by David Khan | Jun 8, 2026 | Latest News, Advice
I have to admit, I was surprised to see the Pope writing about artificial intelligence.
At first glance, AI might seem a long way from the traditional concerns of the Church. But having read Pope Leo XIV’s recent paper, Magnifica Humanitas, I was struck by how relevant and thoughtful it is. The central message is not anti-technology. It is a challenge to all leaders — in business, politics, finance and society — to ask whether AI is being developed and used in a way that genuinely serves people.
Two points particularly stood out to me.
The first is that AI should not be shaped by the few, for the few. A technology this powerful will affect work, finance, education, public services, communication and even democracy itself. It should not be controlled only by a small number of powerful companies, governments or technologists. The conversation needs to include business leaders, policymakers, employees, customers, communities and civil society.
The second is his reflection on work. Work is not simply a way of earning money. At its best, work gives people purpose, identity, responsibility and a sense of contribution. That matters deeply in any discussion about AI. If technology is used only to reduce headcount or remove human involvement, we risk misunderstanding what work means in people’s lives.
Both points are highly relevant to finance.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant technology issue. It is already shaping how businesses communicate, analyse data, assess risk, serve customers and make decisions. For lenders, investors and property professionals, the opportunities are significant. AI can help improve efficiency, spot patterns, speed up administration, reduce duplication and support better-informed decision-making.
But as Magnifica Humanitas argues, the central question is not simply whether AI is powerful. It is whether it serves human beings well.
Technology can help us move faster, but speed is not the same as wisdom. Automation can help us process more information, but information is not the same as judgement. AI can help us identify risk, but it cannot replace responsibility.
At BLG, we operate in a sector where these distinctions matter. Development finance is not abstract. Behind every facility are real people: developers taking risk, contractors and suppliers relying on cashflow, families who will eventually live in new homes, and communities affected by what gets built. The decisions we make as lenders influence whether projects proceed, whether SMEs can grow, and whether much-needed housing is delivered.
That is why AI should be approached as a tool to strengthen human decision-making, not replace it.
AI can improve finance — but it must be governed properly
Used well, AI could bring real benefits to development finance. It can help lenders analyse project information more quickly, identify inconsistencies, monitor portfolios, assess market data and streamline routine tasks. It could reduce administrative friction for borrowers and allow teams to spend more time on the work that genuinely requires experience: understanding risk, structuring transactions, supporting clients and making balanced commercial decisions.
For SME developers, this matters. Smaller businesses often do not have the same administrative resources as larger housebuilders. Anything that makes funding processes clearer, faster and more consistent has the potential to support growth and delivery.
However, the benefits of AI depend on how it is used. If automated systems become opaque, rigid or poorly governed, they can create new forms of unfairness. A model can look objective while embedding incomplete data, historic bias or assumptions that do not reflect the reality of a particular project. A system can generate a decision quickly without giving the borrower a meaningful explanation. A lender can become over-reliant on outputs that appear precise but may not reflect the full commercial picture.
That would be a poor outcome for finance, and a poor outcome for the property sector.
Good lending has always required both analysis and judgement. The numbers matter, but so do track record, delivery capability, local market knowledge, planning context, cost control, borrower behaviour and the practical realities of construction. AI may assist in reviewing these factors, but it should not remove the need for experienced people to interpret them.
Managed by the many, not the few
One of the strongest messages from Magnifica Humanitas is that AI should not be left in the hands of a narrow group of decision-makers.
That point matters for business. AI systems are increasingly influencing what people see, how decisions are made, how services are accessed and how opportunities are allocated. If those systems are designed, owned and governed by only a small number of powerful actors, there is a risk that society becomes dependent on technologies it does not properly understand or control.
This does not mean slowing innovation for the sake of it. It means recognising that the governance of AI should be broad, transparent and accountable. Business leaders have a role to play in that. So do governments, regulators, educators, employees, customers and communities.
For lenders, this is especially important. Access to capital is a vital part of economic life. If AI is used in credit processes, monitoring, pricing or client assessment, it must be governed carefully. Borrowers should not be left facing black-box decisions that cannot be explained or challenged.
Responsible AI in finance should therefore be built around openness, accountability and human review. The aim should be better decisions, not hidden decisions.
Human accountability must remain clear
One of the most important principles in responsible AI is accountability. When AI supports a decision, someone must still be responsible for that decision.
