Good morning, everybody. Welcome to MJ Gleeson's annual results presentation for the year to June 2026. I've hotfooted it here from my BBC Radio 4 breakfast show, which I hope you're all listening. It was very exciting because Mark actually got me to go to the studio, so I sat there with Nick and Justin and my headphones, all very exciting. Even more excitingly, following on from me, Johnny Marr walks in. So there's me and Johnny, recognizing two aging rock stars. The best bit was the text from my great old friend Andrew Duxbury, who said, "What a classic BBC link to go from the housing market to The Smiths, because heaven knows we're all bloody miserable now." It is certainly not the most propitious of economic backdrops against which to be presenting our results. On the other hand, I'm actually really pleased and really excited with the changes and the improvements that we've made in Gleeson Homes this year. We can only affect what we can affect, but I will talk to you about that this morning. There's a bit to get through, so please bear with me, but I think it's worth sharing with the market and with the changes we've made. It's worth sharing that with you. So I'll try and take it at some pace, but bear with me. So I characterize the outturn as a robust performance against a challenging backdrop, and that was underpinned by good performance from Gleeson Homes selling 10% more homes than the previous year. Pleased that that figure was augmented by. The net reservation rate was poor at 0.51. Nobody's writing home about that. That figure was augmented by our first partnerships completions, and of course, that's a journey we began about two and a half years ago. So great work by the team to actually get those first scores chalked on the board. We will be looking to build on that. We did have some bulk sales as well, about 300 units. That was at an average discount of just under 16%, which is actually not bad. Nobody likes being forced into bulk sales. But I think the relatively low numbers that we're looking to put in that market, and also the work that Scott and the team put in to get after that early so that we're doing our business through the year in smaller quantities, rather than getting caught in the period end carnage and some of the egregious discounts that we read about. Site openings, bit disappointing, still constrained by slow planning. I will talk about that. But as I said, we have completed that operational restructure, and I'll give you some detail on that. Gleeson Land's year, the number was really defined by that continuing the slippage of the single large sale that we've talked to you about. I'll update you on that this morning. There were two other smaller sales which we'd hoped to complete in June, and they really ran into the developer caution that we're all well aware of, that you're reading about in all the majors statements. But happily, both of those sales are expected to proceed in the current year, one to the same buyer and one to a different buyer. But all is not lost in that market. We have, as you know, a strong business. We have a great portfolio. When we are taking our high-quality sites to market, we are still seeing good interest. Very happy that we strengthened our pipeline even further with some 13 new promotion agreements, and submitting 18 planning applications, all the others there. That is, as I say, strengthening the pipeline, which we are very pleased with. And pleased that we also maintained our strong balance sheet with negligible net debt at the period end and continuing low land creditors. It really was a year of intense business improvement activity in Gleeson Homes. It has been hard work. I do want to recognize upfront the response and the support we have had from the team. They have shown real resilience. They have embraced that change. Happily, in the people survey that we completed just in the last few weeks, our engagement score, which was already strong last year, actually improved over the year and improved against the benchmark. That is a real tribute to the team. A strong thank you from me to the team and to the leaders that have led them through that, so very pleased with that. But we have absolutely restructured Gleeson Homes. We have massively strengthened our leadership team. We have changed process. We have significantly reformed our land buying process. We have rationalized the portfolio. I will give you some detail on all of that. Very pleased that we successfully completed the transition to the new, or new for us, NHBC, HBF customer scoring system. You should not underestimate the achievement that was for the team, particularly against the rest of the change we were bringing through. The quality of the product is still good, but it is a very different way of collecting the data and a lot of different things for the team to concentrate on. So in calendar 2025, which was our first year under that system, we achieved what I would class as a satisfactory four-star outcome. That is quite an achievement with that transition. Obviously, what we want to be, what we need to be is five-star. We are not settling for anything less. In the current year, which is calendar FY 2026, we are currently trading at five star. But of course, there are a lot of surveys to pass under the bridge before that is closed out. We have grasped the nettle on legacy site adoptions. I will give you a little bit of detail on that. Now looking forward, with Project Transform complete, we are looking at how we know we can continue to improve, and we are proactively looking at our market engagement, product, brand, et cetera, and I will talk to you a little bit about that. We are also looking to build on our success in partnerships, which is particularly timely given the government's recent recommitment to that mode of delivery. So how are we seeing that market in Gleeson Homes? Subdued, it definitely is. I have picked out three reasons here. Rightmove tell us continually, and have been telling us for many months now, that the total available properties for sale in the U.K., in England, remains very high, an 11 or 12 year high. That is clearly absorbing a lot of the demand. Mortgage rates are increasing and likely to go higher, and the cost of living challenge is rearing their head again. We are already seeing it in fuel and energy, and widely expected that we are going to get some sort of spike in food inflation, and that is a particular worry for Gleeson customers at the lower end of the income band, as you have heard me say before. The bulk market is active, but pricing, as I have alluded to, is very keen. Partnership opportunities, we are seeing them. It is a competitive marketplace, but we were really pleased to see the recent announcement of the strategic partner funding, and the phone has started to ring off the back of that. Excited for what we can achieve there. Selling price inflation, it is anemic. We got a bit last year. Currently, Stefan has done a bit of an exercise, so it is a low sample size. But we currently think we are running at about 1% annualized, which is very poor. Obviously, the bigger story is around incentives. Happily, incentives still average just below 5% last