A premium gated residential development in South Liverpool. Eight high-specification homes, full planning consent, and a site that was — on the surface — relatively clean. But two factors made this a deal most lenders declined before they even reached the credit committee: the end values were significantly above what the local market typically absorbs, and the developer's deposit was structured as a deferred payment.
We arranged a £12 million facility in eight weeks — £500,000 towards the land purchase alongside a deferred deposit structure, and an £11.5 million phased build facility calibrated to the scheme's delivery programme. Here's how the deal was put together and why the structure mattered.
| Detail | |
|---|---|
| Finance type | Ground-up development finance — premium residential |
| Total facility | £12,000,000 |
| Site location | South Liverpool |
| Scheme | 8 high-specification homes, gated community |
| Site purchase price | £800,000 |
| Land loan advanced | £500,000 |
| Deferred deposit | £200,000 (agreed with vendor, deferred payment structure) |
| Developer cash contribution at land stage | £100,000 |
| Build facility | £11,500,000 |
| Build drawdown structure | Phased, aligned to development programme |
| Planning status | Full planning consent granted |
| Time from application to completion | 8 weeks |
The scheme was positioned at the premium end of the South Liverpool residential market — a deliberate, well-researched strategy by the developer, but one that immediately narrows the lender pool. Most development lenders use comparable evidence within a tight radius to validate GDV assumptions, and where end values sit materially above the prevailing local market, lenders either decline outright or apply significant haircuts to the GDV that compromise the viability of the scheme. Finding a lender with genuine appetite for high-value residential in a market where top-end comparables are limited requires both market knowledge and a compelling presentation of the evidence.
The developer had negotiated a deferred payment of £200,000 with the vendor — a commercially sensible arrangement that preserved the developer's working capital for the build programme. However, many development finance lenders will not lend against a purchase where part of the deposit is deferred. Their concern is straightforward: if the total consideration payable has not been committed at completion, the lender's security position is less clean, and the developer's demonstrated equity contribution is lower than the headline numbers suggest. This is a structural issue that eliminates a significant proportion of the mainstream development finance market from the outset.
We identified a specialist development lender with proven appetite for premium residential schemes and a clear, documented policy on deferred deposit structures. The credit submission addressed both constraints directly — the GDV evidence was presented with a detailed comparable analysis including off-market sales data, and the deferred deposit was structured and presented in a way that gave the lender full visibility of the payment schedule and its impact on the overall equity position throughout the deal.
High-end residential schemes in markets where luxury product is relatively rare present a specific valuation challenge. There are fewer directly comparable transactions, and RICS valuers — and by extension development lenders — are conservative when comparable evidence is thin. The approach here was to build the GDV case from multiple angles: local sales data supplemented by comparable schemes in adjacent affluent markets, a detailed specification breakdown demonstrating the quality premium, and sales agent commentary from agents actively marketing comparable stock in the area.
The lender's surveyor was briefed in advance with this evidence pack before the formal valuation was instructed. Pre-briefing the valuer is standard practice on premium schemes — it does not influence the independent opinion of value, but it ensures the valuer has access to the best available evidence rather than relying solely on what they find in their own database search.
The £200,000 deferred payment to the vendor was documented in the purchase contract with a clear payment date and mechanism. We presented this to the lender as a form of vendor financing — a structure that is not unusual in commercial property transactions and which, when properly documented, a specialist lender can accommodate.
The key was demonstrating that the total consideration for the site was £800,000, that the lender's £500,000 land loan represented a loan-to-purchase-price ratio consistent with the lender's parameters when viewed against the full £800,000 — not just the cash paid on completion day — and that the developer had adequate liquidity to meet the deferred payment when it fell due without impacting the build programme. With that narrative and the supporting financial evidence in place, the lender was comfortable to proceed.
💡 Key point on deferred deposits: The instinct when a lender raises concerns about a deferred deposit is to restructure it away. In many cases, the better approach is to present it clearly and compellingly rather than hide it. A lender who understands the structure and has confidence in the developer's liquidity is far more useful than one who approves on incomplete information and raises it as a condition later in the process.
The £11.5 million build facility was structured as a phased drawdown programme aligned to the development's delivery plan — rather than a standard QS-certified monthly drawdown cycle. This distinction matters and is worth explaining in detail for developers considering schemes of similar scale.
Drawdowns released against monthly QS certification of completed works. Straightforward but can result in high interest capitalisation if the full build cost is drawn early in the programme.
Drawdowns structured around defined delivery phases — enabling capital to be drawn when needed for each phase rather than front-loading the full facility. Reduces day-one interest capitalisation significantly.
On a build facility of £11.5 million, the difference between drawing the full facility from day one versus drawing in phases aligned to actual construction progress is material. Interest on £11.5 million rolling from month one adds up quickly — and on a premium scheme where the build programme may run 18 to 24 months, front-loaded interest capitalisation can erode the project margin significantly even before a single unit is sold.
The phased structure we agreed with the lender meant that drawdowns were released in tranches aligned to the completion of defined phases of the build programme — foundations and groundworks, superstructure, first fix, second fix and fit-out. This kept the drawn balance — and therefore the daily interest accrual — lower in the early stages of the project, when the site is consuming capital fastest but generating the least value relative to the eventual GDV.
For the lender, the phased structure also provided additional security comfort: rather than funding the entire build upfront against a theoretical programme, each phase release was conditional on the preceding phase being completed and certified. This is risk mitigation for both parties — and it is increasingly the structure that experienced development lenders prefer on larger schemes.
📊 Interest saving in context: On an £11.5m facility at 0.9% per month, drawing the full amount from month one versus a phased structure that averages 50% drawn across the programme represents a difference of over £600,000 in interest cost across an 18-month build. Structuring the drawdown schedule correctly is as important as negotiating the rate.
Developer presented the scheme, the GDV evidence, and the deferred deposit structure in full. We reviewed the development appraisal, stress-tested the LTGDV and profit-on-GDV at current lender rates, and identified two specialist lenders with explicit appetite for premium residential and deferred deposit structures.
Full credit submission presented including GDV comparable pack, development programme, phased drawdown schedule, deferred deposit documentation, and developer financial profile. Decision in Principle issued. Valuation and monitoring surveyor instructed simultaneously.
RICS valuation completed with pre-briefed comparable evidence. GDV confirmed at levels consistent with the appraisal. Formal facility offer issued confirming £500k land loan, deferred deposit acceptance, and phased £11.5m build facility structure.
Developer and lender solicitors instructed. Loan documentation drafted incorporating phased drawdown conditions and deferred deposit mechanism. Conditions precedent satisfied. Monitoring surveyor appointed and first phase drawdown schedule agreed.
Site purchase completed. £500,000 land loan drawn. Build facility activated with Phase 1 drawdown conditions agreed. Developer on site within the week.
"The deferred deposit was the first thing we disclosed, not the last. Trying to bury a structural feature like that in the fine print is the surest way to lose a lender's confidence at the worst possible moment — during due diligence, after you've spent three weeks on a term sheet."
— MW Capital AdvisoryPremium schemes, complex deposit structures, phased build facilities — these are the deals we do best. If your project has features that mainstream lenders struggle with, speak to us before you waste time on the wrong panel. We'll give you a straight assessment and move fast.
Discuss Your Development