This is particularly important in finance. Lending decisions affect access to capital, business growth and livelihoods. If an AI-assisted process contributes to a decline, a delay or a change in terms, the borrower should not be left facing a black box. There should be a clear explanation, an opportunity for human review and a named decision-maker accountable for the outcome.
This is not just an ethical point. It is also good business practice. Trust is central to lending. Borrowers may accept difficult decisions when they understand the reasoning. They are much less likely to trust a process that feels automated, impersonal or unexplained.
In development finance, where every project has its own complexities, the ability to talk through risk remains essential. A good lender does not simply say yes or no. A good lender understands the project, challenges assumptions, structures appropriately and works with the borrower to find a responsible path forward.
AI can support that process. It should not replace it.
Work is about more than money
The second point that stayed with me was the Pope’s reflection on work.
In business, it is easy to talk about work mainly in terms of cost, productivity and efficiency. Those things matter. But they are not the whole story. Work also gives people purpose. It gives structure to life, creates responsibility, builds skills and allows people to contribute to something beyond themselves.
That is an important lens through which to view AI.
There is a temptation in every technological shift to frame progress mainly as cost reduction. But the most valuable use of AI in a relationship-based business is not simply to remove people from the process. It is to help people do better, more meaningful and more valuable work.
In finance, that may mean freeing relationship managers, credit teams and portfolio specialists from repetitive administrative tasks so they can focus on higher-value activity. It may mean better early-warning indicators, stronger monitoring and improved consistency in documentation. It may mean using data more effectively while preserving the commercial judgement that experienced lenders bring.
The right question is not: “How much human involvement can we remove?”
The better question is: “How can technology help our people serve clients, manage risk and support good projects more effectively?”
That distinction matters. Businesses that use AI simply to automate judgement may create efficiency in the short term but weaken trust and resilience over time. Businesses that use AI to enhance judgement can become faster, more consistent and more responsive while still preserving the human responsibility at the heart of good decision-making.
What responsible AI should mean for lenders
For lenders, responsible AI should be built around a few practical principles.
First, AI should be used with a clear purpose. Not every process needs automation. The best applications will be those that solve real problems for clients, colleagues or risk management.
Second, data quality matters. AI is only as useful as the information it is trained on and the assumptions built into it. Poor data produces poor decisions, even when presented with confidence.
Third, human review must remain central for material decisions. Credit, conduct and client outcomes should not be delegated entirely to automated systems.
Fourth, transparency is essential. Clients and colleagues should understand when AI is being used, what role it plays and where accountability sits.
Fifth, governance must keep pace with adoption. Boards and senior leaders need to understand not just the opportunity, but also the operational, reputational, regulatory and ethical risks.
Finally, AI should be judged by whether it improves outcomes. Does it help clients? Does it improve risk management? Does it make decisions fairer, clearer and better informed? Does it strengthen the business without weakening human accountability?
Keeping people at the centre
The property sector needs innovation. The UK needs more homes, more productive SMEs, more efficient funding processes and better use of data. AI can contribute to all of that.
But technology should serve the real economy, not distance us from it. Development finance exists to support the delivery of tangible projects: homes, communities, jobs and enterprise. That requires capital, but it also requires trust, judgement and relationships.
That is why I found Magnifica Humanitas so interesting. It is not a technical paper, and it does not pretend to be. Its value is that it asks a bigger leadership question: as AI becomes more powerful, how do we ensure that people remain at the centre?
For BLG, that is a challenge worth taking seriously.
AI will become part of the future of finance. The task is to ensure that it strengthens the qualities that matter most: sound judgement, clear accountability, fair treatment, responsible risk-taking and support for the SME developers helping to build the homes the UK needs.
Technology can help us lend better. It should never make us forget why we lend in the first place.
– Peter Wade, Chairman of BLG
by David Khan | Feb 13, 2026 | Advice
For a new property developer, few things are more exciting than taking a piece of land or a tired building and transforming it into something new. But no matter how good your idea, progress stops without the right funding. Development finance is the solution. It is not a standard mortgage. Instead, it is a loan designed specifically to match the stages of a building project, from buying the site through to selling or refinancing the finished homes.
This guide has been written for new and learning developers. It will walk you through the basics of development finance, the different types available, the application process and what to expect along the way. By the end, you will understand the essentials and feel confident in approaching a specialist lender like BLG.
Who is Development Finance For?
