CONSTRUCTION COST COMPARISON REPORT - AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TIMBER
VS. MASONRY

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FOR

PRESENTATION AT ECOBUILD 2018
 CONTENTS

R oom
i v ing q. m
L 1S SS
Timber
17 . 3 3 frame vs. masonry. Preface 4
EX Executive summary 5

An independent study to 1 Introduction 6

7
compare the cost of the two 2 Scope of study

WC . m 3 Timber frame elevations and plans 8

build methods in order to 4 Sq 4 Masonry elevations and plans 10
2.1 0
determine which is more 5 Detailed specification 12
6 Cost comparison 14
economical for affordable 7 Procurement guidance 16

m housing. ity
8 Cost considerations 17

Util 9 Other considerations 18

re
Sto . m 10 Summary 19

. 61 5 Sq 11 Acknowledgements 20
0 12 Contact information 22

i n ing
n /D m
h e q.
Kitc .008 S
15
The purpose of this report is to gain an appreciation of the
comparative costs and establish the basis for a more detailed study.
The report’s conclusion of this preliminary investigation is that
timber is marginally more cost effective than masonry. However, to
unequivocally prove the case a more extensive investigation and
detailed analysis will be undertaken.

2 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 3
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PREFACE

Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) has delivered many We are pleased to have been able to complete The research study has been managed independently by Rider Levett
residential projects over the years. this independent study comparing timber frame Bucknall (RLB) with the support of the parties named.
to masonry for a conventional housing project and
The selection process over the form of construction The affordable house type designs were provided by independent
we gratefully appreciate the time taken by the
considers a number of factors including availability, architect and engineering companies.
four contractors who priced the model project, the
practicality and technical performance. Importantly
consultant architects and engineers who provided From the fully designed project RLB prepared Bills of Quantities for the
this process also involves commercial considerations
their expertise, as well as the other parties involved. contractors to price.
and sometimes the debate over whether masonry or
timber is the most economical solution. We hope the research will be of interest to many Four contractors were approached to submit their pricing and all four
members of the construction industry and has responded.
This deliberation is continuing throughout the
provided an answer to a question that has been
industry and will be intensified by structural offsite Contractor information was received regarding the anticipated
debated for many years, and probably will continue
timber solutions becoming increasingly used to construction programmes.
to be in the future.
fulfil the growing demand for new homes across the
Andrew Reynolds
RLB has used the pricing to formulate this independent report and the
UK. Equally there is increasing demand for cross
UK and Global Board Director costs summaries therein.
laminated timber (CLT) which is now competing
Rider Levett Bucknall UK Ltd
economically with steel and concrete frames.

COST SUMMARY
TIMBER MASONRY

Construction cost per m2 £1,055.90 £1,067.24

Overall cost per m2
£1,148.38 £1,180.34

Programme (weeks) 41 49

Construction cost saving 1.1%

Overall cost saving 2.8%
Programme saving 19.5%

The independent result of this study has resulted in timber frame being
the most economic structural solution.

We are aware the market could change the result in the future.

RLB would like to undertake a future study of a speculative

development of houses and apartments.

As with many structural solutions throughout the construction industry

this debate will continue and RLB hopes to be part of the future
discussions.

4 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 5
1 INTRODUCTION 2 SCOPE OF STUDY

