Land Securities Group plc

This presentation will commence shortly.

Welcome to the presentation of Landsec's 2025 half year results. So we continue to see clear positive momentum across all parts of our business. Our primary focus is on delivering sustainable income and EPS growth and we continue to do so effectively. I've been saying for some time that owning the right real estate has never been more important and our performance over the past six months illustrates this yet again. Following our significant portfolio repositioning over recent years, our best-in-class office and major retail assets now make up over 90% of our income. And driven by the high quality of our market-leading platforms in both sectors, we have again delivered strong like-for-like net rental income growth and positive rental uplifts on re-lettings and renewals across both office and retail. We see no signs that the strong customer demand for high-quality space, which underpins this positive trend, is abating. So this will remain the key driver of near-term income and EPS growth, with further asset rotation and residential expected to enhance this over the longer term. As a result, we are raising both our near-term and medium-term EPS outlook, which means we are well-placed to deliver material shareholder value as we move to higher income, higher income growth and lower cyclicality over time. To deliver our strategy, we set out nine key objectives back in February, and we are on track or ahead of plan on each of these. In the near term, most of our EPS growth will be driven by our current platforms, the assets we own today. So that is what the first five objectives are built on. We continue to capture the growing reversionary potential in our office and retail portfolios, and today raise our guidance for like-for-like income growth for this year to around 4% to 5%. We have also raised our overhead cost savings target, which now implies a saving of more than £10 million against financial year 25 by next financial year. We are on track to deliver half of our three-year target to reduce our capital employed in pre-development assets by £0.3 billion during year one. and we have sold one third of our retail and leisure parks, whilst we are seeing an increasing number of acquisition opportunities in major retail coming to the market over the next 12 to 18 months. Our four longer term objectives are designed to ensure that in three to five years time, our asset mix is such that we are still as confident about this outlook for income growth at that point as we are today. Again, progress on each is positive, as we've sold nearly £300 million of offices over 12 months ahead of plan. We set a clear expectation for our income growth in retail at our recent Capital Markets Day in September. And we have made good planning progress in residential. Still, as returns in retail continue to look most attractive, we do not plan any meaningful new development commitments over the next 12 to 18 months. And that means that our committed development exposure is set to come down to just 200 million by mid-2026. And we expect this to remain meaningfully below the current £1 billion level beyond that. Our sharper focus on sustainable EPS growth as our primary financial objective that we set out earlier this year is providing real clarity of focus and clarity in decision making. and we're seeing the benefits of this across all parts of the business. Across the whole portfolio, we have driven 5.2% growth in like-for-like income, and our occupancy is now at a decade high. We have had a highly active half year in terms of shifting our portfolio mix, with the sale of £644 million of assets, which generated limited or no return, and we're expecting further capital recycling in the second half. Meanwhile, our capital base remains solid, supported by continued growth in rental values. And we are committed to further improve this, as we now target net debt to EBITDA of below seven times within the next two years. That's down from a previous target of below eight times. All of this translated into a positive set of financial results for the half year. Our strong like-for-like income growth and continued overhead cost savings meant that EPS was up 3.2%, whilst our dividend is up 2.2%. NTA per share was down slightly at 1.3%, but principally driven by the sale of nearly £650 million of low returning assets that I mentioned earlier. Aside from the finance lease income on Queen Anne's Mansions, the impact on EPS from these disposals was broadly neutral and the cost to NTA about 1%. Our LTV is now 38.9% and our net debt to EBITDA was up as expected, yet we expect this to come down to below seven times within the next two years as our current developments complete and lease up and future development exposure reduces. whilst we expect LTV to reduce to below 35% over time. Reflecting our positive performance, we raise our outlook for EPS growth for the full year and now expect this to be at the top end of our 2-4% guidance range. This is before the disposal of QAM, which turns the residual finance lease on the asset from a receipt of income across 2025 and 26 into an upfront capital receipt on completion of the sale next month. So, although the amount of cash we receive is effectively the same, this reduces reported earnings for the year by £7 million. In addition, we have also raised the outlook for our financial year 30 EPS potential from around 60 pence to 62 pence, and that's a 20% increase in our earnings growth objective, driven by higher growth in retail income, lower overhead costs and lower development. Any upside from our planned median term investment in residential only becomes meaningful beyond financial year 30. We'll continue to pursue opportunities to further improve on this, but this now implies a compound annual growth in earnings per share of 4% to 4.5%, adding further to our attractive existing income return. So now on to our operational review. Customers unquestionably remain focused on the best space in both office and retail. So driven by our high quality operational platforms, our leasing performance remains market leading and our relative outperformance against the wider market continues to widen. Our occupancy is up to a decade high as our portfolio is effectively full, which is driving growing competition for space. This in turn is driving up rental values, so rental uplifts are rising, principally in retail, and like-for-like income growth is trending higher. Reflecting this, we now expect like-for-like net rental income to grow around 4% to 5% this year, up from our initial guidance of 3% to 4%. And this established trend remains a key driver for our near-term EPS growth. Turning to offices in more detail, we continue to see growth in utilisation rates, with turnstile tap-ins up 11% over the three months to October compared to the same period last year, even though TfL tube traffic was slightly down over the same period. Mirroring the experience we see across our own portfolio, the majority of active demand in the overall London market comes from businesses looking to increase space. So as the availability of high quality office space in locations with the right transport connectivity and attractive amenities is limited, this continues to drive rents higher. And that is not just for brand new developments, but also for existing high quality assets. And we see the evidence of this in our 2.3 million square foot estate in Victoria, which is 100% full, and we are now achieving rents on existing buildings in line with what just two years ago were record rents for a new development. All this is reflected in another set of market-leading operational results. Our office occupancy is now nearly 99%, and that's significantly ahead of the overall London market at 92%. Like-for-like income was up 6.8%, with uplifts on re-lettings and renewals of 6%. And we signed, or are in solicitor's hands, on £19 million of lettings, on average 9% ahead of ERV. This drove 3.1% ERV growth over the six months, which is well on track against our guidance of broadly similar full-year ERV growth to last year's 5%. As our portfolio is now effectively full, capturing this market growth in like-for-like income is increasingly a function of lease events and will therefore be more balanced over time than it has been over the past six months. Yet our growing reversionary potential continues to support a positive outlook for like-for-like rental growth from here. This positive customer demand extends to our near-term office completions. Over the next nine months, we will see four new projects complete, including the repositioning of an existing asset to Myo Flex office space and a small Ford purchase that we agreed back in 2021. Now, in total, we expect these projects to