year. So we are keeping that fairly tight. In fact, Scott and I find ourselves in the place of kicking them and saying, "Push the incentives a bit harder." It is a balance. But as I say, we achieve what we achieved at sub 5% incentives. Build cost inflation continues to go forward. We saw about 4.5% over the year. It is currently running, we think, at about 3%-4%. Because the market is weak, we are able to resist the more aggressive requests for 7%, 8%, 9% increases. But there is a residual level, let us say, we think about 3%-4% below which we will not be able to resist. And so, sadly, difficult for us to rebuild margins into that environment. Current trading. Well, it is on the slide, really poor. August was very weak, so 0.44 in the nine weeks to last weekend. We have seen a bit of a tentative pickup. You would expect that once people come back from their holidays. So the last couple of weeks have been better than that 0.44. We do need it to be better again. And who knows how well that holds as we run into increasing mortgage interest rates and now the looming budget. So at that point, I am going to hand you over to Stefan to run through the numbers, and then I will come back and talk about the good things we have been up to in homes and land. Stefan? Okay. Thank you, Graham. As Graham said, the year to June 26th, it was a robust performance by the group. We grew revenue by 12.1% to GBP 410 million. But we did deliver lower group operating profit, and that was principally due to two things. The significant site delays in Gleeson Land with one particularly large site sale, and margin compression in Gleeson Homes. I will take you through the divisional performance on the next few slides, just to highlight a couple of group items here. Group overheads reduced by GBP 0.5 million. That was due to tight cost controls, lower remuneration, and the unwind of a legacy construction provision. And interest costs increased by GBP 1.7 million - GBP 5.2 million, and that was due to higher average borrowings, so higher interest costs on those borrowings, and also higher discounting charges under IFRS 9 for long-term payables. As a result, group adjusted PBT reduced to GBP 10.8 million, and adjusted earnings per share were 14.1 pence. Turning to the divisional results. Gleeson Homes volumes increased by almost 10% to 1,968 homes, and that was driven by the 320 homes that we sold to partners, our first full year of partnership delivery. That represented about 16% of total volume. We increased the number of homes that we sold to multi-unit buyers. That was 301 homes, about 15% of full year volume. Selling prices were up 3.8%, and that was driven by 3.0% increase in underlying selling prices. A stronger house type and regional mix with a higher average number of beds. That was partly offset by the impact of the lower prices that you get from selling to multi-unit buyers. Incentives remained high. They were about 4.8% of open market selling prices. Including two land sales during the year, Gleeson Homes totaling GBP 4.4 million, Gleeson Homes revenue was up almost 15% to GBP 400 million. Gross profit increased by 3.3% to GBP 74.5 million. But the margin benefit from higher volume and higher selling prices was significantly mitigated by those lower gross margins. On other income, you will notice there, we introduced our own part exchange program in the second half of the year, and that has been very successful. We were break even, and that helped deliver 58 additional sales during the year. We continue to improve overhead efficiency, and whilst cost increased by GBP 4.5 million, which was a 9% increase, that compares to a 15% increase in turnover. Those cost increases, that was driven by pay increases, the full year impact of higher national insurance rates, increased IT spend, and higher recruitment costs. As a percentage of revenue, overhead costs fell by 80 basis points to 13.6%. Operating margins were 140 basis points lower at 5.0%, and really that was driven by three things. Significant build cost inflation, which is running at 4.5%, exceeded underlying selling price increases on reservations during the year, which were 2.2%. The increase in multi-unit sales, which chipped away at margin. We were able to mitigate about a third of that impact through overhead efficiencies. Just touching on the exceptional items. We recognized GBP 13.6 million worth of exceptional items in the year, and those are listed out in the appendices. Just to set them out briefly here. GBP 2 million comes from the cash costs from the restructuring activities during the year. In particular, restructuring of Greater Manchester, Merseyside region, and the East Yorkshire region. GBP 4.5 million non-cash impairment from the impairment of 12 conditionally purchased sites and one owned site that we have not developed, we will not develop, we will be selling, but we expect to sell at a loss to the purchase cost. Then GBP 7.1 million, which is a provision we booked for the legacy site adoption costs that we expect to incur over the next three to four years, and that is on 81 legacy sites. Those legacy sites date back some of them 10 years. Looking at the forward order book. Despite a weaker market, we maintained our forward order book. In fact, it was up three plots. Open market orders were flat, exactly the same as last year at 402 forward orders. The eight additional partnership agreements we signed during the year increased our forward order book at the end of the year, and that offset a reduced multi-unit forward order book. Now turning to Gleeson Land. The division recorded five site sales during the year. As we've said, three sales were delayed to this year, one of those particularly material. Those five site sales generated GBP 4.8 million of gross profit, and we booked additional provisions against the portfolio of GBP 1.4 million, meaning that we reported GBP 3.4 million of gross profit for the year. Overheads were in line with last year's overheads at GBP 4.1 million. As a result, that division reported a loss for the year of GBP 700,000. Now looking at the balance sheet. Inventories increased by GBP 35.4 million year on year. That was largely driven by three items. Build WIP in Gleeson Homes was GBP 18.8 million higher due to build cost inflation and some significant infrastructure investment on some large sites. We have GBP 7.1 million of part exchange assets on the balance sheet within the limit that we internally had set ourselves. That's 46 properties that we own, and that contributed to completions particularly in June of the year. We're quite confident that those, like in the first half, that those will continue to be sold at profits that mean that our part exchange activity remains break even. Gleeson Land inventories increased by GBP 8.3 million, and that reflects the cost of securing those 13 additional promotion agreements during the year. Significant spend on planning applications. We had a very strong year in submitting planning applications. But also the lower charge to cost of sales for the site sales that didn't happen during the year, the ones that were delayed. Land creditors remain low at GBP 15.5 million. Other liabilities increased