Welcome to MJ Gleeson's annual results presentation for the year to June 2026. I have hotfooted it here from my Radio 4 breakfast show, which I hope you are 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. But then, even more excitingly, following on from me, Johnny Marr walks in. So, there is me and Johnny, recognizing two aging rock stars. But 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 are 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 am actually really pleased and really excited with the changes and the improvements that we have 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 is a bit to get through, so please bear with me, but I think it is worth sharing with the market and with the changes we have made. It is worth sharing that with you. So, I will 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 is writing home about that. That figure was augmented by our first partnerships completions, and of course, that is 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, and 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 are 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 are 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 will 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 have talked to you about. I will update you on that this morning. There were two other smaller sales which we had hoped to complete in June, and they really ran into the developer caution that we are all well aware of, that you are 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. We are very happy that we strengthened our pipeline even further with some 30 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. We are 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 up front 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, and a strong thank you from me to the team and to the leaders that have led them through that. We are very pleased with that. 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. We are 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. In calendar 2025, which is 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. 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, having Project Transform complete, we know we can continue to improve, and we are proactively looking at our market engagement, product, brand, et cetera. 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. 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. and England remains very high, an 11 or 12-year high, and 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're already seeing it in fuel and energy and widely expected that we're going to get some sort of spike in food inflation, and that's a particular worry for Gleeson customers at the lower end of the income band, as you've heard me say before. The bulk market is active, but pricing, as I've alluded to, is very keen. Partnership opportunities, we are seeing them. It's a competitive marketplace, but we were really pleased to see the recent announcement of the strategic partner funding. 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's done a bit of an exercise, so it's a low sample size, but we currently think we're 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's 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's currently running, we think, at about 3%-4%. Because the market is weak, we're able to resist the more aggressive requests for 7%, 8%, 9% increases, but there's a residual level, let's say, we think about 3%-4% below which we won't be able to resist. So, sadly, difficult for us to rebuild margins into that environment. Current trading, wow, it's on the slide, really poor. August was very weak, so 0.44 in the nine weeks to last weekend. We've seen a bit of a tentative pickup. You'd expect that when 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. Who knows how well that holds as we run into increasing mortgage interest rates and now the looming budget. So, at that point, I'm going to hand you over to Stefan to run through the numbers, and then I'll come back and talk about the good things we've been up to in Homes and Land. Stefan. Okay, thank you, Graham. As Graham said, the year to June 26, 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'll 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. 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 GBP 0. 141. Turning to the divisional results. Gleeson Homes volumes increased by almost 10% to 1,968 homes. 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. But 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 to 2.2%. And the increase in multi-unit sales, which chipped away at margin. We were able to mitigate about 1/3 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. But 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. And 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. Turning to Gleeson Land, the division recorded five site sales during the year. As we have 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. 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 is 46 properties that we own, and that contributed to completions, particularly in June of the year. We are 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. 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. Also, the lower charge to cost of sales for the site sales that did not 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, very busy June build activity. 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. To the dividend, we are proposing a final dividend of GBP 0.01 per share. That is reduced on last year's final dividend. That brings to GBP 0.05 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 3x and 5x. A GBP 0.05 total dividend for the year will be covered 2.8x, 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 the 1st of 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. 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, and 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. 