generate around £58 million of net effective, i.e. P&L rent, once let, with an associated incremental £43 million of annualised interest expense. The outlook for FY27 EPS is of course sensitive to the pace of lease up of these schemes. But current engagement with prospective customers is encouraging as we have interest in the form of active negotiations, requests for proposals or live engagement equating to an excess of 100% of space across our nearest term completions. Now, not all of that will translate into actual leasing, but in our FW27 EPS outlook, we currently assume around 40% of the two main schemes to be let by the time they complete, and for all space to be let around 12 months post completion. And we're comfortable that these assumptions reflect those current activity levels. In retail, brands continue to focus on the best locations. as these provide the best access to consumer spend and the highest sales growth. As the chart on the left shows here, the top 1%, 60, of all UK shopping destinations capture some 30% of all in-store retail spend. And so this is where major brands focus their investment with, for example, around 90% of all Apple and Inditex stores in these locations. And it's also where close to 90% of our portfolio is focused. The quality of our assets and our platform is driving superior footfall, which in turn is driving substantially higher sales growth than the wider market. Indeed, whereas overall UK shopping centre retailer sales have increased just 3% over the past few years, sales across our portfolio are up nearly 20%. And the gap in performance continues to widen. And this is why brands want to be in our locations. And as our portfolio is now nearly full, this is why rents continue to grow. And this is clearly reflected in our operational performance. Rental uplifts continue to trend higher, as shown here on the left, whilst occupancy is up 50 basis points year on year to almost 97%. This means that like-for-like income growth remains attractive at 5%, and we expect this to continue. We signed, or in solicitor's hands, on £33 million of leases, on average 10% above ERV, which drove 2.2% growth in ERVs over the six months, comfortably on track with our expectation of similar growth for the full year to last year's 4%. And as we set out on our capital markets event in Liverpool in September, the outlook for future income growth from retail is firmly positive. Building on the unique data and insights that our market-leading UK platform provides, we continue to invest in creating experience-led places. The growth in footfall and sales that this then creates continues to attract leading brands. So alongside enhancing our social eating, dining and leisure offer, this creates an environment and experience which in turn attracts higher footfall, higher sales and so on. Our growth outlook is further enhanced by selective investment in highly accretive smaller capex projects. So combined with growing turnover income and commercialisation income, this is what underpins our target to deliver between 4.5% and 7% compound annual growth in net rental income from our existing retail platform over the next five years. So turning now to capital allocation. We continue to prioritise our capital allocation decisions based on this clear framework. This looks at how our investment decisions contribute to income and EPS growth in the short term and how they shift our portfolio mix such that it can continue to deliver sustainable income and EPS growth for the longer term, underpinned at all times by our commitment to maintain a strong capital base. We continually monitor for any changes in risk and return prospects, but as things stand for the next 12 to 18 months, our priority is further investment into major retail destinations, given the high income returns and attractive income growth on offer. Funded by further rotation out of lower return assets, including London office assets, as we have done over the past six months. and we do not plan to commit any meaningful capital to new development over that period, creating further investment capacity. Based on the clarity that this framework provides, we've had a very active period of capital recycling. Our largest disposal was Queen Anne's Mansions, an asset which generated zero total return despite the high short-term income profile, as the valuation depreciates in line with every rent receipt until the end of the lease. Aside from the impact of turning the residual finance lease income into an upfront capital receipt, as I mentioned earlier, this has essentially no impact on earnings and de-risks the value of the site by transferring planning risk for a change of use to the buyer. We also sold two pre-development assets, which generated a negative income return, as well as four retail parks. Combined, these parks comprised around one third of our portfolio of retail and leisure parks, and whilst they delivered a reasonable income return, income growth has been limited. All in all, this means we have sold nearly £650 million of assets, which generated limited or no return in just six months. This came at a cost to NTA of 1% when comparing sales to March book values, but will enhance our future income and EPS growth prospects. A clear example of our decisions being guided by a focus on EPS growth. We expect to remain active in terms of capital recycling in the second half. Investor interest in London has picked up from its low point, so whilst we already are ahead of plan in terms of office disposals, this provides us with an opportunity to recycle further capital to fund accretive investment in retail, where we are seeing more opportunities come to market, although not all of those will be opportunities for us. We will to some extent be pragmatic on disposal values as our principal focus should be less on NTA per se and more on ensuring that the NTA delivers growing cash flow, growing earnings and growing dividends for our shareholders. So in that respect, the roughly 200 basis points positive yield spread between office and retail coupled with the superior income growth prospects for the latter is meaningful. which is underlined by the excellent track record of the £1bn of retail acquisitions that we've made over the past few years, where in all cases performance is tracking well ahead of our initial underwrite. We expect to see further opportunities like this to add to our market leading platform, so this remains our key focus in the near term. So whilst we do have a number of development projects that we could start in the near future, we currently see more attractive risk-adjusted returns elsewhere. So we're not planning to commit any meaningful capital to this. In London, we very much see the potential for continued rental growth, but as I explained earlier, our existing portfolio is benefiting from this trend as well. So taking into account the differing levels of risk, we see little upside in selling high-quality existing offices to fund the development of new ones. although we do see an opportunity to leverage our skill set by working with third-party capital to bring projects forward. For residential development, the picture is a little more nuanced, partly because it would help shift our portfolio towards the higher income growth and lower cyclicality asset mix that we aim for, but also because we are seeing a shift in public sector policy, which could be supportive to returns. For example, with the recently announced reduction in affordable housing requirements and community infrastructure levy in London, which for our London projects could add between 50 and 75 basis points to our current net yields on cost of around 5%. Our near-term focus here is now on locking in this upside, so the outlook for returns could look different in 12 to 18 months' time. Until then, CapEx spend will be very carefully controlled and very limited. Looking beyond the near term, we plan to move to structurally lower levels of development exposure over time in any event, as having large amounts of capital tied up in development for prolonged periods has a negative impact on our risk profile and on EPS growth, particularly so in a higher cost of capital environment. Part of this is reflected in our objective to release half of our roughly 700 million capital employed in pre-development assets, where we're making very good progress. But we also plan to keep our own exposure to committed development closer to about half of the roughly £1 billion that it has been in the past. This means that our balance sheet will have a greater proportion of income-generating assets in the future, which supports our objective to grow EPS in a sustainable way and means that our cash-based leverage measures will also improve. With that, I will now hand you over to Vanessa.