by GBP 36.7 million, and there are a number of reasons for that. GBP 7.1 million legacy site adoptions provision being one of them. We did have higher accruals, about GBP 11 million. Trade payables were GBP 17 million higher, reflecting the timing of payments and, in particular, a very busy June build activity. Now, with net assets of approximately GBP 300 million, and net borrowings of only GBP 2.6 million and low land creditors, we continue to focus on the strength of our balance sheet. Forgive me, I think I skipped a slide a little prematurely there. Just on cash flow, the group generated GBP 16.9 million of operating cash flow. That was entirely driven in Gleeson Homes. GBP 22 million of operating cash flow in Gleeson Homes. Offsetting a small outflow in Gleeson Land, essentially driven by the delay to those land sales and the cash flows on group overhead costs. Cash interest increased by GBP 1.1 million. That reflects the higher borrowings and the higher interest cost. CapEx was GBP 2.3 million higher. That reflects quite low spend in the previous two years, but also a step up in investment and show homes, sales arenas, compounds, and equipment on site. Now, to the dividend. We are proposing a final dividend of 1 pence per share. That is reduced on last year's final dividend. That brings to 5p, the total dividend for the year, which the board believes is prudent in this less certain market environment and is consistent with our determination to maintain a strong balance sheet, and is also more in line with our dividend cover policy, which is that earnings will cover dividends by between 3 x and 5 x. A 5p total dividend for the year will be covered 2.8 x, so close. Thank you very much, and I shall hand you back to Graham. Thanks, Stefan. Operations and strategy, looking first at Gleeson Homes. A couple of minutes on Project Transform. We have done a huge amount of work on this. We significantly strengthened the leadership in the team. As you know, Scott joined us as divisional chair on 1st July last year. Scott is now responsible for running the whole of the Gleeson Homes business. As you are aware, we have restructured into four principal operating regions. We have three new regional managing directors supporting Scott. two of those are experienced external hires, one is an internal promotion. We have made multiple experienced recruitments at regional and divisional director level. It really is a strengthened team. This is really about moving away from that overly centralized, overly dependent structure that we had in the group before. That really is not effective for a volume home builder. What we have done then is to empower our regions, so that those guys are very much owners of their budgets, owners of their profit and loss account. They have the ability to make decisions, to be entrepreneurial in their local environment. Quite clearly remaining a very short reporting line to Scott, who is very close with all of them, and they are working to very clear targets, KPIs, and regular reporting, et cetera. We have also reinvigorated but clarified the role of our group central functions, which are absolutely vital. So we have slightly reduced the center, but as I say, reinvigorated it. The role of those guys, they are functional leaders, and their role is providing expertise and setting the standards by which our regions operate. That is how we maintain control, that is how we maintain quality. So significantly improving the integration between center and the regions. We have completely reformed our land buying. So we have moved land buying away from a centrally controlled operation and embedded that in the regions. The critical thing there is that the regional management teams, you are getting full buy-in to every bid at bid stage. Before, as I say, it was too centrally directed. We have also, importantly refocused our land buyers onto more chimney pot areas, as we call them, more densely populated areas, suburban areas, reversing that trend, that drift that the group had seen, I think, over the past five or six years into buying, frankly, too many rural and coastal locations. So we have definitely sharpened that focus. We have also strengthened the process around our land buying. So we said that we have been much more specific on our requirements, on the appraisal, on layouts, on planning the actual development itself, and on planning our completion and exit. That is all about really sharpening the technical control of the land bidding and buying process. That is aimed at mitigating that kind of disappointing situation whereby you commit to the site at one margin. By the time you bring it to commencement budget, the margin has dropped, and then it drops again through development. That is just not a way for the business to prosper. I am very pleased with what we have achieved in land buying. As you are aware, we have rationalized the regions, as I mentioned, into four principal regions. We have taken the opportunity to rationalize the land portfolio as well. We are walking away from about 13 sites in the northwest and on the east coast of Yorkshire that just no longer fit with our criteria or our hurdle rates. So a huge amount of work, and that really is a very short summary of what we have done. I am convinced that the business is in much better shape than it was when I stood here 12 months ago. I am excited for how we can take that forward. That is really expediting that process that I have talked to you about before of changing Gleeson from an overly large small business into a well-controlled and efficient volume house builder. Legacy sites. I talked to you briefly about this before, but this is basically an issue that frankly should have been dealt with before. We are looking at something like 80 sites completed variously over the last 10 years. one or two even older than that in parts of the country we do not even work in. These are sites where we have not secured the adoption. Why? Because in most cases, they require some sort of rectification. The most common example is actually where we have installed gravel drives. Actually, in line with our planning permission and meeting with regulations. But the highways engineers do not like them. Why? Because the gravel spills onto the road. That means the road gets more damaged, it has to be maintained more, costs them more. So the highways engineer looks at you and says, "I cannot adopt that. It is not to standard." We could have the fight. We have been advised it is not worth it. We need to get on and get these roads into a state where they can be adopted. It is interesting, actually, just last week, the HBF has brought out our latest sort of protest on behalf of the industry, which is around the transparency and objectivity and the time taken to get roads adopted. I thought, "Well, that is very timely." But I cannot whinge about it. We have got to get on and deal with it. I am not going to make the we cannot kick the gravel down the road joke. It is going to take us three or four years. We have hired kind of the best guy in the business, really, an adoptions engineer to lead a small team. It will take us three or four years to deal with that. During the year, we