How to Avoid Defaulting on Development Finance: Early Warning Signs

Development finance defaults rarely occur overnight. In our experience arranging and monitoring hundreds of facilities across the UK, the path to default is almost always a gradual deterioration that could have been identified and addressed weeks or months before the formal default event. The most common root causes are cost overruns that exhaust the contingency budget, programme delays that push the project past the facility's maturity date, and sales rates that fall below the projections used to underwrite the loan.

What makes development finance particularly susceptible to default is its short-term nature and the complexity of the underlying activity. A development finance facility is typically twelve to twenty-four months in duration, during which time the borrower must acquire a site, complete construction, and either sell or refinance the completed units. Any disruption to this tightly sequenced programme — whether from planning delays, contractor problems, supply chain issues, or market conditions — can cascade through the project timeline and ultimately threaten the facility's repayment.

The developers who avoid default are those who plan for problems before they arise. This means building genuine contingency into the budget (not the minimum five percent that lenders require, but ten to fifteen percent for complex or unfamiliar schemes), programming realistic build timescales that account for weather, supply chain delays, and the inevitable surprises that construction throws up, and maintaining a financial buffer that allows the project to absorb unexpected costs without immediately threatening the facility covenants.

The first warning sign is typically a divergence between the planned and actual build programme. If your project is two weeks behind at month three of an eighteen-month build, the natural instinct is to assume you will catch up. In our experience, early programme slippage almost always gets worse rather than better. A two-week delay at month three often becomes a two-month delay by month twelve, particularly if the delay is caused by systemic issues such as poor site management, subcontractor availability, or material supply problems. Monitor your programme rigorously and address slippage immediately.

The second warning sign is cost escalation. If your quantity surveyor's interim valuation shows that costs are tracking above budget — even by a small margin — investigate the cause immediately. A five percent overrun on a £1,200,000 build budget represents £60,000, which may already have consumed most of your contingency. If costs are running ahead of programme (meaning you have spent more than expected relative to the work completed), this is an even more serious indicator that the total build cost will exceed the approved budget.

The third warning sign relates to the exit strategy. If comparable sales values in your area are declining, if similar schemes are taking longer to sell than anticipated, or if your sales agent is recommending price reductions, these are signals that your exit strategy may not deliver the proceeds needed to repay the facility. Do not wait until units are on the market to discover that your GDV assumptions were optimistic — monitor the local market throughout the build programme and adjust your strategy accordingly. Understanding how to calculate GDV and keeping those figures current is essential.

Other warning signs include deterioration in your relationship with the monitoring surveyor (who may be flagging concerns in their reports to the lender), difficulty in obtaining drawdowns (which may indicate the lender is becoming cautious), and personal financial stress that is distracting you from project management. Any of these should prompt immediate action.

A contingency strategy is not just a line item in your development appraisal — it is a comprehensive plan for dealing with the unexpected. The financial contingency should be genuinely available (not committed to other purposes), and it should be sized appropriately for the risk profile of the project. For a straightforward new-build residential scheme using an established contractor, five to seven percent of build costs may be adequate. For a complex conversion, a heritage project, or a scheme with ground condition risks, ten to fifteen percent is more appropriate.

Beyond financial contingency, effective risk management includes having alternative contractor arrangements in place. We have seen too many developments stall because the main contractor became insolvent or was removed from site, and the developer had no backup plan. Before starting on site, identify at least one alternative contractor who could step in at short notice. This does not require a formal contract — a preliminary conversation and indicative pricing is sufficient to give you options if the worst happens. Our guide on contractor insolvency and development finance covers this topic in detail.

Your contingency strategy should also include a time buffer. If your facility has an eighteen-month term and your build programme shows completion at month fifteen, you have a three-month buffer. If completion is programmed at month seventeen, you have almost no margin for error. We always advise developers to structure their facility terms to provide at least three to six months of headroom beyond the programmed completion date. The cost of a slightly longer facility term is minimal compared to the cost of a maturity default.

Finally, maintain open lines of communication with your lender or broker throughout the project. Regular updates — even when things are going well — build trust and credibility that will prove invaluable if problems arise later. A lender who receives monthly progress reports and knows the developer is on top of the project is far more likely to grant a term extension than one who only hears from the developer when things have gone wrong.

The relationship between a developer and their lender is one of the most important factors in determining whether a problem becomes a default. Lenders who trust the borrower and believe in the project are far more willing to accommodate delays, cost overruns, and other issues than those who feel they are being kept in the dark. Proactive relationship management means communicating regularly, transparently, and with supporting evidence.