Which is the more economical way to build housing: RLB in undertaking this independent study required The model is a typical affordable two storey housing Each contractor received the following drawing
timber frame or masonry? the input from other organisations and these are design using 2 bed four person dwellings to create a information with the specification included:
listed throughout. We stress that it is an impartial single terrace. Each block was assumed to have the
This question has been posed by many people and ■■ Mid terrace floor plan
study by RLB with the analysis prepared using the following mix:
organisations within the construction industry for
mean results from the independent prices received. ■■ End terrace floor plan
years. As both construction techniques are widely ■■ 2nr mid terrace
used throughout the UK industry, albeit masonry is In our experience the costs related to all forms of ■■ General arrangement plans (dimensions)
■■ 2nr end terrace
more prevalent in England and Wales, we assume that housing construction, at any one time, depend on:
■■ Sections
there is not much between the two. If one was more Creating 4nr houses per block and to give a degree
■■ Experience
expensive than the other, it simply would not be used. of scale, 8nr blocks, resulting in a total scheme ■■ Elevations
■■ Availability of resources delivery of 32 new dwellings.
One would assume it is a simple question to answer, ■■ Wall types
but the more in depth you look the more multifaceted ■■ Organisations commercial position
The house type designs were prepared by HTA ■■ Floor and roof types
the answer becomes. We have discussed with
■■ Market situation - national and local Architects with structural engineering input by Milner
contractors in the past about their build preferences, ■■ Substructure details 1 - threshold and ventilation
Associates. It is assumed that the foundation design is
some saying timber, some saying masonry. Indeed ■■ Site specific constraints and risks details
similar for both build methods.
tenders returned over the years have had similar
What RLB has tried to do with this study is to provide ■■ Substructure details 2 - foundation sections
differences, some timber some masonry, for the same The designs create the same layouts, sizes and
an independent market tested model to arrive at an
project but with the overall tender price being very arrangements and are designed to the current ■■ Substructure details 3 - threshold and internal wall
answer. The model used in this report is a typical
comparable. edition of the Buildings Regulations in England. foundation details
affordable housing design and we plan to publish
Comparing the two build methods is difficult as the a further assessment in the future of a speculative RLB prepared an NRM Bills of Quantities (BQ) ■■ Ground floor penetrations
structures, procurement models and site operations private housing model for detached, semi-detached document with an overall pricing summary for issue
■■ Superstructure details 1 - floor / wall edge and
are different. Masonry construction, in general terms, and medium rise apartment accommodation. to the contractors as follows:
external wall opening details
constitutes separate supply members and then site Ian Dacre ■■ Timber frame - mid terrace
assembly of the constituent parts (walls, floors, Partner ■■ Superstructure details 2 - eaves, gable wall and
roof trusses) whereas with timber frame the offsite Rider Levett Bucknall UK Ltd ■■ Timber frame - end terrace verge details
manufacturer usually designs, manufactures, delivers March 2018
T: 07920 273308 ■■ Masonry - mid terrace ■■ Superstructure details 3 - parapet roof and ridge
and erects the whole structural shell of the home,
E: [email protected] details
including the roof structure. This presupposes the ■■ Masonry - end terrace
timber frame company supplies and erects the whole ■■ Superstructure details 4 - external canopy and
The study compared the buildings only, with the
frame (walls, floor and roof). floor/wall junction details
external works and utility services discounted at
We are aware the national house builders, and this stage as these will be very much site specific in ■■ Internal stair details
residential contractors, have prepared their own their content, works and any abnormal or risk areas,
The design, manufacture and delivery of the timber
internal studies and comparisons, however, these are and assumed to be the same cost regardless of
frame, including plant and site labour to off-load and
private internal analyses with commercial aspects superstructure construction method. It also assumes
erect, with internal safety decking / working platforms
included and as such are not suitable for wider a continuous build on site from commencement to
/ fall arrest systems was included within the timber
publication. completion.
frame price issued to all contractors.
Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) has also been asked The site assumed for the study was in the Midlands,
We also advised the contractors regarding the
this question in the past and it is difficult to give on the outskirts of Birmingham, and within relatively
specific durations per block for delivery and erection
a precise answer without looking in detail at the easy access from a main A-road.
of the timber frame as follows:
specific design and nature of the buildings and
The detailed specification was included on the
the associated build programme for the individual ■■ Three crane days per terrace for the erection of the
drawings issued to each contractor. In regard to the
projects. Indeed comparing a structural steel frame timber frame
masonry and timber frame aspects, relating to the
with a concrete frame has been debated for decades
structural elements, the summary table on Page 12 ■■ Three deliveries per terrace for the timber frame
with no definitive answer resulting as to which is more
lists the key specification items that are included. (excluding trusses direct to site).
economical to build.