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 refocused, importantly refocused our land buyers onto areas of 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, in too many rural and coastal locations. So, we have definitely sharpened that focus. We have also strengthened the process around our land buying. We said that we've 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've achieved in land buying. As you are aware, we've rationalized the regions, as I mentioned, into four principal regions. We've taken the opportunity to rationalized 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. That is a huge amount of work. That really is a very short summary of what we've 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've 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. Some one or two even older than that in parts of the country we do not even work in. These are sites where we haven't secured the adoption. Why? Because in most cases, they require some sort of rectification. The most common example is actually where we've 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. The highways engineer looks at you and says, "I can't adopt that. It's not to standard." We could have the fight. We've been advised it's not worth it. We need to get on, 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 can't whinge about it. We've got to get on and deal with it. I am not going to make the, we can't kick the gravel down the road joke. It is going to take us three or four years. We've 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've 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. 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. 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. 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. That is our brand and brand perception. We are trying to be absolutely rigorous, absolutely objective, and make this data-backed. 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. 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. We will have a separate range, effectively making it easier for partners to select Gleeson to work with. On the customer experience, we are looking at that right through from marketing, through the customer journey through sale, and also looking at the way that we are 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 is affordable to customers at the lower end of the income spectrum. We listen, we get feedback. We bump into people in the market. We do not think people are very clear on that, particularly that point that we build a high-quality product. It is really important that all of our stakeholders understand what it is Gleeson does today. That includes the market, so land agents, for instance, recruiters, prospective partners. It includes our own people. That is absolutely vital. Of course, critically, it includes our customers. It is vital that we are listening to what the market is telling us and that we are 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 are 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 have established our credibility in the partnership space now. Just pausing on that is not a gimme. That is not a no-brainer. It is 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 has got quite a bit of due diligence to do on a new firm offering themselves as a development partner. Who are these guys? What is 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 am really pleased that with those first completions and the feedback that we are receiving from our partners, I think we have established our credibility, and certainly, that seems to be how it is 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 SAHP last week. What we need to do now, what we are 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 will take the units from you, but will they trust you with the cash up front? You need to prove a little bit more before they will do that. The first deals that we did, effectively, yes, you are 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? There is always something slightly different. Following 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 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 or trying to resist the NPPF direction on the 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, nine 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, 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. 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, the biggest single impact was the deferral of the large deal, which I've talked about in just one minute on that. You shouldn't see this as, well, it's a big standoff and the local authorities 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've 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 should trigger the, well, that does trigger the terms in the option. You remember we sold an option to the buyer of the site in June 2025. They've got about six to eight weeks post that technical resolution to exercise that option. I'm hopeful that we will, let's say, get that technical resolution before the year-end. I've certainly learned more about roads, signs, drains, and what have you, than I ever imagined I would need to learn about. As I've said, both planning and transactions are taking longer. 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've got over nine months of the year still to go. We do this regularly. We've 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 say, there is very much still a market, and having said what I've 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. 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've got 24 sites currently awaiting a decision. 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. But 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. Not relaxing our standards. We're still only bidding kind of. We're rejecting 95% of the sites that we see, that we're shown. They go straight in the bin. But because of the quality of the team and the data research, we are winning about 1/3 of the bids that we actually make. So really pleased to see that portfolio strengthening. So, 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're 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've got a dual focus now on managing the business as efficiently as we can in anticipation of that continuing subdued market. But we're 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'd hoped for. But the quality of the portfolio continues to attract strong interest, and the board, therefore, expects to deliver an overall result in FY 2027 in line with current market expectations. I'll read you the quote because I think it's fair. "Following a year of intense activity implementing fundamental business change, we now have a home's business that's 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're now taking, we're confident for the future prospects of the group." Thank you for bearing with me on that, and we'll now be pleased to take your questions. Greg. Morning. Greg from Singer Capital Markets. A few from me, please. Firstly, on the land rationalization, obviously, you've moved away from 13 sites in the northwest and Yorkshire. Did you also do a wider land review in the other divisions? Or if not, is that likely to be extended this year? No. In any year, we keep an eye on every site, every month. I think the total was about 25. [crosstalk]. 