Planning status is one of the most significant variables in land bridging finance. Two plots that look similar on a map can sit in entirely different lending categories depending on whether planning consent has been granted, what type of consent it is, how deliverable it is in practice, and how access and services have been resolved. The difference in lender treatment between consented and unconsented land is not simply a matter of risk appetite: it affects the valuation basis, the maximum leverage available, the evidence required, and the range of exit options credibly available within the bridging term. This guide explains how lenders assess land with and without planning permission, why the distinction matters so much for bridging, how deal structure tends to change depending on planning status, and what evidence typically strengthens a land bridging application at each stage of the planning journey. It is general information only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice.

What lenders mean by land with and without planning

Planning status is not a binary condition, and lenders and valuers tend to treat it as a spectrum of certainty rather than a simple yes or no. At one end of the spectrum is unconsented land, meaning land with no current planning permission for development beyond existing use rights. At the other end is clean, deliverable full planning permission with manageable conditions and clear access. Between these two points there are several gradations, each carrying different risk implications for a bridging lender. Understanding where a specific site sits on that spectrum is the starting point for any land bridging conversation.

Unconsented land generally means there is no planning permission in place. The land may have what is sometimes called hope value, a market assessment of the probability that planning could be obtained in future, and what the land would be worth if it were. Hope value is not a guaranteed uplift; it is a professional judgement about probability and demand, and different valuers can reach different conclusions about the same site. For bridging loan purposes, unconsented land is typically assessed against its existing use value, with only limited and cautiously applied hope value added where the planning case is credible. Consented land can take several forms: outline planning permission establishes the principle of development but leaves detailed matters to be resolved through reserved matters applications; full planning permission grants detailed consent for a specific scheme; and planning permission subject to conditions may be technically valid but require conditions to be discharged before development can commence. For a lender, the headline permission type matters less than whether the consent is deliverable: whether conditions are manageable, infrastructure obligations are proportionate, access is resolved, and services are feasible.

Why planning status changes the risk profile

Planning status changes three fundamentals of any land deal: valuation certainty, timeline certainty, and exit certainty. Each of these affects the bridging lender’s risk assessment in a different way, and together they explain why consented and unconsented land are treated so differently even when the physical characteristics of two adjacent plots may be virtually identical.

Valuation certainty

For unconsented land, valuation is anchored primarily to existing use value, meaning what the land is worth in its current state, for its current purpose. Agricultural land, grazing land, amenity land, or storage land each has a market, but that market is considerably smaller and values considerably lower than development land. Where a credible planning case can be made, a valuer may add limited hope value on top of the existing use figure, but this is a professional judgement about probability rather than a confirmed value, and it can vary substantially between valuers and between market conditions.

For consented land, valuers can generally reference comparable transactions of similar consented sites in the same area, which provides a more robust and consistent basis for the valuation. The consent type, the density and mix of development permitted, the presence or absence of abnormal costs, and the strength of local demand for that development type all feed into the comparable analysis. This does not mean consented land is straightforward to value. A consent with heavy infrastructure obligations, expensive remediation requirements, or complex highways contributions may produce a net realisable value considerably below the headline consented land comparable. But the valuation process is more evidence-based and less dependent on probability assessments than for unconsented land.

Timeline certainty

Bridging is short-term finance, and timeline risk is directly translated into cost risk. Every month the bridge runs longer than planned adds interest cost and typically increases the financial pressure on the exit. For unconsented land, the timeline to the exit event is frequently dependent on the planning process, and planning timelines can extend considerably beyond initial estimates. Objections from neighbours or statutory consultees, requests for additional information from the local planning authority, decisions called in for committee review, or appeals following an initial refusal can each add months to a process that was expected to complete quickly. The less predictable the planning pathway, the more a lender worries about the bridging term being calibrated to an optimistic outcome.

Consented land has a more certain timeline baseline, because the planning decision has already been made and the uncertainty has reduced to the question of whether conditions can be discharged and development can commence within a realistic period. However, conditions can still introduce delay. Pre-commencement conditions that require technical studies, infrastructure agreements, or third-party approvals can take months to discharge even for a well-resourced developer. Section 106 agreements and infrastructure obligations can require legal negotiation that extends the process. Reserved matters applications on outline permissions add a further planning stage before development can begin. The point is not that consented land has no timeline risk, but that the timeline risks are more identifiable and more manageable than the uncertainty of a planning outcome that has not yet been determined.

Exit certainty

Most land bridging deals rely on one of three exits: a sale of the land, a refinance onto development finance or longer-term land finance, or a progression to development followed by sales or refinance of the completed units. Planning status affects how credibly each of these exits can be evidenced at the time the bridging application is assessed. For unconsented land, an exit that depends on obtaining planning permission within the bridging term is relying on an event whose timing and outcome are not fully within the borrower’s control. Even a well-prepared planning application with strong professional support can be delayed by the planning authority’s workload, by third-party objections, or by requests for additional technical information.

