Bridging & Commercial Magazine — The Planning and Refurb Issue

What are we without trust?

The vital ingredient for reliable bridging finance

Trust is our middle name!

United Trust Bank | Your trusted bridging partner

In these volatile times it’s important to know the lenders you can rely on, especially when your clients are placing their trust in you to deliver the bridging finance they need.

With our knowledge, strong experience, and commitment to honouring valid credit-backed terms, you can be confident that the funding we offer will be available when your client needs it.

When you choose UTB you get:

• Assurance from knowing that our credit- backed terms are valid for two months.

• The benefit of our knowledge and expertise of bridging finance, and our investment in the very best people and technology.

• Confidence that you can provide your customer with reliable funding options.

Planningproposals:law

the key to

housebuilding?unlocking

Get ahead with Fast Track Bridging

the specialist effect

At UTB we understand that performance is everything and by combining a premiership team with the very latest in Tech, we deliver quick, flexible, and reliable outcomes for our broker partners.

There is one thing that every expert in the specialist finance market agrees on: the UK needs more houses built. However, that’s easier said than done. On top of the material and labour shortages and increased costs exacerbated by high inflation, planning delays have been plaguing developers and their profit margins. In a bid to solve this age-old problem, the government published the draft version of a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at the end of 2022 for consultation, in conjunction with the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.

With this on the horizon—although when exactly this might happen is very much up in the air—it seemed fitting to dedicate our cover story to this particular subject. We gathered seven industry experts to discuss whether the proposed changes to the NPPF could be the sector’s saving grace, or whether it’s just a plaster on a bullet wound [p42]. We also revisit the subject of nutrient neutrality to see how much progress has been made since the unveiling of the government’s first mitigation scheme—and if we are truly heading in the right direction [p30].

Sticking with the subject of planning, we take an in-depth look at a trend that has been gathering momentum across the world: 15-minute cities. After analysing the research, we discuss if these new communities are feasible, or just a pipedream [p37].

Refurbishment has also been a popular topic of late, with many firms reporting an uptick in finance applications for these projects. Despite this, there still seem to be misconceptions when it comes to light and heavy refurbs, ones which we help to dispel [p8]. We also shine a spotlight on the arduous task of retrofitting historic buildings. With millions of historic and listed buildings across the UK, this is not a job for the faint-hearted; we delve into the complexities of such projects, from regulation and techniques, all the way to the hefty costs [p66].

Of course, this B&C Magazine issue would not be complete without interviews with some of the top stalwarts in our industry. This time, we sit down with OSB Group’s new head of specialist finance Marc Callaghan to find out his plans for the firm [p22]. Plus, we take a trip down memory lane with Glenhawk’s founder and CEO Guy Harrington to uncover his eclectic career, his reasons for launching the lender, and his surprising passion for all things on wheels [p60].

Dulgheru

Andreea

The communication element across the whole process—from start to finish, and post-completion to exit—is the most important thing” p22

THE CUT

Debunking heavy vs light refurb

Refurbishment projects come in many shapes and sizes, each bringing their own complexities to the table. But why do they sometimes give property investors a headache?

Amy Baptiste Head of specialist finance at LDN Finance

One of the biggest misconceptions among property investors with regard to light refurbishment is understanding that, in the same way as it can for heavy, things may not always go to plan and there should always be a contingency. Being organised and planning everything in detail in advance will reduce the risk of things going wrong. It is key to portray a realistic timescale and research timings for these works to be done, as delivery of materials such as a kitchen

or bathroom can be delayed. In terms of financing these projects, identifying the right loan term is important and can be determined only by considering the works to be done and supportive research. Typically, a light refurbishment loan would be for around six months but, with the current market, it is important to discuss all loan term options to account for any possible, yet unexpected issues that could arise. For heavy refurbs, it is imperative that the ROI isn’t overestimated, and that investors take a cautious approach that is realistic and researched. To make the refurbishment go as smoothly as possible, it is important to have a contingency built in to cover any unexpected delays and cost overruns, which can be highly pressurising, and to allow the developer time and room to address these issues. It is also paramount to go to lenders that have experience and understanding of heavy refurbishment loans and a strong appetite for them, as they will have better knowledge of these types of deals than a traditional bank and will have created products to suit this facility type.

Adam Butler Head of sales at Avamore Capital

The refurbishment space is a huge market, having grown within the past 18 months. Some clients think that their only option is to take a bridging loan to fund the works when, in fact, a specific product is available for these schemes—as a refurbishment specialist, we find it’s a common misconception that is particularly frustrating. Some can also be blindsided by larger headline LTV numbers when, in actuality, these are just further examples of bridging products as these do not fund the build cost. A suitable refurbishment product can offer the client the same net funds, but interest is only charged on build costs once drawn, meaning that it can end up being cheaper for the customer. Another mistaken belief we see is around what heavy refurbishment actually means. Most, if not all, lenders use similar terminology of

2light, medium and heavy, but the definition of heavy across all of these varies massively. For some finance providers, any form of internal reconfiguration is considered heavy, while others only dub any form of extension as the same. There are some that determine the build cost as an indicator of the level of refurbishment for a scheme, and others that class planning as the factor to push a project into heavy. This can often make it difficult to properly understand the best lender for a project. So many important factors are considered in a refurbishment application, one of which is a thorough review of any potential contractors intended to be employed and their previous experience— we’ve seen examples of many that are pricing extremely low in order to win the contract, but can’t deliver in the long run. The same due diligence also needs to be applied to the consideration of the solicitors that developers intend to use and their previous experience in reviewing refurbishment and development loans, as many who aren’t as familiar with these types of schemes often miss important enquiries or information needed by lenders. Finally, a full breakdown of the build costs—regardless of how light or heavy the build schedule is—absolutely needs to be factored in. The most common delay we see is when they have not properly reviewed their costs down to the penny, and the surveyor is not able to complete their report for the lender.

Anna Bennett Marketing and PR director at Catalyst Property Finance

With new developers working on a light refurb, there are three main areas in which we most often find misconceptions: GDV estimate, the predicted build time, and the cost of works. Usually, new developers aren’t miles off, but they can be less accurate than more seasoned developers who have run more and larger refurbishment schemes. An interesting point is that sometimes there is disparity between the borrower’s

estimated cost of works— which factors in their own self-procurement—and the lender’s view on costs. As a finance provider, we must consider the worst-case scenario should we have to step in and finish the build if the developer is no longer able to. In this scenario, we would not have the benefit of the developer’s self-procurement—their ability to negotiate with local suppliers and trades. This is never a deal breaker, as we find a middle ground that works for all, but it is something an investor might like to consider when estimating their cost of works to apply for finance. For heavy refurbs, we see fewer misunderstandings, as the projects tend to be carried out by more experienced developers who have been through many financial cycles, and often with a number of different lenders. To ensure a smooth deal completion, give us the warts and all and be totally transparent and honest about the projects. Tell us everything upfront, not just the positive news; we want to know your scheme’s challenges, your concerns, and the potential pitfalls. The credit team will always look for reasons to lend and ways to overcome hurdles, but they prefer to have the full picture upfront.

Shaz Ahmed Director and founder of Elan Property Finance

When it comes to light refurbishments, there are many awareness gaps. Commonly, investors do not understand how the drawdown process works and that, while they may be able to get 100% funding for refurbishments, it is done in stages and in arrears, meaning they need a deposit and funds to start the work. Another issue I come across—and this is more because all lenders have different criteria—is distinguishing between a light versus a heavy refurbishment. Depending on the condition of the property, some investors think they can simply get a mortgage day one (ERC-free trackers usually), keep the property empty while refurbishing, and then refinance out to another term lender on the uplifted value. However,

this is mortgage misuse, so education is needed—which is why working with a broker has its benefits. Meanwhile, for heavy refurbishments, I find investors need more guidance for projects that need prior approval, permitted development, or planning permission, as these things need to be agreed and in place before the lender will be able to agree funding for works. Of course, we can get assumptive Red Book GDV valuations based on different scenarios but, in terms of finance, it usually means they need an acquisition bridging facility, leading to a loan restructuring once the relevant agreements are in place and can be evidenced. For any refurb projects, a schedule of works—or, even better, a fixed-price contract—and having all the relevant permissions in place are essential. Without these, you will simply not have a swift application process or loan completion.

Brian

West Head of sales and marketing at Saxon Trust

Perhaps the two biggest misconceptions among property investors and developers about light refurbishment projects are that they are relatively easy to do and potentially very cost-effective. Of course, this can sometimes be true but, in many cases, it’s easy to underestimate the time, effort and money required to successfully complete projects. Even light refurbishments need careful planning, a contingency pot for any unforeseen expenses and issues, skilled contractors to achieve the best results, and adequate funding. Whether the investors are

relatively new or highly experienced developers, mistakes can still be made, so it’s vital to approach any light refurbishment having carried out full due diligence in advance. As for heavy refurbishments, they can be complex, time-consuming and very often more expensive than anticipated, as they usually involve significant alterations to a property’s fabric and structure with the removal of walls, the building of extensions and, in some cases, the addition of extra floors. By their very nature, these changes can introduce significant structural complexities and require the expertise of highly qualified surveyors, engineers and others. If additional expenses become excessive, this can lead to cost cutting elsewhere and, in a worst-case scenario, a failure to comply with legal requirements, costly fines, and even the removal or modification of already completed works. While it’s impossible to mitigate risk completely, with meticulous planning, detailed research, a full understanding of local planning regulations, full permissions in place before starting work, and strict adherence to regulations, it’s possible to minimise the risk of cost overruns and financial losses. A comprehensive build plan should ideally also include details on the developer including a CV, an A&L statement, estimates from contractors, details of the planning, any specialist reports already obtained, and any other supporting documentation.

Kim Parker

Sales team manager at Hope Capital

Many property investors are under the impression they can secure various types of loans to undertake heavy refurbishment projects. If the property is derelict and deemed unfit for human habitation, it may not initially be eligible for certain finance. While the majority of high-street banks and mortgage providers won’t offer mortgages in these circumstances, a bridging loan provides the ideal solution. Often, investors and developers opt for a refurbishment bridging loan to start the required works because of how quickly funds can be made available. Additionally, bridging loans are often used in cases where the investor or developer needs to refurbish the property to enable them to move on to a mortgage arrangement. Bridging

finance therefore provides the borrower with a solution to complete the necessary works and get the property into a condition where they can either sell it or obtain a longer-term finance arrangement. There are a number of factors to include in an application if your client is looking to secure a refurbishment loan. First, accurate build costs—given the increase in materials and labour in the industry, it’s important to give a realistic figure to ensure there are no surprises at the valuation stage and the project is viable with a healthy contingency. Having a fully comprehensive schedule of works to hand for underwriters to assess at the application stage is also highly recommended, especially as it makes the process a lot quicker. In addition, it’s important to make sure that all permissions are in place for any potential schemes/works to be carried out at the time of requiring the loan—this will ensure that completion deadlines can be met and there are no delays in funding. Let’s not forget, it’s always beneficial to have the relevant skills and experience before embarking on the project. While this is not a necessity, renovating a house can be complex and prone to unforeseen issues and expenses, so being well prepared and having experience is key to a successful project.

Suparn Sapatnekar Head of bridging credit (residential lending team) at Octopus Real Estate

There isn’t necessarily a clear line that defines what is light or heavy refurbishment and what is development—often that is subject to a lender’s criteria. It’s not really the build budget that makes a scheme heavy, it’s

more about what is physically happening to a property or site. Heavy/larger schemes can carry more risks, but these are generally mitigated by larger returns; well thought through projects with the correct asset being developed for the location and market are likely to perform well. It can also be a misconception that borrowing costs are higher for heavier schemes. In fact, it’s possible to find some products at very competitive rates, especially if there is an ESG aspect within the project—some lenders will have access to funds specifically to support this type of refurbishment. As well as presenting a well thought out and costed schedule of works, it is essential that borrowers employ an experienced legal team who have specific expertise in this area of lending and understand the importance of obtaining legal searches in good time. Regarding deposits, it’s not uncommon for funds to come from various sources. Therefore, full disclosure of this and evidence of funds should be provided as early as possible to avoid delays and the potential for eleventh-hour legal requests, such as deeds of subordination.

Daniel Hill

Senior key account manager at Roma Finance

There is a misapprehension that all refurbishment finance is the same, whereas the criteria varies significantly from lender to lender. For example, many base light refurb on a simple kitchen and bathroom refit, while other

Michelle Lowe Head of partnerships at Somo

The biggest false impression for light refurb is that the facility either doesn’t exist or won’t be available. This means that many investors are

tying up funds to refurbish a property, where this could be used towards their next investment opportunity. For heavy refurbs, investors often think that if the bank declines your case, you can’t get funding. People also think that heavy refurb finance is too complex, interest rates are too high, and funds take too long to be released. While funding may take slightly longer than before, we generally see cases complete in around six weeks, which is probably a lot quicker than people assume. Interest rates for refurb loans are very similar to bridging rates and, generally, the lender and/or broker will hand hold these cases through to completion. For any refurbishment loan application, there are a few essential factors to include in the application: the property address, details of how the building stands on day one, purchase price/ value, cost of works, GDV, schedule of works, and client or contractor experience. These points will enable underwriters to review whether the case is viable before proceeding any further.

finance providers, including Roma Finance, base it on how much the client is spending on the works compared to the current market value. It’s also worth remembering that light refurb is simply a version of bridging finance, and can be structured to suit the borrower’s needs. The parameters for lending criteria vary significantly across heavy refurbishment as well; some will consider anything structural to be heavy refurb, whereas others will base it on the cost of works. This type of project could fall into bridging or development finance depending on the lender and level of works, so more

documentation will be required for heavy refurbishment, and the borrower’s experience and team will be paramount to financing a project. Whether a borrower is starting their first project or is an experienced investor, the single two most important things in a refurbishment finance deal are to communicate openly and to surround yourself with a good team—from the architects to the builders, lenders, and the building control.

Building dreams from the ground up

This summer, Funding 365 unveiled its ground-up development proposition. The firm’s founder and managing director Michael Strange and marketing director Laura Kendall talk about why they decided to enter the challenging market

WORDS BY ANDREEA DULGHERU

ver its 10-year history, Funding 365 has been mainly known for its bridging loans—so it may surprise some to see the lender enter the ground-up development finance space this year. However, both Michael and Laura clarify this is a natural progression for the firm, building on from its light development proposition established in 2020.

“We always had the ground-up development expertise in our back pocket—in fact, one of the first deals we did when we set up the company was a ground-up scheme,” says Michael. “We’ve got a lot of good contacts—quantity surveyors, asset managers etc—who we’ve used over the years, so we knew we could step into that space when the time was right.”

The main reason why the business chose to enter this space was the significant demand for ground-up development finance from its existing borrowers. “We had clients asking us if we could fund ground-up schemes, so that became something we had to address. At this point, we’ve got a great client base to whom we can give a full suite of products, so the ground-up option fills in that gap for the whole property development lifecycle for us,” Michael explains.

Funding 365’s ground-up development proposition offers loans from £250,000 to £1.5m for residential projects across England and Wales, at up to 85% LTC and 65% LTGDV. The facilities are offered on terms of 3-18 months, with fixed pricing from 0.89% per month/10.68% per annum with a 1% broker fee, or from 0.94% per month/11.28% per annum with a 1.5% fee.

The product can be used for a range of smaller-scale schemes, including HMOs and holiday lets; however, it is not available for developments with more than 15 units, homes with adverse environmental conditions, owner-occupied properties, or non-standard construction projects. Loans are available for UK residents and limited companies only, including people with adverse credit history and first-time developers.

