Development Lending Monitor: Q3 2026 Review (Provisional)

Provisional. Lenders have 21 days to file a charge at Companies House, and this edition uses the company snapshot of 1 October 2026, so charges created late in Q3 2026 and filed afterwards are not yet counted. Figures for the final weeks of the period will rise when the next snapshot is applied, and a final edition will follow at a new address; this page will not be revised in place.

Pure-play development lenders registered 207 new secured facilities against UK borrowers in Q3 2026, down 1.4% on Q3 2025 (210) but level with Q3 2023 (213), so the 3-year picture is flat rather than growing. They were written against roughly 140 distinct borrower companies.

Specialist development lending in Q3 2026 was down 1.4% on Q3 2025 (210); Q3 2025 had been down 11.4% on Q3 2024 (237), so the decline has eased, on provisional figures that will rise as late filings arrive. Q3 2026 at 207 was below both Q1 2026 (242) and Q2 2026 (232). These figures are provisional: charges created late in Q3 2026 are still being filed, so the latest quarter will rise.

New vehicles matter: 28% of specialist facilities in the latest quarter were written against companies incorporated within the previous twelve months, the classic single-scheme SPV pattern.

The chart below plots specialist development facilities per quarter. The ecosystem series described next is carried alongside it as the second value in the open data for each quarter.

The wider short-term property-funding ecosystem (bridging, BTL and development-active banks) registered 15,575 charges in Q3 2026, down 1.3% on Q3 2025 (15,784). That is ecosystem activity, not development activity. Charges from the bank, bridging and BTL lenders in this tier count toward development only where per-charge signals (borrower SIC code, SPV age, particulars keywords) say so, and this edition does not publish that filtered cut.

Ecosystem activity in Q3 2026 was down 1.3% on Q3 2025 (15,784); Q3 2025 had been up 18.5% on Q3 2024 (13,324), so activity has turned down after last year's rise, on provisional figures that will rise as late filings arrive. Q3 2026 at 15,575 was below both Q1 2026 (16,779) and Q2 2026 (17,115). These figures are provisional: charges created late in Q3 2026 are still being filed, so the latest quarter will rise.

The whole register, all lenders of every kind, recorded 57,144 charges over the period, so the ecosystem accounts for roughly 27% of all UK secured lending events by count and the specialist development set for roughly 0.4%.

13 pure-play development lenders wrote three or more facilities in Q3 2026. The five most active accounted for 64% of specialist activity and the top ten for 92%, a Herfindahl-Hirschman index of 1,075, which competition authorities would class as moderately concentrated. We publish concentration only in aggregate; this Monitor does not rank or name individual lenders.

Across the wider short-term property-funding ecosystem the same quarter had 36 lenders writing three or more charges, with the top five at 68%, the top ten at 87% and an HHI of 1,243 (moderately concentrated).

Breadth has practical meaning for borrowers: a moderately concentrated specialist market with 13 genuinely active lenders, sitting inside an ecosystem of 36, is one where terms are still won by shopping the whole market rather than defaulting to the biggest names.

Of facilities originated by pure-play development lenders, the share fully redeemed within 18 months was 16.1% for the 2019 cohort, 20.5% for the 2020 cohort, 19.8% for the 2021 cohort, 22.4% for the 2022 cohort, 19.7% for the 2023 cohort and 24.9% for the 2024 cohort. The path is not a straight line: the rate fell in 2021 (19.8%) and 2023 (19.7%). The 2024 cohort, at 24.9%, is the highest in the series and above the 2019 cohort's 16.1%. These are fixed-window rates, so a cohort is only included once every loan in it has had the full 18 months to run; the comparison is like for like.

Across the wider short-term property-funding ecosystem the 18-month redemption rate was 8.8% for the 2019 cohort, 9% for the 2020 cohort, 7.3% for the 2021 cohort, 7.6% for the 2022 cohort, 9.7% for the 2023 cohort and 11.2% for the 2024 cohort. The path is not a straight line: the rate fell in 2021 (7.3%), and the 2021 and 2022 cohorts sat below the 2019 starting point. The 2024 cohort, at 11.2%, is the highest in the series and above the 2019 cohort's 8.8%. The ecosystem rate is structurally lower than the specialist rate because it includes term BTL and bank lending that is not designed to be repaid inside 18 months.

The latest cohorts in both series are consistent with what the refinance data shows below: an active exit and refinance market pulling loans off books earlier.

Where two charges are registered against the same property title by unrelated lenders, the sequencing reveals the product. In Q3 2026 we identified 405 refinance events (a senior charge satisfied at or near the registration of a successor) and 414 third-party junior charges registered alongside a live senior facility, the signature of mezzanine and second-charge lending. Related-party structures such as a lender's own security trustee are excluded from both counts. Both are analysed in the exit and refinance monitor and the mezzanine and junior debt monitor.

This edition of the Monitor is built from every mortgage and charge registered at Companies House, cross-referenced against a curated set of development-active lenders in three tiers: pure-play development lenders (the specialist series this report calls development lending), banks and bridging lenders with substantial development arms (which with the specialists make up the wider short-term property-funding ecosystem: bridging, BTL and development-active banks), and institutional real estate credit. Charges from the mixed tier count toward development only where per-charge signals such as borrower SIC code, SPV age or particulars keywords say so; this edition does not publish that filtered cut, which is why ecosystem growth is never reported as development growth. Lender identities are resolved through their funding-line vehicles and security trustees, so lending through numbered SPVs is captured against the economic lender. No individual lender is named or ranked in this publication; concentration is reported only in aggregate.

Charge data runs to 2026-10-02; satisfaction filings to 2026-10-03. Companies House filings record no loan values (a 2013 reform removed the amount-secured field), so activity is measured in charge registrations and distinct borrower counts, never estimated loan books.

Regional attribution uses the postcode of the charged property, extracted from the legal particulars of each charge, not the borrower's registered office. Property postcodes are recoverable for 81% of ecosystem charges; regional figures are shares of that covered set. Coverage is England and Wales. Any cut with fewer than 30 observations is suppressed rather than published; no cuts were suppressed in this edition.

Full methodology, definitions and revision policy: Monitor methodology. The underlying aggregates are published as open data on the report page.

The wider short-term property-funding ecosystem (bridging, BTL and development-active banks) is writing roughly 600 secured facilities a week across 36 active lenders; the pure-play development set adds roughly 8 a week across 13 active lenders. That is a market with genuine competition for good schemes. Pricing and leverage still vary widely between lenders, which is exactly where whole-of-market advice earns its keep.

Construction Capital arranges development finance, bridging and development exit facilities across the lenders behind these numbers. To discuss a scheme, call +44 20 3816 3693 or start with the deal room.