were operating from an average of 67 build sites and 56 sales outlets. As we have said, both of those will be slightly lower this year. Our prospective site numbers are frustratingly lower than I would like, and that is for three reasons. One, the continuing challenge of slow planning. It is the same story. The government, I think, is absolutely doing the right things at national policy level, but that is not feeding through for various reasons. That is not feeding through to pace and reliability of decisions at local level. Planning very much still an issue. In addition, we have rationalized the portfolio. As I say, we have taken the proactive decision to walk away from a number of sites that no longer fit our criteria. The third thing is that, I suppose like others, and I think very sensibly, we are managing our balance sheet. This is a market where it pays us to be cautious. We absolutely want to protect the integrity of the balance sheet. So we are upping our risk aversion, if you like, in the appraisals we are bringing through. That is not to say we have stopped buying land. I have just talked to you about what we have done with that process, and we are still very much in the market, but we are being more cautious in the approach we are taking. Combining those three reasons, our site opening profile is going to be slower than I would like certainly this year and almost certainly into FY 2028. So it is a difficult market, but we are absolutely convinced that there are things that we can do better, and it is vital that both in a weak market now and into any upturn, we are the best that we can be. So we have got the people and process fixed. I spoke about that just now, and I kind of see that as fixing the factory. What we are getting after now is the way we engage with the market, so our product and our customer experience. We absolutely want to build on the success of our partnership strategy, and I will talk about that in a moment. I have talked about refocusing our land buying to make sure we are getting the right sites. Now we are looking proactively and at pace, at our product, at our customer experience, and at our brand and brand perception. We are trying to be absolutely rigorous, absolutely objective, and make this data-backed. So we have got handpicked teams from around the organization looking at each of those, each of those teams led by a member of the ELT. We are actually using an AI data scrape of every piece of customer feedback that we have had because if you aggregate that, we will pick up the themes, and we will pick up some good ideas, I am absolutely convinced. We are also commissioning focus groups from our website users, both those who have gone on and bought a Gleeson home and those who have not, so that we are getting the best information that we can to combine with our own expertise. Scott and the team, as I say, that strengthening has brought in a lot of experience as well from elsewhere. So on product, we want to make absolutely sure that we are delivering the product that our customers want, our open market customers. We have also taken the decision to design a specific partnerships range. We are working on that right now. That should be available to us in the second half. That is avoiding that compromise because partners do have certain slightly different requirements for the units. They are looking for a long-term rental product, and it is always a compromise if you are trying to use the same units for the open market. So no, we will have a separate range, effectively making it easier for partners to select Gleeson to work with. On the customer experience, we're looking at that right through from marketing, through the customer journey through sale, and also looking at the way that we're providing after-sale service. We know that we can improve in all of those areas. Quite exciting to see those ideas coming through. On brand, we know what it is. You know what it is that we do. We build a high-quality product that's affordable to customers at the lower end of the income spectrum. But we listen, we get feedback. We bump into people in the market. We don't think people are very clear on that, particularly that point that we build a high-quality product. It's really important that all of our stakeholders understand what it is Gleeson does today, and that includes the market, so land agents, for instance, recruiters, prospective partners. It includes our own people. That's absolutely vital, and of course, critically, it includes our customers. It's vital that we're listening to what the market's telling us and that we're led by the customers we serve. Yes, it is a difficult market, but there are absolutely things we know we can do to improve our performance, and we're working hard at that. Just to touch on partnerships, as I say, really pleasing to see those first completions coming through. For me, the pleasing thing, we've established our credibility in the partnership space now. Just pausing on that's not a gimme. That's not a no-brainer. It's not just a question of turning up at the conference and putting up your stand and saying, "Come and sign here for deals." If you put yourselves in the shoes of the investor, he's got quite a bit of due diligence to do on a new firm offering themselves as a development partner. Who are these guys? What's the quality of their product? How will it stand up as a long-term rental product? Can they actually build at the pace and to the quality that I need? Will they do what they say? Do I trust them? You have to build that. We accept that. I'm really pleased that with those first completions and the feedback that we're receiving from our partners, I think we've established our credibility, and certainly, that seems to be how it's playing for us. The market appetite is certainly continuing. It was great to hear Matthew Pennycook at the conference in Liverpool last week absolutely endorsing that this mode of delivery is and will continue to be important for the U.K. home building market. As I say, very much encouraged by the announcements under the SHAP last week. What we need to do now, what we're focused on, if you like, is to evolve to the next generation of partnership deals. Coming back to that establishing your credibility, they might get to the point where they'll take the units from you, but will they trust you with the cash up front? Well, you need to prove a little bit more before they'll do that. The first deals that we did, effectively, yes, you're sacrificing a bit of margin, but the benefit and the only benefit we were getting was the diversifying our market risk. It was a forward sale. You are certain that those 40 units are going to go to that partner, tick. But they are paying for them when you deliver them. We have now evolved that model, so within that 320 units was our first 60 odd under the golden brick model. That is better because that is when you are starting to get paid during the construction period. You are then getting the benefit not just of the forward sale, but now it is starting to improve your return because you are getting paid sooner. The next evolution where we will really mature is when we increase the proportion