Development finance is not just for big developers. It is a flexible product designed for:
- First-time developers starting with a small project such as a single house or flat conversion.
- SME house builders taking on local schemes.
- Landlords looking to expand into refurbishment or small new-build projects.
High street banks sometimes provide funding, but they usually lack the speed and understanding needed for property development. A specialist lender like BLG works differently. We understand the challenges that come with planning, construction and sales. Our role is to provide funding and act as a supportive partner throughout your project.
Key Terms Explained in Simple Language
The world of development finance has its own vocabulary. Here are the main terms you will come across:
- Gross Development Value (GDV): The total value of your project when finished and ready for sale.
- Loan to Gross Development Value (LTGDV): The percentage of the GDV a lender is prepared to fund. For example, if the GDV is £2 million and the loan is £1.3 million, the LTGDV is 65%.
- Loan to Cost (LTC): The percentage of your total costs that a lender will cover.
- Interest roll-up: Instead of paying interest every month, the interest is added to the loan and paid at the end when the project is sold or refinanced.
- Drawdowns: The staged release of funds as the project moves forward.
- Exit strategy: How you plan to repay the loan. Most developers either sell the finished properties or refinance them onto long-term mortgages.
Understanding these terms will help you follow the process and speak confidently with lenders.
The Main Types of Development Finance
There are several forms of development finance. Each suits different situations.
Senior Debt
This is the most common type of loan. Senior debt development finance covers the bulk of project costs and usually allows borrowing up to around 65% of GDV. Because it carries the lowest risk for the lender, it also has the most competitive interest rates.
Mezzanine Finance
This is a smaller, secondary loan that sits on top of senior debt. It can reduce how much of your own money you need to put in. Mezzanine development finance is more expensive than senior debt, so it is often used carefully.
Stretch Senior Debt
This sits between senior debt and mezzanine finance. Stretch senior debt allows you to borrow slightly more, sometimes up to 75–80% of GDV, without arranging two separate loans.
Joint Venture Finance
Instead of a loan, you partner with an investor who provides funding in exchange for a share of the profits. This can be useful if you have the skills but limited funds.
Bridging Finance
Bridging finance is a short-term loan, often used to buy a site quickly at auction or to cover small refurbishment works. Development exit finance is a type of bridging loan that gives you extra time to sell once construction is complete.
The Development Finance Process
Securing development finance means following a clear and structured path.
Step 1: Preparing Your Application
Think of your application as a business plan. The more detail you provide, the more confidence a lender will have. You will need:
- A detailed development appraisal showing costs, revenues, and a contingency
- Full project details, including drawings and planning permission
- A realistic GDV backed up by evidence from local estate agents
- Information about your project team
- A short CV of your experience, even if limited
- A statement of your assets and liabilities
The lender will also carry out their own checks, including a valuation of the site.
Step 2: Receiving a Loan Offer
If the project is viable, the lender will issue a loan offer. This will include the interest rate, fees, and conditions that must be met before funds are released.
Step 3: Project Monitoring
Once the offer is accepted, the lender appoints an independent monitor or quantity surveyor. Their role is to check the project is progressing as planned. This protects both you and the lender.
Step 4: Drawdowns
Funds are released in stages. For example, the first drawdown may cover the site purchase. Later drawdowns might cover foundations, the watertight structure, and final finishes. Each stage is verified before the funds are released.
Step 5: Exit Strategy
When the project is complete, you repay the loan. This is usually through sales of the finished homes or by refinancing onto a longer-term mortgage.
Common Questions for New Developers
Do I need experience to get development finance?
Not always. Many lenders will work with new developers, especially if you have a strong professional team around you.
How much of my own money do I need?
Most lenders expect you to contribute some equity. This could be as low as 10–20% of total project costs.
What happens if my costs overrun?
Lenders usually require a contingency fund within your appraisal. If costs rise beyond this, you may need to inject extra funds yourself.
Glossary of Helpful Terms
- Contingency: Extra funds set aside for unexpected costs.
- Cost overrun: When actual costs are higher than budgeted.
- First charge: The lender’s legal right over the property. They are repaid first if the property is sold.
- JCT contract: A standard building contract setting out responsibilities during construction.
- Practical completion: The stage where a project is considered finished and ready for use or sale.
- Professional indemnity insurance: Insurance that protects against errors by your professional team.
- RICS: The professional body for surveyors who provide valuations.
