Alongside that, the benefits of MMC need to be properly communicated to counter mistrust of anything that isn’t traditionally built, finally putting to bed lingering and outdated negative perceptions related to ‘prefab’ construction.

MMC has already proven it can work in non-domestic contexts, as well as in the high-rise residential sector. Category 2 MMC (panel systems) is used to help create homes, and there is no reason that Category 1 MMC (volumetric solutions) cannot follow suit. Many voices share the same view, so here at Arclin we are far from alone in believing in the potential of offsite housebuilding.

Will government and industry form the right working relationship?

The House of Lords Built Environment Committee carried out an inquiry into the failure of several Category 1 MMC companies and published a letter to the government in early 2024. The letter outlined numerous failings related to the investment of public money, and a lack of clear or measurable outcomes related to that investment.

The letter encouraged the government to “acquire a much deeper understanding of how modern methods of construction work.” It also stressed the need for a clear strategy, and for the government to demonstrate leadership, if the sector is to support more housebuilding.

Writing later in the year, the Committee’s Chair, Lord Moylan, said the same concerns remained, even after the change of government following July 2024’s election.

At the Labour Party Conference in September 2024, an expert panel was convened to discuss sustainable ways of solving the housing crisis. Mike Reader MP chaired the panel and acknowledged the need for planning laws to allow “repeatable products”, which he said would drive down cost and enable innovation, especially in the use of materials like timber.

He went on to say, “The government is going to listen” and tasked the sector to “come to us and help us deliver on our missions.” On the face of it, this sounds positive – but in the context of the Built Environment Committee’s findings, is it the right message for the government to be asking the sector to come to them, when it’s already been identified that the role of government must be to lead through clear strategy?

Can negative perceptions of offsite MMC solutions be overcome?

Arguments against the use of MMC, and volumetric solutions in particular, often centre on the idea that the end product will be ‘boxy’ and there will be no variety in the choice of product available. The irony of such an attitude is that volume housebuilding sites only ever feature a small selection of house types anyway, which is evidenced by potential homeowners being able to view ‘house styles’ on new-build developments.

Concerns about offsite or MMC solutions can sometimes be traced to pejorative views toward post-war ‘prefab’ housing, which often gets woven into negative stories about the recent failures of Category 1 MMC companies. In the UK, it’s still common to talk about ‘bricks and mortar’ construction, which results in an expectation of traditional brick-and-block homes.

Traditional construction is under a host of different pressures, however. Cavity wall widths can only increase so much to meet increasing energy efficiency standards, whereas offsite solutions can be designed and built to meet those standards more easily. There is a shortage of skilled labour to keep building in a traditional way, which can be solved by increasing the role of MMC in the sector.

In this post so far, we have focused on Category 1 and Category 2 MMC solutions. There are five others in that category-based definition of MMC. In reality, though, MMC can be a lot of different things. Understanding and defining MMC from the outset is one of the critical factors in delivering a host of solutions beyond ‘just’ volumetric or panel systems – and could lead to it being more readily accepted as a result.

What is perhaps needed more than anything is momentum. Once specifiers and housebuilders see time and cost benefits, and once homeowners themselves can see and feel the benefits of an MMC-delivered home, then the sector will pick up the positive traction it needs to play its pivotal role in meeting housebuilding targets.

How products like Arctek® Dryshell™ can help to ensure a variety of solutions are available

Fundamentally, the construction industry is too complex for any single solution to ever take hold completely. Companies have found success in offering MMC to multiple sectors of construction; others have found it helps to reduce risk by working with different construction methods – and timber has a vital role to play in any ‘offsite revolution’.

In the future, it could be that Category 1 MMC serves to provide a steady stream of new social housing while Category 2 MMC serves the volume housebuilding market. Timber plays a part in both categories, and so that sector of the market needs solutions capable of meeting the performance demands of new-build housing.

An example of such a solution is Arctek® Dryshell™, an integrated weather resistant barrier for OSB sheathing boards, created by Arclin.

The overlay provides high levels of performance and is a continuous and factory-applied solution that ‘fuses’ to OSB, allowing it to be used in both on-site and offsite construction methods. With Arctek® Dryshell™ a simple taping between panel seams is all that is required, and with no tricky installation details usually associated with traditional housewraps, there is no risk of rips or tears, so no moisture or dirt can get into the construction.

Arctek® Dryshell™ helps timber framed housing manufacturers and suppliers to make improvements to their processes and take greater advantage of the growing timber frame market in the UK. To find out more about how Arctek® Dryshell™ can benefit your timber framed housebuilding projects, request a sample or contact us with an enquiry.