of forward funding. We start to work with partner cash at the implementation of infrastructure. You can immediately see that that starts to really sing from a return perspective. Of course, the absolute maturity is when they will join you at the land acquisition point. Pleased to see those are the kinds of conversations we are now having and a real opportunity for us. You can tell, I think we are excited about the progress that we have made in that area. Turning to Gleeson Land then. I will start with the market headwinds. No secrets here, but probably two elements that I would bring out. Planning is a constant story, is not it? It is always something slightly different. The specific that I am referring to here, following the local elections, obviously the biggest shift was away from labor control. A number of authorities where it either moved away from labor completely or it has moved to no overall control. What that does is creates a fracture between national policy and the local implementation of that policy. The committee are less willing to embrace because you have now reopened that sort of democratic competition of "I can win votes by resisting national planning policy." Not moving the local plan through at pace and trying to resist the NPPF direction on their numbers or, for instance, resisting grey belt, et cetera. The effect of that is that, where we had previously hoped that we might get a committee decision, now there is a good chance that it will be filibustered. We will not get the local decision. It does not mean we cannot get it, because in the end, 9 times out of 10, national policy will prevail, but it means you have got to go to appeal. It takes longer, and it is more expensive. That is the planning drag that I am referring to. The developer caution, I have mentioned it already. You are all well aware of that. All of the majors are referring to it, and that is restricting appetite for some bids. I do not want to give you the impression that the market is dead. It is absolutely not. As you know, we have a high-quality portfolio, and when we put those sites out to the market, we are still getting good interest, and we are seeing bids. The pricing is definitely moderated a bit. The technical due diligence process is being elongated, it always will in a buyer's market. We are seeing a lot of bids conditional on registered provider partner participation, and that is all to do with the hiatus in the Section 106 market, and obviously people asking for deferred payment terms. What is the impact on Gleeson Land? Well, I have said not if, but when, and that really is that we are still seeing the demand. But, predicting the actual timing of completions is difficult. Just to touch on FY 2026, obviously, the biggest single impact was the deferral of the large deal, which I have talked about in just one minute on that. You shouldn't see this as, well, it's a big standoff and the local authority just don't want this. That's not the situation we're in. We are working very closely with the prospective buyer of the site and actually alongside the local authority and their advisors. But it's a massively complex technical resolution that we need. The number of open items gets ever smaller. I think I have said to you before, it's a bit like when your phone updates and that bar goes across and you think, "Blimey, it must be finished now." Well, it's a bit like that with this technical consent. We fully expect, I'm looking at Guy, that we will get that technical consent this calendar year, and that does trigger the terms in the option. You remember we sold an option to the buyer of the site in June 2025. They have got about six to eight weeks post that technical resolution to exercise that option. So I'm hopeful that we will, let's say, get that technical resolution before the year end. I have certainly learned more about roads, signs, drains, and what have you, than I ever imagined I would need to learn about. As I have said, both planning and transactions are taking longer, and what that does, the effect for us sitting here scratching our heads is it makes calling the timing of completions even more difficult than normal in that business. It's just the way it is. As I stand here this morning, we have got over nine months of the year still to go. We do this regularly. We have been through every site. No reason to say to you we're not going to make our numbers in Gleeson Land. So we're standing by the numbers that you have, but it has to come with a heavy note of caution. Given that, as I said, there is very much still a market, and having said what I have said about planning, the National Planning Policy Framework remains favorable. They have done the right things, and so we are working very hard to take advantage of that Steam coming out of the planning team, and they did really well. That's a record number of applications. It's a small team. That was a hell of a lot of work to get those 18 applications in. We have got 24 sites currently awaiting a decision, and as I say, all towards strengthening that portfolio. To the same point, we were delighted to exchange some 15 new promotion agreements in the year. Two of those are conditional. Just to stress, that absolutely does not come from relaxing our standards. In fact, in this market, we're probably pushing up our risk aversion, as you would expect. This comes from the effectiveness of the local team, the local structure that Guy's put in place that really has upped our game. Also backed by our fantastic market leading data research and analysis team, which really does strengthen the bid, and also strengthens our ability to get the planning permission as well in front of the local authority. So not relaxing our standards. We are still only bidding, we are rejecting 95% of the sites that we see, that we are shown. They go straight in the bin. Because of the quality of the team and the data research, we are winning about a third of the bids that we actually make. So really pleased to see that portfolio strengthening. In terms of characterizing, we are absolutely confident for the medium-term future of the Gleeson Land business. Just have to put caution on there, what you are expecting in each six month period, as we always do. So summary and outlook. We delivered a robust performance in the year. Project Transform has overhauled Gleeson Homes into a much improved business. We have got a dual focus now on managing the business as efficiently as we can in anticipation of that continuing subdued market. We are pursuing a number of strategic initiatives to enhance our own performance and so far as we can mitigate that margin attrition. Gleeson Land continues to face a more cautious land market, so the timing of land sales lacks the visibility we had hoped for. The quality of the portfolio continues to attract strong interest. The board, therefore, expects to deliver an overall result in FY 2027 in line with current market expectations. I will read you the quote because I think it is fair. Following a year of intense activity implementing fundamental business change, we now have a homes business that is operationally much stronger and a land business well-placed to meet the