For consented land, the exit is generally more evidenced at the point of application. A sale of consented land to a developer can be supported by comparable transactions and by evidence of developer interest in the area. A refinance onto development finance is more credible once the consent is in place and the deliverability conditions are understood, because development finance lenders typically require planning as a minimum before they will commit. This relative certainty does not eliminate exit risk: a consented exit can still fail if market conditions change, if the development finance route turns out to require conditions that are not yet met, or if the timeline to discharge conditions extends beyond the bridging term. But the range of options is wider and the evidence base for each is stronger.

Land Planning Status Classifier

The interactive classifier below covers the five main planning stages that land bridging lenders encounter. Select the status that best describes the land to see how lenders typically approach it, what metrics they focus on, and the most common risk to watch for at that stage.

How deal structure tends to change with planning status

Planning status influences not just whether a lender will consider a land bridging application, but how the facility is structured if they do. The three main dimensions on which structure tends to change are loan-to-value, term and buffer requirements, and the evidence burden placed on the borrower.

Loan-to-value approach

On unconsented land, lenders typically apply more conservative loan-to-value limits than on consented land. The reasoning is straightforward: if saleability is more limited, value is less certain, and the exit is more dependent on a single uncertain event, the lender needs more security margin to manage the risk of a shortfall if the loan cannot be repaid within the term and enforcement becomes necessary. In practice, this often means that unconsented land requires a larger equity contribution, additional security from another asset, or a smaller loan relative to the purchase price than the borrower may have anticipated based on their view of the land’s potential.

On consented land, loan-to-value can be more supportive, particularly where the consent is clean and deliverable and the comparable evidence for the site’s value is strong. However, land bridging LTV levels are generally more conservative than those available on standard residential or commercial property, because land as a security class is inherently less liquid and the buyer pool is more restricted. A lender who is comfortable lending at a higher LTV on a residential property may apply a significantly lower LTV limit on consented land, and even more conservative limits on unconsented sites. Establishing the likely available LTV before proceeding with a land purchase is one of the most important early steps in structuring a land bridging transaction.

Terms and buffer requirements

Where planning is uncertain, lenders generally place greater emphasis on the bridging term being realistic and including adequate buffer for delays. A term that assumes planning will be granted within three months when the planning authority’s published target is eight weeks but the local track record shows most decisions taking four to six months is not a conservative plan. It is an optimistic one, and lenders are experienced at identifying the difference. The more uncertain the planning pathway, the more a lender will want to see a term that can accommodate a planning process that takes longer than expected without immediately creating a funding crisis.

On consented land, terms can sometimes be structured more tightly where the exit is clearly defined and the timeline to that exit is well evidenced. But even on consented land, bridging lenders typically want to see buffer. The condition discharge process, the reserved matters application if relevant, the legal completion of any Section 106 agreement, and the lead time for the development finance lender’s own underwriting and legal work all need to fit within the bridging term with time to spare.

Evidence burden

Unconsented land cases carry a higher evidence burden because the lender is being asked to accept a risk profile that is more dependent on future events than on existing, documentable facts. A lender considering an unconsented land bridging application needs to be persuaded that the planning case is credible, that the exit has been realistically assessed, and that the borrower has a plan that will work even if the planning process does not proceed as smoothly as hoped. This requires more narrative: a clear explanation of why planning is considered achievable for that specific site, in that specific location, within a specific timeframe, and more professional input, in the form of planning consultant involvement, pre-application engagement with the local authority, and preliminary assessments of the main constraints.

Consented land evidence requirements are different rather than lighter. The lender needs to assess deliverability rather than probability, which means scrutinising the decision notice and the conditions attached to it, understanding any Section 106 or infrastructure obligations, confirming access and services feasibility, and establishing whether the exit plan is genuinely achievable given the condition discharge timeline and any other remaining uncertainties. The shift from “is this planning credible?” to “is this consent deliverable?” is the essential difference in what the evidence pack needs to demonstrate. The bridging loan document checklist covers the documentation that is typically needed for property-backed applications.

Valuation: how land is assessed at each stage

Land valuation is frequently where expectations and lending reality diverge most sharply. Borrowers who have spent time researching planning potential and comparable consented land values may find that a lender’s valuation of their unconsented site is considerably lower than they expected. Understanding how valuers approach land at different stages of the planning journey helps set realistic expectations before approaching a lender.

Unconsented land: existing use and hope value

For land without planning permission, valuation is primarily anchored to existing use value, meaning what the land is worth in its current state and for its current purpose. The market for agricultural land, amenity land, or scrubland is real but considerably more limited than the market for consented development land, and values reflect this. Where a credible case can be made for the land’s planning potential, a valuer may add limited hope value on top of the existing use figure. Hope value represents the market’s assessment of the probability that planning could be obtained, discounted for the time, cost, and uncertainty of the planning process. It is a judgement, not a promise, and it can vary considerably between valuers and between market conditions.