We recommend that developers provide their lender (or broker) with monthly progress reports that include: a summary of works completed since the last report, updated programme showing progress against plan, cost report showing expenditure against budget, photographs of the site, and any issues or risks that have been identified along with the proposed mitigation. This level of reporting goes beyond what most lenders require, but it demonstrates professionalism and builds confidence.

When problems arise — and they always do in construction — the way you communicate them matters as much as the substance. Do not wait until the monitoring surveyor discovers the issue on their next site visit. Contact the lender or your broker immediately, explain what has happened, quantify the impact on programme and budget, and present your proposed solution. Lenders respect developers who identify problems early and propose solutions, because it shows they are managing the project actively rather than hoping problems will resolve themselves.

If you are working with a broker like ourselves, use us as an intermediary in difficult conversations with the lender. We understand both sides of the relationship and can help frame issues in a way that the lender's credit team will respond to positively. In many cases, we have been able to negotiate term extensions, additional drawdown facilities, and covenant waivers that the developer would have struggled to achieve in direct negotiations. Reach out through our deal room if you need support managing a lender relationship under stress.

Development finance facilities typically contain financial covenants that the borrower must comply with throughout the term. The most common covenants are: loan-to-value (LTV), which requires the outstanding debt not to exceed a specified percentage of the current property value; loan-to-cost (LTC), which limits the debt relative to total project costs; and loan-to-gross development value (LTGDV), which caps the debt as a percentage of the projected completed value. Breaching any of these covenants constitutes a default, even if the project is otherwise progressing well.

Monitoring your covenant compliance requires regular reappraisal of the key inputs. Property values can change — we have seen developments where falling land values triggered an LTV covenant breach even though the build was on programme and on budget. Build cost inflation can push total costs above the LTC covenant threshold. And market softening can reduce the projected GDV, pushing the LTGDV above the agreed limit. Developers should recalculate their covenant metrics monthly and take action before a breach occurs.

If you identify that a covenant breach is likely, approach the lender before it happens. Request a covenant waiver or amendment, supported by evidence that the underlying project remains viable. For example, if property values have declined but you have strong pre-sales at the original projected prices, present this evidence to demonstrate that the GDV assumption remains achievable. Lenders are far more receptive to waiver requests that come with supporting evidence and a clear explanation than to breaches discovered by the monitoring surveyor. For a deeper understanding of LTV covenants specifically, see our guide on LTV covenant breaches.

The most common cause of development finance default is not a build failure — it is an exit failure. The development completes on time and on budget, but units do not sell quickly enough to repay the facility before maturity. This scenario is particularly common in markets that have softened since the facility was underwritten, or where the developer has not engaged a sales agent early enough to build a pipeline of reservations before practical completion.

To avoid this scenario, engage your sales agent at least six months before anticipated completion — not after practical completion. A good agent will begin marketing off-plan, building a database of interested buyers, and potentially securing reservations before the first unit is ready for occupation. Off-plan reservations give you and your lender confidence that the exit strategy is achievable, and they can also support applications for development exit finance if you need to refinance the development facility with a longer-term product.

Have a backup exit strategy. If your primary strategy is individual unit sales, your backup might be a bulk sale to an investor or a refinance onto a buy-to-let portfolio. If your primary strategy is refinancing onto a commercial mortgage, ensure you have identified lenders who will provide the term facility and have obtained indicative terms. The backup strategy does not need to be as profitable as the primary strategy — it just needs to generate sufficient proceeds to repay the development facility and avoid default.

Monitor market conditions throughout the build. If the market is moving against you, consider adjusting your strategy early rather than waiting for the problem to become critical. Reducing asking prices by five percent three months before completion may be disappointing, but it is vastly preferable to a maturity default where you face default interest of £10,000 or more per month, enforcement costs, and potential personal guarantee liability.

If you recognise any of the warning signs described in this guide, seek professional advice immediately. The cost of early intervention is a fraction of the cost of dealing with a formal default. A development finance broker can help you assess whether refinancing is possible, negotiate with your lender for term extensions or covenant waivers, and connect you with specialist solicitors if the situation is deteriorating. We provide this support to our clients as a matter of course throughout the life of the facility.

The developers who get into the most difficulty are those who believe they can resolve problems on their own and delay seeking help until the situation is critical. By the time a breach notice has been served, the range of options has narrowed significantly. By the time a receiver has been appointed, the developer has lost control entirely. The window for effective intervention is the period between recognising a problem and the lender taking formal action — and this window can be as short as a few weeks.

Whether you are an experienced developer managing a complex portfolio or a first-time developer navigating your first build, the principles are the same: plan for problems, monitor your project rigorously, communicate proactively with your lender, and seek help early when things go wrong. If you would like a confidential discussion about a project that is facing difficulties, contact our deal room — we have helped developers across Greater London, the South East, and the Midlands navigate challenging situations and avoid default.