needs of developers for high quality consented sites. With the focused and disciplined approach we are now taking, we are confident for the future prospects of the group. Thank you for bearing with me on that, and we will now be pleased to take your questions. Thank you for the presentation. We have had a number of questions pre-submitted and submitted live. Just as a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please type them into the Q&A box situated on the right-hand side of your screen. Our first question is, you delivered nearly 10% more homes this year. How much further can volumes grow from here? Yeah. Morning. Thank you for that. We have talked in the past about a medium-term target of 3,000 homes. We strongly believe in the open market potential of this business. There is really no cap. The cap on where we can take the volumes is really to do with our ability to grow the business in a controlled manner. That is absolutely our focus. Perhaps the only shift that you would hear in my tone in answering that question today as opposed to perhaps a year ago, is that with the continuing drag on the market, which is really a global macro and customer confidence issue, we are, along with most in our sector, paying particular attention to the integrity of the balance sheet right now. It is strong today, and we want to keep it strong, and with uncertainty of take-up or pace of take-up in the market, we are obviously elevating our risk aversion in terms of the pace at which we are investing in sites. So, in my view, no kind of challenge to the medium and longer term demand for homes in our part of the market. But we are probably looking at slowing that pace of growth until we can be a little bit more confident of the outlook and confident that we can relax the purse strings and start going back into site acquisitions at pace. We have not stopped, but we are being more cautious. Thank you. Next we have, Gleeson's key differentiator has always been affordability. In the current mortgage environment, how affordable is the typical Gleeson home compared with renting the equivalent property? Well, I will let Stefan give you the detailed stats, but what I would say is that, I think whilst we are focusing on mortgage rates increasing, and you are absolutely right to raise that and the, if you like, the headlines and the conversation on the train is about rates rising. But over in the rental market, things are getting pretty tough as well because a lot of ex-rental stock, landlords are walking away. It has all got too difficult and the Renters' Rights Act 2025 is kind of the last straw to a catalog of additional costs and tax reliefs taken away from the rental market. So the rental stock is shrinking and the cost of renting is going up as well. But Stefan, do you want to just touch on the maths? Yeah, absolutely. The cost of renting a typical three-bed house in our regions is about GBP 280 per week, and as Graham said, rental increases are accelerating. The cost of a typical three-bed Gleeson home on a 90% mortgage is currently about GBP 240. So it is GBP 40 a week cheaper to buy a three-bed Gleeson home than it is to rent the equivalent. That is a smaller gap than it was a year or so ago, but it is still a real saving on top of the saving that you get in maintenance costs and energy bills. I would also add that as a proportion of take-home pay, the amount that a first-time buyer spends of their take-home pay on mortgage payments in our region is about 25%, and that is unchanged on the average over the last 40 years. It has been when it was a really strong market with very high interest rates. That had risen to about 37%, but it has averaged 25% over the last 40 years, and that is exactly where we are at the moment. So on the maths of buying a home, it is as affordable now as it has been on average for the last 40 years. Thank you. Next we have build cost inflation is running ahead of selling price increases. How much scope do you realistically have to rebuild margins if affordability prevents you from pushing prices materially higher? Yeah. Welcome to our daily challenge. I suppose what I would say is we are still seeing very modest price inflation. Very modest, but currently it is running, we think, at about an annualized 1%. The point is, it is not deflating, which I think you are seeing in some areas in the south and the southeast. So we have got something to work with. The north is not absolutely flat. Do not forget that build cost inflation, it is not a straight one for one because price inflation is on the whole of the revenue, and build cost inflation is only on the build costs, and it only in the year impacts those elements of the build cost that we have not forward secured, if you like. I think your rule of thumb, Stefan, is about 1% of revenue inflation covers 2% - 2.5% of build cost inflation, that sort of ratio, but obviously it fluctuates. Back to your question, you are absolutely right. With build cost inflation running hotter than sales price inflation, you are not going to see margins rebuild any time while that is the case, and we are facing into that now. I think what I was trying to get over is that at the moment it is feeling like a reasonably steady relationship, i.e., the one is canceling out the other as of today. But yeah, you are not going to see the margin growing whilst we are in the situation that we are in. I would add in the short term, if you look at the analyst forecasts for gross margin, they are expecting gross margins to be similar this year to FY 2026, the year we are reporting. FY 2026 we had some additional margin impacts. We do not expect those again. I would also say that the mix of sites is going to be slightly different, so we have perhaps a bit more confidence on the margin this year. But as Graham said, the mixture of underlying house price increases that we can achieve and build cost inflation will drive either improvement in margin or a flat, or let us hope not, but a little bit further margin deterioration. Thank you. Our next question is, at what level of volumes does Gleeson Homes become significantly more profitable? Good question. If you step back, if you go back a couple of years, when I joined, the overhead was too high. The business had too many regions for the number of units it was selling. Nine regions selling, I think it had just done 2,000 units. That is too many. The absolute imperative to get the business efficient was to, well, reduce the regions, but to get each of those regions up to an efficient, optimal operating level, and we are not there yet. If you have been following the story, you will have heard me refer to growing into the overhead, because once you have opened those regions, it is not a simple matter of closing them until you have got the right number of regions for the number of outlets you have, because of course, then the regions will not be in the right place. The worst thing you can do is leave sites too far away from the office that is looking after them, because if you have a site that is 40 minutes from the office and a site that is two and a half hours from the office, guess which one does not get visited very often, and then guess which