To learn more key terms you’ll likely encounter and find out their definitions, visit our development finance glossary.
Why Choose a Specialist Lender?
Choosing the right funding partner is one of the most important decisions you will make. A specialist lender like BLG does more than provide money. We become part of your professional team, offering guidance and flexibility throughout your project. Your success is our success.
If you are ready to discuss your first project, speak to the BLG team today.
by David Khan | Dec 16, 2025 | Advice
Roof space developments, particularly the conversion of existing buildings to create new apartments, are often presented as efficient development opportunities. Whilst this may indeed be correct, from a lender’s standpoint, such schemes often require additional scrutiny. Experience shows that roof space developments frequently carry a risk profile materially different from standard residential construction, and these risks must be fully understood and mitigated at the outset.
In this article, we outline the principal risk areas lenders should consider when underwriting roof space developments and explain why a more conservative approach is required more often than not.
Structural Risk and Suitability of Existing Buildings
A primary concern in any roof space development is structural risk. Many existing buildings were not designed to accommodate additional floors or significant alterations to roof structures. Initial feasibility assessments can underestimate the extent of strengthening required to foundations, load-bearing walls and the existing frame.
For lenders, reliance on early-stage assumptions without intrusive surveys introduces material downside risk, as structural remediation can rapidly escalate costs and extend programme durations. Therefore, structural surveys are key early on to establish suitability.
Construction Complexity and Access Constraints in Occupied Buildings
Construction complexity and access constraints also warrant close attention. Roof space developments are often undertaken above occupied buildings, which brings multiple challenges and risks such as:
- Restricted working hours
- Limited crane and site access
- Temporary weatherproofing requirements
- Maintaining services to existing occupants
Programme Delays and Operational Risk
Delays arising from tenant complaints or health and safety incidents can directly impact interest carry and loan repayment profiles.
Existing leases sometimes prohibit development above them and so it vitally important this legal minefield is dealt with otherwise the units may be unsaleable or considerable compensation may need to be paid to rectify this
Planning and Building Regulation Challenges for Roof Extensions
From a planning and regulatory perspective, roof extensions are rarely straightforward. Planning authorities tend to scrutinise roof additions closely, particularly in dense urban environments. Planning authorities often scrutinise roof developments due to concerns around:
- Visual impact
- Loss of daylight
- Overlooking and privacy
These complications often lead to design revisions and conditional consents. In parallel, compliance with building regulations – most notably fire safety, acoustic separation, and means of escape – can be challenging when retrofitted into older structures. Lenders should be particularly cautious where cost allowances for regulatory compliance appear optimistic or lightly evidenced.
Legal and Title Risks
Legal and title risks are another common area of concern. The ownership of roof space is not always clear, particularly within leasehold arrangements. Rights of light, airspace constraints and third-party consents can materially limit development potential. Protracted negotiations with freeholders or leaseholders can delay start on site or introduce unforeseen costs, undermining projected returns and exit timelines.
Purely acquiring the roof space without the freehold of the building it sits on can lead to major headaches particularly if access is required and scaffolding needed
Cost Certainty and Latent Defects
From a credit perspective, cost certainty is often weaker, than in conventional schemes. Roof space developments typically exhibit higher build costs per square foot due to complexity and contingency requirements.
The risk of latent defects – such as asbestos, inadequate existing services, or poor historic construction – should not be underestimated.
Appraisals should be considered and what is normal for a standard development will unlikely not be relevant in a roof space scheme
Importance of Sponsor and Contractor Experience
In addition, the experience of the sponsor and/or their contractor is very important.
Roof space developments are highly specialist schemes, and a proven track record in delivering similar projects is essential to mitigate execution risk. Lenders should place significant weight on demonstrable experience rather than general development credentials.
Exit Risk and Marketability
Finally, exit risk must be considered carefully. Apartments formed within roof spaces can suffer from compromised layouts, restricted ceiling heights or limited natural light if design quality is poor. These factors can adversely affect sales values particularly in more competitive markets.
Conclusion – Why Roof Space Developments Require Conservative Underwriting
In conclusion, while roof space developments can be viable and attractive in the right circumstances, they demand a more conservative approach. Robust due diligence, realistic cost assumptions and experienced sponsors are essential. For us as lenders, disciplined underwriting remains the key safeguard against the inherent complexities of building upwards rather than outwards.