Thank you, Mark, and good morning. We have had a positive start to the year with strong operational performance. Our occupancy is at a record high, we're leasing well ahead of passing rent, and our like-for-like income growth of 5.2% is well ahead of our four-year guidance. Reflecting this and the continued positive outlook from here, we have raised both our near-term EPS guidance and our medium-term EPS potential. For the half year, our strong like-for-like income growth and further reduction in overhead costs meant EPRA EPS was up 3.2%, supporting a 2.2% increase in the interim dividend. Our portfolio valuation was effectively stable with NTA per share down slightly at 863 pence. This was principally driven by our capital recycling as we sold nearly 650 million of assets which generated limited or no return, which came at a cost to NTA of 1%. Our capital base remains robust with LTV at 38.9%, pro forma for the disposal since the end of September. And our net debt to EBITDA ticked up in line with the guidance that we set out in May, but we target this to reduce to below seven times within the next two years as our current onsite developments complete and they lease up and we move to a structurally lower level of development exposure in the future. Now turning to income and EPRA earnings. Overall, our net rental income was up 15 million, supported by 12 million like-for-like income growth. This increase was despite the fact that the prior half year benefited from £4 million increase in the recovery of previously provided bad debts, principally relating to a few assets where we bought the management in-house. Surrender receipts were low as well at just £3 million, which means almost all of our rental income for the half year was regular recurring income as the benefit of one-off receipts was limited. Our focus on operational efficiency meant our grace to net margin improved by 130 basis points to 87.7% and overhead costs were down 2 million with further reductions to come. Finance costs increased as expected principally relating to the increase in average borrowings following our acquisitions in the second half of last year and a small rise in our weighted average cost of debt. All combined, this meant EPRA earnings were up 6 million or 3.2%. And this slide shows the movements of how this translates into growth in earnings per share. Our high quality office and retail assets continue to benefit from strong customer demand and our strong operating platforms. And combined, these assets make up 90% of our income. In total, like-for-like income growth drove a 1.6 pence or 6.4% increase in earnings per share for the half year. And further overhead savings, which added 0.3 pence, offset the increase in like-for-like finance cost. Year-on-year movements in other items, which include lower surrender receipts and the bad debt recovery, reduced EPS by 0.9 pence. But the overall benefit to EPS from both items is minimal now, and it's unlikely to have a meaningful impact in the future. The net impact from investment activity was also positive with overall EPS up 3.2%. And as I will explain in more detail in a minute, the outlook for EPS from here remains positive. Our continued growth in income is further enhanced by our improving efficiency. Back in February, we set out a target to reduce overhead costs to less than 65 million by financial year 27. But we've now increased our target savings and we expect overhead costs next year to be in the low 60 millions. This reflects the benefits from our investments in data and technology, which I've talked about previously, and a cultural shift in our organisation to sustain efficiency and maintain a structurally lower cost base going forward. We now expect overhead costs next year to be more than 20 million lower than they were in financial year 23. That's despite 9 million increase from wage costs and inflation. So in total, this marks a reduction in costs of over 25%. Turning to portfolio valuation. Our successful leasing drove 2.5% growth in ERVs over the past six months, with 3.1% growth in office and 2.2% in retail. Both well on track versus our guidance for the full year. The positive impact of ERV growth was partly offset by the continued wind down of the valuation of QAM as the asset is nearing the end of its leases, so the NPV of the future income continues to reduce, and an increase in the business rates at Piccadilly Lights. Combined, these two factors reduced our overall portfolio valuation by half a percent. But as we have agreed to sell QAM and the business rates review was the first since 2021, neither are expected to be continuing factors in the future. This means our overall portfolio valuation was effectively stable. Our main focus is ensuring that we turn this value into growing cash flow, growing earnings and growing dividends for shareholders. With that in mind, we said in February that we would be pragmatic about the value in terms of capital recycling. And the last six months have been an example of this. We sold 650 million of assets which generated little or no return, which came at a cost to NTA of 1% when comparing the proceeds to the book value. Ultimately, these disposals materially enhance our future income growth. Yet this is the main reason our NTA was down 1.3%. And this continues to be underpinned by our robust capital structure, which will strengthen further in the near future. Our average debt maturity remains long at 8.9 years, and we have no need to refinance any debt until 2027 at the earliest. I mentioned in May that we expected our net debt to EBITDA to exceed eight times this year, as our two onsite office developments in London are nearing full investment, but they do not produce any income until they complete in the six to nine months' time. Combined with our pre-development assets, this means we currently have around one billion of capital that's invested in assets that do not produce income. So we carry all the debt for this, but none of the EBITDA. As these projects complete and they lease up and we move to a lower level of development exposure in the future, our net debt to EBITDA ratio will naturally fall. So we're now targeting a net debt to EBITDA of below seven times, down from the previous target of below eight times, which we expect to achieve in the next two years. We also expect our LTV to reduce below 35%, down from our current 38.9%. Our financial risk profile will therefore be even lower in the future, which further underpins the attraction of our growing income and EPS. And the positive. The outlook for both of these is positive. So following the strong first half of the year, we have raised our guidance for like-for-like income growth for the full year to circa 4% to 5%, up from our initial guidance of 3% to 4%. Combined with further cost savings, this means we now expect TPS growth at the top end of our 2% to 4% guidance range that we provided in May. This is before the impact of the sale of QAM, which turns the residual finance lease income of this asset into a cash capital receipt on sale. The overall amount of cash that we receive is effectively the same, but as we will now receive the cash when this sale completes next month, rather than as lease income over the rest of 2025 and 26. This reduces EPRA earnings for this year by 7 million. For next year, we expect like-for-like growth and cost savings to continue, yet the exact outturn in terms of EPS is also dependent on the pace at which we lease up our office developments. As Mark outlined earlier, we are seeing good engagement from potential customers, so we assume our two main projects on average to be 40% let by the time that they complete and leased up in full over the 12 months thereafter. On this basis, we currently expect EPS growth for financial year 27 to be broadly similar to financial year 26, again before the impact of QAM, which reduces earnings for financial year 27 by a further 15 million. As the impact on EPS from the sale of QAM beyond financial year 27 is minimal, this means we're on track for our medium-term EPS growth potential that we've outlined. So turning to that in more detail, back in February we set out the potential for EPS to grow by around 20% to 60 pence by financial year 30, including the headwinds of QAM and the higher finance costs. We now raise this outlook to 62 pence, driven by higher income growth in retail, a further reduction in overhead costs, and a move to a lower level of development exposure. So let me just take a moment to explain the movements, the moving parts in a bit more detail. So starting with last year's 50.3 pence, the sale of Quam, which I just explained, had an impact of just under three pence. By far the biggest part of future growth is capturing the growing reversion in our existing portfolio. As you can see from our strong operational performance, we have a good track record of this with 5.2% like-for-like income growth for the first half across the whole portfolio. building on a 5% like-for-like growth that we reported last year. Our office portfolio is 12% reversionary, and our numbers here assume that we deliver like-for-like rental growth of 3% to 4% per annum, which is a more normalised level than over the last six months, given that our office portfolio is now effectively full. At our Capital Markets Day in September, we set out how we target to deliver income growth across our retail portfolio between 4.5% and 7% over the next few years. Where rental uplifts are now up to 14%, turnover income is growing, and we're seeing the benefits of accretive capex. This outlook is based upon the midpoint of this range. The upside from further overhead savings I set out earlier equates to about one and a half pence and we have a good track record of delivering on this too. Our recent acquisitions and disposals, which include Liverpool One and the sale of our retail parks, have a net benefit of around one pence. And as Mark mentioned, we are ahead of plan in terms of our objective to halve our capital employed in low and non-yielding pre-development assets, which will add around 1.5 pence per share from interest cost savings. And the lease up of a new term office completions will add around two pence. The upside from future asset rotation effectively reflects our plans to recycle more capital out of lower return assets and invest a further one billion into major retail destinations. As our planned capital recycling out of offices into residential is broadly EPS neutral on this timeframe and will mostly benefit EPS growth beyond financial year 30. So taking into account the expected rise in finance costs, all this equates to just over 4% annual growth. Delivering sustainable income and EPS growth well over time result in an attractive return on equity. So with a strong capital base and attractive existing income return, we are well placed to drive substantial shareholder value. And with that, I'll hand back to Mark.