one goes wrong. You need to maintain the coverage at the most efficient level you can, but whilst trying to grow into that overhead. We still have too much overhead for the regions we are producing. Where I am going with that answer is that if I can get, we currently have four regions and kind of two satellites. That is as tight as we have been able to get it. An efficient region should be doing 500, 550 units. That is a good number, and 600 if they have a particularly busy year. At our current output, we should be covering that, kind of 2,000 units. We should be covering that with four regions. In a growing business, you will always grow a bit ahead, so that should take us up to five regions. Where we should be today with the business that we have, we should be doing 2,500-2, 600, something like that. As we push on towards 3,000, you would expect us to open out again. An efficient level for our current business would be about 2,500 units. We are currently just under 2,000. I think that answers the question you are asking. Thank you, Graham. Our next question is: The recent reservation rates has fallen from 0.44 - 0.55. Is this mainly a weak August, or are you seeing a more fundamental deterioration in first-time buyer confidence? My view, obviously, I can only give you a view. I would be very surprised if 0.44 is what we are staring at into the future. That looked at, looked and felt very much like just an even sleepier version of a normal sleepy August. Indeed, I know it was, because I know what the last few weeks have done. There is nothing that says to me that we have a sort of fundamental collapse of confidence of first time or any other buyers. What we have is a lot of caution. You have a lot of negatives out in the market. I think in the presentation, I called out mortgage rises and increases in the cost of living, which undoubtedly disproportionately trouble Gleeson customers because they are at the lower end of the income range. We are not seeing an absolute collapse in demand at all. We saw a weak sales rate through August. It's picking up. We've got to make sure that we are getting our fair share of the demand that's out there. But there is definitely still a market. It's just a market that's lacking conviction and confidence. Thank you, Graham. Next we have: You've rationalized the Homes land pipeline from 164 sites -1 23 sites. Does that mean you're prioritizing return on capital over chasing volume growth? Good question. Good spot. Yes. As I said, there are three reasons behind that reduction. So one is slow planning, so we're not getting the sites open at the rate that we would have hoped. But the second key reason is we have looked very hard at that pipeline during the year. So we've been proactive as part of Project Transform in actually reducing, deleting some sites that were previously in the pipeline that no longer meet our criteria. The principal reason for that would be there were 13 of them, as we've set out in the presentation, as a direct result of closing the East Yorkshire region and combining the two northwest regions. That's really around the anticipated rate of sale on those sites. So that was 13 sites. There were another 12 elsewhere in the portfolio that are not included in the exceptional item, just dealt with as part of normal costs, where again, new management has looked at them and said, "We don't think these meet the hurdle." Now, that might sound alarming, 25 sites. We hadn't bought those 25 sites, so this isn't tens of millions of pounds. These are sites where we had gained control through a conditional contract. So what you're writing off is some fees, and legal fees to get the contract, et cetera. In some cases, it might be as much as a couple of GBP 100,000. In some cases, it'll be 20 grand. But it sticks out like a sore thumb in the pipeline numbers if you take 25 prospective sites out. So that's an improvement in the quality of the pipeline. Yes, it hurts the headline number, but we are happier that we have got a robust pipeline that we are working with. The third reason, absolutely, as you allude to, is just being cautious with our capital at the moment. As I mentioned just now, we are in that phase of the market whereby we are deliberately being cautious, deliberately protecting our own balance sheet. There will come a moment, and the great art, the great gift is to spot when you kind of reach that point, that land is about as low as it is going to go, and you can open the sluice gates because the market is going to start coming back and coming back at pace. That is a difficult call, but better to be slightly late to the party than be overpaying for land when it is still potentially on the way down. Thank you. Our next question is, three land transactions slipped from FY 2026. What gives you the confidence these are delays rather than evidence that major house builders have structurally reduced their appetite for buying land? Yeah, look, that is a Gleeson Land question. Obviously, there were, as you say, three sites. The one that we had tracked and basically kept the market informed of because it is a large site, and then two others. The large site is actually already under option to a developer, and that developer is working with us to achieve the technical consent that we need that will enable them to exercise their option and buy the site. So that is not to do with the developer caution that we are seeing amongst the majors and indeed others. That is just we have to work through and get that technical agreement. I will not bore you with all those details now. We expect to achieve the technical agreement in this calendar year. The other two were precisely, as you say, with developers revisiting. They all slammed the brakes on. They absolutely did, as they have been telling the market. So on those two specifics, why am I confident they will happen this year? Well, because the transactions are already being negotiated, one with the same developer purchaser, one with a different purchaser. So I am fairly confident that those two will happen this year. You shouldn't read that, or what the developers are saying as suddenly nobody is buying any land. That absolutely is not the case. What they are doing is being more cautious. They want to be, Barratt have said it, others have said it. They want to commit to a lower number of sites during the year. So you can imagine that they probably up their hurdle rates a little bit. That means they will offer slightly less. They are looking for deferred terms, and they are being more cautious. A lot of this is around, we are running what we call saturation maps. Let's pick Chichester. We only tend to have high-quality sites. We have a high-quality site near Chichester. In any normal market, three or four of the majors will be there, regardless of the fact that they might have a site 10 minutes away and another site 30 minutes away. They will say, "No, we will put that in our pipeline. Looks a great site. We will have it." In this market, they themselves will be saying, "Well, actually, I have a site I am selling from now, and when that one finishes, I have another one opening 5 mi away. So I think I will step back. I will not bid for