In a slower sales market, where developers have had a tougher time shifting completed units and buyer confidence remains uneven, the rigid exit structures employed by some lenders on their development exit deals have become increasingly exposed.

Too often facilities relied on optimistic sales timelines which have long since passed, leaving developers — and in many cases, the lenders themselves — stuck with terms that simply don’t line up with the realities of today’s market.

By contrast, the lenders navigating this market best are those that underwrote development exits more realistically in the first place, with flexible sales periods and structures which can adapt if and when market conditions change.

The truth is that with development exit facilities, flexibility is fundamental, not just a ‘nice to have’.

Buying some time

There’s no shortage of data pointing to an imbalance between supply and demand in property — the latest Housing Insight report from Propertymark, for example, shows the average estate agency has 70 registered prospective buyers, but only 39 properties for sale.

Yet in practice, things rarely move so simply. Transaction levels have softened, as have mortgage approvals, as would-be buyers have adopted a more cautious approach. Meanwhile selling periods have crept up — Propertymark’s data shows 43% of transactions completed in February 2026 took longer than 17 weeks, a new record high.

Given these challenges, it’s little wonder developers want to make use of development exit finance. It means they don’t face such pressing deadlines to shift all of the remaining units — and potentially having to accept a loss — while also buying some time to make sure those finished properties are up to scratch, to stand out in a subdued market.

Getting some breathing space makes sense.

When flexibility is inflexible

However, too many development exit facilities in the market currently were structured around expectations that no longer hold true.

Aggressive sales assumptions  and inflexible structures are OK when units move quickly, but a problem when things are slower. Too many lenders have failed to keep up with what’s actually happening in the market, and it means both they and their developer borrowers are counting the cost.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2025: The Video
•   Why net lending maximises usable funds in development finance
•   Planning policy must catch up with how people actually live

Developers can find themselves with capital tied up for longer than anticipated, while lenders are seeing loans run beyond their expected duration, creating challenges around funding and portfolio management. The position can deteriorate further if values soften or costs increase, leaving very little room for manoeuvre.

Understanding and expertise

This is where approach matters.

Development exit facilities which were built on a more disciplined footing, with realistic assumptions around sales periods and pricing, are proving far more resilient. Equally, structures that allow for flexibility, whether through extensions, phased disposals, or changes to strategy, are better suited to the current environment than those built around a single exit route.

Ultimately, this all comes down to how a lender assesses risk. A criteria-led approach, where deals are fitted into predefined structures, has clear limitations when market conditions shift, but an asset-led approach, grounded in a detailed understanding of the property, the location, and the likely buyer pool, allows for more informed decision making and, in the end, better outcomes. It’s how we have always operated at Glenhawk, and we are seeing the benefits in real time.

Experience plays an important role here. Time spent on site, understanding how schemes are actually performing, and maintaining ongoing dialogue with borrowers provides the sort of insight that you don’t get from a spreadsheet alone. That’s particularly important in a market like this, where conditions are evolving and assumptions need to be revisited regularly.

The role of the broker

The current state of the market means the focus for brokers moves away from headline pricing and towards the suitability of the structure itself. A lower rate may appear attractive in the beginning, but if it comes with rigid terms that do not reflect the realities of the market, it can quickly become restrictive.

By contrast, a more considered approach to funding, one that prioritises flexibility, realistic assumptions, and lender engagement, is likely to deliver a better outcome over the life of the deal.

There is also a broader point around reliability. In a more challenging market, the ability of a lender to deliver on agreed terms, and to continue supporting a transaction as circumstances evolve, becomes increasingly important. Brokers need confidence their funding partners will remain consistent, particularly when deals do not follow a straightforward path.

Development exit finance will always be an important option, but not all facilities — and not all lenders — are built equally. Brokers must not determine simply who offers the cheapest rate, but which lenders can still support the borrower if the original plan has to change. Flexibility, underwriting discipline, and lender reliability are far more valuable than headline pricing alone.