Thanks very much, Vanessa. So I'm now going to wrap up with a summary of what you can expect to see from us in the near future, where we see the differentiation opportunity for LandSec before we then open for Q&A. So the updated strategy that we set out back in February provides real clarity in terms of our key objectives and our primary target to deliver sustainable income and EPS growth for our shareholders. This means all of our priorities and decisions flow from this, creating a real clarity of focus across the business. For our best-in-class office platform, we are focused on capitalising on the continued strong customer demand for space, and that's both for our near-term completions as well as across our existing estate. And this is similar to our market-leading retail platform where we have robust plans to deliver 4.5% to 7% growth in income over the next few years. As investment activity continues to pick up, we will look to rotate further capital out of offices into retail to capture the superior risk-adjusted returns. Meanwhile, in residential, we are focused on locking in the positive impact of strengthening public policy support, as this remains a highly attractive opportunity in the longer term, supported by strong growth fundamentals. So we've now created a clear differentiation in our positioning. We have two unquestionably best in class, irreplaceable portfolios, operated by two market leading platforms of real scale and stature. Our primary focus on sustainable income and EPS growth as our principal performance measure provides absolute clarity across our entire business. And our clear capital allocation framework means that we're clear-eyed and rational about investment decisions in pursuit of our primary financial objective, as reflected in our decision to significantly reduce our future development exposure. which underpins our move to an even stronger capital base, with a net debt to EBITDA below seven times. At the same time, the outlook for income growth remains firmly favourable. Strong customer demand for the best office and retail space continues to drive ERV growth, and our overall occupancy is at a decade high of 98%. Both our office and retail rents are highly reversionary, underpinning future income growth, which on an earnings level is supported by additional overhead savings. This provides us with the confidence to raise our guidance for FY26 earnings per share and increase the outlook for our financial year 30 EPS potential. With dividends expected to grow alongside growth in EPS and a strategy which is seeing us move to higher income and higher income growth and lower cyclicality over time, we are well positioned to deliver significant value for shareholders. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for attending this morning and listening to our presentation. As usual, I'm now going to open for Q&A. We'll start here first in the room here. So please, if you have a question, raise your hand and wait for a microphone. And then we've also got people attending via webcast and conference call, and we'll go to both of those in turn as well. So a couple of questions here at the front first, and then we'll go to a question at the back in the middle.

Good morning and thank you for taking my question. It's Marius Bastio here from Bernstein. If I maybe turn to your longer term plans and residential, I think you've quantified now kind of policy changes that will actually support your development yields within your kind of London schemes, for example. Would that uplift be enough for you to commit to those projects? Or are you looking for more upside potential from other maybe cost savings, for example?

So we've indicated that we think, and we have to be clear at the moment, what we have is policy announcements from government and GLA together to reduce affordable housing and community infrastructure levy charges. We need to see how those things actually play through in the detail to individual projects. But the indication we provided is if those land at a project level, that would be 50 to 75 basis points improvement. And that would take us to somewhere in the high fives as a yield on cost. which for a sector which has got structural growth and annual capturing of rental growth feels a pretty attractive starting point. But it's a decision really for us to look at probably towards the end of 2026 when we have more clarity at a project level. We also have an understanding of what the other opportunities to deploy capital look like and what the relative risks and returns look like. It is unquestionably positive in terms of direction of travel policy support, but it will be a decision ultimately for later in 2026 when we can look at things with a greater degree of certainty. Okay, very clear.

Thank you. And then also just turning to retail, I think you've mentioned again, you're expecting more potential investment opportunities to come to market. And that's where the focus is today and putting capital to work there. It feels also quite crowded with what we're seeing in the market. So are you confident on being able to allocate that capital and at the levels of returns you're previously targeting?

We are, in short. There is more capital coming, starting to look at the market. But I think we have to remember a couple of things. It is a very operational market. I think having relationships with brands, having the operational expertise, having the data around consumer behaviour are all critical to being able to successfully operate a shopping centre. One of the reasons that we have deliberately targeted that sector is because we have a demonstrable capital advantage. If you look at where we are today, our major retail portfolio has 40% more reach in terms of footfall than the next largest UK retail platform. And our plan is to build and grow on that. I think the bigger the lot sizes get, the more difficult it is for some of the other investors might be coming into the space to capitalise that and to underwrite an exit. So I think it's good news. You've got more investors looking at the sector in terms of validating what we see within it. I don't think it's enough at this stage for us to be overly concerned about capital deployment. But it does mean one of the reasons we think it's a 12 to 18 month window. And one of the reasons we've accelerated office sales to rotate into that window is we don't want to do things over too long a period of time and find that the cap rates six and a half rather than eight when we start to deploy capital.

