Buying land to build a house

[Equus]

ben5575 said:

I'm referring to the Guardian article, not the thread title.

...'m talking about an 'Ikea' type company that you buy a completed house from. As a punter you configure online and pay for it. Like your car, it gets manufactured off site then delivered. Ikea plug it in and the punter doesn't have to do anything apart from move in. It's literally what Urban Splash are doing on that link I posted so it does work.

I've been aware of Urban Splash since they were formed. They are an interesting novelty, and have their place in the market, but they're not going to revolutionise housing supply.Their approach works on a limited number of sites in highly urban situations (look at the 'locations' tab on their website, and note that the character of the site locations is very uniform), but isn't capable of delivering new housing in anything like meaningful numbers.

People have been suggesting that there are better alternatives for volume delivery of housing since... well, forever.

Off-site construction has long been a favorite, and it's being bandied about again at present, due to the current crisis in housing supply.

One of the (many) fundamental conflicts at present is that the Planning system is geared around a belief that buildings should respond individually to the site on which they are built, whereas efficient 'Ikea' house production would rely on potato stamping thousands of identical designs all over the UK, regardless of local character or context.

I'm sure that your response will be to say that the Planning system can be changed, but it's really not that simple; the legislation is complex, inter-meshed and changes would require the agreement of people who - for very good reasons - are not going to agree.

We built huge council estates of identical houses or blocks of flats in many large cities, post WWII. They excelled at one thing - becoming 'sink estates' - and are the reason that the Planning system now takes the view that it does.

You can erect TF/MMC/off-site fabricated buildings faster, which was why I was careful to say 'designed and erected in the normal manner'... it depends on the system and the level of factory prefabrication, but with the faster techniques, you run into other issues.

Again - none of the thinking is new. We've had people telling us that off-site construction is the way forward for decades, but for a variety of reasons, no-one has been able to make it work.

[ben5575]

I've obviously riled you today Equus, it genuinely wasn't my intention.

US - Sounds like you know Tom as well. Agree that they won't solve the world or that they are the answer. We both agree that scale is important. I would go further to say that current oligarchy in the market actively prevents people scaling. Fresh thinking on the introduction of public land to the market at an affordable price is a potential method of unlocking this.

Planning system - I completely agree with you and wouldn't suggest that at all. Granted Ikea won't sit well in the cotswolds but then neither does Persimmon, I'm not suggesting it's the answer for all locations.

I would say however that place is (obviously) more than just buildings. Involving the community in the design of their homes and landscape creates a very different type of civic engagement. To use Splash again, I remember being invited in for a coffee by tenants of the FAT Design New Islington scheme in Ancoats so that they could show off their new home to me. See also the guys at Assemble who won the Turner Prize in 2015 for their scheme at Four Streets in Liverpool.

Modular/sink estates etc - Very familiar with this having been involved with knocking several of them down and rebuilding them in previous lives. And indeed being part of the development team on another similar £250m project north of the border at the moment. So I'm very aware of the history and issues.

My broader/highlevel points were:

We all know the housing market is dysfunctional
The supply of new housing is controlled by a few large players who build product that people don't like but have to buy as they don't have an alternative
When you actually think about how you are forced to buy a house in 2018 it is completely out of step with how you buy everything else.
Individual self build plots are nice but are not the answer.
Can you change the product to something people like, have a buying process that is compatible with 2018 whilst at the same time satisfying people's desire to design their own home and make it affordable at the same time? I'm arguing that potentially you can and that this could be a good thing if the industry was able to reshape its thinking.

[Equus]

ben5575 said:

I've obviously riled you today Equus, it genuinely wasn't my intention.

No, you haven't, genuinely - you misread me if I've that impression.

I'm very cynical by nature, and have a black and sarcastic sense of humour... it actually amuses me like hell when there's yet another press article or pundit suggesting a 'cure' for the housing problem.

We're a big industry. Some people in it are very clever. If there were easy solutions, we'd have found them by now.

You are aware, I assume, that Urban Splash damn near went bankrupt and required a financial bail out and restructuring not so long ago?

ben5575 said:

We all know the housing market is dysfunctional

The supply of new housing is controlled by a few large players who build product that people don't like but have to buy as they don't have an alternative

...Can you change the product to something people like, have a buying process that is compatible with 2018 whilst at the same time satisfying people's desire to design their own home and make it affordable at the same time? ...