Pitched at the gap

Before the product range was opened to the wider market, the team did an informal trial run for about 18 months to ensure it was suitable ahead of official launch. “We didn’t advertise it in any way, shape or form—we just mentioned it to the brokers closest to us,” says Laura.

“Once brokers got hold of the fact that we were doing development funding, they just brought in deal after deal—which, bizarrely,

led to us winning Development Lender of the Year at the Crystal Specialist Finance Ball, even though we didn’t publicly have a development product,” adds Michael.

The funding used to deploy this product comes from Funding 365’s existing institutional partners, which were happy to support expansion in the ground-up development space. In terms of the funds available to deploy for this product, he clarifies it isn’t unlimited, but its funding partners are fairly flexible and have not set a specific limit. However, he comments that they want ground-up development to account for only 20–30% of Funding 365’s overall business, with the remainder of the loan book to be split across its other products, including bridging and light development.

support them throughout the project. “This comes down to the fact that we’re happy to jump on the phone and hold people’s hands throughout the whole process,” states Michael. When it comes to embarking on this journey, he advises first-time developers to be mindful about the costs of a project—especially during the current times plagued by the rising cost of materials and labour shortages. “It comes back to being realistic on costs and, for developers that haven’t been through a process with a lender before, there’s a bit of education on how a development loan works. The other thing is that developers have to almost be legal experts as well these days, because there are so many potential and actual law changes in this space. It’s a fair ask for small family SME housebuilders to stay on top of all of this as there's a lot getting thrown at them, and that doesn't appear to be stopping.”

Aims and demand

One person throughout

One element that sets the lender’s new proposition apart is its experienced team and, more specifically, its structure, as Laura tells me all deals are handled from “cradle to grave” by its underwriters. “We don’t have a BDM system, a credit team, or asset managers. Brokers will call and speak to an underwriter to get the terms, and then that underwriter takes the loan all the way through to redemption. It also means that when we issue loan terms, they’re credit backed, so we’re not going to have a late-stage renegotiation.”

Michael adds: “At the end of the day, the underwriter is the person who looked at the case, underwrote it, met the borrower and understood the plan in detail. I don't really get how you can pass that knowledge on to somebody else in the chain—it just makes sense for that underwriter to stick with the process right through to loan redemption. That's also why our borrowers love our system, and it's more efficient for us as well.”

The company is also open to lend to first-time developers, as long as they’ve got a solid, experienced team that can

With the product now available to the whole of market, I am curious to learn what the firm’s lending targets are—however, Michael explains that Funding 365’s priority is not the quantity but the quality of loans that come through its doors: “The truth of the matter is funding is not a problem; our institutional funders want us to lend more. What’s more challenging is finding good-quality deals that you want to fund. The minute you set a lending target, then you try to hit that figure whether you are lending against good projects or not. Sometimes, that might cloud your judgement when deciding whether you should be lending this money, and whether you are potentially putting a developer into a risky position—if they have a marginal project, any wobble in the housing market or costs could mean their life savings are gone. We're not just about lending for the sake of lending; it’s funding good projects that make everybody money in the chain.”

Both Michael and Laura are confident that Funding 365’s development finance offering will see significant demand from brokers and developers alike. Michael adds that the business is here in the development space for the long haul, even with the numerous market difficulties. “I believe times are going to get quite tough: affordability is stretched by any measure, and house prices will fall, albeit maybe not by as much as people think, so there’s going to be some pain in this sector and some lenders which have been very aggressive in the past are going to withdraw a little bit. However, I think development opportunities will still exist, as housebuilders still need to build. This is another challenging market, but we're a lender and our job is to lend. It doesn't matter if times are tough or not—we still have to do it.”

Funding is not a problem—our institutional funders want us to lend more. What’s more challenging is finding goodquality deals

Dev Exit funding you can rely on...

80% LTV Stepped at 0.65%

75% LTV Flat at 0.89%

No valuation up to 70% LTV

Loans up to £10m net

No minimum interest

AWARDS

BEST SHORT-TERM LENDER

BEST SHORT-TERM LENDER FINALIST

Finding the right site with a click of a button

Every successful development starts with a great site—but with soaring costs and strict planning constraints to consider, finding the perfect one can be an arduous process. We look at how technology that can identify and appraise plots can unlock boundless opportunities for developers

Words by MITCHELL FASANYA CEO and co-founder of Searchland

Technology has disrupted the property market considerably, whether it be in residential sales, lettings, housebuilding, or any other aspect. In the main, this innovation has been for the better; we can now carry out what were once laborious jobs with far greater speed and accuracy.

This is certainly no different when it comes to sourcing sites for development. The key benefit is the ability to identify suitable plots quickly. This has helped facilitate carrying out the sheer volume of site searches required to find the handful of plots that meet a developer's requirements.

SHORTLIST QUICKLY BY CRITERIA

Not all site sourcing platforms are built equally, but the best of the bunch ascertain a huge amount of data from a plethora of sources. This includes data on planning application proposals and appeals; the sourcing of infill plots, class MA and class Q sites; sold price data by location, property type and tenure; information on company ownership, boundaries, strategic land, renewables, and utilities; HMO figures; planning constraints such as flood zones, conservation areas and the green belt; and heritage constraints such as listed buildings.

This data is very expensive to gather and, traditionally, you would pay for the manual collection, extraction and normalisation of each data source. So a platform that can deliver this at your fingertips is already adding considerable value and providing you with a huge differentiator over those that don’t. For example, the best site-sourcing platforms can identify 100 potential sites in the time it would take historic platforms, agents or developers to source 10—if they’re lucky.

Previously, it might have taken as long as 10 hours to appraise a site, whereas today it can be done in an hour.

Using Searchland, for example, a developer can start their search based on their own key criteria. How many units are they looking to build and in what areas? Are there any particular constraints they are looking to avoid? Do they want to view areas where local authorities are failing their delivery test, or in those that are ahead? Once these initial criteria have been set, they can look at additional factors such as settlement boundaries and whether there are plans to extend them, or if there are any Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) sites at the edge of the boundary.

After doing so, they can run their enquiry on Searchland before filtering the results. We provide more than 50 filters to help narrow the selection down and allow more granular searches, such as whether they take into account specific acreage, if a site already has housing on it, if there are commercial units that can be converted, or whether there are new-builds nearby, and so on.

We then give developers the ability to save suitable sites into a project flow, allowing them to revisit their results when convenient and contact the owners. The option of contacting hundreds or maybe thousands of landowners via our automation software is another big differentiator when it comes to site sourcing.

Once landowners have been contacted, developers are left with a list of interested parties. Then it’s a case of negotiating to get the right price, getting an options agreement in place, securing financing, building out the project, and selling on the project.

Through this process, developers can search off market, avoiding agent fees and

“Using technology is rarely a case of a single fix and it’s certainly not a case of plugging in any platform and expecting the same results across the board”

other associated costs, while also giving them first access to sites and the chance to negotiate directly with the landowner. However, this search function is essentially the ‘shiny exterior’ of site sourcing innovation, and it’s fair to say the biggest advancement has been the availability of the data that powers these searches. We live in a digital world and data is probably the most valuable currency of all. The best-looking website or platform is worth nothing if it doesn’t have the data to give it power.

MATCH YOUR NEEDS

In every area of proptech, there are a multitude of platforms all aiming to solve a problem—and site sourcing is no different. So how do you filter through the sales pitches to identify the ones that can add real value to your business? It may sound obvious, but you really need to identify what your individual needs are as a business. Is it the identification of sites? Help with due diligence when you do identify a suitable opportunity? Or being able to fund the deal? These requirements will be met by different offerings. For example, when it comes to site sourcing, speed is of the essence. Essentially, you need to know how many sites a platform can identify and be able to do it quickly. You won’t be the only one and, if you aren’t using technology, you will be miles behind your competitors. Nonetheless, speed is just one differentiating factor, and returning fast results is no use if a platform is terrible from a user’s point of view. Some platforms can be confusing to negotiate, difficult to use

when setting up searches and, often, the data you need isn’t readily available. Therefore, you will want to make sure you opt for a platform that has a high number of correctly geo-coded sites, a substantial amount of these in every area, and the most metadata on them. Those looking for long-term strategic sites need this data, and only a handful of platforms provide it. If your platform does not, you simply won’t be able to compete against those using one that does.

Finally, another key aspect of site sourcing that has been radically improved by technology is the ability to manage workflow. Even today, some platforms will simply provide you with a map of sites, with the developer required to manually record their findings. This is a key area we’ve addressed at Searchland. Our platform merges title and ownership data, so our users can send letters through the site to thousands of landowners in a few clicks. This facilitates reaching a high volume, allowing them to scale up to hit their targets.

HOW TO SPOT A LONG-TERM LEADER

Using technology is rarely a case of a single fix, and it’s certainly not a case of plugging in any platform and expecting the same results across the board.

Data, usability, functionality, and speed are all key considerations for developers looking to implement proptech within their site sourcing approach. It’s also important to

remember that there’s no finish line when it comes to innovation through existing and emerging tech, such as AI, which is also expected to improve the proposition offered by site sourcing platforms. Opt for one that is embracing change head on, as they are sure to remain the industry leaders in years to come, not just in the current market.

Finally, the modern-day developer needs an arsenal of tech solutions that helps them to get ahead of the game at all stages. Site sourcing is just one aspect, and developers still need to complete their traditional due diligence checks, including the involvement of solicitors and the completion of surveys, not to mention the additional processes that come beyond this point. For those looking to streamline the development process in its entirety, a number of different proptech solutions—in addition to site sourcing technology—will be required to do so. After all, there’s no point in sourcing sites at speed if you fall at the next hurdle.

“A platform that can deliver a plentiful array of data at your fingertips is already adding considerable value and providing you with a huge differentiator over those that don’t”

for

spirit Team big deals

Words by ANDREEA DULGHERU

Following his promotion to head of specialist finance and HNW, OSB Group’s Marc Callaghan discusses how bringing divisions closer benefits staff and brokers

Mark Callaghan

“A broker should be asking a lender how they are going to work with their clients during their bridging exit period”

With almost 20 years of experience from numerous roles under his belt, Marc brings significant expertise to his new position. He started his career as a pension administrator for Aviva, after which he became a BDM for Santander, where he worked for over 10 years. In 2014, Marc joined OSB Group (known back then as OneSavings Bank) as a strategic account manager, and was then promoted to national sales manager. After a brief stint away, he returned to OSB Group—which includes lending brands Precise Mortgages, Kent Reliance for Intermediaries and InterBay—in 2022 in a brand new role as group HNW client manager before taking over from Emily Hollands as head of specialist finance.

How exactly will your extensive experience help you in your new position and OSB Group's specialist finance team?

My experience of being in a BDM/national sales manager role with various lenders across different sectors definitely helps and gives value. Obviously, the way a BDM at Santander does the job will be very different from how one in the specialist sector does it, but you get great learnings from working with different finance providers, and you can learn from the good and bad things that other people do. I've pretty much worked in most jobs across the banking process and in the intermediary market, so that brings a bit more value. Also, because I’ve worked across all of OSB Group’s brands—collaborating with our internal colleagues in the risk or real estate functions, for example—I have an understanding of how each part of the product set works, how the bank runs, and how everything is integrated, which helps me provide support where it’s needed.

What have you implemented in the division so far?

We’re really thrilled to have recently launched Select Partners, a new partner proposition which offers exclusive access to our enhanced bridging range, including semi-commercial and commercial bridging. Our select partners were chosen based on their expertise and experience which is so important, especially for this specialist market sector. We also launched a new range of BTL products with a reduced minimum loan amount of £1m, so we’ve got a really strong range of product options out there in the market. With regard to our specialist finance account managers (SFAMs), we’ve already done a

realignment of all the regions, just to ensure that we’ve got coverage in the right areas. That was a key focus for me when I came into the new role—to make sure we’re giving brokers across the UK great coverage—and I feel that now we’ve got a really good balance in each geographical area, we’re at a point where none of our teams should have to travel more than two hours to reach an area they cover. In terms of specific areas, we’ve got the South and South-West, Wales, Midlands, the East, the North, and then south, north and central London.

Internally, I really want to work on the connection between my team and the other divisions within the group. I feel there's a massive benefit from working closely with our underwriting functions and administrative teams, so we've spent time building those relationships.

In your opinion, what sets OSB Group’s specialist finance team apart from others?

We have made a name for ourselves in the market for being very good at large deals north of £15m, which aren’t that common. We’ve got some great tools within OSB Group to help us shape these cases. For example, we have a transactional credit committee—made up of the company executives—that our sales team can attend to present a large and complex case to the senior executives and, if it gets voted as being good for us, it will go to underwriting. This is good for my team and their development as they can stand in front of the executives, which you normally wouldn’t do in some banks. Plus, this adds massive value to a broker, because we can do that part of the deal process before the intermediary even submits a full application or spends money on a valuation fee.

We've also got an in-house real estate function, comprising 11 chartered surveyors managed across the whole of OSB Group who have unique experience in the market of all types of assets. We can speak to one of our team members in real estate to gain a full understanding of an asset and whether we feel it's suitable for us. And, again, it's there to add value to a broker, because we may save them and their client £5,000 on a valuation fee or eight weeks’ waiting for a report to come back when we can say a quick yes or no.

We also have a really strong advantage with our SFAMs as they cover both Precise Mortgages and InterBay for our bridging propositions. This allows the team flexibility to offer their brokers and clients the most suitable product for their requirements.

“I feel there’s a massive benefit from working closely with our underwriting functions and administrative teams”

What deal has stood out to you and why ?

We completed a £24.9m loan for the refinancing of 350 student bedrooms across Yorkshire, £20m of which was 10-year interest-only commercial investment funding, fixed for five years. All of the properties were student accommodation units previously mortgaged with us that had been refurbished and finished to a high standard.

The biggest difficulty was the timing requirement from the client, especially for a deal of that size, but we still managed to fund it in less than six weeks, just before Christmas. It was a significant achievement because to do a loan of this size, with a complex structure and a tight deadline, does need work by all parties. So many people were involved to get that deal done—from our admin team, to our internal credit committee, our real estate division, and the underwriters—and it just shows the strength we have within the group.

What are you seeing as the most common uses for bridging finance?

One of the most popular uses for bridging finance is refurbishment—a mixture of light and heavy refurb—coming from landlords looking to buy a property and do either minimal work to tidy it up, or some form of basic conversion to enhance the property. That is still the bread and butter we see day in, day out. We’ve witnessed experienced investors using bridging loans to acquire portfolios from other landlords who are looking to exit the market and want to get rid of five or six properties quickly, and then do a basic refurb and exit onto a term loan.

Demand for development exit loans are still maintained, although not as much because the developer market has been quieter. However, I think we will see an uptick here from 2024.

Why do you think there’s been a rise in bridging loan applications for refurbishment projects?

What we’ve seen more often is investors looking for a high standard of property. A lot of landlords are now understanding the true impact of going for a high-end quality finish on their product and attracting higher rents on the back of it—especially for HMOs, as they can attract a higher yield, which makes a massive difference. Another standard point is the proposed new minimum EPC rating; depending on the level of work that needs to be done, landlords are looking to up their rating as much as they can. I see that as just the norm; if I were acquiring a property

today, I’d want to do everything I could within financial reason to get it to as high a rating as possible.

What are the pros and cons of using bridging finance for refurbishment?

If bridging is used correctly, there aren’t any cons. Bridging can help borrowers achieve their desired outcome and get the return they want if they work closely with their broker and know they’re going to exit the loan. I think the cons arise when customers are not advised in the correct manner, or when a client underestimates or overestimates what they’re going to do with their exit. It’s very hard sometimes when a borrower approaches a broker saying they want to do a refurb in three months, but that introducer knows from experience it will take six—but if they tell the client that, they might go elsewhere. As a broker, you have to be firm enough with your clients and explain how they’ll be able to do the refurb. Getting an experienced partner and being realistic of your property’s end value and the timing of the transaction: those are the most important things to be mindful of.