6 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 7
3 TIMBER FRAME ELEVATIONS AND PLANS

END TERRACE

Lounge
17.358 Sq. m Bedroom 2
16.235 Sq. m

Attic

Store
0.893 Sq. m

SVP

Store Loft
0.801 Sq. m hatch
WC
2.064 Sq. m

Bathroom
3.99 Sq. m
Store
1.152 Sq. m

UT
0.615 Sq. m
Furure knock out panel

Bedroom 1
13.741 Sq. m
Kitchen / Dining
15.045 Sq. m

FRONT ELEVATION
Front elevation 2B4P
2B4P HouseHouse 2B4P
2B4P House House 2B4P House
2B4P House
Ground floor plan First floor plan Second floor plan
Ground floor plan First floor plan Second floor plan

MID TERRACE

Bedroom 2
16.235 Sq. m

Living Room Store 3

17.331 Sq. m 0.893 Sq. m

SVP SVP
Store 1 Loft
0.801 Sq. m hatch
WC SS
2.104 Sq. m
Bathroom
3.990 Sq. m
Store 2
1.152 Sq. m

Utility
Store
0.615 Sq. m

Kitchen / Dining
15.008 Sq. m

Bedroom 1
13.741 Sq. m

Flat roof
REAR ELEVATION W

Rear elevation
2B4P House
2B4P House
2B4P
2B4P House
House 2B4P House
2B4P House
Ground
Ground floorfloor
plan plan First floor plan
First floor plan
Second floor
Second floor plan plan

8 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 9
4 MASONRY ELEVATIONS AND PLANS

END TERRACE

Lounge
17.242 Sq. m
Bedroom 2
16.067 Sq. m

Store
0.893 Sq. m

SVP

Store Loft
0.801 Sq. m hatch

Bathroom
Utility 3.959 Sq. m
0.615 Sq. m Store Attic
1.132 Sq. m

Future knock out panel

Kitchen / Dining
14.916 Sq. m

Bedroom 1
13.593 Sq. m

FRONT ELEVATION
2B4P House
2B4P House 2B4P
2B4P HouseHouse 2B4P
2B4P HouseHouse
Ground floor plan First floor plan Second floor plan
Front elevation Ground floor plan First floor plan Second floor plan

MID TERRACE

Living room
17.184 Sq. m

Bedroom 2
16.067 Sq. m

Store 3
0.893 Sq. m

SVP SVP

Store 1 Loft
0.801 Sq. m hatch
WC
2.107 Sq. m

Bathroom
3.959 Sq. m
Store 2
1132 Sq. m

Utility
Store
0.615 Sq. m

Kitchen / Dining
14.790 Sq. m

Bedroom 1
13.578 Sq. m

Flat roof

REAR ELEVATION W

2B4P House
2B4P House
2B4P House 2B4P House
Rear elevation
2B4P House 2B4P House
Ground floor
Ground floor plan plan First floor plan
First floor plan Second
Second floor
floor plan plan

10 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 11
5 DETAILED SPECIFICATION

TIMBER FRAME MASONRY TIMBER FRAME MASONRY

EXTERNAL WALLS TO HOUSES EXTERNAL WALLS TO HOUSES PARTY WALLS PARTY WALLS
102.5mm facing brickwork 102.5mm facing brickwork 12.5mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish 15mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish (with
■■ Timber frame wall-ties to suit 50mm cavity Masonry wall ties to suit 130mm cavity (with joints staggered vertically and horizontally) joints staggered vertically and horizontally
■■ Cavity barriers to suit 50mm cavity 50mm clear cavity 19mm Gypsum plank 10mm adhesive dabs
■■ 140mm wide timber stud panels with 9mm OSB and 80mm Kooltherm K108 installed in the cavity ■■ 89mm wide timber stud panels with 9mm OSB to 100mm medium density blockwork
low emissivity reflective breather paper 100mm medium density blockwork cavity face Acoustic wall ties
■■ 140mm wide timber soleplates, head-binders and rails 6mm Gyprock Sound Coat Plus to seal hidden air paths ■■ 89mm wide timber soleplates (with 150mm DPC), 75mm mineral wool
■■ 90mm TW55 insulation Factory-fitted to external 12.5mm Gyproc wall board on 10mm adhesive dabs head-binders and rails 100mm medium density blockwork
wall panels Overall thickness of external wall = 361mm ■■ TF Party wall cavity insulation, with polythene sleeved 10mm adhesive dabs
Internally lined with low emissivity vapor control layer, cavity barriers to seal edges of party wall cavity. 15mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish (with
To achieve 0.19 W/m2K U-value
25mm service zone battens and 1 layer of 12.5mm ■■ 89mm wide timber soleplates (with 150mm DPC), joints staggered vertically and horizontally
plasterboard with taped & filled joints head-binders and rails
■■ Achieving Robust Detail EWM27
Overall thickness of external wall = 340mm ■■ 89mm wide timber stud panels with 9mm OSB to
Overall thickness of party wall = 325mm
To achieve 0.19 W/m2K U-value cavity face
19mm Gypsum plank
EXTERNAL WALLS TO ROOF PARAPET EXTERNAL WALLS TO ROOF PARAPET 12.5mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish
(with joints staggered vertically and horizontally
102.5mm facing brickwork 102.5mm facing brickwork
■■ Timber frame wall-ties to suit 50mm cavity Masonry wall ties to suit 130mm cavity ■■ Achieving Robust Detail EWT2