that Gleeson Land site because" We are obviously looking at the saturation maps to say, "Okay, well, who are the bidders?" The effect for Gleeson Land is not that nobody is buying, but instead of four of them punching each other to get to the best bid, there might be two of them, or there might be one major and a couple of the mid-tiers. We are still seeing interest, but not quite at that intense level, and it is more of a buyer's market. But it is absolutely a market. We will make the sales. They take longer, there is a little bit off the price, and they probably want deferred terms in paying for it. Thank you. Next we have, at a roughly GBP 200,000 ASP, where does Gleeson's structural cost advantage actually come from today? Can you break it conceptually into cheaper land, smaller homes, specification, build efficiency, and lower absolute margin? Goodness me. I do not know if you have the maths, but the fundamental answer is that it is all about the location. The reason that we sell at a lower average selling price is principally because we buy in secondary locations. We are not out there competing for the high value, better located sites. And the logic is that if you need a three-bedroom home because your family has had a second child or whatever the reason, then you need a three-bedroom home. You might like the location that is near the shops and near the railway station. But actually, you cannot afford that, so you will go to the secondary location a bit further away because you need that space. And that is where up steps Gleeson to offer you the product, and that is why we are generally at a lower average selling price. That's our model, and we continue to see fantastic potential in that model. I don't know if you want to put any more detail on the other 17 categories. Yeah. Well, actually, let me try and summarize it as this. The determination of margin is a number of factors, but essentially when a house builder looks at bidding for a site, it'll anticipate what it thinks it can sell the homes for and anticipate what all the costs are. It'll then assume a target margin, and what's left is how much they can pay for the land. That's the maths of the house building market. Now, we sell in areas where house prices are lower, typically a third lower than our competitors. That means the amount that we pay for the land is significantly lower. Let me just give you three or four numbers that demonstrate that. On a GBP 200,000 average selling price, which is, let's say, a typical selling price for a three-bed home, if you anticipate that a target margin is maybe GBP 40,000 gross margin, it costs us about GBP 70,000 to build the house. That's the foundation, the superstructure, put kitchens and bathrooms in. That leaves us GBP 90,000 for all of the other costs of building, and I can tell you there are substantial other costs, not least the contributions that are required to be made to local authorities and to government. Which equates at the moment to another GBP 70,000. That leaves us about GBP 20,000 for the land. That's roughly what we're paying for the land. Other developers selling in higher priced areas are probably spending closer to GBP 50,000, GBP 60,000 per plot for the land. Hopefully, that helps you to understand that. Thank you both. Our next question is, if interest rates and the housing market don't materially improve for the next three years, can Gleeson still grow earnings meaningfully, or does the investment case ultimately require a housing market recovery? I would say, I do not have a crystal ball on where the market goes. Quite clearly, if the market stays as subdued as it is, our ability to grow will be constrained. There are a number of things that we are doing, which I talked about in the presentation, which when we have done them, will improve our performance even in a static market. I am absolutely clear of that. We can improve on our selling. We think we are spending a bit too much on sales and marketing, actually, so there is a saving there. There are lots of smaller Each benefit is not massive, but if we focus on all of the areas where we can improve, then we will improve our margin and our rate of sale, even in this market. To make a dramatic growth in our earnings, of course, we need some sort of recovery in the market. We are not all about just sitting around and waiting for a recovery. Stefan alluded earlier to still some We have called out the big legacy items. There are other areas where we are still kind of cleaning up our act that has held back the margin certainly in the last couple of years, and gives us confidence that as we conclude those and stop creating new ones, we will start to see some margin rebuilding in any event. So I am absolutely not saying we are ex-growth even in the current market. To see a significant pickup, obviously, we need to see sales rates at a more normal level for the U.K. market. Let us not forget, a normal level is good for us. We do not need to be seeing 0.8 and 0.9 sales per site per week. If we could get somewhere close to 0.6, that would be very good for us. Thank you. We are now moving on to our final question. If you have any further questions, please email the team, who will respond to any questions that were not covered today. The last question is, what two to three operational KPIs do you use internally to judge whether Project Transform is working? Could you disclose those so shareholders can track progress? That is a great question, actually. So we look for improvements basically in the normal KPIs for the business. So I will be looking at rate of sale. The critical one, obviously, is commercial control. So I am looking for, as I think I mentioned in the presentation, I am looking for sites to be properly appraised on the day we acquire them so that we have done a sufficiently rigorous technical appraisal of that land, so that the margin I am offered when we commit to the site is pretty close to the same margin as when we then budget the entry for the site, and indeed, we deliver that margin over the life of the site. That is nirvana, and that is what I will personally be watching. That will play out over the next three to four years. But in the meantime, it is all of our normal operating KPIs should be tighter and should be improving. I realize that's not really answering your question. Is there something we could put in for shareholders to monitor? I think I'm going to have to take that away and have a think about it. We'll certainly update you. But yeah, for me, it's a general improvement in all of our normal operating KPIs. Thank you. That's all the questions that we have time for today. So I'll hand back over to Graham and Stefan for any closing remarks. Just to say thanks very much for joining this morning. Thanks. Good questions. Thanks for your interest in supporting Gleeson. And I suppose, enjoy a sunny Friday. Have a great weekend. Many thanks. Cheers. Thank you to the management team for joining us today. That concludes the MJ Gleeson investor presentation. Please take a moment to complete a short survey following this event. The recording of this presentation will be made available on Engage IR. I hope you enjoyed today's webinar.