What key questions should brokers be asking bridging lenders and vice versa?

A broker should be asking a lender how they are going to work with their clients during their bridging exit period—so whether they offer an opportunity to exit to a BTL loan after doing the refurb work, or whether the finance provider has other ways of exiting the bridging finance onto a term facility.

As for the other way around, lenders should ask their introducers if they know their market and how the lender works, because each one is different.

How can lenders, brokers and borrowers work together to ensure a successful and painless completion?

For me, communication is everything: between the broker and lender, the client and intermediary, and the borrower and lender, if needed. It’s about the ongoing life management of that bridging loan; if a client knows they're going to overrun, I would rather they pick the phone up with three months to go, rather than on the day it is about to expire. So, for me, the communication element across the whole process—from start to finish, and post-completion to exit—is most important."I feel there's a massive benefit from working closely with our underwriting functions and administrative teams."

“If a client knows that they’re going to overrun, I would rather they pick the phone up with three months to go rather than on the day their bridging loan is about to expire”

THE PROS AND CONS OF MODULAR BUILDS

We suggest studying the credentials of the modular construction company carefully in advance to ensure liquidation risk is minimised. Due diligence should take into account expertise, experience, and trading accounts. Contingency modelling can help you to understand the cost of converting to a traditional build, should the modular contractor fail.

SHOULD YOU STAY IN THE UK OR LOOK FURTHER AFIELD?

Nicola Mayes

ADVANTAGES FOR DEVELOPERS

Nicola Mayes, investment manager at Blackfinch Property

For developers, the greatest advantage of modular construction is its speed. A factory-based process can take place simultaneously with on-site ground works, dramatically shortening the construction schedule, minimising weather delays, and ensuring projects reach completion faster.

Shorter construction schedules also mean lower site overheads, such as equipment hire and site staff. There’s a social benefit to spending less time on site too, with less disruption and noise for local residents. And, in an industry where time really does cost money, factory-controlled production can mean buildings are occupied sooner, creating a faster return on investment. Modular construction is also considerably greener from a sustainability perspective. Factorycontrolled processes result in less wastage and greater reuse of materials, leading to lower carbon emissions.

Another critical advantage is the improved quality control and safety that comes with the factory process, including production line repetition, tight inspection

standards, and a controlled location. As well as reducing the risk of construction site-related accidents, stricter quality control should lead to improved building standards and efficiency relating to issues such as air quality and heat loss.

ASSESSING AND MITIGATING MODULAR CONSTRUCTION RISKS

David Higson, head of property at Blackfinch Property

It’s essential that developers understand the risks involved to ensure funding can be agreed. For example, with relatively few modular contractors operating in the market, a limited number of companies can step up in the case of supplier failure, and there is a greater risk that contractor insolvency could derail the entire project. To help, modular contracts should be carefully reviewed for project risk. Early engagement is vital—traditional procurement routes and standard-form building contracts are not designed for modular builds, so developers must consider and plan for unique risks early on. This should include what would happen if the delivery of key components is delayed or if the manufacturer goes into liquidation.

Appointing an overseas supplier for your modular build might seem cost-effective at the outset, but we would always suggest choosing UK-based factories where possible. It gives developers the option to conduct factory visits and maximises the potential for recovery in the event of failure. Where overseas contractors are being used, they should have experience of delivering projects in the UK and of building modules to British standards. Developers should confirm where the module manufacture will take place, to ensure regular inspection at the factory is possible. They should insist on a clause preventing relocation of manufacture, as well as a right to inspect during transportation. Also, as the lender, we would appoint a monitoring surveyor who, as part of a technology assessment, would assess the likelihood of other firms being able to step in should the manufacturer fail.

SHOULD DEVELOPERS OPT FOR ADDED SECURITY OVER ADVANCED PAYMENTS?

David Higson

In normal builds, the lender releases funds to add value to a site over which they have security. However, for modular schemes, advance payments that pay for the offsite construction work do not initially increase the value of the development, meaning additional security will be required. For example, vesting certificates can be used to help mitigate the risk of paying upfront for materials.

David Higson and Nicola Mayes of Blackfinch Property look at the rise of modular development and outline some of the key steps developers can take to lessen the risks

The building contract should provide detail on how and when vesting certificates are to be provided. Where the modular contractor is a subcontractor, the developer should ensure that title is passed up the chain (ie vesting from subcontractor to contractor, then from contractor to developer/funder).

Performance bonds can also be considered. These provide insurance-backed cover for up to 10% of the contract sum, should the main contractor enter into liquidation. This cover should assist with recouping monies already advanced, although some developers may find the costs of the bonds themselves to be prohibitive.

TRANSPORTATION AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING

Nicola Mayes

With most modular construction components likely to arrive simultaneously, precise scheduling that minimises delays and disruption is critical. Here are some key points to consider:

• all parties should agree the design before manufacture, with substructures complete and craneage and scaffolding in place before modular elements arrive on site. As a lender, we would make sure contracts are reviewed by legal and monitoring advisers to determine where liability falls in the case of scheduling issues

• insurance is often a lending requirement because, while traditional performance security allows access to money, it does not remedy delays to the project. Products such as delay in start-up insurance could pay out to cover the developer’s debt repayments until the project is completed

• the contract should pass the risk of damage during transportation back to the modular contractor as, without it, responsibility rests with the developer

• because the modular contractor is not on site, main contractors may seek to minimise their exposure. The value of the modules will often significantly exceed the value of the main contractor’s onsite works, so the main contractor will be keen to limit its liability

• standard insurance policies may not cover modular construction, so it is worth determining that modules are insured at the factory as well as during transportation and while on site. Structural defects insurance needs to explicitly cover modular builds

EXIT AND MORTGAGE VIABILITY

David Higson

At present, few mainstream lenders provide development funding for modular builds as they need greater assurance the finished homes will be eligible for a mortgage with a high-street lender. This is why it makes sense for developers to talk

to specialist lenders such as Blackfinch Property. Barriers to mortgageability are based on broader concerns around quality, lifespan, and maintenance.

Most lenders expect Buildoffsite Property Assurance Scheme (BOPAS) accreditation, backed by a home warranty scheme, as a prerequisite to a mortgage. However, while BOPAS accreditation on a property offers reassurance that it will be readily mortgageable for at least 60 years, it does not mean all components of an offsite modular build will have a 60-year design life. This makes it essential to identify whether the chosen modular firm has achieved BOPAS accreditation for previous schemes. Also, while the availability of building warranties for new offsite manufacturers is improving, there is still a risk that carrying out works to modular units after the building has been completed will void the warranty. Ideally, this needs to be clarified with the proposed warranty provider as soon as possible.

Modular builds can be a cost-effective, fast and sustainable option for developers at a time when the world needs more innovative and environmentally friendly construction methods. But both developers and lenders must understand the ways in which modular builds differ from more traditional forms of construction, and carry out the necessary checks and balances to help mitigate those risks.

For more information, contact us by scanning the code below

inconsistency

Rising costs inconsistency

WHY DEVELOPERS ARE STRUGGLING TO KEEP PACE WITH NUTRIENT NEUTRALITY

Nutrient pollution is harming the UK’s water and wildlife, but Natural England’s measures to combat this are causing confusion and housing development delays. Positively, schemes and suggestions for progress are on the horizon

Words by NIAMH SMITH

ousebuilders and developers are coming under increasing pressure to maintain water quality. Nutrient pollution is one of the most harmful environmental issues affecting the UK’s water, according to Natural England and Defra, which have started to implement stringent requirements. Unusually high levels of nitrates and phosphates disrupt natural processes and harm wildlife by causing excess plant and algal growth, which depletes oxygen in waterways and restricts the functioning of aquatic ecosystems.

To combat the issue, Natural England has been advising 74 local planning authorities in several affected areas, including Dorset, Cheshire, Northumberland, and Cornwall, to ensure the development of accommodation—including housing, hotels, student halls, and care homes—achieves nutrient neutrality.

Nutrient neutrality aims to prevent new projects from adding to the nutrient loads caused by the land’s existing use within designated catchment areas. A development is considered neutral if it results in no net increase in harmful nutrients deposited in water systems. If there would be an unavoidable increase in nutrients from a scheme, developers could still achieve net neutrality by purchasing offsets. Natural England introduced its nutrient mitigation scheme in March this year to allow housebuilders to do this. Currently, the Tees catchment—which comprises three rivers: Tees, Skerne and Leven—is hosting the only nutrient mitigation scheme pilot project, which allows developers planning to build within the catchment area to purchase nutrient credits from Natural England. Developers working in the area can purchase one credit to mitigate one kilogram of nitrogen for £1,825. Nutrient credits are used to fund land managers’ mitigation activities, such as creating woodland or wetlands in local areas, to balance out any nutrient pollution the housing development will cause.

Even though the scheme is currently limited to the Tees area, more catchment zones will be added as Natural England continues to work with partners to identify suitable sites for mitigation, focusing on places with the highest housing need. However, many within the construction and planning industry have criticised the schemes for slowing down the development of projects amid a worsening housing crisis.

Housebuilders step back

HNatural England’s nutrient neutrality scheme could reduce between 2,500 and 12,700 new homes being built each year, according to the Home Builders Federation (HBF). The body also estimates the cost of on- and off-site mitigation measures and purchasing nutrient credits to comply with Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme will cost developers approximately £5,000 per home in affected regions.

During the planning stage, housing developers operating in catchment areas will have to request a nutrient calculator from their local planning authority or work with consultants to calculate the level of nutrients their project would add to nearby water systems, as well as the cost of mitigating them. Levels of nutrient pollution are measured through an assessment of factors including additional population and water usage.

Due to the cost implications, Lawrence Turner, director at consultancy firm Boyer Planning, says many housebuilders have determined it is more economically efficient to avoid building on areas covered by nutrient neutrality altogether. “At the present time, many developers seek to avoid land that is identified by Natural England as falling into an affected river catchment,” he shares.

Lawrence explains that the problem is particularly acute for developers that acquired land before nutrient neutrality issues arose, because they now face the burden and costs of assessing the nutrient load and delivering mitigation measures.

As more developers avoid building in catchment areas, the shortage of land supply has led to increased competition for sites not affected by nutrient issues and made homes in these regions less affordable. Developers submitting planning applications within areas covered by nutrient neutrality must follow steps to demonstrate that any necessary measures to mitigate nutrient pollution would be followed. Development plans have to include details such as the number of units of overnight accommodation and an assessment of existing land uses on the site, says Simon Packer, director at Turley—a consultancy that has helped secure permission to build 180,000 homes across eight regions in the UK, including in the Southampton area, which is classified as a nutrient neutrality catchment zone.

Assessing existing land use is an important step as it provides a baseline of nutrients already entering the sensitive catchment area, from which further degradation can be assessed. “When you calculate for proposed land use, you usually end up with a net gain in the amount of nutrients you will be adding to the catchment area as part of your development. You then end up with levels of nitrates and phosphates that you would have to mitigate,” notes Simon.

Richard Broadbent, environmental law director at Freeths, stresses the importance of ensuring these calculations are completed during the early stages of planning. He says that once developers have identified the levels of nutrient output associated with their project, they must consider any opportunities that exist on site and in the local area to mitigate them. “If this issue is picked up late in the design and planning process, it can cause a great deal of delay and increased costs. With nutrient neutrality, being forewarned is forearmed,” he emphasises.

Mitigation schemes: enough help for developers?

The introduction of Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme initially sparked industry optimism, as the supply of new developments had been held up since the issue became prominent several years ago.

The UK government has also reported comparisons of soil nutrient balances from 2000 to 2020, which show a 17% decrease for nitrogen and 27% for phosphate due to reduced use of fertilisers and the increased offsetting of nitrogen and phosphate.

However, many developers and housebuilders have criticised the scheme for having only a limited impact on solving nutrient pollution. Lawrence says it will not meet developers’ needs due to its lack of coverage across threatened catchment areas. “The government’s nutrient mitigation scheme only covers one area currently—the Tees catchment—and, even when fully up and running, will only be able to meet a fraction of the demand for mitigation generated by new development.”

To be granted planning consent in areas affected by nutrient pollution, developers must provide local councils with evidence that the new development could either achieve nutrient neutrality or list mitigation measures. However, this has caused delays as developers must spend longer collating the evidence, and councils must dedicate time to assess the claims and measures. “We need as many mitigation schemes coming forward as possible because of the massive level of demand to deal with not only the backlog of planning applications that are still held, but also future applications coming forward,” states Simon.

The growing need for mitigation has led to local authorities taking matters into their own hands and delivering their own, smaller schemes, adds Simon. “There are other mitigation schemes coming out that are being delivered by local authorities, landowners and farmers. The more that come onto the market, the better.”

In addition, the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill will require all water companies to invest in wastewater treatment by 2030 to prevent excess nutrients working their way through treatment systems and ending up in rivers. The bill aims to eliminate planning delays for housing projects. The government expects authorities to allow developments to proceed in anticipation of the benefits of future water quality improvement initiatives, rather than after mitigation measures are implemented.

However, Richard claims the government’s proposals will create uncertainty over the severity of nutrient pollution and lead investors to believe the issue has been solved. According to him, legislative plans could cause investors to falsely believe they do not need to invest in mitigation initiatives because the government’s wastewater bill would solve the issue. He believes the bill is a strategic move by central government to appear proactive in combating nutrient pollution, while potentially deterring private investors from investing in nutrient mitigation schemes. “Uncertainty over government intervention to try to tackle the problems caused by diffuse pollution has, in some cases, negatively impacted the supply of nutrient neutrality schemes to the market by the private sector. Potential investors in those schemes have got cold feet,” he adds.

Jack Potter, biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality director at Galingale—which provides nitrogen mitigation services in the Solent region—agrees that the biggest barrier to private investment in nutrient mitigation is uncertainty. Adding to the confusion are “rumours that the government will make the problem disappear,

rumours that councils are going to do something themselves but not delivering, and Natural England developing its own schemes and selling credits at cost”, he divulges. “Private investment to bring solutions to the market could be rapid if the government and councils drew a line in the sand to create certainty in the market.”

Jack highlights the importance of attracting investment from private companies and investors to create more mitigation opportunities and better competition between mitigation schemes. He claims that if there were more mitigation providers, this would result in a liquid market, which would reduce costs for developers and improve viability.

Richard notes that the scheme focuses solely on preventing additional nutrients from entering water systems, but does not address the problems of existing nutrient pollution in rivers or removing excess algae—both of which are needed to increase oxygen levels and support river ecology. “The scheme neutralises the potential impact of new development on protected sites which are in an unfavourable condition,” he comments. “But it is not designed, in any way, to improve the unfavourable condition of those protected sites.”

Moving targets

Simon claims developers struggle to stay on top of mitigating nutrient pollution because Natural England continues to alter its requirements. He adds that originally it stipulated that developers had to mitigate only nitrates, but later added the obligation to mitigate phosphates. “Last year, Natural England determined that the level of phosphates in the River Itchen in Hampshire had gone over the limits as to what it considered reasonable. Therefore, phosphates became a new nutrient that had to be mitigated. That was on top of the need to mitigate nitrate that was in existence already.”

Simon adds that the constantly changing nature of the scheme has also prevented developers from taking a proactive approach and staying ahead of new requirements. He says that developers—small- and medium-sized ones in particular—struggle to meet the significant investment required to take pre-emptive action.