The housing market is an imperfect solution to a very complex problem. If you think there's an easy, one-size-fits-all solution, you're delusional.

You're using the way we buy cars as a pointer towards how it should be done.

In that context, stand back and ask yourself if what you've just typed - the words I've quoted above - makes sense.

The way we buy houses is out of step with the way we buy everything else? Market governed by a few large players?

There are almost certainly more housebuilders in this country than there are car manufacturers in the whole world.

When did you last drop by an Audi (or BMW, or Ford) dealer and try explaining to them that you want an affordable, reliable >insert brand here< car, but, oh, you'd like to design it yourself? They'll let you specify the paint colour, and a few items of detail specification, but even then they'd prefer to sell you them as standardised 'option packs'.

When you've finished at the Audi dealer, pay a visit to your local Curry's, and ask them if they can supply an oven that's 732mm. wide, because you've got a gap in your kitchen that's a bit bigger than the standard 600mm. Take a bet on whether you hear the spotty youth on the sales floor snigger at you behind your back as you leave.

Then drop by Marks & Spencers, and ask if you can have a new suit to one of their standard patterns, but to a fabric of your choice. You probably don't need to worry as much here, 'cos their staff are usually middle aged matrons and terribly polite, so I'm sure they'll have nothing but sympathy.

Where shall we go next? The Supermarket? Probably one of four well-known companies, and what you'll find on the shelves, whether you realise it or not, will be tailored to a fantastically refined degree to a range of products that they know will turn over certain minimum volumes, to the certain demographic in the area they serve. You might try asking them if they can prepare ready meals to the recipes that your good old mum used to make, but |I wouldn't hold out much hope.

Then come back to us and see if you can keep a straight face, whilst telling us that the housing market is out of step with the way we buy everything else, because it isn't sufficiently tailored to personal choice...

[mcg_]

Equus - just curious as to the main reasons why the flats are been specified as timber frame, rather than traditional?

I work for a house builder and we’re stepping away from TF (in our region) and going back to trad. No one yet has said it’s a bad thing!

[Equus]

mcg_ said:

Equus - just curious as to the main reasons why the flats are been specified as timber frame, rather than traditional?

Honest answer in that particular case is that I haven't a clue. We (my practice) were employed to detail the TF structure. That's the limit of our involvement, and I haven't asked questions.

The developers I've worked for directly used to use TF for flats and affordable housing, however, because it allows you to get a watertight envelope up quickly.

For affordable housing, that allows you to get a whole 'tranche' of plots finished quickly , sold to the HA (transfers to the HA usually happen a group of plots at a time) and cash in the bank, so it minimises the amount of cash tied up in WIP (work in progress).

On flats, it allows you to get the envelope up and watertight, so that it's protected from the weather, then finish the internals at your leisure. Quite often a BTL investor will come along and buy the whole block from you, too, in which case the quick cash turnover arguments that apply to affordable housing kick in, similarly.

As I've said before, at a basic level, TF is more expensive than masonry. Its advantage is speed of build (thus shortening your build programme and the amount of cash committed in WIP), but that's only an advantage if you can sell 'em as fast as you can build 'em, and that's usually only true for HA's, block buys by BTL investors, or in a fiercely booming market. In an average or slow market there's no point in building houses faster than you can sell them, as you're then just laying out money for them to stand empty, looking for a buyer.

It depends on location and market, of course, but the 'normal' rule of thumb is that you can't sell more than about 100 houses a year on any one site, as there simply isn't the local demand to sustain optimum prices. It's expensive to have a site (with site manager, compound etc.) sitting around doing nothing, or not working to full capacity, or intermittently stopping and starting. so normally you want to match the rate of build to the optimum demand, and except in special cases, masonry is usually the most cost-effective way of doing that.

Edited by Equus on Tuesday 23 October 23:50

[ben5575]

Well that's good at least.

Firstly I'm not sure I've suggested that I have a one size fits all solution. I've commented on how I see the market, why I think it's broken and possible ways to fix it.

Ok I'll play your game.

I get that you're drawing a parallel between the control of the market by say audi/merc/bmw and the volume house builders. I also understand that the car manufacturers control the choice of what a consumer can buy. They have to, they have a production line, just like house builders. I haven't suggested that house buyers should have unlimited choice, that would be stupid - see my earlier thread on my own personal experience and pain of doing just that in the past on a self build scheme.

