 2 years, our procurement team has driven notable value improvements across regions and functions. Our centralized procurement function drives cost savings, enforces consistency and secure supply as we drive towards net zero in 2045. It unlocks strategic value across the organization, applying data-driven decision-making to our buying. Leveraging Taylor Wimpey Logistics supports our site teams efficiently through ensuring just-in-time deliveries demonstrated with our excellent 98% on-time infill delivery, also by maintaining product quality and significantly reducing the administration burden while delivering savings scaling towards GBP 400 plus per plot. Strong supplier relationships are vital for long-term value and compliance remains a top priority. Moving to standardization and build efficiency. All of these other boxes help set us up for an efficient build, starting with supply and boosted by standardization. We have 33 efficient standard house types that accounted for 94% of 2024 completions. This saves money using the consistent high-quality designs and also means that our subcontractors are familiar with our product range and designs, making it easier to get it right first time. We lead the volume housebuilders in terms of quality, and we continue to maintain high standards of build, increasingly deploying technology to aid our site managers. Subcontractors like working with Taylor Wimpey because they know we value safety, and we set up our sites for an efficient build. For example, through TW Logistics, materials will be there for them when they arrive on site, meaning they have good visibility of their potential to earn with Taylor Wimpey. Overall, these examples give a sense of initiatives across the business focused on efficiency and everything that we do. They both save money, but just as importantly, they give us the capacity to scale our output as we grow for our outlets and volumes over the coming years in an efficient manner. And just to wrap up, we've talked about Future Homes, which is a cost, but we've been factoring this in for some time. However, we also see it as an opportunity for our product to further differentiate new build from the secondhand market, but also differentiate from our competitors. We see demand continue to rise for energy-efficient homes and those built to new standards due to climate change awareness and energy costs. In recent customer research, 7 out of 10 people stated that they would be more likely to buy a home built to future home standard requirements. Our Sudbury trial showed buyers increasingly valued reduced energy bills, comfort and sustainability viewing zero carbon-ready homes as a smart investment and lifestyle choice. We are using these learnings from our Future Homes trial and early adopters to support customers through this transition, so we are in a very good place. More widely, we continue to drive innovation to find the best solution for customers, and I've shown you examples of our successes today. Driving cost and WIP efficiency through our supply chain is key and is underpinned by our focus on standardization to support our margin, but also for us to scale efficiently. We are well prepared to meet the challenges of future regulation and a proactive approach to engagement will help shape that regulation. Thank you. I will pass over to Ian.

Thank you, Stephen. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Ian Drummond, and I'm our Divisional Chair for our Scotland, Northeast and North Yorkshire businesses. Today, I will share a few slides exploring how we practically leverage our Taylor Wimpey brand to meet the needs of a wide breadth of customers. This strategy is working as demonstrated by our high level of market share and customer awareness, our reputation for quality and service and by achieving operational and delivery efficiencies, which maximize the opportunity provided by our high-quality landbank. I will bring this to life with some live examples from two of our developments in Scotland. To start with a brief overview of the division for a little bit of orientation. It's a large area by geography, but our operating area is largely focused around the main population centers with particular focus on the central belt of Scotland, and in and around Newcastle, Sunderland and the Teesside Valley, to the South, we extend to Harrogate and to York itself. Turning now to focus on our brand. When we first consider a new land opportunity, our management teams don't waste time debating which brand is appropriate for the location. Our starting point is that our Taylor Wimpey brand, supported by our well-earned reputation for quality, service, product and placemaking has the recognition and reputation to satisfy and meet all of our customers' needs. On the left here, we can see the advantage that our strong single brand drives for the business. And on the right, we further optimize these in the division. Our most recent brand survey shows that Taylor Wimpey is one of the two most recognized housebuilding brands in the U.K. When we drill down further into that market survey, the results show that where our peers operate subsidiary brands, that is additional brands within the same company, these have markedly less recognition with customers, which makes it harder for them to build a reputation, which we know is a key customer consideration. As you know, we successfully operate from our unified national brand. This is supported by our central marketing activity that promotes awareness. Within our regional businesses, we then drive customer consideration at a local level through our development-specific marketing, the quality of our product, our on-site presence, the knowledge and experience of our people and their interactions with our customers. Our business also