25. About 25. So, 13 specifically in those two regions. To your question, we probably have walked away from a few more this year than we normally would, and that is as a consequence of the shifting into regional control and Scott's had an opportunity to give it a good comb. [uncertain]. On land, could you just talk about concentration within the numbers for this year? Obviously, you had one large land transaction delayed last year. Are there any larger deals in the numbers for the rest of the year? There is one. It is not as large, but it is bigger than the average. So, yeah. Guy's gravy is always a bit lumpy, but. Yeah. Lastly, just on partnerships. Obviously, you've made good progress last year on that strategy. Can you talk about access to funding from affordable housing providers and how that's improved? Linked to that, with the dedicated product that you're bringing to market, is the intention to utilize that product in dedicated partnership sites, or will it be utilized alongside your open market offering? Great questions. The access to funding, that's the $64,000, isn't it? The answer is, they took ages to announce the funding, the GBP 39 billion. Then they sat on that announcement, then they put out the statement sometime in the summer saying, "Oh, we just need people to push there. We can't spend it too soon." All defense and what have you. Then last week, three weeks ago, they came out with the announcement of the strategic partner funding. I can't say to you, and somebody asked me this earlier this morning. I can't say that I've got a check that's come out of the GBP 39 billion. I can't. But it was only three weeks ago. What I can say is that we are receiving much enhanced and live interest from a good number of prospective partners, both before the announcement and certainly since the announcement. But it's too soon because you simply couldn't agree a deal and get the cash flowing. It's too soon to say, are they actually going to get the folding stuff in their pocket and start handing it over to us? I hope so. I think it would be very odd, very disingenuous to have that big announcement, but then still hold the funding back. But I can't confirm it. That visibility will come over the next few months. On the partnerships range, the range of homes means that we can offer to partners homes that absolutely work for them. We don't have to modify, have the spec that they need. The slightly different aspect to your question is, will that be for dedicated partnership sites? In the main, no. We wouldn't rule that out, and as I've said to you before, every deal is quite specific. So, you might do that in a particular area. If you've got a cluster of sites, and the partner says, "Do you know what? I'd like all of that site," well, you might do that. We're not setting out to be partnership contractors, but it's all within the context of a relationship, if you see what I mean. Thanks. Sam. Yeah. Morning. Sam Cullen. Two from me as well, please. On your point about the evolution of the partnerships business and moving towards more of a forward-funded model in time, what's the gestation period of that? Is that a two, three-year story? Is that a five-year story? We're talking about it now, Sam, but I'd be a fool to say to you, "Right. I'm going to be announcing the first one by Christmas," but I might be, and that depends. There are a couple where on existing sites, we've got people talking to us. Obviously, these conversations proceed over a number of months, and then they accelerate and they slow down. We have some deals in prospect. I'll be honest with you. In July, I said to Scott, "Are you going to have anything I can announce in September?" And he said, "Maybe." We haven't. Will we by Christmas? Maybe. But there are deals being negotiated. Kind of goes to Greg's last question as well. But would I be disappointed if I wasn't sitting here next year with a couple to tell you about? I'd be really disappointed. Okay, thanks. The second one. Given your decision to protect the balance sheet and slow down net new openings, do you think the other partner in this relationship is listening to what you're doing in terms of the government? Are they taking heed of what you are telling them? Do you know, I'd really like to think so. I don't know whether you're pulling me onto the punch of a help to buy question there. There's an onus on us to make the business the best that we can be, and we are absolutely on with that. The more specific request that I would have of government would be stop adding your threepences and sixpences into the viability challenge, and by that I am referring to Building Safety Levy, and I am referring to the full implementation of Future Homes. Both of those, it is still in their gift to alleviate that pressure because you're just adding to viability pressures in an already viability-challenged market. So that would be a specific request. Whether or not they choose to put in place some form of buyer support is really a decision for them. What we are focused on is what we can do because we think we can improve our sales rate with the work that we are doing. I am not going to manage to move a natural rate of 0.5 to 0.8 by polishing up my product, but I can certainly do better than I am. Thanks. Alastair. Thank you, Alastair Stewart, Progressive. A couple of questions, one on Homes and one on Land. On Homes, you mentioned less activity in the coastal and country, rural settings, and more of a focus on urban. What is the thinking behind that? I presume on coastal and country, you have probably got higher selling prices but lower densities of potential buyers, and those buyers are probably more discretionary, whereas it might be different for urban. That is question one. On the Land business, you mentioned technical due diligence stretching out. Is that a delaying tactic, or is it preempting reductions in pricing from the buyers? Okay. Taking the first one then. I do not want you to see this as Gleeson Homes turning away from what it does. But if you step back and look at the portfolio that effectively Scott inherited, there is absolutely a place for less densely populated areas. We have a good business in Cumbria. But what had happened, for various reasons I will not bore you with, there had been a