– Perry Kurash, Director and Head of New Business
Speak to a Specialist Development Finance Lender
If you are considering a roof space development, or another form of commercial or residential development, get in touch with our team at BLG Development Finance. Our team understands the unique risks involved in all project types and structures complimentary funds accordingly. Start discussions around getting your project off the ground now with a simple email or phone call.
by David Khan | Jul 21, 2025 | Latest News
A significant regulatory shift is on the horizon for property developers, with the Building Safety Levy set to come into effect on 01 October 2026. Introduced as part of the wider Building Safety Act 2022, the levy is designed to ensure that developers, not leaseholders or taxpayers, contribute financially toward the remediation of unsafe residential buildings. This article takes a deep look into the core components of the levy, including what it is, who it impacts, how it is calculated and the practical implications for development timelines and funding strategies. With final regulations still in draft form but key deadlines looming, it’s essential that developers understand this upcoming change and its potential cost implications.
What is the Building Safety Levy?
The Building Safety Levy is a Government-imposed charge on qualifying residential developments. Its purpose is to fund the remediation of life-critical safety defects in existing buildings where no voluntary agreement has been reached with developers. This includes many buildings impacted by historic cladding and fire safety issues post-Grenfell.
Although the policy was legislated in the Building Safety Act 2022, the practical rollout is now progressing via secondary legislation, with implementation set for October 2026. The core principle is straightforward: where developers profit from residential development, they should also contribute to addressing the safety failings of the past.
When was it first discussed and why?
The levy was first introduced by the Government in February 2021, during a period of intense public scrutiny over the cost of fire safety remediation. Leaseholders were being forced to cover enormous bills for defects they did not cause, leading to political pressure and growing media attention.
In response, the Government committed to ensuring developers, not leaseholders or the taxpayer, pay for necessary works to make buildings safe. The levy is a formal mechanism to achieve this for buildings that do not fall under existing developer remediation pledges. The policy is expected to raise between £3 billion and £3.4 billion over the next decade to contribute towards fixing safety issues in medium and high-rise buildings across the country.
Which Developments Will Be Affected?
The levy will apply to major residential developments, including both new builds and conversions. Specifically, it targets developments that meet one of the following thresholds:
- Schemes creating 10 or more residential units, or
- PBSA developments delivering 30 or more bedspaces
This applies to a broad range of project types including:
- New build residential schemes
- Conversions of existing buildings into residential use (e.g. office-to-residential)
- Extensions that increase the amount of residential floorspace
What is defined as ‘residential floorspace’?
The levy is based on the gross internal area (GIA) of residential floorspace. This includes:
- Private homes and apartments
- PBSA such as student halls of residence
- Shared amenity areas for residents such as lounges, gyms, kitchens and reception spaces
It is important to note that the levy applies regardless of building height or whether the building is considered ‘higher risk’ under other provisions of the Building Safety Act.
Examples of when the Building Safety Levy applies
| Example Development |
Levy Applies? |
| New build scheme of 11 private flats |
Yes |
| Office-to-residential conversion (11 flats) |
Yes |
| PBSA development with 30 beds |
Yes |
| 9 unit residential scheme |
No |
| Care home conversion |
No |
| Hotel development |
No |
Building Safety Levy exemptions
Several categories of development are exempt from the levy. These include schemes designed to meet specific social or health-related needs, or where the building is not used as permanent residential accommodation. Exemptions include:
- Social housing
- Supported housing
- Exempt accommodation such as: care homes, nursing homes, hotels and temporary supported accommodation for the homeless
The Government has signalled that it does not intend to widen the scope of these exemptions, so developers should not assume that additional categories will be added at a later stage.
When is the Levy Paid and How is it Calculated?
Trigger point: Building control application date
The point at which a development becomes liable for the levy is the date the Building Control application is submitted by the developer. This means that even if construction does not begin until after the deadline, a development can still avoid the levy if the Building Control application is submitted before 1 October 2026.
| Building Control Application Date |
Levy Applies? |
| Before 01 October 2026 |
No |
| On/After 01 October 2026 |
Yes |
When is payment due?
The levy is payable on the earlier of:
- The date a completion notice is issued by Building Control, or
- The date of first occupation of any part of the development
This approach is designed to ensure payment is received before a scheme becomes revenue-generating or occupied.
How is the Levy Amount Calculated?
The levy is calculated based on the gross internal area (GIA) of residential floorspace and is subject to a variable rate determined by the local authority area.