builds on the reputation of our brand through our proactive community and stakeholder engagement activity, which is undertaken across all of our operational areas. From the outset, we factor in allocations of local demographics into land purchase decisions to better understand who our customer is. This enables us to determine product mix, select an appropriate specification level and make design decisions using our versatile and standard house type range. These house types have been designed to standardize and simplify our product range to cover all of our target customers from first-time buyers to second and third steppers and downsizers as I will go on to show. The vast majority of our developments are built out as a single outlet, where I would expect to achieve, on average, a private sales rate of 0.8% However, we also consider adopting a dual outlet strategy where it is clear that the local market has the capacity to absorb an increased volume of completions, and we are satisfied that there is scope for genuine market differentiation. Where we do operate a dual outlet approach, this would typically be defined by product size and price point, elevational treatments or specification and where there is an opportunity to design distinct character areas as part of a larger development. We only use dual outlets where there is a compelling reason to do so and where it is beneficial from a sales perspective and supports the enhancement of key financial metrics. I would expect any dual outlet site to be able to support a minimum combined private sales rate of 1.4%. In our slides, Jennie outlined some of the benefits of single brand efficiency, and we do see these playing out in the division. The success of this approach is evident in our high market share across our divisional operating area, where we are achieving a high sales rate compared to peers operating two brands on their developments. For Taylor Wimpey, this means delivering greater volume from fewer outlets without having to replicate marketing design, sales and production costs, which leads to real savings. For example, fixed opening costs for a new outlet are in the region of GBP 250,000 with annualized running costs of around GBP 800,000 per annum. This is before consideration is given to the duplication of centralized costs for brand establishment and ongoing marketing support or for the development of a new product range to meet the needs of a different market segment, amongst other things. And although our output volumes per outlet are higher than peers, we are a leader in construction quality review scores with a low number of reportable items per NHBC visit, and we have customer service scores that we are rightly proud of. To support our view on brand, I pulled out a couple of data points on the slide to highlight what we've achieved. For example, across our Scottish Central Belt operating area, our market share for the 12-month period up to the end of June '25 by net private sale was around 16% and our divisional half year sales rate was 0.8%, which was sector-leading. I mentioned earlier that the Taylor Wimpey brand enjoys a positive level of customer awareness. And last year's HBF survey, over 97% of customers from across our division were happy to recommend to a friend, and 96% would be prepared to buy again from us. This is also seen in our customer profile where around 30% of sales have been to customers who have bought previously from us. In terms of quality, our divisional CQR score is 5.15. I'm conscious that I've covered a lot on this slide, but my key takeaways for you here are Taylor Wimpey is a recognized and trusted brand, and we capitalize on this effectively at a local level. We make a significant tangible site saving from operating one efficient and consistent brand across all of our live selling outlets. And our sales, customer and quality metrics underpin our confidence that this is the right approach. We've talked about how our brand can be extended across a broad range of buyer types and how our product can be adapted to meet the requirements of customers in the locations where we are currently building or looking to invest in new land. On this slide, I've shown some examples of the entry, mid and upper end of our product offering. These are just 3 of our house types from our standard range of 33 homes spanning from 1-bedroom apartments to 5 and 6 bedrooms. So it's just to give you a flavor. The strength of the Taylor Wimpey brand is probably most evident if we look at our price points. And although there are regional differences across our division, our price spread on private sales in 2024 was from GBP 151,000 to GBP 722,000, illustrating our depth of market coverage as well as a reminder of the critical importance of selecting the right product mix to satisfy the site's location and our target market. Finally, but of real importance is that consistency and control of our house type selection is really important to our subcontract and supply chain, ensuring we maximize our procurement and build efficiency by minimizing product and material variations. The familiarity and repeatability of our house types and construction details help make it easier for our teams to focus on the quality of our build, an essential component of promoting our brand. Moving on to the next slide. What I'd like you to see here is that while our house type range provides a platform to ensure simplification of build and standardization of technical detailing, we still have the ability to select from a wide range of home sizes and designs with an internal layout configuration that can suit all of our customers' preferred living styles. Open plan versus traditional rooms has always been a debate, so we've settled it by offering both. The example of the Rightford house