The practical implication is that unconsented land is often valued at a level that feels conservative to a buyer who is focused on the development potential rather than the current use. Lenders apply their own caution on top of an already conservative valuation, particularly where the planning case is speculative rather than well-evidenced. Borrowers who are acquiring unconsented land at a price that reflects development potential need to understand that the lender’s starting point for LTV purposes may be the existing use value rather than the hoped-for consented value. Bridging finance on unconsented land is therefore more likely to require a significant equity contribution than finance on consented sites.

Consented land: comparable evidence and deliverability adjustments

With planning permission in place, valuers can more reliably reference comparable sales of similar consented sites in the same area, which provides a more objective basis for the valuation. The specific consent type, the density and mix of development permitted, the tenure structure of the proposed units, and the local market demand for that development type all inform how the comparable evidence is applied. A site with full planning permission for a scheme that matches current market demand, with manageable conditions and clear access, will typically support a higher and more reliable valuation than an equivalent site with complex conditions, expensive infrastructure obligations, or access that requires third-party agreement.

Valuers on consented land must also account for abnormal costs, meaning expenses that are specific to the site rather than typical for the development type. Highways contributions, remediation requirements, ecological mitigation, drainage attenuation, and connection costs for services can all reduce the net realisable value of a consented site considerably below the headline comparable. Where these abnormal costs are significant, the residual land value after accounting for them may be substantially lower than a borrower expects based on comparable headline figures. Understanding the abnormal cost position for a specific site, ideally through early feasibility work, is one of the most important inputs to a realistic assessment of what the site is worth as bridging security.

Access and services: planning does not resolve these

A common misunderstanding in land transactions is that planning permission makes the site straightforwardly fundable. In practice, access and services are assessed independently of planning status, and unresolved issues in either area can significantly affect both the value and the lendability of a site even where consent has been granted. Lenders and valuers will examine these factors for both consented and unconsented sites, and problems in either area can be as consequential as the planning position itself.

Access

Legal access to a public highway is a fundamental requirement for any development site, and lenders will want to confirm that access rights are clearly documented and legally secure. This means more than a physical route to the road: it requires that the right to use that route for the intended development purpose is legally established and that the route is adequate for the scale and nature of the development planned. Where access depends on crossing third-party land, a ransom strip (a narrow strip of land between the site and the highway that is owned by another party) can give that third party significant leverage to extract value from the transaction or to block it entirely.

Even with planning permission in place, if access is subject to unresolved third-party negotiations, unclear legal documentation, or practical constraints that make the access inadequate for the development, a lender may treat the case cautiously or decline. Access issues that are not visible in the planning application or the title documents can emerge during the solicitor’s due diligence process and create delays or complications that affect the bridging timeline. Identifying and resolving access issues before approaching a lender, or at least understanding clearly what the access position is and what resolution is required, is one of the most practical steps a borrower can take to strengthen a land bridging application.

Services

Services (mains water, electricity, gas, and drainage) are essential for any habitable or commercial development and their availability and cost can vary enormously between sites. A site that is well located and well consented but that requires a long, expensive connection run for water or electricity, or that requires significant drainage infrastructure due to flood risk or the absence of a public sewer, can have its development viability significantly compromised by service costs that were not fully understood at the point of acquisition. Lenders understand this dynamic and will look for evidence that services have been assessed, ideally with feasibility studies or network provider responses, rather than simply assumed to be available and affordable.

Service issues tend to surface late in the development process rather than at the planning stage, because planning decisions do not typically require utility connections to be confirmed before consent is granted. This timing mismatch means that a site can progress through planning and be acquired using bridging before the full implications of the services position are understood. Where a service connection is very expensive, very slow, or dependent on third-party wayleave agreements, the development timeline can be extended in ways that directly increase the cost of a bridging facility. Commissioning early utility feasibility studies before committing to a land acquisition, and sharing the findings with a lender or broker at the outset of the bridging discussion, demonstrates the level of due diligence that lenders respond positively to on land transactions.

What evidence lenders typically need

The evidence that strengthens a land bridging application is different for consented and unconsented sites, reflecting the different risk questions each type of application raises. For unconsented land, the evidence needs to address probability and contingency: why is planning credible for this site, and what happens if it takes longer than expected or is refused? For consented land, the evidence needs to address deliverability and execution: is the consent usable within the intended timescale, and is the exit plan realistic given the conditions and obligations attached to it?