■■ Cavity barriers to suit 50mm cavity 50mm clear cavity Overall thickness of party wall = 313mm

■■ 140mm wide timber stud panels with 9mm OSB and 80mm Kooltherm K108 installed in the cavity INTERNAL WALLS: NON-LOAD BEARING INTERNAL WALLS: NON-LOAD BEARING
low emissivity reflective breather paper 100mm medium density blockwork
■■ 90mm TW55 insulation Factory-fitted to external wall 12.5mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish 12.5mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish
50mm rigid insulation board to upstand
panels, filled with 50mm Rockwool R3 to internal side ■■ 89mm wide timber stud panels with one row ■■ 89mm wide timber stud panels with one row
Waterproofing membrane lapped up and under copping
■■ 18mm plywood to internal face of parapet fitted mid-height noggins with the walls to the cloakroom mid-height noggins with the walls to the cloakroom
on site and bathroom pre-fitted with 18mm ply to one side and bathroom pre-fitted with 18mm ply to one side

■■ 18mm plywood capping piece to top of parapet wall ■■ 89mm wide timber soleplates head-binders and rails ■■ 89mm wide timber soleplates head-binders and rails

50mm rigid insulation board to upstand 12.5mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish 12.5mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish

Waterproofing membrane lapped up and under copping

INTERMEDIATE FLOOR (LOOSE JOISTS) INTERMEDIATE FLOOR (LOOSE JOISTS)

INTERNAL WALLS: LOADBEARING INTERNAL WALLS: LOADBEARING
■■ 22mm T+G plywood flooring ■■ 22mm T+G plywood flooring
15mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish 12.5mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish
■■ Nominal 250mm deep metal-web timber joists, ■■ Nominal 250mm deep metal-web timber joists,
■■ 89mm wide timber stud panels with one row 10mm adhesive dabs
including trimmers and beams to form upper floor including trimmers and beams to form upper floor
mid-height noggins with the walls to the cloakroom 100mm lightweight concrete blocks
■■ FCM750 air-tight membrane to external and party ■■ Joists supported off internal leaf on joist hangers to
and bathroom pre-fitted with 18mm ply to one side 10mm adhesive dabs wall perimeter of upper floor SE specification
■■ 89mm wide timber soleplates (with 450mm DPC), 12.5mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish ■■ Joist hangers and all other associated ironmongery ■■ Joist hangers and all other associated ironmongery
head-binders and rails
OR to form the structural floor to form the structural floor
15mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish 12.5mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish 15mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish 15mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish
■■ 89mm wide timber stud panels with one row
mid-height noggins with the walls to the cloakroom ROOF ROOF
and bathroom pre-fitted with 18mm ply to one side
Roof trusses, beams and stability bracing Roof trusses, beams and stability bracing
■■ 89mm wide timber soleplates head-binders and rails
89mm wide timber spandrel panels with 9mm OSB and Masonry external walls continued up to underside of roof
12.5mm Gyproc wall board with taped & jointed finish
standard breather paper covering, with cavity insulation terminated in line with
63mm timber gable ladders top of the ceiling insulation.
Truss shoes and all other associated ironmongery 63mm timber gable ladders
Nominal 38x140mm flat roof joists, timber beam to Truss shoes and all other associated ironmongery
support trusses and 38x50mm firings Nominal 38x140mm flat roof joists, timber beam to
Party wall spandrel panels, pre-clad with 2 layers 12.5mm support trusses and 38x50mm firings
plasterboard and polythene protection Masonry party walls continued up to underside of roof
covering, with cavity insulation terminated in line with
top of the ceiling insulation.