Jonathan. Thank you, Jonathan. Can I take a moment to ask three questions, if I may? First question is on retail ERV. When are we going to see this grow? You're obviously letting 10% ahead. So how do you think this is going to evolve? First question. Second question, share buybacks were on your allocation charts. How are you thinking about this? Would you need more disposals to do share buybacks? Were you considering those at this stage? And third question, you're obviously willing to redeploy in residential. We've talked about the economics. We've talked about the timeframe. And given the long timeframe for development as well, would student housing be something that you would consider instead of doing residential development? Thank you.

Thank you. So just first on retail ERVs, I'll make a comment and then perhaps ask Vanessa just to explain a little bit in the context of valuation. My personal view is that the ERVs that are put into the valuation matrix are not particularly meaningful on the basis that we see our letting evidence is consistently so far ahead of those ERVs. But I think there's been an issue over recent years of particular lettings being done and then a question of what does that provide rental evidence that can be ascribed to other demises within retail. And when occupancy was lower, and there was a variety of different types of occupied demand, I think there were perhaps reasons to say, well, let's be a little bit more cautious on that. I think when you're 97% full and you're leasing, if you look at insolister's hands, double digits ahead, I think the evidence is clearer and clearer. For us, in terms of our decisions, we look at our leasing evidence And we look at our leasing pipeline and we base it on our conversations with retailers. So whether we find that ultimately finding its way into valuations is a sort of secondary point as far as we're concerned. We're looking at the cash on cash and how does it help us grow our earnings. And is that your impression that that's increasing?

So the letting that you're doing is increasing in increasingly better rates?

Yes. Yeah. And I think you saw a chart in the chart which shows retailer sales across portfolios, which I think is really quite striking. Because at the end of the day, as a retailer, what are you trying to do? You want space that can help you grow your top line and grow your margin. So to see 19% growth over three years across our portfolio in total retailer sales compared to a market movement of plus 3%, which is substantially below inflation, over that period shows that retailers are focusing on the best locations. And that gap is widening. And so if the gap in terms of sales performance is widening, I think it follows that the room for rental values to grow is also widening. Is there anything, Vanessa, from a valuation point of view that you'd want to add on that?

I mean, no, I think the lease and stats speak for themselves, don't they? When you're leasing 10% ahead of ERV, you've got 2.2% reflected in your valuation. And we continue to lease ahead of ERV and ahead of passing rent. I think that kind of shows that we're a bit more successful leasing than probably the wider market.

So to answer your second question, we've quite deliberately included share buybacks on our capital allocation framework and you should take from that that it is something that we as a board will continue to actively consider. You've seen the two axes of how we think about how we allocate capital, what does it do to our near-term earnings and how does it help our portfolio mix over time get to a position that we think can support long-term earnings growth. at the moment selling out of lower yielding assets including offices and deploying into retail is the most accretive use of our capital. We can buy at an ungeared yield which is higher than the implied ungeared yield on our shares. So that will definitely be where we would deploy. I think the second thing is then to make sure that we have a really solid balance sheet and so we would always look at that quite cautiously. But I think one of the things you've seen with us today is talk about effectively taking development down. To me, as things stand at the moment, if we didn't have those other options, we would look at share buyback as being preferable to development deployment, for example, because it would have the same effect in terms of portfolio mix, but it would have much more benefit on earnings accretion. So it will remain on our framework, but we're very clear as things stand, deploying into retail is the most accretive use of our capital.

And how long do you wait? There's obviously a different execution risk in both products, right?

There is a different execution risk. There's also a different scarcity value. No one's building any more of these shopping centres. So if we can add two or three further locations to what is already the leading platform by quite a margin in the UK, those chances aren't going to come around again. So if we were to say, well, let's do something short term in buying our stock and then not have the capital available in nine months' time to buy an asset which isn't going to be on the market again for maybe another 10 years, I think that would be a real shame. And then lastly, just on residential, you understand the time frame, you understand the direction of travel on build to rent. That's where we think there's opportunity over the medium to long term to leverage our skill set. We considered student housing as one of a number of living sectors when we looked at our strategy last year before the February announcement. I think it needs real expertise. I think there are some interesting questions about what the long term growth characteristics of that sector look like. So it's not something that we would plan to deploy capital into.

Thank you.

I might just, if I may, in the interest of the... Oh, no, I've got my microphone at the back. Sorry. So I know there's a question at the back we'll go to first. And then I think there are a couple more in the second row here.

Hi. Thanks for the presentation, Olly Woodall, Coalytics. This might have some overlap to the previous question, but given the 1% pool of retail assets that you've said you're interested in, in shopping in. You mentioned maybe about 30 centres and you obviously haven't made any acquisitions yet since the CMD in February. If no assets do come to market available at the price or yield that you like, how does that kind of shift your larger strategy in terms of capital deployment?

Yeah, I mean, I think it's a largely hypothetical question because I think those assets will come forward and they will come forward at returns that will make sense for us. But the reason we have that capital education framework is to make sure that we keep that discipline. So I think if we got to a position where in that hypothetical scenario you had earnings accretion that was meaningfully below the alternative of buying our own stock, then we would need to reassess at that point in time. But As things stand, I think you've still got quite a lot of centres that are owned by investors either individually or collectively that are not natural long-term holders of these assets. As liquidity improves, I think one of the benefits that has is it will encourage some of those existing owners to bring assets forward to market that perhaps weren't available to invest in previously. So I think we'll see the the market balance out, as I said to the earlier question, the operational component of this. Plus, I think on some of these assets, the CapEx requirements on some of this, I think they will be, I think, reasons for investors without the real expertise in this sector to be a little bit cautious.

That's clear. Thank you. And just quickly on the 200 million of accretive CapEx, is there opportunity to increase that slightly in the interim if the opportunities are slightly delayed?

There might be. I think there's also hopefully opportunity to try and deliver the same for less, which will probably be our primary focus. If we can get the benefit of the return from that 200 by only spending 180, we'd rather do that. But I think there will always be investment opportunities across the portfolio, but we're really focused on the cash on cash yield we can get from those things. Thank you. Thank you. There's a question. We'll start in the middle of the row and then work that way if that's okay.

Bjorn Zietzman from Panama Librem. You mentioned increasing opportunities in retail for acquisition. Can you give us a sense of the composition of those opportunities? Are they shopping centers, retail parks, elsewhere?