Jack reveals that many developers and housebuilders continue to struggle with nutrient neutrality because it is a niche issue that requires specialist expertise. He says that as the industry collectively lacks this, many developers have been left not knowing who to turn to for advice and information. “The professional ecology bodies have not provided the same level of attention to training their membership about the problem, solutions, and methodologies, as they have done for other environmental disciplines such as biodiversity net gain, which may be in part to blame.”

Making it work better

To ensure all developers have the necessary resources moving forward, Jack urges the government to legislate for a standard calculator to work out additional nutrient levels. “Currently, multiple calculators with different methodologies are being used. Standardising with a government-endorsed version would set a clear and simple direction.”

There is currently no ability for commercial use to be factored into a nutrient impact assessment within calculators which, according to Jack, has unfairly impacted a large proportion of SMEs’ development plans. The addition of commercial use is important because many

developers are proposing to change use from commercial to residential, so existing commercial water discharge should be able to be used to offset that from the proposed residential use, he expresses.

Residential developments produce domestic sewage from activities such as washing dishes and cooking at home, which the UK’s sewer systems are designed to cope with, whereas commercial premises create trade effluent, which can be more toxic and harmful to health and the environment, so it must be managed at sewage treatment facilities. Therefore, Jack suggests developers should be encouraged to convert developments from commercial to residential to ensure less polluted water is produced and the reliance on sewage treatment works is reduced. “Much of the housing backlog falls into this category. A simple tweak to the methodology, which is justified and evidenced, would instantly unblock these permissions,” he adds.

Further tweaks to the government’s Habitat Regulations could also reduce the backlog of planning applications as interpretations of the assessment have created additional delays, notes Lawrence.

A Habitat Regulations Assessment evaluates the potential impact of a development plan on a protected site and tests whether the plan could significantly harm designated features of the site. Lawrence explains that if a development fails to comply with just a single issue, an entirely new assessment is required to reconsider the effects of the proposal. “There needs to be a commonsense approach by local planning authorities when interpreting the Habitat Regulations—an interpretation that is proportionate to the scope of what is open for consideration,” he states.

Richard suggests that Natural England should promote the use of natural resources to rectify the diffuse problem of water pollution at its source. This would entail implementing long-term land-use strategies that reduce the nutrient input into rivers. “An example of this is creating riparian buffers formed of scrub and woodland between farms and rivers. A buffer of even 10 metres between a farm and a river can significantly reduce nutrient run-off with only a modest impact on food production,” he explains. Such approaches would ensure efforts to combat nutrient pollution are focused on finding long-term, sustainable solutions and reduce the burden on developers, he adds.

Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme was designed to facilitate the delivery of thousands of new homes by providing developers with a streamlined way to mitigate nutrient pollution and allow planned building to continue. As a trial scheme, the initiative is open to being amended to address developers’ and housebuilders’ concerns and incorporate suggestions.

It is essential the final scheme effectively reduces excess levels of nutrients to prevent the disruption of natural processes and devastation of wildlife, as well as tackle the issue of nutrient pollution at the source. But it is clear that any amendments to the scheme must also ensure planning permissions are granted sooner—or we could end up in an even bigger crisis.

Ready,

funded.

If you’re looking to provide a flexible, fast-paced loan to your clients, take the alternative route.

A place where you can get to the shops, the cinema, and the doctor within 15 minutes on foot or by bike sounds both homely and green. But how and where can such places be built in the UK?

Slowly pedalling towards 15-minute cities

Words by NIAMH SMITH

he concept of 15-minute cities has been gaining support since the Covid-19 pandemic and, amid the climate change emergency, the need for more liveable and sustainable cities has gained prominence.

The urban planning idea, derived by French urbanist Carlos Morello in 2016, seeks to cut commuting and reduce car dependency by ensuring daily necessities and services can be reached by a 15-minute walk or bike ride from home.

Since the mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo included a plan to implement the concept during her 2020 re-election campaign, it has gained significant traction and has been introduced in 16 cities worldwide, including the Netherland’s fourth-largest city, Utrecht.

The idea has also become popular in the UK, with YouGov reporting that 62% of the public would support their local authority making their area a 15-minute neighbourhood. As a result, several UK local authorities—such as Bristol, Canterbury and Sheffield—have recently stated they will ensure essential services such as schools, shops, and green spaces are all within a short distance of homes.

LOTS TO CONSIDER

Local authorities are required to take a significant number of factors, such as population density and car ownership,

into account when planning to establish a 15-minute city.

Mark Rebbeck, director at Altered Space, a developer of regeneration projects in northwest England, says that 15-minute cities must be designed to ensure sustainable modes of transport are easily accessible to residents: “The integration of efficient and sustainable transport systems, such as robust public transit, comprehensive cycling infrastructure, and pedestrian-friendly streets into the city's design is imperative to ensure seamless accessibility within a 15-minute radius.”

Mark also urges local authorities and developers to understand which crucial services and facilities communities need to access easily. The 15-minute city should include services that allow citizens to live a healthy lifestyle, such as parks, gyms, pharmacies and hospitals, as well as entertainment and leisure facilities, such as cinemas, nightclubs or theatres.

To ensure these are within a 15-minute walking or cycling distance, local authorities must allocate land appropriately, Mark adds. “The availability of suitable sites to facilitate the aims and requirements needed to deliver a successful 15-minute city is essential. Identifying appropriate locations that can accommodate the necessary infrastructure and services in close proximity is vital.”

CAR PARKS GET PROGRESSIVE

Even though 15-minute cities are intended to reduce reliance on cars, local authorities must not expect to eliminate them altogether, says Rico Wojtulewicz, head of housing and planning policy at the National Federation of Builders (NFB). Therefore, local authorities must enlist the help of developers to create space on the roads for cycling and public transport lanes, he comments.

Rico highlights that the construction of underground and multi-storey car parks will provide citizens with a safe space to store their vehicles and allow more room on the road for sustainable modes of transport, which will meet the needs of both the community and the 15-minute city. “In the UK, we have a lot of people parking on roads. If you want a cycle lane where those car parking spaces

“We have got a big issue in this country where we want more houses, but we don’t want them in the countryside and we don’t want denser communities”

are, where would the cars go? If you're not going to build any parking for them, you're going to upset a lot of people,” he states.

Rico claims that building additional parking structures is also very forward looking because, after a 15-minute city plan has been fully implemented, the need for parking recedes and these spaces can be reconfigured for other uses. “Let's say we all stop driving and 15-minute cities are successful—you've already created those underground spaces that you can use for shops and other things,” he elaborates.

Developers must also ensure that places of employment are nearby—otherwise, a large proportion of workers are likely to commute by car. “It would be sensible to put jobs closer to people,” notes Rico. “I don't just mean service sector jobs, I mean manufacturing and industrial, both light and heavy, encompassing the broad range of jobs that people actually do.”

WHERE TO BUILD THEM?

Recent announcements by a number of local authorities that they will create 15-minute city plans sparked optimism that the UK could soon host a multitude of more sustainable and enriching neighbourhoods.

Land use is the biggest barrier for developers to overcome when building the facilities necessary to establish a 15-minute city due to the UK’s ongoing land shortage. This lack of land means developers can struggle to find suitable building plots, with 48% of them considering land availability to be a major constraint to development. This problem is particularly affecting small companies; 62% of SME housebuilders say this limits their ability to build.

To combat the lack of land and provide residents access to public services, Rico recommends developers build in already populated areas and on green belt land. “Land use is key. That means you're going to have to build more in the green belt on the outside of towns, and you're going to have to build denser cities,” he says.

However, Rico acknowledges that people are strongly opposed to commercial and residential developments in these circumstances, despite the pressing need for additional housing. “We have got a big issue in this country where we want more houses, but we don’t want them in the countryside and we don’t want denser communities,” he explains.

Developers would also struggle to secure planning permission as local authorities continue to restrict building on green belt land and in populated communities as residents clearly disapprove, Rico adds. “They are probably the hardest things to get over because

politicians know if they propose either of those, they might lose their votes.”

Local authorities’ inclination to oppose development of the green belt is evident; only 2% of new residential addresses were built within the green belt between 2021 and 2022.

James Dickens, managing director at Wavensmere Homes—a Birminghamheadquartered housebuilder which is currently developing six schemes on brownfield sites—states that while it would be much easier for developers to build 1,000 homes and new amenities on the green belt, brownfield land must be prioritised above building in the countryside. “If housebuilders were properly incentivised to recycle brownfield land, more sustainable sites would be brought forward.”

James believes brownfield sites are well suited to meet the principles of a 15-minute city as they are usually within walking distance of train stations and public transport hubs. Therefore, regenerating brownfield sites could be an effective method to reduce car dependency.

Development on brownfield sites is also being encouraged by the government, which is allowing councils in England to bid for a share of £60m from the Brownfield Land Release Fund 2 to regenerate this land.

Even though establishing 15-minute cities on brownfield sites would simultaneously fulfil the purpose of such centres and meet the needs of the public, transforming them can be difficult. To be granted permission to build on brownfield sites, developers must provide local authorities with evidence demonstrating how they will get rid of any existing contamination on the site, and that the 15-minute city will not reduce air quality.

“Collaboration between planning authorities and government-backed initiatives is vital to create supportive policies, frameworks and funding that encourage and assist the development of such cities”

Reimagining land occupied by industrial structures and warehouses, which typically contain industry contaminants such as asbestos and fuel, into sustainable neighbourhoods consisting of parks and cultural institutions could prove difficult.

Mark says transforming brownfield land into a 15-minute city would be challenging and could take many years to complete as a significant number of factors must be taken into consideration. “Executing a mixed-use development scheme, for instance, involves intricate coordination of various elements within a limited area. This includes re-evaluating existing land use, land-use regulations, zoning, and identifying appropriate locations for essential services in each neighbourhood.”

Mark adds that developers must also have access to substantial financial resource to regenerate such sites. “The construction and enhancement of infrastructure, the establishment of new amenities, and ensuring equal access for all come with high costs,” Mark explains. This could potentially exclude SME developers from considering transforming brownfield land into 15-minute cities; according to The Federation of Master Builders’ latest survey, 41% say there are sites they have an interest in, but which are considered unviable due to developer contributions and obligations, including section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy.

MAKING IT HAPPEN

Even though the concept of 15-minute cities has gained support from several local authorities, so far no city in the UK has been established or reworked in a way that meets the core principles.

According to Mark, greater collaboration between the government, planning authorities and developers will be an important catalyst in their implementation. He explains that support

from local and central government will make more resources available for developers and provide the necessary finances. “Collaboration between planning authorities and governmentbacked initiatives is vital to create supportive policies, frameworks and funding that encourage and assist the development of such cities.”

For example, Paris successfully implemented the concept due to the mayor’s 2020 re-election manifesto, which contained policies such as Plan Velo that would transform Paris into a 15-minute city. Plan Velo provided developers with €250m to fund the development of secure cycle parking and add 130km of cycling lanes by 2026 to ensure the city was “100% cyclable”.

Rico supports the view that local and central government must provide developers with the necessary permits to reduce residents’ dependence on cars. He says that the Netherlands was able to implement a 15-minute city in Utrecht because the local authority used compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) to develop cycle lanes.

Implementing CPOs is a legal process that allows public bodies—such as councils and railway and utility companies—to acquire land without the consent of the owner to support a regeneration project, or if it is in the public interest.

CPOs can be used to enable developers to rework areas to encourage sustainable modes of transport, Rico adds. “If you only have two car lanes, you will either have to create a new lane or use one of them as a bus lane. That is where CPOs are useful, because they mean you can use extra bits of land for what you need,” he says.

Mark emphasises that local authorities are facing increasing demands to address climate change, which he predicts will drive the adoption of 15-minute cities in the UK. “The increasingly important sustainability agenda, including the carbon footprint of the built environment and the impact of global warming, add to the arguments supporting 15-minute cities in the future,” he remarks.

As sustainability continues to rise up local authority agendas, they will be increasingly motivated to provide developers with funding to establish commercial and residential schemes and planning permissions to allocate land necessary to build a 15-minute city. However, as the cost of living crisis is showing no sign of abating in the UK, it is unlikely councils will be able to justify the significant cost required to implement the cities any time soon. Therefore, it is more probable that 15-minute cities will gain more traction once the cost of essential items and housing falls and the demand for sustainable living rises.

“The increasingly important sustainability agenda, including the carbon footprint of the built environment and the impact of global warming, add to the arguments supporting 15-minute cities in the future”

Words by ANDREEA DULGHERU

Mooted changes to the National Planning Policy Framework will affect local plans, housing targets, the presumption in favour of sustainable development and more. Could these improve the planning system or should more fundamental issues be addressed?

THE KEY TO UNLOCKING HOUSEBUILDING?

For several years, the planning process has put major obstacles in the way of development. Most SME developers (93%) view securing and processing planning permission to the point they can start building as a major barrier to growth, according to a recent study by Close Brothers Property Finance, the Home Builders Federation (HBF), and Travis Perkins. While the statutory time period for deciding on a planning application is generally eight or 13 weeks—the latter for significant developments—only 46% of all applications made in Q2 2022-Q1 2023 had a decision made within one of these timeframes. Consequently, the majority saw delays—an issue that often diminishes a developer’s bottom line. Add this to the problems caused by a lack of available land, the nutrient neutrality headache hindering development in many areas, and cash-strapped local authorities not having enough resources, and it’s obvious why we are not delivering enough homes.

In a bid to improve the planning system, the secretary of state for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Michael Gove recently launched a consultation for a revamped National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Should this go ahead, it would constitute the third change since the framework was first introduced in 2012.

Seven industry experts—Robert Brooks, partner at Seddons; Adrian Cormican, director at Hallcroft Finance; Callum Ferguson, head of business development at Clearwell Capital; Carl Graham, regional director at Tuscan Capital; Katy Katani, director at CapitalRise; Alyson Jones, director at Boyer Planning; and Rico Wojtulewicz, head of housing and planning policy at the National Federation of Builders—weigh in on the current pain points in the planning process, and whether the latest proposals will make a much-needed difference.

Andreea Dulgheru: First off, what is causing inefficiencies and delays in the planning process?

Katy Katani: I think a lot of it has to do with the bureaucratic system. There’s also a backlog from Covid and the after-effects of the pandemic, and it’s hard to get through to local authority planning professionals due to lack of staffing and resource.

Carl Graham: I think that’s due to a lack of funding which, in part, [results in] a lack of education. We see that through elected members of committees who, I believe, receive about an hour’s worth of training every year: they ask some uninformed questions, which is testament to the lack of education they get. I think the public purse and political indifference have pushed a lot of public sector planning consultants into the private sector. We’re seeing a very underserved department within local and centralised government, which naturally blocks the whole process.

Callum Ferguson: I think that’s absolutely right. I had a conversation with one of my clients last week who puts a lot of developments through planning on a regular basis, and the overwhelming frustration is that he knows all planning departments are massively under-resourced—they just don’t have what they need to be able to process these applications. So the default response is to kick the can down the road and ask for things to be reworked because they just don’t have the resources or the funding to clear the decks on those planning applications anywhere near the rate that I think all of us know is required.

Alyson Jones: There are a few factors at play. There have been problems for quite a while— it’s not a new thing—but they have been exacerbated recently. You’re all absolutely right, that’s what we’re feeling about in terms of resources in local authorities, and staff moving to the consultancy side, which raises the question of whether there are enough planners in the whole system. This then goes back to education etc. The government has announced the Planning Skills Delivery Fund (PSDF) which will allocate £24m to local authorities to help councils clear planning application backlogs and paper for upcoming changes to the planning system. However, with 333 planning authorities in England, that equates to just £72,000 over two years, which is a figure unlikely to bring about real change. Even when developers are prepared to pay for the service—and we know they are through planning performance agreements—they don’t actually manage to get much further through the system in terms of pre-application advice or planning application. Local authorities are now pulling up the drawbridge, with applicants unable to amend planning applications once they’ve been submitted if they haven’t done a pre-application, for example. This then becomes all very negative and hostile. Obviously, we’re at a particular point in the political cycle—and planning is very political—which comes into play. We’ve just had a lot of change arising from the May 2023 local elections and have a general election on the horizon; I think planning has just become much more politicised than it ever has before, which has a lot of consequences. I believe current issues go back to the backbench revolt just before Christmas last year and when the NPPF changes and Levelling-up Bill amendments came out. These have given local authorities the perfect excuse to say, ‘We don’t need to progress with local plans or planning decisions, because we have to wait for the changes to come through’.