12 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 13
6 COST COMPARISON

The results and comparison within this section are Also, within the pricing it was evident that the SUMMARY PRICING BY ELEMENT
based on prices received by RLB during the 1Q 2018. external cavity walls by all four contractors resulted in
The resulting tables and charts have been prepared masonry being more economical than a timber frame AVERAGE CONTRACTOR PRICING TIMBER FRAME MASONRY
by the author, Ian Dacre of Rider Levett Bucknall, and solution for this particular element. However, as can
ELEMENTAL BREAKDOWN MID TERRACE END TERRACE MID TERRACE END TERRACE
are the “mean” prices of those received. be seen from the tables below, the overall situation,
when factoring in the other building elements and Substructures £13,694.52 £16,386.15 £14,544.76 £17,139.28
The prices are based on three timber frame
site preliminaries, results in the timber frame solution Upper floors £2,950.04 £2,800.04 £2,786.21
quotations and four main contractor quotations £2,789.48
being more economical to construct.
for the housing model and were received during Stairs £1,182.09 £1,182.09 £1,182.09 £1,182.09
January / February 2018. The preliminaries pricing by the contractors was
Roof £10,850.29 £11,244.88 £10,756.46 £11,526.97
based on their own interpretation of the construction
You will see there are some unusual cost differences External walls £8,916.31 £17,985.09 £7,426.50
programme for each build method. The tables £17,373.37
for one or two elements but we have chosen to leave
below have been based on the mean programme (in Windows and external doors £6,495.67 £8,084.09 £6,801.00 £8,411.45
the base data as submitted by the four contractors
weeks) and the costs associated. All four contractors
to arrive at the mean costs per element. Internal walls £10,723.04 £8,991.96 £10,539.91 £9,578.60
suggested constructing in timber is between 6 and 13
As with any tender exercise there are vagaries of weeks quicker than in masonry. The mean of the four Internal doors £4,341.71 £3,952.95 £4,403.68 £4,012.82
pricing and if you look at one individual tender is 8 weeks quicker. Wall finishes £4,314.09 £4,285.71 £5,068.67 £4,314.98
this could be an issue. We have received four and
The tables below give the overall average elemental Floor finishes £1,829.76 £1,827.04 £1,853.73 £1,827.04
between the prices we have been able to normalise
analysis plus cost and programme summaries. Ceiling finishes £1,831.95 £1,836.41 £1,831.95
the vagaries whilst also leaving the base pricing level £1,836.41
data un-touched. Fixtures and fittings £8,700.47 £8,700.47 £8,700.47 £8,700.47
The results were interesting. One contractor of the Sanitary appliances £3,205.94 £3,205.94 £3,238.64 £3,238.64
four priced the construction elements resulting in the Mechanical services £7,883.38 £7,883.38 £7,923.50 £7,923.50
masonry option being more economical than timber
frame, whereas the other three had the timber frame Electrical services £2,972.40 £2,972.40 £2,989.45 £2,989.45
more economical. Builders works £471.75 £471.75 £673.26 £673.26

SUB TOTAL £90,363.41 £101,810.32 £90,720.28 £103,517.82

Number of units - 16nr each £1,445,814.53 £1,628,965.20 £1,451,524.52 £1,656,285.07
Total construction works £3,074,779.73 £3,107,809.59
Preliminaries £269,303.36 £329,349.52

TOTALS £3,344,083.09 £3,437,159.12

SUMMARY BY BUILD TYPE

TIMBER NR UNITS £ / UNIT TOTAL £ / m2

Mid terrace unit 16 £90,363.41 £1,445,814.53

End terrace unit 16 £101,810.32 £1,628,965.20
SUB TOTAL £3,074,779.73 £1,055.90
Preliminaries (41 weeks) £269,303.36 £92.48
TOTAL £3,344,083.09 £1,148.38