I also know that I can pick the colour of my new kitchen, the number of spotlights and my chrome light switches on my new build house. I do this with a salesperson in sales suite in a show house for a house type I've been given by the developer on a particular plot of their choosing.

I'm asking (with a straight face ) why shouldn't a homebuyer get to pick the plot they want, choose whether they want a 2/3/4/5 bed house, choose the internal layout, the external materials - brick/cladding/red/buff/tile/window and the colour of their front door? Why couldn't they do that in bed on their ipad like you can with an Audi?

It is impractical to do that on a traditionally built house, but you could do it with a Ikea/Audi/production line. It would be easier still on affordable publicly controlled land (as per the Guardian article) where the motivation is to deliver quality housing that people want to buy, in places they want to live.

[Equus]

ben5575 said:

I'm asking (with a straight face ) why shouldn't a homebuyer get to pick the plot they want, choose whether they want a 2/3/4/5 bed house, choose the internal layout, the external materials - brick/cladding/red/buff/tile/window and the colour of their front door?

Because most of these things are controlled by Planning, for what they think are very good reasons (and you won't convince them otherwise), and they want to control them on a site-wide basis, not a plot at a time. Not unreasonably, they want a coherent, considered design for the whole development. not a shambolic shanty-town that's thrown together without any overarching control.

It's not especially difficult to do most of these things on a traditional house (though it would add to the cost and build time to some extent). What prevent us - and for good reasons - is the Planning system. But I reiterate: even without Planning (and even with off site production), these things would slow down construction and increase costs, so I'm struggling to see how you think they would be an answer to the housing shortage. Do you think that there are millions of people out there thinking 'I'd love my own home, but Persimmon won't build me one with magenta bricks and a dayglo orange door so, you know what? I think I'll carry on living with my parents'?

Quiz question, since you think we have a lot to learn from the car manufacturers and factory production of houses: who said 'You can have it any colour you like, so long as it's black', and why?

At risk of stating the bleeding obvious, you wont fit a 5 bed house on a plot intended for a 2 bed (and it wouldn't be commercially viable to do the reverse). Housing developers have been trying for a long time to build the mix of housing that they know will sell fastest and for the highest price, but are in a constant battle with the Planners, who want to ensure a balanced mix of housing to suit all needs.

There are many other layout design reasons that militate against your proposed approach, too, but I won't bore you with those at present.

Actually, some of what you're suggesting is facilitated by the 'new' rules on PiP, which I've referred to in passing several times on this thread.

I may be proved wrong in the fullness of time - it was only enacted recently - but the evidence so far is that it's the damp squib to end all damp squibs, in terms of Planning legislation. It sounded like a good idea (no doubt to people like you, and columnists on the Guardian ), but in reality the take-up has been negligible, and the effect on housing production even less so.

[wisbech]

Ben, what you are describing is essentially the Japanese housing market. Vast bulk of housing is made by a few home manufacturers in a modular way and bought off catalogues.I was at a home stay in rural Japan and the family swapped the bathroom module in a couple of days.

But, Japan is very different culturally and legally. Owners rights are very strong, planning is very weak. Eminent domain doesn’t exist for example. Areas tend to be mixed use (my home stay family had a printing line business essentially in the garage churning out cardboard sake containers. Wasn’t that quiet...). So if you want to plunk a pink manufactured home on your plot, that’s your right. Japanese towns and villages tend to all look alike, in a functional un pretty way.

Also, a house is expected to depreciate and be replaced every 25-30 years, almost all the value is in the land.

Building regs though are strict and continuously changing as technology improves around earthquake hardiness. This again encourages buying off the shelf houses, as designing custom build to the regs will be expensive.

Earthquakes again mean a historic culture of housing being seen as disposable that they are not in the U.K. Trad houses were wood and paper because a stone building would kill you, of course paper and wood are very flammable so not expected to last... You often find even old historic buildings are actually perfect copies of the original. Heck, the most important shrine in Japan gets ritually burnt and rebuilt on a 20 year cycle, they are now on number 62.

It works for them, but they didn’t start where we did...

[ben5575]

Equus now you're just being facetious and ignoring what I'm saying as well as repeating the same points over and over again.