“It’s clear to me that planners are chronically under-resourced and therefore the decisions they’re making are not quick nor informed enough”

Rico Wojtulewicz: I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the planning system is. A lot of people just think planning is about achieving permissions but, unfortunately, that’s not correct. The planning system comprises a whole host of elements before and after the application is made—it’s tiered from the outset. You have allocations within the planning system and, if you haven’t got an allocated site, you’ve got a windfall site, which are, by their very definition, speculative developments. SMEs are typically the ones that deliver those smaller windfall sites and that’s because, quite often, local authorities won’t allocate a site that has fewer than 20 homes. So, right from the very outset, that’s a problem. Within the allocation process itself, you’ll get some sites that have outline permission and others that don’t have any permission at all. Of course, not all local authorities have a local plan and a community infrastructure levy, so they have to use section 106, which is another thing to negotiate. You also then have statutory consultees, services companies and utilities, which have their own timelines. These create considerable delays for developers when they’re trying to deliver a project, as well as for local authorities when they think they can get something over the line. If you’ve got an electricity company saying, “We can’t do anything for you for two years”, or, “We need the secretary of state to say yes or no to an application for us to do some work”, that all automatically hinders the development process itself. Lichfields did some good research that reported an average of 1.4 years to get planning approval for a site of fewer than 100 homes—whereas the statutory regulations say it must be done within 13 weeks for major developments (defined as schemes comprising more than 10 homes). We’ve gone from 57% of planning applications being decided within the 13-week statutory period in Q1 2013 to only 19% in Q1 2023; there’s been a downward trajectory since 2013, and the planning system as a

whole is causing so many issues. If you’ve got to plan a development and you need the workforce to be on time, then you need to plan when they’re going to come in but, if that’s uncertain because you have planning delays, that again can have a knock-on effect on delivery.

Robert Brooks: We’ve seen applications rejected on the ground that building materials aren’t in accordance with the plans. I’ve seen one rejected for insufficient cycle arrangements for the residents of a house conversion into flats. We, as the solicitor, don’t usually get the causes for the initial rejection. We tend to get instructed once the application has at least been looked at and is about to be approved. Occasionally, we review the appeal, and we can see the reasons for the initial rejection—though, quite often, when an appeal has been granted, those reasons are quite minor. Going back to the political point from earlier, the government, for better or worse, tried to reform the planning system with Robert Jenrick’s plans. In many ways, they were quite sensible in that they would establish zones where it would be assumed that planning was going to be granted if it was land within one kind of zone, and there were going to be conditions attached to each. It’s going to be very difficult to see how planning, as a whole structural beast, can be reformed in the near future to be honest.

RW: These new policies don’t allocate land, and this is the main issue. The government has removed the incentive to deliver more homes because they’ve reduced the amount of land that’s going to come forward and, once you do that, you effectively retain the current system, and that means we’re going to get delays. People also forget that local authorities are the ones that make these choices—a third of local authorities are delivering lower than their minimum demand but, if you go up in the North and the North West where they’re a bit more ambitious, most of them are delivering 400% of their minimum housing requirements.

“Without a local plan proposal being justified, it’s hard to see how decision-making is going to be transparent, and where the emphasis or urgency to deliver will be”

CG: This also links to national infrastructure programmes. There isn’t enough comment on how many developments are emerging up here in Salford and Manchester, for example, as well as the sheer lack of infrastructure, be that from local or centralised government. The two run mutually, and I genuinely believe there will be much bigger social issues than we’re feeling right now, as there seems to be a primary focus on trying to get planning applications passed and properties developed, rather than looking at larger masterplans that involve that infrastructure.

AD: From your conversations with developers and housebuilders, what’s the average time to get planning permission?

CF: From start to finish, delays of 9–12 months are not uncommon; even when it looks like you have planning consent, I’ve seen delays of 6-9 months after that point. Issues like nutrient neutrality, which requires you to put nitrate and phosphate [mitigation] plans in place, can cause months of delays in rural areas. It all circles back to some of the points that have been raised, including a lack of resource and a dearth of joined-up thinking from national to regional and local level of what needs to be delivered and how long this can take. This has massive challenges for developers, because we’re in a very different world now in terms of the supply chain and how tight the labour market is. Getting your ducks in a row as a developer is becoming borderline impossible with all the bureaucratic delays.

CG: And that links to the number of enquiries we’ve received here for part-developed properties or larger developments. There are many schemes that are coming through the wash now that are technically non-compliant. In most cases, we’re talking about pre-commencement conditions—critical points that are very difficult to indemnify against.

RB: Yes, that’s something we encounter quite frequently in a development. I had one in the past week where it’s all ready—it’s a development of about 100 flats. Two-thirds of them were already occupied or the developer had at least exchanged contracts to be occupied. I had a look at the planning and noticed there were one pre-commencement and two pre-occupation conditions not even applied to be discharged. I don’t know how many lawyers had looked at that and thought it was absolutely fine. I made the point to our client who, in turn, raised this to the borrower. Most of my clients are relatively relaxed on it—as long as they can see the application has gone on to discharge this condition and they can have their QS look at it and check the work has indeed happened, they’ll probably be fine with it. But, ultimately, the idea of waiting for the actual discharge to come back from the local authority is a pipe dream, because it’s going to be at least six months.

KK: To give an example from my experience, last year this family closed on a development loan for two houses in Hampstead, for which the local authority is Camden. It’s been a year now and we’re still waiting for some of the pre-commencement conditions to be relieved, so it’s had a knock-on effect with the borrower. He’s been charged interest all this time without having started on site. These are things we’re seeing quite often now, but it’s obviously dependent on the local authority.

Adrian Cormican: This is a real problem. There are so many sites stuck on our pipeline at the moment that should have been delivered in spring, but they don’t even have a spade in the ground. There’s one that’s been [delayed] for two and a half years with planning permission granted off the back of a similar point to yours, Callum—nutrient neutrality. I have never experienced before what we’re experiencing now. Planning is not getting through and, when clients do get approval, some are easily stuck for two years. Planning conditions shouldn’t be onerous, but they’ve become that; that’s the one thing now that we look for closer than we ever did before. Rob, you must see that in the documentation?

“We also need to remember that the green belt isn’t what many people believe it is”

RB: Yes, quite regularly. Certainly, it depends on what stage—if it’s a development exit, then theoretically, all of the conditions should be discharged and, to be honest, I’d say it’s a minority where that’s the case. If they’re coming in advance, then our clients are absolutely on it to try to get those pre-commencements done as soon as possible, because they know they’re going to delay the transaction.

CG: Also, if certain points aren’t discharged that are critical to the tangible value of the asset, in most cases, unfortunately, it doesn’t hit those GDVs sufficient enough to clear off original development finance when the newly appointed development exit lender comes in, because the property isn’t compliant or isn’t in a saleable condition.

AD: That brings me to my next question: how are current planning delays eating into developers’ finances and profit margins?

RW: As an example, one of our members builds 30 affordable houses a year in Nottingham. He employed 76 people in 2015. By 2019—so this is pre-COVID—he was down to six, and now he’s down to four, so he’s ceasing development altogether. The reason is because he can’t afford to pay people to do nothing, so that’s how much of an impact planning delay is having. And, obviously, you still have to service your loans. Plus, planning conditions are now individually chargeable for discharge, so the cost elements keep adding up.

CF: Very few lenders in the SME space fund speculative planning land—it’s always on what it is currently worth. But, as you know with the delays in getting permission, that interest is rolling up, no matter if you took a lowly geared position in the first instance. It means that when you look to refinance them on to a development facility, it sometimes doesn’t add up anymore. So, the developer then decides to sell the site, and there’s further delay in those units ever coming to the market. And Rico mentioned a really good point there—the labour market now for contractors and skilled builders is so tight; if you can’t keep your guys busy, they will go elsewhere and work on other projects. Being able to keep your pipeline of builds going in a smooth manner is a really important part of being a successful SME developer, and it’s becoming very difficult [as] you’ve got no idea how long it will take to get planning permission in the first place or discharge the conditions that you need to in order to get on with it.

CG: Interestingly, I’m seeing a lot more JVs making their names again and options being agreed between landowners and developers on the premise that completions are delayed, subject to planning and any pre-commencement conditions being satisfied, at which point they take the finance on. I think there’s a huge opportunity that seems to be missed where landowners and developers could join up and not have to leverage on risky developments without planning permission, and save the finance until that is in place.

“I think there’s a huge opportunity that seems to be missed where landowners and developers could join up and not have to leverage on risky developments without planning permission, and save the finance until that is in place”

“If there was a set of criteria that were applicable to small sites, it would make it infinitely easier for a lot of developers. They could also anticipate what their margins would be like at the start of the process with a lot more clarity”

AD: When looking at the proposals for the new NPPF that were unveiled recently, one suggestion is to simplify and amend the test of soundness used to examine local plans. They will no longer be required to be justified and, instead, the examination would assess whether the proposed target meets needs as far as possible. In your opinion, what will be the ramifications of this?

AJ: I guess this goes to the heart of local plans and the allocation of sites, which is what gives developers and SMEs the confidence to pursue a planning application on a site. Without a local plan proposal being justified, it’s hard to see how decision-making is going to be transparent, and where the emphasis or urgency to deliver will be. There’s just a lot of ambiguity around the whole process from our perspective—no duty to co-operate, no five-year housing land supply incentive, and neighbourhood plans having greater control but yet not delivering. However, they are proposed changes, they might not come through. We’ve also got the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill going alongside the NPPF changes, so I think they’ve got a long way to go yet, and I suspect some of these things will fall by the wayside.

CG: Just to put everything into context, the NPPF came into force in 2012, and I don’t think it’s done anything radically different to either streamline the process or make it more efficient. We’ve already highlighted what the key issues are within planning in the UK, but there doesn’t seem to be a workable framework that connects the dots. I just think it’s more text.

KK: It’s just a change of wording.

CG: Exactly.

AJ: It’s the political implication—that’s why it’s been done—it takes away the stick for local authorities to have to plan properly for their needs. There will still be a requirement to do something, so not everything will fall away. It just means there will probably be less.

RW: If you look, the government is also removing what’s called the housing delivery test, which measures whether or not local authorities are meeting that five-year land supply—it’s a minimum number they need to get, and it’s based on a methodology of how many homes are meant to be delivered. The government’s also removing the penalties for it, which actually helped not only to ensure that more homes got built, but that there was a more robust allocation process. The NPPF itself, when we looked at it, is actually quite a good document. The problem is that the year before it came into force, the 2011 Localism Act came in, and that actually set the tone. What it meant was the NPPF was then interpreted locally. All of this really is a land use issue—and this is my major concern with the brownfield-first approach because yes, you can convert a lot of buildings from commercial to residential, but these are sites allocated for non-housing use. So now you’ve increased the populations locally, and you don’t have enough space to put the non-housing elements. So, what do you do? You either don’t build them—which is what we’ve been doing for 20 years—or you use land outside of your communities and increase car dependence, which is obviously against all their climate emergency calls, so they won’t do that. So what we’ll end up doing is not building it. That’s why I quite liked Jenrick’s generous approach, because it introduced certainty in the system, certainty that local politicians could say, ‘This is what we are designing, and we will accept this because you inform us how to deliver that’. Thank God they saved design codes, because at least they offer certainty and potentially reduce the pressures on local authorities, because if you meet X, you should get planning permission. So, the NPPF is good, but the Localism Act makes it pointless.

AJ: One of the proposals under the NPPF changes is where authorities have got an adopted local plan, changes to the operation of five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test will limit the potential for developers to bring forward sites under the presumption in favour of sustainable development (‘the tilted balance’). But we’ve got local plans that were adopted in 2020-2021 that already cannot meet on their five-year housing land supply.

“There are pockets of land that are just isolated, surrounded by infrastructure or residential development, which are in the green belt that just make no sense to not develop”

CF: ‘Soundness’ sounds very fluffy to me—something that can be interpreted and implemented in a lot of different ways. We all know that on a national level, there are nowhere near enough houses being built. If there’s not a marked change in how the planning system is motivated to process things quickly—whether that’s granting or rejecting permission so people can get through the process—I’m sceptical whether it will make a difference to increase the number, and may lead to fewer homes being built which, given the targets we have, is obviously not what we need.

AD: The new NPPF also proposes introducing an additional permissionsbased test, which will switch off the ‘tilted balance’ as a consequence of under-delivery if a local planning authority can show there are sufficient deliverable permissions to meet the housing requirement, or have additional contingency for planning permissions likely not to progress. How do you think this will play out?

AJ: At the moment, the presumption or the tilted balance applies when, for example, a local planning authority doesn’t have its fiveyear housing land supply in place, and then there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development over and above some of the local plan policies—such as, for example, countryside policies, which is quite often where developments might be located where there are no sites left and it’s generally greenfield sites coming forward. The presumption generally kicks in at appeal—it can apply at local level but, obviously, that depends on local members acknowledging they don’t have a five-year housing land supply. So, I think if you’re taking away or amending the tilted balance or reducing the number of circumstances in which you can apply it, then clearly there will be even fewer houses built than there are now. That’s going to have a knock-on effect, in particular on the delivery of affordable housing because, clearly, if you’re not delivering on your market housing, you’re not going to be delivering on your affordable housing.

AD: There are also talks about local planning authorities no longer being required to review and alter green belt boundaries. What impact will this have on housing delivery?

AJ: Currently, it’s really difficult to deliver housing in the green belt. There have been only a few permissions that have been granted on appeal where the sites haven’t been allocated, but it’s a trend that’s occurred over the past couple of years where the housing land supply has been so low that inspectors have allowed green belt development. By not allowing any review of the green belt, as it is proposed, we will maintain the status quo and there won’t be any housing development in it. And yet, we’re obviously hearing from the Labour Party quite strongly that there are parts of the green belt that are brownfield sites and degraded landscapes that haven’t got any particular landscape designations. That, I think, is probably reflective of how we as planners see the green belt. It was put there to stop urban sprawl back in the postwar period. It served a purpose then, but things have changed and they need to be reviewed. There are pockets of land that are just isolated, surrounded by infrastructure or residential development, which are in the green belt that just make no sense to not develop. Then you’ve got degraded landscapes and old commercial sites, because green belts can wash over entire areas, including villages and employment sites, and it just makes anything really difficult to do in the green belt, yet they offer a lot of potential because they’re in sustainable locations—a lot of them are close to train stations and what have you.

RB: One of the things I find curious is that 7.1% of London’s green belt are golf courses. Some green belt sites are not this idyllic, wonderful green space where we can all go out and sit and get some clean, fresh air. Some of them are either for private use or, as Alyson was saying, it’s not even that particularly pleasant or idyllic. So it does seem that the green belt initiative was a very sensible one when it was first proposed, but it is certainly in need of being reassessed.

“There are so many sites stuck on our pipeline at the moment that should have been delivered in spring but they don’t even have a spade in the ground”

AC: Well, it’s a dirty word we misuse. As soon as anyone mentions the green belt, straight away [the response is], ‘You can’t do that to it’. I had a flyer for the local elections just come through saying, if Labour get in, they’ll concrete over the entire green belt.