type also illustrates how we can elevate our house types in a location-specific external finish, enabling us to satisfy local planning requirements and create interesting places with curbside appeal and character. Alongside external treatments, we also determine our internal specification level to align with market and customer expectations, but that still provides the opportunity for our customers to personalize their homes through option choices. I picked out two case studies that I think help bring our brand and product selection to life. As I mentioned earlier, most of our sites operate from a single outlet with our product choices carefully considered to meet the demands of the local market. Our West Craig site in Maybury, West Edinburgh is an excellent example of this. It was a strategically sourced site of 250 new homes in a location we would classify using our quality matrix as A, B. West Craigs is a site towards the upper end of our target market, but the product range is still quite wide, where the price point has sat between GBP 250,000 to GBP 725,000, demonstrating our confidence in the Taylor Wimpey brand and our product range to meet the needs of customers to deliver a consistently high sales rate and to support excellent financial returns. At West Craigs, our larger product is attractive to families moving outwards from Central Edinburgh, offering great value for money for a family home within a much sought after Edinburgh post code. And with our smaller product, our research identified that there was a real opportunity to appeal to potential first-time buyers and to those downsizing or rejoining the property market. We selected house types to encourage buyer appeal across the catchment area. West Craigs has been a very successful site with a current year-to-date sales rate of 1 per week. Inclusive of 7 affordable homes, we will complete 55 homes on West Craigs this year. Our customer surveys show very strong brand awareness and excellent word of mouth as being a factor influencing buyer choice. We have a very positive 5-star customer score as well as a very high build quality. Our service is often cited in our customer surveys as a reason for choosing us. We also know from these surveys that many friends and families of our West Craigs customers have purchased on the same development or another nearby Taylor Wimpey developments and are happy to recommend us. Dual outlets can be deployed when offering product of different size and price point, a variation design styles and specification or where each outlet can be located in a different character area of the site. This enables a tailored and targeted approach to be taken to our dynamics-based marketing whilst leveraging customer awareness of brand to reassure them on what our research shows that customers value, quality and service. A good example is on our current phase of Dargavel, Bishopton just outside Glasgow. This is a long-standing Taylor Wimpey site where we were the first active developer in 2013 and have now successfully completed over 800 new homes. Bishopton is a super large site and a brownfield regeneration scheme. It has outlined planning consent for 4,000 homes alongside a number of supporting new local facilities. This is one of the largest community growth areas in Scotland. On the current phase of this site, we have utilized two of the master plans character areas to deliver differentiated product mixes to the market. Dargavel Village comprises smaller house types at price points ranging from GBP 230,000 to GBP 440,000 and Dargavel View offers larger homes from GBP 465,000 to GBP 685,000. Both outlets are sold under our unified single brand. As we've been in Dargavel for some time, we have seen a significant number of customers buy from us again. In fact, nearly 40% of our current fees are repeat purchasers with some now buying for the second and third time. These are individuals that may have bought a starter home using Help to Buy and have progressed up the ladder to the purchase of a 5-bedroom home for over GBP 600,000, an excellent vote of confidence in the quality and service we are delivering alongside the attraction of the place being created. Of course, we have naturally focused on the customer dimension, but the values our Taylor Wimpey brand stands for are also very important to our relationships with our stakeholders and land vendors. At Bishopton, we have an excellent relationship with the landowner, BAE Systems forged over more than 12 years of involvement at Dargavel. We are the only developer to have had a continued presence on this site and are proud that we will have been part of the Dargavel story from start to finish, albeit we have a few years to go yet. So to summarize my section before handing over to Chris. The case studies are focused on Scotland, but we can see from the division as a whole that our brand approach really works. We have a highly recognizable and trusted brand that demonstrably reaches across a broad spread of customer demographics. This is supported by a standard house type range that can be flexible and capable of serving the whole price and size range of our target markets. Our disciplined approach to standardization and simplification of our house type range delivers economies of scale, benefits our supply chain and subcontract partners and their desire to work with us, ensuring they play a key role in supporting our commitment to quality and service. Proof points are our high market share, high sales rate and a very high level of repeat customers. We have the ability to selectively use dual outlets to leverage our single brand where there is sufficient demand in the market and where we can offer homes suitable for different market segments. Thank you for listening, and I will now hand over to Chris.