Local authorities will be grouped into charging bands based on average house prices, meaning developers in high-value areas such as London and the South East will pay more per square metre than those in lower-value regions.
Indicative Rate Range (Not yet finalised):
| Location Type |
Estimated Levy Rate (per m²) |
| High-value areas (London, SE) |
£30–£50 per m² |
| Mid-value areas |
£10–£30 per m² |
| Low-value areas |
£0–£10 per m² |
Developments on brownfield land are expected to receive a 50% discount on the applicable rate, though the exact terms of this discount are still under review.
What is Still to be Confirmed?
While the core framework is largely agreed upon, several details remain under consultation and will be finalised through secondary legislation.
| Area |
Status |
| Exact levy rates (£/m²) |
TBC – Government has outlined banding by house price zones but rates are not finalised. |
| Local authority charging zones |
TBC – The exact banding per council is under review. |
| Brownfield discount terms |
Proposed at 50% but still draft. |
| Payment mechanisms & enforcement rules |
Draft guidance exists but final process maps are yet to be locked in. |
| Transitional relief or exceptions |
Government has not ruled out transitional measures for schemes partway through the pipeline, but no formal details yet. |
How likely are further changes?
The fundamental policy of the levy is unlikely to change. In fact, the Government has made it clear that:
- Developers, not leaseholders, will be responsible for remediation costs
- The charge will be based on residential floorspace, not building height or fire risk
- Major residential and PBSA developments are the intended targets
However, some refinements and clarifications are likely in the months ahead:
| What might change? |
Likelihood |
| Exact per m² rates |
Highly likely to adjust – based on further impact analysis. |
| Banding by local authority |
Possible tweaks depending on regional feedback. |
| Payment mechanics & process maps |
Likely refinements to simplify implementation. |
| Transitional provisions |
Unknown – developers are lobbying hard for cut-off clarity. |
| Exemptions scope |
Unlikely to expand significantly – Government will resist widening exemptions. |
Key dates in the Building Safety Levy implementation
| Milestone |
Status |
| Draft Regulations Published |
July 2025 |
| Implementation Date (Levy comes into force) |
01 October 2026 |
| Final Rates & Regulations |
Expected late 2025/early 2026 |
Conclusion – What Developers Should Do Now
The introduction of the Building Safety Levy marks a turning point for residential development in England. With the levy tied directly to the Building Control application date, developers have a clear opportunity to avoid these new charges by submitting their applications before 1 October 2026.
For developments that cannot be fast-tracked, it will be essential to factor the levy into project appraisals, funding strategies and land offers. Understanding your scheme’s exposure now could result in substantial cost savings and help secure funding on more favourable terms.
At BLG, we specialise in development finance that is responsive to market changes and regulatory shifts. If you’re planning a residential or PBSA scheme, get in touch with our team to explore tailored funding solutions that support your timeline and strategy.
by David Khan | Jun 30, 2025 | Latest News
What are the most Terrifying Words in the English Language? “I’m from the Government and I’m here to Help!!!”
It’s an old joke but it hasn’t lost its humour through time – Ronald Reagan I recall from the early 1980’s.
It came to my mind when I heard that the Government was to get into the SME housebuilder lending business by making £100million SME Accelerator Loans and up to £2.5bn of other low interest loans.
Now I applaud the focus and efforts to boost homebuilding. 1.5m new homes by the end of the Parliament is one enormous challenge but shoot for the stars and you might hit the moon. The UK needs an injection of that “moon shot” spirit and let the nay-sayers be dammed!
But equally let’s not fight the last war – senior debt to homebuilders is not in short supply. There were issues after the global financial crash but that as 12-14 years ago. And some further issues around covid but there is a raft of senior lenders, challenger banks and thriving non-bank alternative lender sector. There are many issues for homebuilders but senior debt isnt one of them.
In May 2025, I celebrated (if that is the right word!) 35 years working in the Homebuilder Finance sector. If there is one issue that has hampered housing delivery in that time, its Planning, it has been Planning for years, frankly its always been Planning!!!! Now the Government is seeking to improve the planning process but it needs to move harder, faster and focus its scarce financial resources in the planning process.
Generally speaking, the Public Sector is not good at intervening in developed markets, there is no need. The UK financial sector is innovative, resourced and highly developed – it doesn’t need intervention – it needs Government to remove barriers to innovation not to try and innovate itself.
– Stuart Parfitt, Managing Director of BLG