RB: The word green used in that context keeps the status quo, because people associate greenery with positive. We can’t get away from the politics of it, unfortunately.

RW: We also need to remember that the green belt isn’t what many people believe it is. The green belt is a very specific area and local authorities can effectively allocate something as green belt, but it’s not actually green belt; it’s just green land they don’t want to build on. So, it’s not part of that original 1950s green belt strategy, it’s something slightly different. That is a major issue, especially for more rural communities where the larger builders don’t particularly build, but the smaller ones do. They’re the ones that build out those communities and deliver high-quality buildings and good places. Density is another challenge because, if you can only build to a certain level, if the local authority has a concern about overdevelopment, as they call it, then you can’t make a project work, especially with the high costs of decontamination for brownfield sites. We’ve got this whole gentle density approach, and that’s fine for towns. But in cities, building up to nine or 10 storeys just doesn’t cut it, and good luck trying to get a 30- or 40-storey site on any sort of brownfield; it’s just impossible.

AD: With regard to the density aspect, this is briefly mentioned in the new NPPF proposals. It wants to discourage high-density developments that ‘would be significantly out of character for an area’. What do you think of this?

RW: Well, I would say one thing: what’s more out of character for an area than lots of people who can’t afford to live there? Surely, that’s what is more out of character, people having to sleep in temporary homes or sleep rough. Would you prefer that, rather than a bit of green space used? There’s one other thing people don’t mention enough, and it drives me mad. In the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the government is proposing to protect landscapes as a material consideration. What on earth are they doing? Not just for the housing but, if you’re a farmer who wants to stick up an industrial building, now you can’t because it’s harder. You are simply adding more weight to not building houses because of the green belt element. And, with that density element, you can’t build more dense because, as you just identified there, it’s out of character.

“We’re seeing a very underserved department within local and centralised government, which naturally blocks the whole process”

AD: Speaking of character, the framework also mentions specific design codes that set out minimum standards for development—height, form, density etc. What are the pros and cons of this proposed change, and how could this influence the types of developments created in different regions?

AJ: So the government is talking about a national design code, but then there’ll be a requirement for local authorities to prepare design codes, which would then look more locally. I think this is probably helpful for developers in that they will at least know what the parameters are and what they need to achieve.

CG: Yes, it sets clear guidelines for developers as to what they can or cannot work to. I’m sure I read somewhere—correct me if I’m wrong—but airspace/mansard developments are now a key feature, as long as they are in keeping with existing developments in the area. Adrian can comment better than anybody here as to how difficult it is to fund airspace.

AC: We’ve done a couple since Covid, because that’s obviously become a lot trendier since then. But it’s by no means straightforward.

KK: We funded quite a few but, yes, it’s actually very complicated.

RW: I think the design codes are important because they just give a bit of confidence to local people so they know what’s going to come forward . . . and to developers by removing some of the insecurity within the system. If you know what you can deliver, you can therefore plan more easily; I think that is a positive sign. And also, the local authority uses fewer resources.

AC: Yes, the more clarity the better in all these scenarios.

AJ: It might mean an initial slowdown as these things are introduced and everybody gets to grips with them. It’s also about making sure the local authority is appropriately resourced to deliver on their versions of the design code and that it is sufficiently flexible to reflect the different types of character that each local authority will have within their boundaries, whether that’s urban or rural.

AD: One motion that’s somewhat vague in the NPPF proposals is about encouraging the greater use of small sites, especially for delivering affordable housing—the consultation is looking for people’s opinions on how this can be achieved. How do you think the policy could be strengthened to encourage the greater use of small sites and promote more affordable housing?

CF: I think it’s by streamlining any sort of administration; the bureaucratic processes are even more relevant to SME developers. These guys haven’t got a back office full of people who can do endless rounds of paperwork admin for them so, if you can make sure the key things that planners and local authorities need ticked are hit to allow an application for a small site to go through, but at a lighter, less bureaucratic level, I think that would really help and wouldn’t put off so many SME developers. I know guys who will not get involved in the planning process and will buy only oven-ready sites whereas, if the process was a bit more streamlined and black and white, they would certainly look at that as an avenue.

AJ: Absolutely. Also, when allocating small sites, lots of local authorities just leave those to windfalls but, actually, there are some that should just be allocated. It just makes it much easier and cleaner, and authorities can say what they are expecting on it. It’s also about being really clear about affordable housing and making sure those thresholds are decided in a way that makes it viable for small operators.

“Even if there was a huge overhaul and the system was restructured and made to be far more efficient, it’s only realistic with a huge majority government”

RB: In a sense, this goes back to the zoning point earlier of just having a much more simplified process for specific areas and certain kinds of development. If there was a set of criteria that were applicable to small sites—one would obviously define what’s small, medium etc—it would make it infinitely easier for a lot of developers. They could also anticipate what their margins would be like at the start of the process with a lot more clarity.

AJ: I think that’s right in terms of the principle, and then perhaps the details—the neighbour interaction and everything else— still needs a level of policy influence. But, in terms of the principle of bringing forward a site, you’re absolutely right.

RW: The government views SMEs as small [if they are delivering] up to 100 homes, medium for up to 2,000 homes, and large for above 2,000. That doesn’t really marry to what most people think of as an SME, so they need to change that so it will allow us to automatically collect data in the right way. One of the ways they could do that more easily is to amend the planning definitions. So, a minor site would have up to 10 homes/ units, a medium-sized site—which should be added—between 10 and 50, and then a large or major site could be above 50. Technically, in the NPPF, there is already some sort of mention of a medium-sized site, so that should be quite an easy thing to do. With regard to streamlined planning, we already have local development orders (LDOs) in place, but they’re not really used for housing. But, if you wanted to build a bunch of Passivhaus homes, you could use an LDO for Passivhaus homes in an area so, if you’re delivering there, you get a streamlined planning process. So really, we’re not very strategic in the way we consider this, and that really does impact SMEs. And, obviously, you’ve got the allocations. Alyson correctly mentioned we need to allocate some of those smaller sites—we can do that by having a smaller sites register that you can dip into easily and give yourself a bit more certainty, because those sites do deliver more quickly and, actually, they proportionately deliver more affordable housing. The final point is

the subdivision of large site policy. If you strengthen the compulsory purchase order process local authorities have and reduce some of the costs of the legal elements, then you could deliver those sites for SMEs—either with services in place, or many SMEs joining together as we used to do before the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

AJ: I think the new framework almost needs to go backwards for the time being, so at least we can progress with some clarity and take back from this knee-jerk reaction to the backbench rebellion and really make local plans progress. The government just needs to say what they are going to do and when, as we still don’t know what the changes will be and when they’ll come through, although some of the NPPF changes are now expected September 2023. So, I think it will be better to say they’re not going to bring any of these fundamental changes in now, and leave it to the next administration.

CF: Yes. The new NPPF doesn’t seem to do anything to resolve the issue of the difference between national need and the local government, with regard to what they want to approve and put through. So, until that is sorted, I don’t think it will make a huge amount of difference. Constantly moving the goalposts on what you need to get permission is probably not particularly helpful, either. Where we are in the cycle, [they need to] optimise what we can do over the next 18 months in terms of clearing as much of the slate as possible and, when the political situation is a bit clearer, maybe someone can solve it longer term.

“Planning has just become much more politicised than I think it ever has before, which has a lot of consequences”

AD: If you could pick one specific initiative that could potentially solve all these planning delays and issues, what would that be?

AJ: Regional planning—but it would have to be done in some disguise, politically. So looking at a region and how that operates. We’ve got various local authorities working together in South West Hertfordshire, Dorset, Buckinghamshire and other parts of the country, and I think that’s probably what needs to happen.

RB: The only thing I’d add, going back to the politics of it, is that even if there was a huge overhaul and the system was restructured and made to be far more efficient, it’s only realistic with a huge majority government. Because the actual fruits of those efforts and all the political capital that one would spend doing it, you likely won’t see until you’re out of office. There’s not much political incentive to do it; there’s a lack of political mileage in doing it because you’re not going to be the party that reaps the rewards of it.

RW: Bring back Robert Jenrick’s planning reforms—I’m not even joking. They weren’t brilliant, but they were a good idea. The worst thing about that whole conversation was that it invited people to engage in betterment of the reforms and nobody did—not one political party tried to make them better; they tried to get rid of them. And that should tell you everything about the public system as it currently is; it mostly prefers tinkering because reform loses political capital, that is the big problem here. Rob said we lack political capital. Imagine if we had a government that had an 86-seat political majority: wouldn’t that be nice?

AC: The one word that keeps on getting repeated is clarity —if we had a bit of that, it would be appreciated.

CF: They need more money and resources to make decisions more quickly. It’s clear to me that planners are chronically under-resourced and therefore the decisions they’re making are not quick nor informed enough.

RB: That’s exactly what I was going to say. In the absence of proper structural reform, then the least they can do is fund the planning departments appropriately, so they have enough people to deal with the applications that are coming in. A wide-scale reform is not really going to happen any time soon; but that’s something they could feasibly do at the moment.

KK: In my opinion, I think less bureaucracy and red tape, and faster decision-making is what we all need. We need more action and fewer words.

“We’ve highlighted what the key issues are within planning in the UK, but there doesn’t seem to be a workable framework that connects the dots. I just think it’s more text”

Stop. Wasting. Time.

(on your bridging deals)

Feel free to waste your time on other pursuits, just not on your bridging deals. In fact, have more time to waste on other stuff by submitting deals quickly through our portal, with instant quotes, AVMs, and enquiries in under a minute.

Mortgages made simple

Search | LendInvest

if you do not keep up repayments on your mortgage.

Guy Harrington

Guyof all trades

Words by ANDREEA DULGHERU

Guy Harrington is best known for creating and leading specialist lender Glenhawk. However, behind the property finance expert and aficionado image lies a deeper character, passionate about all things with wheels and the thrill of any innovation. I sit down with him to discover more about his eclectic career, his decision to launch Glenhawk, and the company’s plans to grow

Back when he was a child, it wasn’t property finance that was on Guy’s mind when thinking about careers—quite far from that, as his heart’s desire was to be a meteorologist, thanks to his fascination with thunderstorms and lightning. “In the end, I entered a space that ultimately is a bit like the weather—sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad, and sometimes you get struck by lightning,” he jokes.

His passion for property came on a seemingly random day out spent with a pal—a defining moment for Guy and one that he vividly remembers to this day: “I was with my friend and his dad at their house. My friend’s father was a property developer, and I remember asking him how to get into it, to which he answered to ‘Just do it’. That stayed with me throughout my teens, and I ended up going to university to study commercial property management,” recalls Guy.

While at university, he showcased his entrepreneurial skills quite early, setting up a business where he’d sell mobile phones from a local retailer to students for a profit. However, Guy’s time at university was short-lived; while he loved reading books and learning new things—and still does—he realised quite quickly that the world of academia didn’t fit him, which led him to drop out.

Kaleidoscope of ventures

With the money earned from his university business venture, Guy decided to use it as deposit for acquiring a small portfolio of BTLs in the north of England. At the same time, he worked for a car-exporting business for two years—quite different from his love of property. “I’m passionate about anything with wheels—planes, motorbikes etc. I’m a bit of a petrolhead at heart, so when this lovely

guy, Raj, approached me to help him export cars from the UK to Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia, I jumped at the opportunity as it looked interesting. We were probably one of the leading exporters for a two-year period, and then the market got really competitive, which is when my attention flicked back to property,” he explains.

After his time at the car exporter, Guy moved to London where his connections with various estate agents and developers led him to create his next business venture, helping property investors find and manage their upcoming projects. This saw him scout for property opportunities, present a detailed investment plan to a potential buyer, and handle all aspects of the deal, from the buying process with all parties, securing the necessary finance, arranging refurbishments—including assessing and managing build costs—and handling the sale of the improved property. “I very quickly got two or three people who came to me as their guy to help them source opportunities all over central London. I'd be seeing 15–20 properties a day back to back, trying to find opportunities, and probably one in 100 that I saw came to fruition. I ended up doing a lot of developments in Fulham and Kensington, as well as some in Wandsworth and Putney. I had an exciting time doing that.”

While property is his main passion, Guy tells me he is always open to new opportunities to innovate in any sector—which is the reason why he ended up co-founding and developing a voice-based dating application,

“Ultimately, you don’t know everything, so it’s important to be surrounded by the best people possible; pay them well and treat them fairly, and they’ll grow with you”

Revealr, back in 2013, while still working in his solo property business. “At the time of founding it, I was living with my best friend and his girlfriend. I had come back from a date one night and I thought there was a problem, as all the time you’re messaging away on dating apps, you’re just talking through text—so why not do something like Blind Date that Cilla Black hosted in the 90s? My friend, being a very good developer and chief technology officer, said he could build it, and I’d do the marketing, branding, and raise the funding for it to launch. So, we built it in about four months and it did really well—we had nearly half a million users on it at its highest point, and we were featured in Time Magazine,” he recalls. After a while, Guy and his friend ended up selling the app to a large dating company.

Swapping sides

It was the same passion to innovate that drove Guy to launch Glenhawk in 2018. After years of using different bridging lenders for the property developments he was working on with his clients, he identified several points in a deal that he thought he could do more efficiently. And so, after hours spent in a cafe in Putney finding the right name for the business, Glenhawk was born. A combination between the word ‘glen’, which is a valley in Scotland, and ‘hawk’, the name is meant to symbolise bridging finance—as the hawk connects the two sides of the glen. However, Guy lets me in on a little secret: the meaning behind Glenhawk came after he selected the name, not before, as one would expect. “I

was on a domain branding site generator looking at some one-word names like all the big powerful brands that I admired. I ended up buying the name Glenhawk, and then six months later, I looked at it and thought [of the meaning]. So you’ve got the exciting marketing side, and the very dull reality of me sitting in the café in Putney coming up with a name.”

Shortly after this, Guy brought in Nick Hilton—who is now the managing director of the specialist lender—to help build the brand using his extensive experience. “A mortgage broker, Paul Agnew, introduced me to Nick, who absolutely lives and breathes bridging. He's not only incredibly passionate about it, but also a phenomenal problem solver, and I'm really glad to say he's one of my best mates. Nick brought so much knowledge to the business in terms of the procedures and operations, and that enabled us to start building out the platform,” Guy tells me. “Ultimately, you don’t know everything, so it's important to be surrounded by the best people possible; pay them well and treat them fairly, and they'll grow with you. Nick and that early team were instrumental in getting Glenhawk going, and they were a big part of us attracting investment into the business.”

Throughout its five-year history, Glenhawk has gone from strength to strength, lending hundreds of millions of pounds to borrowers—the highest monthly sum lent being £54m, recorded in May 2023—and securing several funding lines from investors, including £200m from NatWest and £200m from JP Morgan— which Guy quotes as one of his biggest career achievements. However, the journey was not without its bumps, as the business was affected by Brexit and Covid-19, and now inflation and numerous Bank of England base rate hikes—the latter Guy cites as the toughest challenge to date.

“We offer fixed-rate loans, so our funding is linked to SONIA and, as that starts to creep up, that erodes our margin,” divulges Guy. “Last year was painful. We were meant to have a nicely profitable year, but it cost us several million in the end, which was unavoidable, because you can’t hedge short-term loans. We mitigated it by putting up client rates like every lender did in the market and by putting more fees on our products, which wasn’t enjoyable, but here we are now—we've ridden it

“We’re working every day as a team to make our borrowers’ and intermediaries’ lives easier and build something that people are proud of using”

out. We learnt a lot from this; we’ve got protections in place for rate rises to go far higher than they are now, and we're in a great position where we're back on profit monthly and everything's stable.”