Having read your very helpful threads elsewhere I can only assume that you are being contrary for the sake of it here for some reason.

Cohernace/shanty town - not sure why you think this would happen. Council own land, masterplan it and issue development brief to market. 'Ikea' win the site and sell their product on a plot by plot basis to homebuyers. The houses are all coherent but different/customised by their owners. See the Netherlands (often quoted as best practise by planners) for more information.

Not sure why you think this is so dissimilar to Persimmon importing the same generic house types (and materials) on sites in Bristol, Nottingham and Hereford.

You're a planner, so we both know that the idea of planners carefully picking over Persimmon house types on an RMA to ensure a coherent design across their sites as being more than a little disingenuous

I disagree that traditional building would be able to deliver this type of variety. I'm assuming you've built and sold houses like me, so you'll know/understand the practicalities of this/why it won't work.

Just to repeat for the third time, I'm not saying this is the solution to the housing crisis

Clearly you won't fit a 5 bed house onto a 2 bed plot, but you will on to a four bed plot by simply changing the internal layout. Please see Urban Splash link. Plus it's not as if housing estates aren't already built on standard plot sizes in any case...

Your point about sizes of units is a good one. Developers want to maximise profit so want to build the most profitable houses. As you say that sometimes conflicts against identified housing need. If only there was a way the house buyer could determine what type of house they want - perhaps that could address housing need directly

I can only think that I haven't been clear. I'm not suggesting that this is the answer in the Cotswolds or Mrs Miggins' back garden. I am suggesting that this could work on publicly owned urban land - they type suggested in the Guardian article. Not in the centre of Bristol, but maybe in the centre of Nottingham.

[ben5575]

wisbech said:

Ben, what you are describing is essentially the Japanese housing market. Vast bulk of housing is made by a few home manufacturers in a modular way and bought off catalogues.I was at a home stay in rural Japan and the family swapped the bathroom module in a couple of days.

Yes, exactly. And scandinavia as well.

I absolutely take your point on the cultural differences. As above what I'm not suggesting it would work on established areas, but it could work on publicly controlled urban land. I think I mentioned in one of my previous posts that I haven't figured out the post completion land value side of things (a small point I know!). But perhaps if it is discount market sale in perpetuity for example then this could potentially work. The people buying it would know that what they are buying has a different ownership model.

[Equus]

ben5575 said:

Equus now you're just being facetious and ignoring what I'm saying as well as repeating the same points over and over again.

I'm genuinely not understanding what you think the benefits to be, or how it could practically applied within the constraints and aspirations of the British Planning System, except on a handful of very specialised sites (insufficient in number to sustain your proposals). It would be a novelty, which might engage the attention of a handful of millennials for a few minutes while they play with the configurator on their iPhones, nothing more.

Tell me how you think this would fundamentally reduce the housing shortage?

ben5575 said:

You're a planner...

No I'm not.

My background, and most of my day-today work, is architectural. I'm Director of a combined Planning and architectural consultancy, but I'm one of the Architectural Directors. We have a Chartered Planner as our Planning Director.

ben5575 said:

...so we both know that the idea of planners carefully picking over Persimmon house types on an RMA to ensure a coherent design across their sites as being more than a little disingenuous

Indeed since you're using them as an example, when I was a young whippersnapper, several decades ago, I designed Persimmon's standard house type range for them. It's not the one they use these days, of course - I'd be the first to criticise that. Along with Bellway, I think they now have one of the poorest-quality housetype ranges of any major developer, but ironically that's because it's one of the most nationally standardised, which is what you seem to be proposing.

But having sat across the table from Planners on many, many occasions I can say absolutely that they do pick carefully pick over your house types on a plot-by-plot basis. We also have to present them with information that allows them to assess the layout design at several levels up from this (for instance, there will be masterplans showing the disposition of 1, 2 and 3 storey; variation in density; character areas; parking plans, materials layouts that show how the mix of materials is coherently and intelligently applied across the site, etc., etc. ... none of these things can be adequately controlled under your 'model').

ben5575 said:

Just to repeat for the third time, I'm not saying this is the solution to the housing crisis

Good. There we agree.

We seem to have gone from 'Affordable land would mean affordable housing. Here’s how we get there' (I know that was dhutch's post, and you only said it was a great idea) , to 'just to repeat for the third time, I'm not saying this is the solution to the housing crisis'.