drift. So, we had too high a concentration of those sites which tend to sell slower for all the reasons that you have set out. [inaudible]. Yeah. Also, they're just less densely populated, so just the pace, the churn in those markets is slower, and we needed to rebalance to get back to some more chimney pot areas, to have a good balance of faster-selling sites. I'm not being picky. We're not going urban. It is definitely suburban, and I make that point because Gleeson doesn't do city center, and we won't. But definitely there are plenty of suburban areas where we need to rebuild our pipeline, and it's to get that right balance in the portfolio. On the technical due diligence, all I would say is you would expect there to be an absolute level of technical due diligence, which every developer would do on every site they ever buy. But the reality is it's a marketplace, and in a strong land market, you have to be damn quick and move, otherwise the guy has trampled over you and bought the site already. In a weaker market, you can afford to take your time, so you can afford to say to a g uy, "Look, here's my bid, but I need six weeks to look through all of this lot." Then in that six weeks, is he going to find something that's going to buy him another three months? Well, yeah, he will. That's the difference between a buyer's and a seller's market. Specifically in sites that have been stretched because of the due diligence, have prices been going down or are you standing your ground? No. As I said, prices have come off of it, but they've come off of it because people are forecasting a more difficult sales market. They're not halving in value, they are taking the froth out of their own selling price inflation expectations, and they're looking at the same cost inflation that Gleeson Homes is. So, you're not seeing the hope value in their onward selling price expectations, which all feeds back to a lower land value. But it's not capitulated. I don't want you to think of that. Think of, what we say, Guy, 5%-10%, sort of, off the bids that we would be getting. But these are still good sites, so if you come in with a 20% discount, someone's going to beat you. Thanks. Hey, Charlie. Charlie Campbell at Stifel. Two questions, both pretty quick, I think. Your comments on sites, FY 2027 into FY 2028. You said it continues into FY 2028. Does that mean they fall again, 2028 against 2027, or they stay at that lower 2027 level in 2028? If you see what I mean. If you follow the question? Well, Stefan, do you want to take that? I will caveat. Yeah. [crosstalk]. That we are still in the window. FY 2028 is not yet set in stone, so be gentle with us on making forecasts for 2028, but [crosstalk]. It's just trying to understand the wording, really. Yeah. Yeah. Perhaps could've been clearer. It was intended to indicate that we expected to open the same number of sites as we closed, roughly, and therefore, we would anticipate the average number of sites we're selling on in FY 2028 is the same as FY 2027. But as Graham says, that feels a long way away at the moment. But that's what we were intending to communicate. Again, with the same caveat, I guess, thinking about the percentage of bulk and partnership units at 2027 and 2028, I think you're guiding us to the same sort of number. Partnerships is eventually 20%. It's 16% now. It maybe drifts up a bit. Is that the right way of thinking about that? On partnerships, I would very much hope so. On bulk, I very much hope not, but I expect so. Did that make sense? Yeah. [crosstalk]. Bulk, nobody wants to do it. But yes, we are planning that there will be a level of bulk this year. Yes, similar. But on partnerships, we are looking to push that harder. Yeah. Sorry, one other question. In terms of mortgage rates, it looks as if mortgage rates probably have gone up again in the last month. What is the sort of sensitivity you are hearing from customers around mortgage rates at the moment? Just to try and, yeah, figure that out and [crosstalk]. Yeah. I am glad you asked that question because it prompts me to remind everyone about the lack of a problem on affordability in the housing market in the North and Midlands, even at higher mortgage rates. The proportion of a first-time buyer's take-home pay that is spent on mortgage payments is the same now, today, at these current mortgage rates if you were to borrow today, as it has averaged over the last 40 years. There was no bubble in prices. There is no unaffordability problem. There is a confidence issue, and there is some challenges on deposits. Back to the question. Those slightly high mortgage rates at the moment, so in the appendices, you will see I always have a slide on what are the weekly mortgage payments compared to weekly rents, demonstrating that it is cheaper to buy than rent. The impact actually is not that significant. It is about GBP 3 a week in terms of additional mortgage costs to the costs in here. In terms of what we are seeing in cancellations and the reasons for cancellations, it is a mixture. We are not really seeing mortgage costs or rate rises as an issue. Not yet. That may well come, but we are not really seeing that at the moment. All of that I absolutely agree with and endorse. What you have heard me say before, my issue is less with the GBP per week that the mortgage. It is absolutely right. It is the conversation in the pub that hurts us. At the moment, right now, that conversation is about mortgage rates have gone up and they are going up, and it is about food price inflation coming. I think at the moment, the mood out there in market land is weakening because of the conversation, even if what Stefan says is true. Yeah, it is not what we are hearing, Scott, in the sales offices, is it? We have got no one sort of pulling out because of mortgage increases. [crosstalk]. I think the cancellation rates are pretty in line from where they have been previously. The slide that you showed was slightly less. We monitor cancellations every week in detail, and there is not so much noise about mortgage rates at the moment. No. There is some noise, but it is pretty balanced, I would say, in terms of the reasons as to why people are canceling. Yeah. I do not think there are any more questions in the room. Tilly, do we have any questions online? No. Sam, I thought you were going to ask a question then. There would have been a row. Very good. Thank you very much for bearing with us. There is a lot of content there. Thanks for your time. Great to see you all. Yeah, I hope we manage to deliver on all of this. Thank you