While the company has hit several milestones, the specialist lender’s ambitious founder is not fully satisfied with where it’s at. “Yes, we’re lending half a billion a year now in the bridging space and we’re backed by JP Morgan, NatWest, and some amazing hedge funds but, to me, the job is still not done; I feel like we’re only one-third of the way through the journey,” he states, adding that his goal is to get Glenhawk to reach £500m of assets under management in 2024, then £1bn within the next three years and, ultimately, hit £1.5bn. Not only that, but he also anticipates the lender to hit £1bn of bridging lending in Q1 next year.

Guy also has big plans to bring some industry heavyweights to boost its operations team, as well as to expand its proposition. He confirms that Glenhawk is looking to introduce a BTL product range in 2024.

“BTL is crowded at the moment, for sure, but I feel the market will be a slightly more attractive place for us strategically to go into early or mid-next year.”

The founder also highlights the company’s desire to offer a range of traditional, regulated mortgages, including specialist homeowner loans, facilities for borrowers with slightly adverse credit, the self-employed, and more. “Once we've covered the mortgage market, we can look at asset and business finance. I really want to take the whole group and brand not just in real estate finance but also in other asset-backed areas . . . I feel we have the platform to do that. 2024 will be our golden year where we can really ramp up into other areas—as long as the market is back to normal and rates are looking more favourable.”

Sharing his predictions for the overall UK market, Guy tells me he expects to see the Bank of England base rate go up to 6% by the end of this year. He also forecasts a short recession this winter, which will then lead to a drop in interest rates to 2.5% or 3% by Q2 2024. “Normally, I'm a very positive person, but I'm also a realist. I think what we're seeing now and what the Bank of England hasn't seen is the huge lag in the tail that is on these interest rate rises. So, if they're still upping them towards the end of this year, that lag will knock into Q1 and that's when we'll start to see a bit of stress on everybody.”

Nevertheless, Guy believes the UK is strong and resilient enough to pull through. “People always buy property and need mortgages, so there'll always be demand there from our side. I think the UK is in a pretty good place to weather this out and head into the new year in quite a strong position.”

His optimism is even greater when it comes to Glenhawk, as Guy is confident the lender is more than capable to succeed and evolve, despite what challenges may come its way. “The business is very resilient; we've got great funders and an excellent team so, if something does come along, we adapt, innovate, and we move on. We're working every day as a team to make our borrowers’ and intermediaries’ lives easier and build something that people are proud of using, and our team are proud of supplying as well.”

While he admits he is often too hard on himself and doesn’t take the time to pat himself on the back for his achievements, Guy tells me he is incredibly pleased with Glenhawk’s evolution throughout the years— from an idea born in a café to a successful short-term lender nearing £1bn of bridging lending—and is motivated at the prospect of growing the business further. “I’ve always had in my head [the idea of having] 200 staff, so I can look across the business at all these people with their individual skills, working towards one goal, one dream. Seeing this one day across the floor in a big office building would be amazing.”“2024”

“2024 will be our golden year where we can really ramp up into other areas—as long as the market is back to normal and rates are looking more favourable”

CULTURE VS ENERGY EFFICIENCY: FINDING THE RETROFITTING BALANCE

Retrofitting the UK’s rattling historic homes is no mean feat. We look at how these buildings can meet 21st-century demands while preserving their rich heritage

Words by ANDREEA DULGHERU

Half-timbered medieval cottages in Lavenham, Suffolk

HAVE

OVER THE CENTURIES,

CULTURE

“BUILDINGS

CHANGED

AND

CHANGES ALL THE TIME. I THINK WE ARE TOO PROTECTIVE AND SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE”

Retrofitting listed and historic buildings has received relatively little attention, despite the fact that property age is the biggest single factor in the lack of energy efficiency and that older buildings account for a sizeable chunk of all UK homes.

Nearly one in four dwellings—6.2 million properties—in the UK were built before 1919, according to a study commissioned by the National Trust, Peabody, Historic England, the Crown Estate and Grosvenor. Addressing the energy efficiency of these often draughty old homes is essential, given the impending green building targets and that the built environment accounts for 25% of all UK emissions, as reported by the UK Green Building Council.

So the question is: can historic and listed buildings be retrofitted? The short answer is yes—but it’s not without its complexities.

LOOKING AT THE BIGGER PICTURE

When it comes to retrofitting this type of property, Historic England guidance emphasises the need to take a “whole-building approach” because of the differences in construction methods between these homes and newer builds. While modern buildings depend on impermeable barriers to control the movement of moisture and air through their fabric, properties built using traditional methods absorb moisture from the air surrounding them and release it according to environmental conditions. Put simply, modern homes are designed to be airtight, while historic ones were made to breathe.

Although this simple principle applies to most traditionally built properties, individual homes can have their own characteristics as

there were no set construction standards at the time; in comparison, more modern dwellings built from 1965 onwards follow the national building standards first introduced then by the Building Regulations Act.

“Every historic building's energy performance varies; there are many interacting factors involved, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution to making a building energy efficient,” explains a spokesperson for Historic England. “To understand the energy performance of any building and identify opportunities for improvements, all the factors that affect energy use and efficiency and how these are interlinked need to be considered.”

To understand the thermal performance of each historic building, several technologies can be employed, such as air pressurisation testing to determine how airtight a property is. In this procedure, a fan is set temporarily into a doorway to create a pressure differential, which allows the amount of air leakage through the building’s envelope to be quantified. This can be used alongside infrared video and still cameras to show surface temperature variation across the building envelope to accurately reveal cracks, open joins and other defects that can be fixed to prevent air leaking out and therefore heat loss.

In addition, the whole-building approach takes into account environmental, community, economic and cultural issues. With regard to the latter, retrofitting works must not reduce the building’s heritage value. “At its most basic, this could be looking at any listing or speaking with the local conservation officer or a heritage-accredited building professional but, more technically, it can involve carrying out an assessment of the building’s significance following the principles in documents like BS7913 and/or guides by organisations such as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and Historic England,” explains Matt King, senior building asset manager

for land and nature at the National Trust. “Once you understand what makes your building significant, you can then review the retrofit measures available and consider the impact these interventions will have on the significance of the building—this is called a heritage impact assessment and is often needed for listed building consent.”

The preservation of a listed building’s cultural heritage adds even more complexity to the process of retrofitting these specific properties from a regulatory point of view. In addition to planning permission—which may be required for substantial retrofitting works, or if an article 4 direction is in effect in the area—anyone undertaking retrofitting works for listed and historic buildings must obtain listed building consent in order to carry them out. In general terms, listed building consent is required for all works of demolition, alteration, or extension to a listed building—or objects and structures within its curtilage, such as outbuildings—that affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

When applying for such consent, one must include sufficient detail to allow the impact of works to be properly assessed. This includes the provision of a site plan, location plan, design and access statement, and a heritage impact assessment. Once submitted, the local planning authority will confirm its decision within eight weeks—which includes a 21-day consultation period with neighbours and interested parties.

It is important to note that carrying out retrofitting works on a listed building without this consent is a criminal offence. The only acceptable defence for such an offence is if the works are urgently necessary in the interest of health and safety or for the preservation of the building, as long as the works carried out are limited to the minimum measures urgently needed and the person completing the works has notified the local planning authority and offered a justification as soon as possible.

As you start working on statutorily protected buildings, the knowledge and skills required to successfully implement a retrofit are significant

Although historic and listed buildings need an individualised approach, some retrofitting measures are usually acceptable for many of them. “Roof insulation is one of the first things you’d look at trying to do. It’s an easy win, as there’s probably a void where you can put insulation in without affecting anything,” explains Katherine Watts, architect and leader of the conservation and heritage team at John McAslan + Partners. “Windows are another thing to look at; depending on how historic they are, you can either do secondary glazing or potentially replace them. For listed buildings, one of the criteria is that works should be reversible, which is why secondary glazing is preferred over window replacement, because you can obviously just take it out [if needed] and you haven’t lost anything.”

Other low-cost and low-risk options that are encouraged by Historic England include draughtproofing; thermal performance can be improved through curtains and blinds as well as putting rugs and carpets down on ground floors.

RISK FROM MODERN MATERIALS

A substantial issue when retrofitting historic and listed buildings is the type of materials and technologies used to carry out the works, as old and new buildings have different requirements. Specific materials, such as lime mortar, lath, plaster and timber, are often necessary to retrofit a historic property—however, they are not always used. “What often happens is that people try to make an older property perform like a modern building, but it doesn’t work like that. A lot of problems with historic buildings occur when you try to apply a modern method to it. For instance, if you try to put a vapour membrane inside a historic building, you could end up trapping the moisture and get a wet wall, which is much worse performing than a

dry wall. So, you’re compounding the problem rather than solving it,” states Katherine.

Using the wrong materials can cause severe damage, such as condensation, mould growth, or dry and wet rot, which can affect the health of the building’s inhabitants. It can also mean a significant loss of historic fabric and value, failure to reduce energy consumption, and even do more harm than good in terms of environmental sustainability.

Solving this issue poses a much bigger problem than one might think. On top of the ongoing material shortage crisis, Victoria Herring, director of sustainability programme for the UK at Grosvenor, explains that there is a shortage of innovation when it comes to developing technologies to retrofit historic buildings, due to the lack of demand to carry out these types of projects—thus making it less appealing to invest and design new product for retrofitting historic homes. She adds that, despite this need for innovation, progress will not happen until there are clearer national and local policies that support and encourage sensitive retrofitting.

INCONSISTENT OFFICIALS

Despite the reports and guidance documents published by several national organisations, including Historic England, inconsistency of advice from local authorities and conservation officers and in rules with regard to retrofitting historic buildings appears to be plaguing the sector. “I know how hard everyone is working in this area, how under-resourced some offices are and the speed at which they are trying to upskill in what is a rapidly changing environment, but we certainly see examples of things like secondary glazing being acceptable in one area and then unacceptable elsewhere on a building of very similar style or significance,”

states Matt. “That said, I also think building professionals can do better by ensuring that applications for consent are well thought out and follow Historic England’s guidance for the intervention being proposed.”

According to Rico Wojtulewicz, head of housing and planning policy at the National Federation of Builders (NFB), this is compounded by some heritage officers’ stringent view of what qualifies as cultural heritage. “Buildings have changed over the centuries, and culture changes all the time. I think we are too protective and specific as to what is acceptable. A good example of heritage mobility is vehicles—we’re now moving to electric cars, but what happens to all those heritage vehicles and trains? I don’t understand why on one hand we’re all about protecting buildings, but we’re happy to go the other way on vehicles. The balance really needs to be in the middle.”

When asked about the solution to this conundrum, Victoria, Matt and Rico all agree that a new national policy for retrofitting historic buildings is necessary to ensure advice given to people undertaking these projects is consistent. “That also requires the heritage sector to step back a little, accept change, and work with it to achieve the best outcome—not simply the outcomes it views as best,” adds Rico.

SPECIALIST BUILDING WORKERS

Another issue that complicates matters even more is the shortage of suitably skilled workers. “As you start working on statutorily protected buildings, the knowledge and skills required to successfully implement a retrofit are significant. This is not an area where you want to be working with someone who is applying knowledge of retrofit and energy efficiency measures from simpler buildings,” warns Matt.

What often happens is that people try to make an older property perform like a modern building, but it doesn’t work like that

NATIONAL POLICY AND YOU HAVE THE DEMAND, THEN YOU’RE NOT GOING TO GET PEOPLE BEING TRAINED AND UNDERSTANDING THESE BUILDINGS”

“UNLESS YOU HAVE AN OVERARCHING

Rico underlines the importance of having skilled workers to retrofit a historic building, giving the installation of a suspended timber frame floor as an example: “This floor has got to retain the air so the flow continues, as that’s what keeps the foundation and structure of your building dry. You’ve got to do that in a very precise way to ensure you're not damaging the building. For instance, you may then need to have ventilation via either air bricks or telescopic air bricks so that you continually have that air flow. You may also need to fill some of the mortar joints around your bricks. There are lots of different elements that need to be done—that's why you need a skilled workforce, because they're the ones who will analyse exactly what needs to be done on a building in its entirety.”

Employing workers who do not understand traditional building approaches and the cultural value of such properties could result in damage to heritage significance through accidental alteration or removal of historic features. “You hear these horror stories of people going into heritage buildings and maybe stripping out period features without having consent and not understanding that they can work around those features with a bit of thought and understanding,” says Victoria.

The Heritage and Carbon Report estimates that 100,000 people are currently working on historic buildings, and a further 105,000 full-time workers—including 14,500 more electricians and 14,300 more plumbers—will be needed each year until 2050 to focus solely on upgrading buildings built before 1919.

In order to do so, both Victoria and Rico believe further training is required to extend the skilled workforce needed to carry out retrofitting works to the millions of historic buildings in the UK—a suggestion echoed in the Heritage and Carbon report, which calls for the government to allocate unspent funds to training more people with heritage retrofitting skills. “Unless you have an overarching national policy and you have the demand, then you're not going to get people being trained and understanding these buildings,” says Victoria.

Rico believes a steady supply of work is also necessary to drive this, in conjunction with training schemes. “No company will train somebody over three years without any pipeline of work afterwards; the finances just don’t work. If you want to ensure your workforce has

greater capacity, it’s not simply about training people—it’s also about ensuring you have a pipeline of work so that people are retained,” he explains. “When the government gives a signifier to the industry that it is going to back this and there is a pipeline of work, the market will then move itself to provide the capacity and the innovation.”

A BIG CHEQUE FOR A BIG JOB—SO WHO PAYS?

Aside from being a complicated task, retrofitting a historic building doesn’t come cheap—particularly as the lack of skilled labour drives the already high prices up even further. “It’s a skilled job and there are very few people doing it, so it’s a ‘name your price’ situation,” states Rico.

So how expensive is it to retrofit a historic building? Victoria explains that it is hard to estimate an average, as the cost will depend on the complexity of the works required and where the building is located. However, based on 2019 costs and using Grosvenor’s previous work as an example—done in central London, where the firm primarily operates—she estimates a simple retrofitting project would cost roughly £10-15 per sq ft, going up to £33 per sq ft for complex work.

“Lime mortar can be two or three times the price of ordinary plaster, while a timber window is six times the price of a uPVC window. And, of course, skilled workers are few and far between, so they rightly charge more for their works to be done to high standards. You’ve also got to consider the costs of enabling that work; you may need an architect, so it might cost you a few thousand pounds just to get the technical drawings done,” explains Rico.

Rico adds that the lengthy process of applying and obtaining for planning permission and listed building consent—which he claims could take 6–12 months—could also see costs driven up due to material price increases and inflation during the waiting period. “As complicated as that is for charities that own heritage buildings, at least they have some level of security as they have reserves. If you're an ordinary person living in one of these buildings, you don't have as much capital or financial reserves”, he adds.

Rico’s calculations paint an even bleaker picture, as he claims it would cost about £2 trillion to retrofit all UK buildings in need of this—of which minimum £40bn

would be solely for listed buildings—and decarbonise their energy sources. “If you do that, you also need to decarbonise the [whole electricity] grid; the figures there are between £2.8 trillion and £3.8 trillion, so you’re looking at a total of £5 trillion—and I think I’m being conservative,” he elaborates.

Such a hefty bill begs the question: do we have enough funding for this? Victoria and Rico don’t think so, which is why they believe the government needs to step in. They recommend several options, such as the partial or full reduction of VAT for retrofitting works on historic buildings to match the policy for certain energy-saving materials introduced by the government in March 2022. “There’s nowhere near enough funding but, if we're being completely honest, if we want the government to put their hands in our pockets—as it's taxpayer funding—we need to make sure we're getting value for money,” states Rico.