What DO you think it's the solution to, then?

ben5575 said:

Clearly you won't fit a 5 bed house onto a 2 bed plot, but you will on to a four bed plot by simply changing the internal layout. Please see Urban Splash link. Plus it's not as if housing estates aren't already built on standard plot sizes in any case...

No you won't. Developer house types are designed to such tight levels of efficiency that there's usually a step up in floor area between types with different bedroom numbers, but in any case there are issues like window positions (which might impact on overlooking of neighbouring plots) parking provision (bigger houses need more parking spaces).

As an ertswhile designer of developer house types, the fact that you can reconfigure a 4 bed house to turn it into a 5 bed house would tell me instantly that the design was grossly inefficient.

It's not as if housing estates aren't already built on standard plot sizes? Really?? It's news to me, and I have designed hundreds, possibly thousands of estate layouts. The plot size is dictated by (and varies according to) the size of the house you put on it.

ben5575 said:

I can only think that I haven't been clear. I'm not suggesting that this is the answer in the Cotswolds or Mrs Miggins' back garden. I am suggesting that this could work on publicly owned urban land - they type suggested in the Guardian article. Not in the centre of Bristol, but maybe in the centre of Nottingham.

Which is where Urban Splash have carved out a bit of a niche for themselves, of course.

But there are fewer such sites than you imagine. Certainly not enough to continuously sustain the the design and factory manufacture of standard house units to drop on them; unless perhaps you imposed a monopoly where a single company supplied them all... but then you're criticising the industry already for limiting consumer choice to a few dominant companies.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to restrict my further comments on this thread. I have work to do (designing housing developments, as it happens -real ones, which will be built), so I can't afford the time to keep responding to your comments on a point-by-point basis.

[ben5575]

Equus said:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to restrict my further comments on this thread. I have work to do (designing housing developments, as it happens -real ones, which will be built)

Ha, likewise and also as it happens, but it's been an interesting debate. Perhaps not for others though!

Do you cover Cambridgeshire by the way? I may need a planning consultant if I can get these Heads sorted today.

[Equus]

ben5575 said:

Ha, likewise and also as it happens, but it's been an interesting debate. Perhaps not for others though!

Do you cover Cambridgeshire by the way? I may need a planning consultant if I can get these Heads sorted today.

Yes, Cambridgeshire is very nearly home turf: I live on the North Norfolk coast.

What is your job, out of interest? Sorting Heads suggests Land Manager/Director?

[Equus]

Equus said:

As an ertswhile designer of developer house types, the fact that you can reconfigure a 4 bed house to turn it into a 5 bed house would tell me instantly that the design was grossly inefficient.

I will just add, for anyone who doesn't believe me on this point, (and to prove that I took the time to look at the link) that these are the Urban Splash 2 storey floorplan options, which Ben is putting forward as 'proof of concept':



The house type is described as the 'House 1000', so I take it to be 1000ft2 GIA. For reference, it's possible to design a perfectly functional 3 bed at 830ft2 GIA. Here's one I did earlier (it even gives an En Suite to the master bedroom, which the Urban Splash effort lacks):



...so far from being a paragon of efficiency, the Urban Splash house type is 20% bigger than it needs to be (which means it occupies 20% more precious building land), even in its 'maximum bedrooms' configuration.

We can build 2 bed houses down to 650ft2, and a 1 bed flat can be ~450ft2, so in either of those configurations, the Urban Splash design would be VERY inefficient.

Now look at the options on the Urban Splash (top) set of plans :

The '1 bed' configuration isn't really 1 room. It's 2 rooms, just without any doors to separate them (though the bathroom interrupts the continuity of space). Describing that layout as '1 room' has gotta be bordering on Property Misdescriptions Act territory, had the Act not been repealed?

But, hey, look on the bright side, because if you want it to become 2 actual rooms, with doors for privacy, Urban Splash will only charge you an extra £4,000 for a couple of cheap doors and a bit of stud wall. The front bedroom in 2-bed configuration is heavily compromised, though, since it consists of two different volumes, making up an L-shaped room, on account of being designed as a 3-bed, with a wall omitted. And if you want 3 bedrooms, they'll only charge you another £3K for one more door and another bit of stud wall. Bargain!!! (for the avoidance of doubt: yes, I'm being facetious).