Thanks, Ian, and good afternoon, everyone. So Jennie opened today's presentation by setting out medium-term targets. Everything you've heard so far today should have given you a clearer sense of how we intend to deliver those targets operationally. In the next section, I'll look at how our operational plans translate into financial outcomes and highlight the key factors driving Taylor Wimpey's progress from where we are today to where we want to be in the medium term. And just to be clear on the time frame, we think about the medium term as 3 to 5 years, as we said earlier, from 2025, consistent with our previous commentary around the outlook for the business when we talked about setting up the business for growth from 2025. However, given our last published numbers are for 2024, it's appropriate to use these as the base comparator in this section. The targets on this slide have been carefully considered. They reflect the current market conditions as well as the continuation of the positive signs that we are seeing with planning, which will continue to be a key enabler for delivering our strategy. While the environment remains dynamic, not least as we approach the budget, those of you familiar with Taylor Wimpey's track record will recognize that given our current position and operational strength, these targets are both realistic and achievable. Delivering against these targets will create meaningful value, both for our customers through the provision of much needed new homes and for our shareholders through enhanced returns and continued distributions under our capital allocation policy. And I'll now take you through how we intend to achieve these targets, starting with margin. So this chart outlines the key drivers of our expected progression from the current underlying group operating margin to our medium-term target of 16% to 18%. Three key factors underpin this. Firstly, our volume growth. As we deliver higher volumes, we'll benefit from improved operating leverage, allowing us to spread our fixed costs more efficiently and enhance margin. Second, our landbank evolution, transitioning from older, lower-margin land to newer, higher-margin sites, supported by disciplined land acquisition is expected to be a significant driver of the targeted improvement in margin, particularly from 2027, as I will show in a second. And third, regulatory change. While the upcoming requirements like the Future Homes Standard and building safety levy will have some impact, we have, of course, been proactively pricing these costs into our land purchases for some time. Sites purchased before these costs were known will experience some margin pressure, but this has already been accounted for in our planning. Taken together, these factors support a credible path to achieving our 16% to 18% margin target. We've also included house price inflation and build cost inflation in the bridge to illustrate their potential influence on margin in the medium term. Starting from the end of 2024, the bridge reflects the small headwinds reported in half 1 this year. From this point, we expect broadly neutral effect, consistent with a normalized market where house price inflation and build cost inflation offset one another. While the combined impact of these factors has been negative over the past few years, we believe that assuming a neutral effect going forward is both reasonable and prudent, especially in the light of the latest expectations around falling interest rates and recent wage inflation. Let me now take you through the first two drivers on the chart in more detail. So as Jennie outlined earlier, our plan to drive volume growth is underpinned by increasing outlet numbers from a similarly sized or even slightly reduced land bank. This will be achieved by efficiently progressing our existing outlet and planning pipelines and by continuing to reinvest in smaller sites. Our medium-term volume target of 14,000 homes represents an increase of over 30% from the midpoint of this year's guidance range or a compound annual growth rate of between 6% and 10%. The pace at which we reach this target will no doubt be nonlinear and depend on the prevailing planning and affordability environment, but we are confident in its achievability. To put this in context, we have retained the operational capacity and geographical reach to support this growth from our existing structure of 22 business units. For example, in 2019, we delivered 15,500 U.K. completions from 24 business units. So we're confident in our ability to scale within our current footprint. In fact, as shown in the upper chart, we expect the average output per business unit to remain below 2019 levels. Today, we operate with a fixed cost base of approximately GBP 350 million across our U.K. and Spanish businesses with close to 30% flowing through gross margin. As volumes increase, we expect only a modest rise in fixed costs, enabling margin progression through increased efficiency. While my earlier rule of thumb of 10 basis points operating margin uplift per 100 completions was relevant at lower volumes, the effect naturally tapers as scale increases given the diminishing impact of fixed cost absorption. In the short term, the late November budget may introduce some uncertainty into the autumn selling season and could affect the strength of the order book we take into 2006 (sic) [ 2026 ] and therefore, next year's volumes, and