HIGH RISK, HIGH REWARD

With such a complex process, sprinkled with many difficulties, it’s understandable why some may be put off from retrofitting historic buildings. Nevertheless, the benefits this brings to the table are just as big as the challenges. According to Victoria, successfully retrofitting a historic property can result in up to a 90% reduction in carbon emissions and greater energy efficiency, depending on the complexity of the works done, leading to a significant drop in bills for inhabitants.

At a larger scale, Historic England predicts that if the UK refurbishes and retrofits 50% of its pre-1919 housing between 2021 and 2031, this could reduce 39.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Not only this, but the Heritage and Carbon report estimates that scaling up the construction sector with the skills necessary to retrofit the UK’s historic buildings would lead to an additional £35bn of output annually, supporting around 290,000 jobs.

Although the process of retrofitting all of the UK’s historic buildings seems to be a long, arduous and expensive process, there is no denying that this is indeed possible—and necessary to fulfil the country’s ambitious sustainability plans. As Historic England states, it’s not a question of “if ” change can be accommodated, but rather “ how ”.

Limelight

A glimpse into our ever-busy schedule

1

Who: Finanze

Where: Brickhouse Social, Manchester

What: Celebrating Finanze’s second anniversary—no Bens this time, but great food, drinks and company as always

2

Who: Funding 365

Where: Albie, Southwark

What: Discussing the current state of the market and planning our next karaoke session, while also learning two surprising facts: how many cars there are in the world, and how much Mike loves potatoes

3

Who: Octane Capital, Seddons and Colliers

Where: Seddons’ HQ, Fitzrovia

What: Getting a glimpse into the bridging trends from three perspectives, where profit margins are heading for developers, and Colliers getting bombarded with valuation questions…

4

Who: Together

Where: Forest Of Arden Marriott Hotel & Country Club, Birmingham

What: Getting to know one another over a competitive day of golf training, with winners taking home a spa day experience—self-assessed winners, mind you

5

Who: Avamore Capital

Where: Blandford Comptoir, Marylebone

What: Catching up with the lovely Avamore team while enjoying some delicious Mediterranean food

6

Who: Zenzic Capital

Where: Circolo Popolare, London

What: The history of Zenzic, what not to wear to an interview, our love of country music, and why Dollywood should be on everyone’s bucket list

7

Who: Maine Communications

Where: Old Compton Brasserie, Soho

What: Enjoying some comfort food while sharing our best travel stories

8

Who: Propp

Where: Southsea Beach Club, Portsmouth

What: Dancing the night away at Propp’s inaugural summer party at Portsmouth’s answer to Nikki Beach, making friends with your outfit twin, and tray upon tray of Jägermeister

9

Who: B&C Awards 2023 Judging Panel

Where: Century Club, Soho

What: Witnessing the magic of a good debate as the top industry experts choose the winners for the coveted B&C Awards 2023, and seeing Gareth Lewis find his alternative career as a barista

Ten lessons we learnt at the Specialist Finance Symposium

On 20th June, Medianett Publishing hosted its inaugural Specialist Finance Symposium, which brought together some of the biggest industry titans to discuss all areas of the market. With panels on bridging, commercial mortgages and development finance—and popcorn at the ready—it was an afternoon of education and insight to remember. Here, we share some golden nuggets from the discussions

Words

by Andreea Dulgheru

Photography by Alexander Chai

BRIDGING FINANCE

Panellists: Charlie Gregory, BDM for the London and southern regions at Hope Capital; Mark Marlow, head of sales at Colenko; Sundeep Patel, director of bridging at UTB; Chris Whitney, head of specialist lending at Enness Private Clients; and Imogen Williams, regional sales manager for the South West at MFS

1. Rebridging is not always a bad thing

A recurring theme during the bridging panel is rebridging, with Chris indicating the misconceptions around this: “We are seeing a lot of rebridging loans, but I think it's a bit of a myth that it is automatically a bad thing or something's gone wrong. Rebridging isn’t necessarily a negative thing; I think, in the majority of cases, there's a more positive story behind it.”

He notes rebridging is another avenue to a successful project, pointing out that where an opportunity has changed—quite often for the better—a more profitable route is being uncovered.

Imogen agrees that rebridging is not simply an indicator of a troubled project: “We don't necessarily view it as a bad thing, as long as there's a solid explanation and, again, it comes back to a solid exit; things happen, the market changes, sometimes people can't exit. Often what you see now is a shift from people trying to exit via refinance to changing their exit to sale.”

However, Mark points out that a rebridging loan is not the right solution for all cases: “You've got instances where the borrowers have got schemes that have been mismanaged and they've run into difficulties, and putting them onto another bridging loan is probably not the right thing to do.”

2. Communication and brokers’ due diligence are key to avoid early administration and foreclosures

The latest EY UK Bridging Finance Market report reveals that 33% of bridging firms have seen a rise in foreclosures this year compared to 4% last year. This is a trend that both Sundeep and Chris are witnessing.

“I am seeing lenders call in administrators very quickly now,” says Chris. “I think some finance providers are using it as a tool to make sure the client does something. Borrowers don’t necessarily want to pay for another valuation, set of legals, or arrangement fee, and they’re always more optimistic than lenders—so they think if they can kick the can down the road for another three months, they’ll solve this and pay back the loan. However, I think lenders have become wise to that, which is why they’re taking action sooner.”

Meanwhile, Imogen, Charlie and Sundeep explain that lenders often take such action because the borrower does not inform them when problems arise. “It always depends on how willing the client is to work with the lender—if they bury their head in the sand, or promise things and then don’t deliver, lenders have no option,” explains Imogen. This is why the panellists advise clients to maintain an open and constant line of communication with their funding provider as well as their broker, and notify them of any issues that may

affect their ability to pay back their bridging loan. “It all relies on the client being very communicative toward the lender and how they’re going to solve the issue—this can go a long way and, if the broker gets involved, all the better,” she adds.

Mark emphasises the need for brokers to carry out their due diligence both when arranging the facility for the client and throughout the term. “If you're in that regular dialogue, you should be getting to a position where you know exactly what's going to happen with that bridging loan coming into the term. It's not just about the products or the headline rate—it's what's going to happen with our customer journey after.”

As for lenders, Charlie advises firms to keep an open mind when dealing with problematic deals to avoid unnecessary action or turning down cases. “When something does go wrong, it's quite easy to remember that deal and then tar any future enquiry that is similar to it with the same brush. So it's also important, from our perspective, to look at the bigger picture that every borrower is

different—they might have the same adverse [circumstances], but the property might be different. It’s trying to not let the old battle scars define your appetite moving forward.”

3. Bridging has become more mainstream—and this is set to stay

According to Chris, bridging finance has become a more sought-after product, and sometimes even a borrower’s first choice above other types of finance. “Bridging used to be something that clients were forced to use when they had no choice. We're now in the position where clients are coming to us specifically wanting to use a bridging provider, preferring not to use some other types of lenders. They got accustomed to the speed and efficiency [of a bridging loan]. Plus, the pricing in bridging finance, with moves in SONIA and base rates, means it isn't actually that much more expensive any longer.”

The panellists have seen bridging facilities obtained for a variety of uses, particularly development finance exits. “A lot of clients are

also using bridging for cashflow purposes, which historically has always been available. We’ve seen a rise in demand for that,” adds Sundeep.

4. The importance of varied funding lines, and doing your homework on this

During the panel discussion, Imogen and Mark highlight why it is integral for a lender to have a diverse pool of funding from multiple investors in order to be flexible. “The key is to have a mixture of both institutional funding lines—which are very good for access to a lot of capital—and more flexible funds that let you make certain allowances that you can’t with institutional sources,” comments Imogen.

Some industry experts have argued that the reliance on institutional funding lines is affecting bridging lenders’ nimbleness and agility. However, Chris offers a slightly different perspective. He does not believe that institutional funding is the issue, but rather lenders securing the same institutional funding lines—resulting in very similar propositions across multiple finance providers and thus restricting product options for brokers and their clients.

The panel also emphasise the need for brokers to inform themselves and their client on how a lender is funded, as that can directly impact the success of a bridging deal. “How lenders are funded also will give a broker an indication of how robust the finance provider is to deal with any changes throughout the term of the loan. Sometimes things happen in the legals or valuations but, if your lender has access to multiple or robust funding lines that are flexible, then if the deal changes mid-term, it may not be the be-all and end-all, which is important in this market because things seem to change at a very rapid pace,” says Imogen.

Sundeep agrees, adding that there is a greater onus on brokers to provide this background information on a lender to their customers, particularly as they are becoming more informed. “Clients are becoming more savvy and they're understanding what bridging is, so as the market develops and innovates, brokers need to make sure their clients are updated on that.”

COMMERCIAL MORTGAGES

Pa nellists: Gareth Anderson, head of business management at Allica Bank; Miranda Khadr, founder of Provide Finance; and Tom Simpson, MD at YBS Commercial Mortgages

5. Plenty of government financial support is available— but not for all SMEs

A primary point being discussed during the commercial panel is the financial support available to SMEs through government-backed schemes, such as CBILS and RLS. While Miranda emphasises that multiple lenders are still offering these loans, she points out there are several misunderstandings around this topic.

“I think anyone who's had a CBILS [facility] thinks they can't have a RLS [product]. You also have people who don't understand that there are loans out there for non-Covid affected businesses, and the list goes on,” she elaborates.

However, she notes there is a lack of government stimulus tailored to individual sectors, particularly for the hospitality industry, which has been severely affected by Covid-19 and is still feeling the aftermath. “Certain sectors, like hospitality, have been far worse hit—partly because of the economic crisis we’re currently in and the energy costs—and they’re simply left high and dry. I think we've got to put pressure on the forces that can make these changes [to provide] individualised sector help for each group of businesses.”

6. Fixed-rate commercial mortgages are here to stay

As the UK economy is experiencing volatility, with Bank of England base rate rises affecting all areas of the financial sector, the panellists weigh in on the popularity of fixed-rate commercial mortgages compared to variable-rate loans. Both Gareth and Tom note that borrowers are increasingly opting for fixed-rate facilities—however, Tom states that this does vary depending on the commercial market segment.

“About 75–80% of our commercial mortgages last year and this year are fixed, and I don't see that changing any time soon,” says Gareth. “We might start to see that dynamic shifting if the Bank of England pauses rate rises for, let’s say, a two- or

three-month period, which might give people a view that direction of travel is changing and thus give them confidence to opt for a variable rate, but I don't see it changing in the immediate term.”

7. Care homes are a big opportunity

While some areas of the commercial market have been particularly hit by macroeconomic factors, others, such as healthcare and care homes, have been more fortunate. Gareth reports that Allica Bank has seen a 50% surge in the flow of healthcare deals over the past 18 months; according to him, the main catalysts for this are the ageing population and a “critical shortage of beds”.

“What we find really interesting is that every GP who's stumbled out of practice has decided the best way to retire and create a pension is to invest in a care home. We're starting to see more professional single operators who have proven their mettle on one care

home, earning the right to go and look at a second and a third,” he continues.

When asked about the information brokers need to provide to lenders for these types of deals, Gareth says that understanding a borrower’s background and business plan is essential, particularly when assessing deals from less experienced care home operators.

Miranda highlights that, unlike other markets, the healthcare and care home sectors are regulated by the Care Quality Commission and its reports may make or break a commercial finance deal. “Anything that's got a ‘requiring improvement’ rating on its last inspection may cause an issue with regard to finding funding for it,” she adds. “Another key thing is that a lot of these lenders don't work off a typical EBITDA model; they'll work off what cashflow is available for debt servicing, and some of them would like to see you in a contract to fix your utility costs for a period of time due to energy inflation.”

DEVELOPMENT FINANCE

Panellists: James Bloom, director at Alternative Bridging Corporation; Mark Elliott, BDM at Sopra Banking Software; James Mole, director at J3 Advisory; and Adele Turton, managing director at Blanc Property Finance

8. There are still obstacles to overcome to adopt MMC While Mole highlights that modern methods of construction (MMC), including modular and off-site building, are becoming increasingly popular in the UK as lenders are focusing

more on these schemes as part of their ESG strategies, he points out that not all MMC schemes are viewed equally. “The biggest difficulty comes if you can’t do [the development] on site and have a monitoring surveyor keep track of it—it’s very difficult to get anyone comfortable with it, especially if upfront payments are [required] for things such as timber frame companies.” Mole adds that getting a warranty for these types of schemes can be difficult, and something that lenders might take into consideration.

Bloom agrees, adding that Alternative Bridging Corporation is open to providing

funds for MMC as long as the deal has a solid exit plan and the term lender accepts these types of projects. “There’s no point lending on a particular method of construction if you then find out the end purchaser can’t get a mortgage because the long-term lender doesn’t accept that method of construction,” he explains. “It’s not just looking at a saving cost on the construction—it’s looking at the whole piece, making sure that it works for the lender, and that the exit works as well.”

Ultimately, the panellists believe there is a future for MMC if the finance provider has control and security over the deal. “This

When it’s all easy and the sun is shining, think about your software, because you’ll need it when things start to go wrong

is the sort of thing I’d expect a broker to look at, and the good ones do—they present the method of construction, how it will be funded, and how the developer will exit the deal, including evidence of the top lenders that will accept this method of construction. This is where your brokers come in,” notes Bloom.

9. Lenders should upgrade their tech—and before they really need to Mark claims the industry can be reluctant to adopt technology, which he says can be detrimental for lenders. “The industry as a whole is not great at using the technology that's available to increase efficiency in the processing of deals, get new cases through the door, and process the release of tranches during the life of a loan. Technology can definitely help with that.”

When identifying the right solutions for a firm, Mark states technology must do one of two things and, ideally, both: control risk and improve efficiency. “A good loan management or customer relationship management system will allow you to do both of those things and should enable the process to be much smoother than it often is,” he states. “Communicating with solicitors and brokers can be aided and made much slicker through the use of technology.”

One example where fintech can aid all parties involved in a development finance deal is cashflow management, which, according to the panellists, developers are struggling with. “For example, if you can provide your cashflow modelling tool to your broker, that can help with the onboarding process, and the developer will understand what their cashflow will look like,” states Mark. He also advises people to look ahead and consider researching and investing in technology in preparation for tougher, volatile times that will require fintech support. “When it’s all easy and the sun is shining, think about your software, because you’ll need it when things start to go wrong. It's at times like this when you need the risk management, the control, and the visibility that good software can give you.”

10. Lack of good-quality information and using inexperienced solicitors delay deals

When talking about the main causes for delays in completing development finance loans, Bloom says these are frequently from borrowers using solicitors who don’t understand what’s needed to complete the deal. “You’re often up against a solicitor who really doesn't know what they're doing because they're not a commercial solicitor. That is the biggest single problem in the industry and has been since forever.”

Another issue causing delays is the lack of information given by a borrower when applying for finance. “The initial information sharing from a client to the broker or lender is often not very good, and you can only work with what is in front of you; it’s very difficult for a lender, broker, or solicitor to do anything unless the information is there in the first place. If it takes weeks just to collate basic details, such as comparables and bill costs, that slows the process down,” comments Mole.

Bloom agrees, adding that the quality of submissions can leave a lot to be desired. “I had a case in from someone who wanted to borrow £250,000 for the purchase of a commercial building, with no address, no client name, no

description of the property, no value, and no exit plan. We get that all the time. It’s unbelievable,” he states. “The difference between getting a well-packaged case and one with holes in it is chalk and cheese, and it does make all the difference to starting a transaction off on the right foot.”

The difference between getting a well-packaged case and one with holes in it is chalk and cheese, and it does make all the difference to starting a transaction off on the right foot

If you can provide your cashflow modelling tool to your broker, that can help with the onboarding process

Bridging f inance with a fast turnaround?