London’s construction skills shortage makes innovation more urgent than ever

Modular housing in Los Angeles. Image: Getty.

London’s construction industry is struggling to attract and retain the workers it needs. And this is a huge problem: skills shortages are driving up the high cost of building in the capital, and contributing to the poor quality of workmanship in the construction sector.

This crisis is manifold. The UK’s construction workforce ageing, with one in ten workers estimated to leave the sector in the next nine years. It’s also at huge risk from Brexit, with almost a third of London’s ‘construction of buildings’ workforce from the EU, compared to just 10 per cent in the rest of the UK. Last week, the Migration Advisory Committee’s report on EEA workers recommended a salary threshold of £30,000 for high and medium skilled EEA workers in the future, with no explicit work migration route for low-skilled workers, and no introduction of regional variation.

But it’s not just the prospect of losing EU workers that the industry needs to be concerned about: more workers are leaving the profession than entering already. In 2017 alone, twice as many workers left the construction industry as joined it, a trend projected to worsen over the next few years. This is despite demand for on-site occupations outstripping levels of current employment: recent findings from the Greater London Authority indicate that demand for plant mechanics, scaffolders and bricklayers exceeded 300 per cent of 2015 employment levels.

Meanwhile, despite the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy in April 2017, London has a consistently low number of construction apprenticeship starts, with take-up declining by almost 50 per cent in the five years to 2016, even as need has intensified. A recent survey of apprenticeship leavers by the Construction Industry Training Board found that over a third cited low pay and slow career development as reasons behind leaving.

So how can the construction sector inspire its current workforce, but also encourage the next generation of workers to come forward? With the construction industry in desperate need of a pipeline of younger and skilled employees, it’s time for the sector to embrace Modern Methods of Construction (MMC).


MMC, also known as modular housing or off-site construction, have the potential to deliver housing much quicker than traditional construction methods, as well as provide cost savings, greater certainty and achieve higher quality. Modular techniques will create jobs for a range of skills, engineers and surveyors as well as low skilled jobs on-site. This might entice would-be apprentices who could be put off by low pay and a lack of personal development opportunities.

But the transition to widespread adoption of off-site construction to date has been slow. A step change in developing the skills to take it on will be needed to ensure MMC can be a part of the solution to London’s housing crisis.

London mayor Sadiq Khan has demonstrated his commitment to improve skills in the sector through the Mayor’s Construction Academy (MCA), which includes supporting the development of training provision for the construction of precision manufactured housing. Taking this forward, the mayor should consider how to use devolved skills funding to help existing construction workers develop the new skills required to implement MMC. Now is the time for developers and the wider industry to start investing their workers, upskilling them to future-proof housebuilding in the city.

Amy Leppanen is communications officer at the Centre for London.

 
 
 
 

Does it matter that TfL are renaming White Hart Lane station Tottenham Hotspur?

New White Hart Lane. Image: Getty.

Pretend for a moment that you’re travelling in the London of 1932. You’re taking the Piccadilly Line northbound and alight at Gillespie Road station. The name should be obvious: it’s inscribed in bespoke brown tiling on the platform.

But that 31 October, following an intense campaign by the eponymous football club, the London County Council changed the station’s name to Arsenal (Highbury Hill). The area’s growing association with the name “Arsenal” ended in a lengthy negotiation that changed maps, signs and train tickets alike. Football had acquired so much power that it changed the name of not just a Tube station but an entire suburb, even before the era of Wenger or the Emirates.

Now the spectre of name changes is on the horizon once again. As Tottenham Hotspur FC inches closer to completing its new stadium, the club is clamouring for a renamed Overground station. Despite the fact the new stadium is located on almost exactly the same site as the old just off White Hart Lane, and fans have long been calling the scaffolding-laden mess “New White Hart Lane”, the club’s executive director is adamant that the station’s existing name cannot stand. White Hart Lane station, on the Overground line leaving Liverpool Street, is set to be renamed “Tottenham Hotspur”, at a cost to the club of £14.7m.

Little has been made of the fact that this peculiar PR kerfuffle is tied to Spurs’ failure to convince Nike to sponsor the venue. Some sources have even claimed that the sponsorship is yet to be finalised because it is somehow contingent on the renaming of the Overground station; beyond the ridiculous Johnson-era vanity project that was the Emirates Air Line, it seems improbable that TfL will allow any more corporate-flavoured information pollution. There will be no “Nike Stadium” station on the way to Enfield, much as there is no “Emirates” on the way to Cockfosters, especially if public consultation gets a look in.

The scene of the crime. Image: TfL.

But there’s a problem with the new name, all the same. “White Hart Lane” already means “football stadium”, in the same way Loftus Road or Stamford Bridge do. Changing it to “Tottenham Hotspur” risks opening the floodgates to an “O2 North Greenwich” or a “Virgin Euston” at some point in future, names as banal as there are dystopian. The Greater London Authority has promised to spend the £14.7m fee on community programmes in the local area – but that’s not much money to set the precedent that a private company can mess about with the Tube map.


What’s more, as CityMetric has often observed, there are plenty of station names across London that could do with a tidy up. Picking one that’s perfect already and asking for £14.7m to change it is adding insult to injury. How much would it cost a community group if they asked to change the name of Goodge Street to Fitzrovia? Why does a vast corporate entity backed by international sponsors and thousands of season ticket holders get to set the standard?

Back in Arsenal’s day, changing names on the Tube must have been easy; changes could be accommodated gradually without bothering the every day traveller. But in our world of online information, maps and apps, name changes are rather more complicated.

The question is – if TfL can bring itself to balefully accept this particular proposition, why can’t it accept ours? Why sort out a single non-issue on the Tube Map when you can catch lots of real ones in one go? A day’s pandemonium might just be a price worth paying to fix the Bethnal Greens problem once and for all.