we have been prudent in our planning in this regard. However, importantly, we believe the target can be achieved without relying on a meaningful improvement in effective demand. So the key takeaway is that while short-term uncertainty may well mean U.K. volume growth in 2026 is below the straight-line run rate required to reach our medium-term target, that is already reflected in our thinking. The evolution of our landbank is a key driver of the margin improvement we expect, and we want to help you understand how this will play out over time. The chart shows how the mix of annual completions is expected to shift across different vintages of land over the coming years. Older land, particularly that acquired before 2023, has been impacted by elevated build cost inflation. In contrast, new land entering the landbank is coming in at higher margins. If it takes, for example, 4 years to reach our volume target, then by that point, over half our completions would be coming from newer, higher-margin land. The actual margin benefit we realize from this shift again depends on several factors, the pace of volume growth, the intake margin on new land acquired and other market influences such as future house price inflation, build cost inflation and any further regulatory changes. It's important to recognize that this evolution will take time to flow through. The progressive contribution from new land, shown in the blue segment in the chart illustrates that the margin uplift from land evolution won't be linear. So just to be clear, a large proportion of our completions over the next couple of years will still come from land acquired before 2023. And because there's limited margin differentiation between those 3 earlier vintages of land, the margin uplift in 2026 will not be as large as in later years. It will be more meaningful in 2027. And then it's really in 2028 and 2029 where the lion's share of the margin improvement is delivered. So let me now turn to how margin improvement, combined with the actions that we're taking to accelerate asset turn, supports our ambition to increase return on net operating assets. So starting with land, as Jennie mentioned earlier, we currently hold more land than is efficient for today's output levels. We expect the NPPF to improve land supply and reduce the need to hold as much land as we would in a more constrained environment. Our medium-term land bank target of 4.5 to 5 years based on 14,000 completions implies a short-term land bank of around 63,000 to 70,000 plots by the end of the period, down from just under 76,000 plots held in June this year. While this represents a reduction in land bank size, it doesn't all translate into a reduction in land investment. And that's because smaller sites typically carry a higher average cost per plot, largely due to differing infrastructure requirements. And we also anticipate a gradual shift in our geographical mix moving from south to the north, which will help balance the cost profile and partly offset the higher per plot costs of smaller sites. Turning to work in progress. I'd like to provide more clarity on the factors behind the elevated WIP per outlet we saw at the half year and why we expect this to reduce over time. As of June, we held approximately GBP 270 million of WIP across 9 Greater London apartment schemes. These are expected to complete gradually over the coming years, with full release of that WIP anticipated by 2029. Given the planning and viability challenges in London, alongside constraints associated with the building safety regulator, we have limited appetite to reinvest that capital back into the city. In addition, our current site mix includes a higher proportion of developments with above-average infrastructure requirements. As this normalizes in the way illustrated by Shaun earlier, we expect to recover a further GBP 100 million. Finally, as our mix continues to shift towards smaller sites, we anticipate further reductions in exposure to high infrastructure schemes. Taken together, we expect this deliberate change in mix to allow the recovery and redeployment of our existing WIP to support approximately 40 additional outlets on standard housing sites over the course of the plan. So the combination of a leaner land bank and lower WIP per outlet along with higher volumes will materially improve our asset turn, driving improved capital efficiency and helping us deliver on our medium-term target of at least 20% return on net operating assets. Looking at everything I've covered so far through a cash lens, this chart illustrates the level of cash we expect the business to generate over the medium term and how we intend to deploy it. As you know, Taylor Wimpey is a consistently cash-generative business. With no need to increase land investment, only modest WIP investment and improvements in WIP per output, as mentioned earlier, we have enough cash to fund the ordinary dividend and still generate surplus capital. This is after accounting for the settlement of the cladding provision and our ongoing tax and interest obligations. And all of this is achievable while maintaining low adjusted gearing. We're often asked what low gearing means in practice, but for us, this isn't a fixed definition as it's important to preserve flexibility for land investment when market conditions are favorable. For example, and as a bit of context for you, at the half year, we described