Yeah, so the comment was intended really to talk about shopping centres, which is the only segment that we would look at. And within that, there'll be some that would not be of interest to us. They don't have the dominance in the catchment. They're not in a strong enough catchment. We don't see the opportunity to leverage our platform sufficiently. So it'll be the larger and more dominant of those that would be the likely area that we would look towards.

And just on capital recycling, can you give us a sense of the pace, quantum and timing, as well as composition of any disposals?

So it will be capital recycling for the first year. So we will use disposals to fund acquisitions. I think that's the first important thing to say. So I think you can judge on the basis that if we're hoping to invest into retail meaningful 12 to 18 month view, that will need to be funded from disposals over a similar timeframe. We've said lower yielding assets, including London offices. So looking at the composition of the portfolio, that will need to involve ongoing disposals with London office assets as we've signalled.

Morning, it's Rob James from BNP Paribas. This might be a question that's better offline, but we'll try it now to start with. Sounds like fun. I was excited when I wrote the question, put it that way. I don't know how you can get to your FY27 EPS guidance that you published yesterday, which is 53.3p on your website. And the reason why... I can't get there, but you'll be able to help me, is for 25, obviously you did 50 spot 3P. You've then got, let's say, 4% earnings growth for this year to March 26, which adds, say, 2P a share to 52.3. I've then got to strip out 0.9P for Queen Anne's Mansions that gets me to 51 spot 4, roughly, for FY26. I then look forward to FY27. We've got, as you said... The second impact of Queen Anne's mansions of 50 million, call that two peer share. So my 52 spot three for March 26 goes to 49, sorry, 51.4 goes to 49.4 ex Queen Anne's mansions in FY27. And then you need to obviously then grow income ex-Queen Anne's mansions from that 49.4 to the 53.3 that you've currently got as your analyst consensus on your website. But that's an 8% growth for 27. And let's say we do four. Does that mean that consensus is 4% too high? Like what have I missed? And I definitely missed something.

I can't imagine why you thought that might be better offline. But perhaps I might just ask Vanessa just to come in. There might be a couple of sort of big moving parts in that. You can come back to me if you want, honestly. The number wouldn't be out there if we didn't have the component parts. Or unless the forecast is too high, that's the other option.

I'm happy to have a bit more detailed chat offline, but effectively you've got the continuation of life-like growth. from leasing performance, cost reductions. We don't have any major refinancing coming through in that year, so a pretty stable position. But there will then be the development completions, which we've had really from now over the next 12 months or so. So we're assuming a bit of leasing performance, and then you offset the QAM movement.

So you don't think that 53.3 FY27 today is too high, as in a fair?

I'll have a quick look at that, if you like, afterwards. Cool. All right, thanks very much. I haven't actually seen what they're specifically talking about.

No worries. Thank you, Rob. Morning, John Carhill from Stifel. Just one question, please. As you say, one of your differentiating factors now is your risk profile is vastly reduced from what it once was. Leverage is going to be lower still, reducing the pace of developments. And in isolation, lower risk, of course, is a positive. But there must be a degree to which that slows down the rate at which you get to your 2030 diversified portfolio. Should we think of this as the executive's view that on a risk-adjusted basis, these are the best returns? Or is it that the shareholders via the board are saying, well, yes, we want you to get where you're going with the resi-led developments, but actually we're just going to put the brakes on you a little bit.

Yeah, it's very much a, I mean, the capital allocation framework that we set out on the chart there, with the exception of adding in share buyback, is no different to the capital allocation framework that we set out with the strategy in February. And if you look at the objectives that we set, the short term and the long term, the invest a billion in retail, the longer term is to rotate office into residential. There's no change to that strategy. I think what we might reflect on post-February is that there's a lot of focus on residential and perhaps say we needed to do a better job on explaining the timescales and that we were sharing a five-year view of how we shift the portfolio mix over time and that I think got conflated with what drives near-term earnings per share guidance. What we've sought to do since then and particularly with today is show that the earnings guidance near-term is of course driven by today's portfolio. We're very, very happy with the quality of that. We think retail continues to be the best place for us to deploy capital and leverage our expertise. We still think the rotation into residential is the right thing to do, and we still think the timeframe for that is medium to long term. So no change in that respect. I think just trying to be a little bit sharper on what's happening over the next one to two years, which tends to be, I may even be giving markets a little bit more credit, but that tends to be the sort of timeframe that markets are more focused on. I think that's what we've sought to do. Thank you. If I may just pass to Paul as it's for convenience, and then we'll come to Tom at the front.

Hi, Paul May from Buck, please. Three questions from me. Given the losses on disposals or non-income producing sites, have you proactively written those down in the first half ahead of expected sales further forward, or should we expect further losses on those as you're being pragmatic? Second one, if recent press comments are correct, sorry, apologies, Are you disappointed at having lost out on Merry Hill? Just get some color there. And then the final one, as you know, I applaud the earnings-based strategy. I think it'd be a shame if the market doesn't wake up to it and see the earnings growth potential because I think it brings to question the whole European listed sector. But I just wondered what more do you think you could do to convince people and what pushback do you get from investors on that?

Sure. So, Vanessa, the first question around sort of I suppose where valuations sit relative to ongoing transaction activity.

Yeah, so the disposal losses that we saw in the first half really related the majority of them to some development site sales where we're seeing that developers are really looking for a higher IRR from development activity than probably in the past they have. So I think that it's quite specific to those sort of assets. So we have reflected that through into our valuation for the first half of the September valuation. So we've been through the discussions that we have, as you would expect, with all the valuers. So we believe that our valuation now properly reflects what activity we're seeing and experiencing in the market. And we've been pretty active, as you can tell, having sold almost 650 million over that period. We've been pretty active. So I'm sat here pretty confident that our valuation at this point reflects where we see the market position.