MASONRY NR UNITS £ / UNIT TOTAL £ / m2

Mid terrace unit 16 £90,720.28 £1,451,524.52

End terrace unit 16 £103,517.82 £1,656,285.07
SUB TOTAL £3,107,809.59 £1,067.24
Preliminaries (49 weeks) £329,349.52 £113.10
TOTAL £3,437,159.12 £1,180.34

14 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 15
7 PROCUREMENT GUIDANCE 8 COST CONSIDERATIONS

The procurement process for a timber frame solution is different to that To provide a commentary, we have identified areas which have been
of a more traditional masonry build, and the following items should be raised by the industry as factors to consider:
considered in the pre-planning stage of a project to ensure the overall
■■ Duration of scaffold hire / temporary works
success.
■■ Number of deliveries to site to be ordered, coordinated, checked,
■■ Lead in time for the timber frame design and manufacture
signed-off and paid
■■ Engage timber frame suppliers early to maximise value engineering
■■ Forklift movement of materials on site
opportunities
■■ Number of suppliers to manage and coordinate on site
■■ Manage the design process to achieve final design to allow early
off-site manufacture ■■ Requirement for on site storage

■■ Ensure level and dimensional tolerance for foundations are ■■ Requirement of setting-out on site for bricklayers
understood and achieved
■■ Requirement for window and door formers
■■ Minimise change once manufactured
■■ Requirement for lintels
■■ Engage with follow on trades and materials suppliers earlier to ensure
■■ The impact of inclement weather on the delivery programme
understanding of programme and timescales of timber frame
■■ Speed of installation of mechanical and electrical services
■■ Consider fire risk mitigation at cost plan stage, design stage, and
construction stage on site ■■ Foundation design to suit imposed load from superstructure build
method
■■ Consider the quicker return on investment of capital employed
■■ Provision of warranties and product guarantees
Some, if not all of the above, issues have been taken in account with
the four contractors’ pricing levels we have seen. All four contractors ■■ Site waste and disposal costs
suggested the procurement and overall delivery using a timber frame
■■ Commencement within the build programme of internal works
solution will be quicker (on average by 8 weeks for our model).
■■ Requirement for wet trades and drying out

■■ Requirement for design input by the client’s design and site teams

■■ Use of Building Information Modelling (BIM)

■■ Preliminary works and impact on the overall build programme

and costs

■■ Risk of market conditions including:

- capacity
- availability of materials
- availability of skills

■■ Speed of build and the impact on:

- cash-flow
- return on investment
- interest costs

16 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 17
9 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 10 SUMMARY

What to consider: The debate will continue, we know, but RLB has Overall the contractors suggest there are some
undertaken an independent pricing exercise to elements that are more economical to build in a
■■ Early design team integration (and use of BIM) required
establish which solution is more economical: masonry timber frame solution.
■■ Preparation and completeness of designs (design freeze) to benefit or timber frame, as a structural building solution.
The percentage savings are:
from early off-site manufacture
The results from the four contractors show to us, that
■■ Construction elemental costs
■■ Understanding how the choice of build method impacts the remaining overall, timber, in this scenario, is the most economical
1.1%
supply chain solution.
■■ Overall costs (including preliminaries)
■■ A full understanding of the programming opportunities for the We have seen, however, that individual pricing
2.8%
follow-on trades vagaries can slightly affect results and the
average prices and programme times from the The summary below highlights the key findings of this
■■ Fire risk mitigation considered at cost plan, design and stage and
four contractors have been used to arrive at the study.
construction (on site)
summaries in this paper.
We are mindful this study is taken at a point in
■■ The need for accurate and level foundation / slab setting out
One contractor stated that masonry was the most time and we are aware that the market conditions,
■■ Other materials to provide weather proof external envelope and efficient solution but taking in account the programme commercial matters of companies and the overall
internal finishes. and preliminaries aspects, timber became more economic climate can affect the pricing levels. The
efficient for them. prices in this study are taken at the 1Q 2018 with all
prices received during this period.
All four contractors suggested in their pricing that
the timber frame external wall element, in isolation, We trust this report has given a commentary and
was more expensive than masonry. Again, however, understanding of the costs and design implications
factoring in preliminaries associated with the for pricing a project utilising timber frame.
programme, timber was more efficient overall.