our adjusted gearing of 5% as very low. Similarly, in periods such as June 2016 when gearing was 20%, we again considered that a comfortable level for a business like ours that generates significant cash flow. Importantly, we don't view gearing in isolation. Our view as to the appropriate level reflects investment decisions made in the context of the market outlook and the strategic priorities at the time. So in the short term, you are likely to see adjusted gearing increase due to the timing of the normalization of our WIP investment, but we remain committed to maintaining a strong balance sheet and a disciplined approach to capital allocation. So this slide will look very familiar to you because our capital allocation priorities, again, remain unchanged. First, maintaining a strong balance sheet is a must and underpins everything we do. Second, as you've heard me talk about a number of times in this presentation, we will invest in land and WIP at the right point in the cycle to drive future growth and maximize shareholder value. Third, given what you've outlined today, you'll see why we remain comfortable with our capital allocation policy and intend to continue to pay our ordinary dividend, returning 7.5% of net assets to shareholders through the cycle. Finally, where we have excess cash, we return it to shareholders. We've done that consistently and will do so again at the right point in the cycle. So in summary, our medium-term targets are grounded in operational reality and supported by a clear delivery plan. Margin growth through the period will be driven by volume growth, land bank evolution and disciplined cost management, stepping up particularly from 2027 and with a clear path to our 16% to 18% target. We're focused on improving capital efficiency, which will support our ambition to deliver at least 20% return on net operating assets. Strong cash generation underpins our ability to invest, maintain a robust balance sheet and continue delivering attractive shareholder returns. Our capital allocation priorities remain unchanged, and we remain committed to executing them with discipline and consistency. And I'll now hand back to Jennie for a summary of the afternoon.

So thank you to Chris, Ian and Stephen. So thank you for joining us this afternoon. We are at the beginning of a new cycle with significant opportunity ahead, and we've taken early proactive steps to ensure that Taylor Wimpey is well positioned to capitalize on it. There is demand in the market, and we have the land, the capability and the resources to deliver a growing number of much needed new homes. Our strategy focuses on unlocking value from our existing land bank, increasing outlet numbers and volumes and driving operational leverage, key levers that will support volume growth and margin recovery. Importantly, the combination of a leaner land bank and lower work in progress per outlet will enhance our capital efficiency. This underpins our confidence in delivering our medium-term guidance of at least 20% of return on net operating assets. As our strategy gains momentum, we expect not only a recovery in margins, but also robust cash generation. So we will continue investing in the business while maintaining our capital return policy, providing compelling returns for our shareholders over the medium term. And with that, I'll now open up for questions.

Carlos Caburrasi from Kepler. I was wondering if you could provide some visibility on the dynamics you're currently seeing on the labor market? And what are your expectations during this new cycle? And second, going to fire safety provisions. I mean, this can take a big bite on cash during the period. And I was wondering if you could update us on the movements you've seen since H1 on your expectations for the medium term.

Okay. I'll take the labor market. Chris, if you want to sort of take the cash question. At this point in time, we're not seeing sort of any great constraint within the supply chain. We are fairly comfortable with the labor availability. But as we look into the medium term, we know that there will be challenges, both for Taylor Wimpey and across the sector as volumes grow. We talked about what we've been doing within Taylor Wimpey around sort of our investment in our own people and our ability to attract good people through the cycle. And I'm very confident that I think that we are an excellent employer, and we have an excellent story and our employment -- or employee value proposition now gives us sort of the language and the coherence to put that forward. We're also very actively involved around apprentices and early entry. I sit as a Board member of the Construction Skills Mission Board, which is a cross-department government lead to ensure that we have the apprentices and the skills that the wider construction sector needs. But at this point in time, I think that we are in a good place but there will be challenges ahead. That's why we've been investing in Taylor Wimpey manufacturing for timber frame, why we've been investing further in Taylor Wimpey logistics, and as I say, also in our early entry. So Chris, on cash?

Yes. Absolutely no change from the half year, either in terms of the provision or in terms of the cash unwind. So we said GBP 100 million for this year, including a chunk for the building safety fund within that, a little bit more next year and then tapering down over the medium term.