And of course we have reasonable visibility on our own capital recycling plans and are comfortable in that respect as well. Your question on Maryhill you won't be surprised I won't comment on specifics I guess what I will say is that there are a number of assets including Maryhill that are being marketed. And in how we look at those assets, we will look at what's the opportunity to leverage our platform, bring brands in that perhaps aren't there, reposition assets through investment using consumer data to see what might be missing or what might drive performance. and what do we think the capex bill is likely to be in order to affect those changes or to deal with backlog maintenance which will be a feature on a lot of these assets. So that's what we will always look at and so I think you can be confident that anything we do acquire we will have answered those questions in the positive and there'll be a decent number of assets we look at that we either we won't spend much time on at all because we don't feel that they're right or we might spend a fair bit of time on but struggle to get ourselves comfortable at the sort of levels others may end up being. But again, I think we're comfortable we'll get to our capital deployment targets with what we can see on the market at the moment. And then I think with respect to earnings growth and what more can we do? I mean, we post our strategy, had a considerable number of meetings both then and through results cycles and over the summer and into the autumn, we engage regularly with all of our shareholders. We certainly... have had a pretty consistent message back that earnings growth and confidence and credibility in that earnings growth trajectory is what matters most to generalist investors, if that's the right term. Certainly, and you'll understand this better than me, but the dynamic of investing in our sector is very different to where it was 10 years ago in terms of specialists versus generalists. I think it is the wider equity markets that we need to be able to talk to in a convincing way of how we are creating value for them and I think that's a far more convincing story to be able to point in a quite granular way to how we're growing earnings and how you can form a view as an investor on the deliverability or otherwise of the different components of our of our earnings bridge to 2030 than pointing to a valuation and an NTA where I think there's a Certainly for investors that look globally, NTA is not necessarily a feature in other markets. So I think we're moving in the right direction. We certainly wouldn't be doing it if we didn't feel that. We've got to then deliver and execute on it. And the more we do that, the more confident markets should become.

Sorry, and just on that last bit in terms of that, it's a bit with Rob's question as well, that consistency of earnings delivery into next year. I suppose it would be good to provide comfort for investors that you do have that, into next year, given the headwinds as Rob mentioned. But also, are there any acquisitions baked into that FY27 earnings assumption?

So we've put the FY27 earnings number up there. I think within that we'll assume there's a small amount of recycling based on what we can see today, but not a significant amount in terms of undue reliance on achieving massive amounts of recycling to achieve a number with respect to earnings next year. The biggest sensitivity is the pace of development leasing. And we provided some colour in the statement on what a sort of plus minus 10% on those sort of average occupancy on those assets through the year would do to earnings. And I think that's the one that we're probably most focused on. Cool. Thank you.

Tom in the front here. Thanks. Morning. It's Tom Musson at Berenberg. Sorry, I just wonder if I can pin you down slightly on share buybacks. I appreciate what you're saying where you see best use of capital today. But markets are volatile, especially today. And just wondering at what share price or perhaps what earnings yield does it suddenly make sense for you to buy back shares? Are we close or still some way away?

We don't have a precise number in mind. I think it would probably be unwise to have that. I would point back to my earlier answer around the scarcity of the alternative. So I think buying major retail is much less about just a comparison of the spot yield and much more about what does that do to the long-term earnings potential of the business, the quality of the underlying portfolio. So comparing a sort of a spot rate to a A genuinely scarce asset, I think, is something that we would be cautious about doing. So at the moment, the cap rates that we believe we can invest in in major retail would still make that very clearly the right place to deploy capital. And I think there is an opportunity to add some scarce assets to an already market-leading platform on a 12 to 18-month view. That's got to be the right thing to do for the long-term value of the business. Thank you. Are there any other questions in the room? Otherwise, I'm going to go to the conference call. Okay, so we'll go to the call. I think there are a couple of questions on the call, so let me open up to the operator on the call. Thank you.

Your first telephone question for today comes from the line of Zachary Gauch from UBS. Please go ahead. Can you hear me okay?

I can. Morning, Zach.

Okay, perfect. Morning. Sorry, I'm not there in person. Yeah, just three questions for me, hopefully quite quick. Could you disclose what the discount to book was specifically on the £72 million of development site sales that you had in the first six months? The second one is on the oval office acquisition. Just interested to see how that fits into your new strategy, particularly around obviously the office holdings and the location being close to South Bank. And lastly, on the current developments, based on my calculations, when you strip out CapEx, Timber Square dropped by about 5% in value over the period. So, it's interesting to see what was driving that. And also, if you could touch on Y30 High, which 12 months ago was guided to be completing October 2025, now has a June 2026 completion date. Thank you.

Zach, I've written down your questions and I've written the first one down so badly I can't read my writing. Sorry, what was your first question?

This counts the book on the 72 million.

Oh, right. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Well, look, on the first one, we don't disclose the specific sort of deal by deal of sort of achievements relative to book. I think what Vanessa mentioned earlier with respect to sales is that where we've been selling development sites, there's tended to be in the market a higher IRR requirement than had previously been the case and that valuations were reflecting. What I would say though is things are pretty sensitive and we've got examples of other sites where we're talking to partners that are quite a different outcome to what we saw in the first half including ones that would point to positive outcomes relative to books so it is very sensitive but it is a relatively small part of the portfolio that will I think be largely sort of taken care of during the current financial year. The overall acquisition dates back to 2021. Very good quality assets just delivered within the last month or so, as you'll see from the schedule. Good occupier demand. The thinking of that at the time was looking for assets with a good value entry point in terms of price, perhaps slightly different in terms of local amenity playing to what was quite a different occupier dynamic back in sort of Covid era times and so we looked at a relatively small acquisition to test that. I think we're pretty happy with the way the occupier demand is shaping up on that particular asset but as things have moved forward now we've set out very clear priorities of where we're looking to allocate capital and I think you understand where office investment sits in that context. 30 High, I'll just talk to you briefly and then ask Vanessa just on the timber square movements. So 30 High, an existing building where the contractors had some challenges within the existing building as a refurb, which has pushed the programme back a little bit. We're indicating around middle of next year, There is a recovery programme opportunity which could outperform that, but it's important for us to set a clear date, particularly as we're starting to see quite significant incoming occupier demand and there's quite short lead times on the sort of people that are looking to take, say, 10,000, 11,000 square foot floor plates. So we need to have a date that we're very confident committing to for those occupiers. So we've moved that guided completion date back for those reasons. And then timber.

Yeah, so timber square as an asset, actually the valuation, because it's pretty close to completion, has transitioned to a cost-to-complete basis, so looking at the end asset with the cost to go, and then it's therefore valued at the moment. as an asset that's 100% vacant because we haven't actually signed any of the leases at this stage. So as we go throughout the remainder of the next six months until that completes, on the basis we're expecting to lease that asset, we'll get to a position whereby the yield will shift to reflect that as a leased asset rather than a vacant office with cost to go. So it's just a nuance in the way that the valuations on developments transition over their life of development.

So a point in time factor.

Yeah, so it's not necessarily any change to any major assumptions on that front.

Okay, thanks very much.

Is that okay, Zach? Yep. Cool, thank you. I think we may have at least one more question on the conference call.