ELEMENTS TIMBER FRAME MASONRY

MID TERRACE END TERRACE MID TERRACE END TERRACE
Substructure £13,694.52 £16,386.15 £14,544.76 £17,139.28
Superstructure £45,459.16 £54,241.09 £43,895.85 £54,874.79
Finishes £7,975.80 £7,949.15 £8,754.35 £7,978.43
Fixtures and fittings £8,700.47 £8,700.47 £8,700.47 £8,700.47
Services £14,533.46 £14,533.46 £14,824.85 £14,824.85
Sub totals £90,363.41 £101,810.32 £90,720.28 £103,517.82
Number of units - 16nr each £1,445,814.53 £1,628,965.20 £1,451,524.52 £1,656,285.07
Total construction works £3,074,779.73 £3,107,809.59
Preliminaries £269,303.36 £329,349.52
Totals £3,344,083.09 £3,437,159.12
Cost per m 2
£1,148.38 £1,180.34
Cost per unit £104,502.60 £107,411.22
Programme 41 weeks 49 weeks

18 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 19
11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In completing this study many people and organisations have been

involved, as noted on page 22. Currently accounting for
In particular we need to thank Gilbert & Goode (Simon Caklais), Robert
Woodhead Ltd (Craig Pygall), Speller Metcalfe (James Speller) and WRW about 28% of UK housing,
structural timber is a
Construction Ltd (Andrew Pettigrew) and their respective teams, who
provided the detailed pricing information and programming information
in order to make this comparison possible.

Oakworth Homes, Pinewood Structures and Stewart Milne Timber Systems well-proven, versatile
kindly provided their pricing information for the timber frame elements.

Thanks to HTA Architects for providing the design models of the houses construction method. It
benefits from the many
used within the study. Finally, thanks must also go to Swedish Wood for
funding this independent study; the first of its kind for the industry.

cost efficiencies of off-site

manufacture, including
reduced build programmes.

20 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 21
12 CONTACT INFORMATION

Rider Levett Bucknall

Embassy House
Pinewood Structures
The Station
Woodhead Construction
Edwinstowe House The majority of UK housing
86 Queens Avenue Gamlingay Edwinstowe
Clifton
Bristol
Sandy
Bedfordshire
Nottinghamshire
NG21 9PR
is currently delivered using
BS8 1SB SG19 3HB
Tel: 01623 871515 traditional masonry methods.
Tel: 0117 974 1122 Tel: 01767 651218 www.woodhead-group.co.uk
RLB.com www.pinewood-structures.co.uk On site construction using
Gilbert and Goode Ltd Speller Metcalfe
WRW Construction Ltd
Anchor Point masonry has benefited
from recent innovation and
Stennack House 2 Trinity Court North Dock
Stennack Road Broadlands Llanelli
St Austell Wolverhampton SA15 2LF
PL25 3SW WV10 6UH
Tel: 01554 779922 remains an efficient and cost
Tel: 01726 874494 Tel: 01902 398555 www.wrw.co.uk
www.gilbertandgoode.co.uk www.spellermetcalfe.com effective approach.
HTA Design LLP Stewart Milne Timber Systems
106-110 Kentish Town Road Peregrine House
London Mosscroft Avenue
NW1 9PX Westhill Business Park
Westhill
Tel: 020 7485 8555
Aberdeen
www.hta.co.uk
B32 6JQ

Tel: 0845 366 4837

Milner Associates www.stewartmilne.com
The Cocoa House,
129 Cumberland Rd
Bristol Structural Timber Association
BS1 6UY The e-Centre
Cooperage Way
Tel: 0117 403 0761
Alloa
www.milnerassociates.co.uk
FK10 3LP

Tel: 01259 272140

Oakworth Homes www.structuraltimber.co.uk
8 Orgreave Close
Handsworth
Sheffield Swedish Wood
S13 9NP Storgatan 19
SE-102 04 Stockholm
Tel: 0114 288 9554
www.oakworthhomes.co.uk Tel: +46 8 762 72 60
www.swedishwood.com

22 Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report Rider Levett Bucknall | Construction cost comparison report 23
RLB.com
AFRICA | AMERICAS | ASIA | EUROPE | MIDDLE EAST | OCEANIA