What Urban Splash are actually doing is charging people an extra £7,000 to deliver what any 'normal' developer would have built as a 3-bed in the first place.

If that's the way to fix a broken and dysfunctional housing market, you can keep it, thanks...

Edited by Equus on Wednesday 24th October 11:10

[blueg33]

Equus said:

Equus said:

As an ertswhile designer of developer house types, the fact that you can reconfigure a 4 bed house to turn it into a 5 bed house would tell me instantly that the design was grossly inefficient.

I will just add, for anyone who doesn't believe me on this point, (and to prove that I took the time to look at the link) that these are the Urban Splash 2 storey floorplan options, which Ben is putting forward as 'proof of concept':



The house type is described as the 'House 1000', so I take it to be 1000ft2 GIA. For reference, it's possible to design a perfectly functional 3 bed at 830ft2 GIA. Here's one I did earlier (it even gives an En Suite to the master bedroom, which the Urban Splash effort lacks):



...so far from being a paragon of efficiency, the Urban Splash house type is 20% bigger than it needs to be (which means it occupies 20% more precious building land), even in its 'maximum bedrooms' configuration.

We can build 2 bed houses down to 650ft2, and a 1 bed flat can be ~450ft2, so in either of those configurations, the Urban Splash design would be VERY inefficient.

Now look at the options on the Urban Splash (top) set of plans :

The '1 bed' configuration isn't really 1 room. It's 2 rooms, just without any doors to separate them (though the bathroom interrupts the continuity of space). Describing that layout as '1 room' has gotta be bordering on Property Misdescriptions Act territory, had the Act not been repealed?

But, hey, look on the bright side, because if you want it to become 2 actual rooms, with doors for privacy, Urban Splash will only charge you an extra £4,000 for a couple of cheap doors and a bit of stud wall. The front bedroom in 2-bed configuration is heavily compromised, though, since it consists of two different volumes, making up an L-shaped room, on account of being designed as a 3-bed, with a wall omitted. And if you want 3 bedrooms, they'll only charge you another £3K for one more door and another bit of stud wall. Bargain!!! (for the avoidance of doubt: yes, I'm being facetious).


What Urban Splash are actually doing is charging people an extra £7,000 to deliver what any 'normal' developer would have built as a 3-bed in the first place.

If that's the way to fix a broken and dysfunctional housing market, you can keep it, thanks...

Edited by Equus on Wednesday 24th October 11:10

Totally Agree

Urban Splash are also a pretty niche product for a niche market.

I can't post the plans here due to IP, but we have developed a range of apartments with moveable walls that mean people can live in them for longer. They are aimed at the elderley sector where people will inevitably have increasing care needs. This enables us to use the space very efficiently because of the flexibility it gives.

[ben5575]

Equus said:

Yes, Cambridgeshire is very nearly home turf: I live on the North Norfolk coast.

What is your job, out of interest? Sorting Heads suggests Land Manager/Director?

I own a development company; hotels (up to c.200 keys)/BTR (up to c.400 units)/housing typically 50-150 units.

It's an interesting site, very PH in fact, but as you know these things tend to take time.. No Ikea on this one you'll be pleased to know

[blueg33]

ben5575 said:

Equus said:

Yes, Cambridgeshire is very nearly home turf: I live on the North Norfolk coast.

What is your job, out of interest? Sorting Heads suggests Land Manager/Director?

I own a development company; hotels (up to c.200 keys)/BTR (up to c.400 units)/housing typically 50-150 units.

It's an interesting site, very PH in fact, but as you know these things tend to take time.. No Ikea on this one you'll be pleased to know

Ben - how far from Norfolk do you go for developments? I have a mixed use site, Hotel, Pub, Care Home that I am looking to sell. Its South West UK.

[Porridge GTI]

Here in the Gulf you can get a centrally located brand new 6,000 sq ft detached house for a million pounds. Rectangular, concrete, modern, flooded with light, well-finished and energy-efficient. That’s what the UK needs.

[TooMany2cvs]

Porridge GTI said:

Here in the Gulf you can get a centrally located brand new 6,000 sq ft detached house for a million pounds. Rectangular, concrete, modern, flooded with light, well-finished and energy-efficient. That’s what the UK needs.

A stload of empty, unused space and slave labour?

Mmm.

[robinessex]

Just go looking at France, Normandy area. Buy a mansion for £1,000,000