The next question comes from the line of Adam Shapton from Green Street. Please go ahead.

Good morning, all. Apologies as well. I'm not there in person. Just one from me on the thinking around residential development returns. And I had one or two questions on that already. But I'm going to preface the question by saying I realize there's a political dimension to the communication on this. But hopefully we can put that to one side. If I look back to the February capital market day, you were pointing to net yield on costs of 5% for 10% to 12% IRRs and described that as attractive. Today, swap rates are a little lower, your share price is broadly the same, and you're saying that 5% of net yield cost is not sufficient. Can you explain why that stance has changed or correct me if my sort of separate inference was wrong or not compatible. And then more broadly, can you explain how you think about what would be a sufficient yield on cost or I'll ask you to commit more capital to Rosie in the medium term.

Yeah, certainly. So I think six months on, looking at what's happened across the wider market, not just residential, and I would include our development sales and what people are looking for in office development, et cetera, to the earlier question within this. I think our view on IRRs would probably be pointing to something a little bit higher than 10 to 12 being where we need to be. I think we would also take a slightly more cautious view on exit cap rates, which of course has a fairly sensitive impact on IRRs. We're now suggesting, and as I stressed earlier, this is subject to all of this flowing through to the actual projects in detail, so it needs to be very heavily caveated. But at a headline level, the reduction in affordable, the reduction in SIL, looks like it could add 50 to 75 basis points. That would take us into the high fives on a yield on cost basis, which with sensible cap rate assumptions, I think, delivers a better result. a decent increase on that 10 to 12 guide on IRR. So I think where we are now, and I think this would also be consistent with a lot of the shareholder discussions we had post-strategy, is pointing to a need for IRRs to be higher than that 10 to 12 range, yields on costs, which we think, frankly, is the most important measure because that's what ultimately is going to flow through to our earnings and earnings growth longer term. High fives feels a more sensible level at which to be seeking to underwrite these.

Okay, understood. And then just on the additional yield that might come from the policy changes, is your expectation or is your hope that those become permanent rather than temporary or time-limited measures, which I think is what we're looking at at the moment?

I mean, at the moment, they're positioned as acceleration measures. One would hope that if those acceleration measures achieve the desired acceleration, there's a better chance of them being come permanent than if they don't. Certainly from our point of view, without those changes, we'd have been unable to take any residential projects forward.

OK, thank you.

Thank you, Adam. Other questions on the conference call line?

The next question comes from the line of Paul Goree from CTI. Please go ahead.

Hi, all. Can you hear me okay?

We can. Morning, Paul.

Perfect. Perfect. Morning, everyone. Yeah, just a quick follow-on from Rob Jones's question. I'm looking at slide 28, and basically the FY27 outlook for earnings looks flat against FY26. So I'm just trying to understand, is that correct? Is that the right interpretation? Flat year-on-year, 27 versus 26.

Is that before the QAM adjustments?

That's after the QAM adjustments.

Sorry, I haven't got it in front of me.

I'm just looking at the, sorry, yeah, there's the like purple bars, the deep purple, taking QAM fully into account, it looks like. It's flat year-on-year from Vanessa's comments.

It sounded flat year-on-year. If you take the finance lease income from QAM out, because basically we're receiving that as a cash receipt in the next month as opposed to through the finance lease income. that comes through in those two years. So if you look at the underlying portfolio, how that performs, that will be the guidance we've given is the 2% to 4%. And then if you net out the QAM, that's where it is, which I think goes back to Rob's point earlier when I just had a quick look. I think what's happened is since we've announced the sale of QAM, Not all of the analysts out there have adjusted for the impact of QAM, even though the announcement were quite specific on the impact over those financial years. So I think that's where the difference is to the roll-up of the consensus that sits out there. With all the moving parts, when you actually look at the reported, it would be flat. Whether you look at the underlying performance of the portfolio, it would be the 2% to 4%.

Got it. Very clear. Okay, thank you. That was it.

Thanks, Paul. Any more conference call questions? No, I think we're – it sounds like we've either cut them off or there aren't any more questions. So we'll head to the webcast. A couple of – a few questions coming down on the webcast. So first, with the business plan seemingly on track, was the credit rating downgrade a surprise and are corrective measures called for from Mike Pru? So Vanessa, just thoughts on credit? Yeah.

Yeah, happy to talk about that. We had a Fitch rating that was reflecting of last financial year's position. That rating was reflecting following the acquisition of Liverpool One. Our debt was slightly higher as we talked about in our results being slightly higher. um slightly higher but it's worth noting that um s p have just reaffirmed their rating i think a couple of weeks ago of double a rating so still a very high investment grade rating and overall we still have one of the high we are the highest um have the highest investment grade rating in the sector So there's no need for necessarily correct measures. Our plan that we have in place at the moment, as we talked about with net debt to EBITDA, improving and actually improving positions as well. And our capital operating guidelines position as well and commensurate with high investment grade ratings. So our plans for the future put us in a good position.

Thank you. Then a couple of questions from Alan Clifford. So on future London office development, talked about partnering with third parties to leverage platform. What capacity do you have for this and how capital light is this likely to be? So, I mean, we have at the moment, following the two development site disposals that we've already made, we have two further city based assets plus an additional one in the South Bank, all of which are well advanced in terms of being able to commit capital to and where we are in active discussions on how we best take those projects forward. That's what gives us the confidence to make reference within the statement here to opportunities to work with third party capital. If you take that in alongside our comment within the results to not planning to commit any significant capital to development ourselves on a 12 to 18 month view. I think you can infer from that that these would be very capital light options should we choose to take them forward. And then with regards to the wait and see comments on resi, how does this impact progress on the currently owned schemes with planning consent? So that has no bearing at all on what we need to do on those, such as the detail required to take forward schemes from a resolution to grant planning, plus deal with the additional requirements of the building safety regulator whilst finalising detailed designs, but more moving on site. even if we wanted to go as fast as we possibly could on those residential projects, it would be mid 27 with a following wind before we could put a spade in the ground on any of those. So at the moment, there is no bearing. So that gives us the opportunity without spending significant amounts of capital because we've got the consents in place to now work through the viability of those projects by, mid next year to then be able to make the decisions I talked about across the second half of 2026 without having any bearing on the delivery timelines of the projects we're looking at. And I think that is the last of the questions. So all that leaves me to do is to thank you all for taking the time to either attend here in person or to dial into the call. And we look forward to further discussions with you over the coming few days and weeks. Thank you very much.

This presentation has now ended.