In some cases, developers are accepting lower returns or holding completed stock for longer, limiting the ability to recycle capital into future schemes.

The bigger challenge is confidence in delivery. Planning delays, cost pressures and evolving funding conditions are making developers more cautious about committing capital, particularly where there is limited visibility over timescales and delivery risk.

For SME developers in particular, the margin for error has narrowed. Schemes that appear viable at acquisition can come under pressure as programmes extend and assumptions are tested. That has led to a more disciplined approach to deployment, with developers placing greater emphasis on viability and delivery certainty before progressing schemes. In that environment, success depends less on access to funding and more on how effectively a project is managed through to delivery.

Inconsistency is the real planning challenge

Planning remains the most visible constraint, but the issue is not simply delay. It is inconsistency.

The same scheme can be assessed differently depending on geography, timing, or interpretation of policy. In practice, developers can see different interpretations of policy emerge even within the same local authority, depending on which planning officers are involved.

That is why early and ongoing engagement with a local authority has become increasingly important. Relationships with planning officers can help developers understand how policy is being applied in practice, where issues are likely to arise and how schemes need to be positioned from the outset.

However, those relationships are not foolproof, and developers can still see positions change partway through the planning process.

Funding needs to reflect how schemes move in practice

The same principle applies to funding.

The challenge is no longer simply accessing capital but ensuring that funding structures reflect how schemes progress in reality. Delivery is rarely linear. Timelines move, costs adjust and, in some cases, exit strategies need to be revisited as projects move forward. These challenges rarely sit in isolation. Planning, build delivery, cost movement and programme risk are increasingly interconnected, creating a more complex delivery environment.

In practice, that is also leading to schemes being adapted or repositioned as conditions evolve, rather than progressing exactly as originally planned. It is not uncommon for there to be tension between what a planning authority wants to see built and what the market will buy.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2025: The Video
•   How scrutiny and discipline can keep the development market moving
•   Brokers adapt as planning delays become 'structural feature' of SME developments

Brokers play a central role in that process. Strong relationships between brokers and developers provide a clearer view of pipeline, risk appetite and delivery strategy from the outset. That insight is essential in structuring funding that works in practice, rather than relying on assumptions that may not hold. In practical terms, that means structuring with flexibility, stress testing viability and maintaining close dialogue as projects move forward.

Equally, brokers depend on close relationships with lenders. Early visibility on how a deal will be viewed, direct access to decision-makers and ongoing dialogue throughout the lifecycle of a scheme all help ensure funding remains aligned as circumstances change.

The lender’s role extends beyond day one

For lenders, providing capital is only the starting point.

The real test comes once a scheme is underway when assumptions are tested against delivery. Where issues are not identified and managed early, pressure can build quickly and affect both delivery and exit.

This is where continuity of relationship matters. Staying close to a scheme, understanding how it is progressing and responding as conditions change allows issues to be addressed before they become more significant.

That continuity is particularly relevant in a market where funding often needs to adapt across stages, whether supporting acquisition, development, or the transition to a longer-term hold.

Where lenders remain engaged, decisions are informed by a detailed understanding of the scheme. Where they do not, even well-structured deals can come under strain as assumptions are revisited without that context.

Relationships as part of delivery infrastructure

Strong relationships between developers, brokers and lenders are not incidental. They are built through consistent engagement and direct access to individuals who understand both the detail of a scheme and the realities of the local market.

That local understanding matters. Planning outcomes, contractor dynamics and demand all vary regionally, and those nuances influence how schemes progress in practice.

Maintaining continuity from initial structuring through to completion ensures decisions remain aligned with how a project is evolving. It also allows for clearer responses when challenges arise, reducing the risk of delays compounding further down the line.

Confidence determines whether schemes move forward

Developers have become more disciplined in how they deploy capital, with a sharper focus on viability, timing and risk management. In that environment, confidence is a critical factor in decision-making.

Confidence often comes from having the right people involved early and staying close to a scheme as it evolves. Relationships influence how effectively developers navigate planning, how well funding is structured and, ultimately, whether capital is committed in the first place.

The industry often focuses on policy reform, funding availability, or construction capacity as the primary levers for increasing housing delivery. All are important. But in the current market, good relationships are becoming a key part of getting schemes delivered.