Our client was a self-employed property developer based in Ruislip, Middlesex, with extensive experience in construction and residential development projects.
Area: Ruislip, Middlesex
Capital Raised: £300k
Date: 2019
Our client was a self-employed property developer based in Ruislip, Middlesex, with extensive experience in construction and residential development projects.
Working as both a builder and developer, the client regularly managed property refurbishments and development schemes.
At the time of the application, the client had nearly completed a development site valued at approximately £1.75 million, which was subject to an existing first charge development facility of approximately £650,000.
The client required funding to complete the development project while also releasing additional capital for business use.
Their objectives were to:
The development was expected to receive final sign-off within a few weeks, allowing the property to be marketed and sold at full value.
This case involved several important complexities that required specialist lender selection and careful structuring.
The transaction centred around second charge lending behind an existing development facility, while the property itself had not yet received final sign-off.
The funding was also intended partly for business purposes, with the repayment strategy relying on the successful future sale of the completed development.
Traditional lenders were unsuitable due to the second charge position, the ongoing development status, and the complexity associated with development-backed lending.
We arranged a tailored second charge bridging loan designed specifically to support both development completion and capital release.
The funding solution included:
The structure enabled the client to complete the development works while also releasing working capital for continued business growth.
This case required a structured and specialist approach throughout the transaction.
We carried out a detailed assessment of the development stage, remaining works, and wider funding requirements before structuring a second charge bridging facility aligned to the planned sale exit strategy.
A suitable lender was sourced that could accommodate the complexity of second charge development lending while also delivering sufficient flexibility around the ongoing project.
Throughout the process, communication between all parties was managed proactively to ensure the funding completed efficiently and the development works could progress without unnecessary delays.
The bridging loan completed successfully, enabling the client to complete the development project and release additional business capital.
As a result, the client was able to:
Conclusion:
This case highlights how bridging finance can provide effective solutions for development completion and business capital release, even where funding involves a second charge structure.
By focusing on asset value, project progress, and exit strategy, bridging lenders can help developers complete projects efficiently while maintaining access to additional working capital.