In an industry where every case is unique and complexity is the norm, the development finance sector has become increasingly reliant on rigid criteria and automated processes. But this approach is failing both lenders and borrowers at a time when the market needs flexibility most.
At Stamford Finance, we've taken a deliberately different path. While many lenders retreat behind email-only relationships and standardised tick-box assessments, we believe that meaningful dialogue is non-negotiable, and the reason is simple: development projects are not commodities that fit neatly into predetermined categories.
The traditional lending approach, as I often describe it, resembles an A4 sheet of paper covered in tick boxes, with borrowers finding themselves shuffled between products when one criterion doesn't quite fit, creating confusion and barriers to entry rather than solutions. This mechanistic approach misses two fundamental truths about development finance: no two cases are genuinely the same and there’s no such thing as a vanilla case.
Our borrowers are construction-minded professionals focused on delivering projects, not navigating someone else's product matrix. When lenders prioritise rigid criteria over understanding the full picture, they're asking developers to divert attention from what they do best—building. This is where the value of genuine conversation becomes clear.
Phone-based relationships versus email-only interactions might seem like a minor operational choice, but the difference is transformational. A conversation reveals unique context that no application form can capture. When a borrower explains their adverse credit history directly—what happened, why it happened, and how they've addressed it—we can establish personal understanding alongside their financials. This deeper rapport creates the foundation for navigating the inevitable challenges that arise during development projects.
This approach has allowed us to support borrowers through challenges that would have derailed other lending relationships. Take the Section 106 agreements we've seen drag on for 18 months beyond the original 12-month bridge term. Because our borrowers kept us informed throughout, addressing delays head-on rather than waiting for redemption day surprises, we've been able to stay with them and see projects through to completion, with such flexibility becoming even more crucial in today's challenging market conditions.
The current market environment, with slowed sales, planning backlogs, and material cost increases, demands even more responsiveness from lenders. Rather than seeing these challenges as reasons to retreat, we've used broker and borrower feedback to develop new products, like our higher leverage development exit facilities. We've changed terms mid-facility to accommodate material price fluctuations, turned drawdowns around within 72 hours, and positioned our monitoring surveyors as project allies rather than obstacles. This isn't about being permissive, it's about being responsive to legitimate business challenges, something that's only possible when you have the structural freedom and contextual understanding to act quickly.
Being privately funded gives us an edge that many institutional lenders cannot match. When a case comes in, I can call my partners directly for a decision. There are no secondary lender criteria to navigate, no committee processes that delay responses for weeks. We can confidently commit to deals we believe in and maintain that commitment throughout the project lifecycle. The result is that borrowers work with the same person who understands their case from day one through to closure.
This continuity builds trust, enables proactive problem-solving, and ultimately delivers better outcomes for everyone involved. In a sector where millions of pounds are at stake and timing is critical, the human touch isn't a luxury—it's a necessity. The lenders who recognise this will be the ones still standing when the market rebounds.