Evidence for unconsented land

An unconsented land bridging application needs to make a credible case for the planning pathway rather than simply asserting that planning is likely. This means providing a clear explanation of why planning is considered achievable for that specific site in that specific location, including reference to the local planning policy framework, any relevant emerging policy, the planning history of nearby sites, and the constraints that have been considered and assessed. Professional planning consultant involvement is a strong signal of credibility: a planning consultant who has reviewed the site and produced a planning appraisal or supporting document provides independent technical corroboration for the planning thesis that the borrower alone cannot provide.

Equally important is a realistic timeline that accounts for the planning authority’s actual performance on comparable applications and includes buffer for the complications that frequently arise. Pre-application engagement with the local planning authority (a formal or informal meeting to discuss the proposal before submitting an application) is one of the most useful pieces of evidence a borrower can present, because it demonstrates that the planning case has been tested with the decision-maker rather than prepared in isolation. A fallback exit (an alternative repayment route that does not depend on planning being granted within the bridging term) strengthens any unconsented land application considerably, because it demonstrates that the borrower has assessed the downside scenario rather than relying entirely on the planning outcome. The guide to what counts as a strong exit strategy covers what lenders require from exit plans in detail.

Evidence for consented land

For consented land, the evidence pack typically centres on the planning decision itself and everything that flows from it. The full decision notice, including all conditions attached to the consent, needs to be available so the lender and valuer can assess whether the conditions are pre-commencement, pre-occupation, or ongoing, and whether they require technical work, third-party approvals, or infrastructure agreements that could affect the timeline to development commencement. Any Section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking needs to be reviewed for obligations that affect the timing, cost, or viability of the development, including affordable housing requirements, education or highway contributions, and phasing obligations that affect when sales or refinance proceeds will be available.

Access rights need to be clearly documented and legally established. Services feasibility should be demonstrated through utility provider responses or feasibility studies where available. Reserved matters status needs to be clearly described for outline permissions. And the exit plan needs to connect the planning position specifically to the proposed exit: if the exit is a sale to a developer, comparable transactions of similar consented sites in the area support the assumed sale price; if the exit is development finance, confirmation that a development finance lender is actively engaged and that the consent meets their requirements provides meaningful support for the exit assumption.

Exit strategy: planning changes the story but not the need for certainty

Whatever the planning status, the bridging lender’s central question remains the same: how will the loan be repaid within the term, and how resilient is that plan to complications? Planning status changes what a credible answer looks like, but it does not change the need for that answer to be specific, time-bound, and supported by evidence.

Exits for unconsented land

The most common exit plan for unconsented land bridging is to obtain planning permission during the bridging term and then either sell the consented land or refinance onto development finance. This is a viable plan when the planning pathway is genuinely credible and the term is long enough to accommodate the planning process with realistic buffer. It becomes problematic when the exit depends on a specific planning outcome within a tight window, without any contingency for a delay, a revision to the scheme, or an appeal. A plan that says “we will get planning within six months and sell at consented land values” needs to be assessed against the question: what happens if the planning decision takes nine months, or is refused and subject to appeal?

Lenders often respond more positively to unconsented land exits that include a realistic fallback, for example, the ability to sell the land at existing use value if planning is not obtained, or to hold the site on longer-term land finance while the planning process continues. The fallback does not need to be equivalent to the primary exit in terms of value realisation; it needs to be sufficient to repay the bridging loan and any associated costs without requiring enforcement. A site that is genuinely marketable at existing use value, even if that value is considerably lower than the hoped-for consented land value, provides a fallback that a site with limited saleability in its current form does not.

Exits for consented land

With planning permission in place, the range of credible exit options expands. A sale of the consented site to a developer or investor is more straightforwardly evidenced by comparable transactions. A refinance onto development finance is more realistic because most development finance lenders require planning as a minimum, and the presence of consent opens the conversation with that lender market. Progressing to development and exiting through unit sales or refinance of the completed scheme becomes a defined programme rather than an aspiration dependent on an uncertain planning decision.

Even so, lenders assess consented land exits against the specific conditions and obligations of the permission rather than treating consent as a blanket endorsement of the exit plan. An exit that depends on the development finance being drawn down before certain conditions are discharged may be more fragile than the headline consent suggests. An exit that depends on selling to a developer at a price that is inconsistent with the residual land value after accounting for abnormal costs may not be achievable. The exit plan needs to be worked through against the specific consent, its conditions, and the site’s cost position, not just assumed to be viable because planning has been granted. The guide to what counts as a strong exit strategy covers the evidence requirements for both sale and refinance exits.

How planning status changes lender focus: a comparison

The table below summarises how the key dimensions of a land bridging application typically differ depending on planning status. These are patterns rather than fixed rules, and individual lender criteria vary and specific site characteristics always affect how a case is treated.

Dimension	Land without planning	Land with planning
Core risk	Planning outcome uncertainty	Deliverability and condition discharge
Valuation anchor	Existing use value plus limited hope value	Comparable consented land sales adjusted for constraints
Typical lender comfort	Lower; more conservative leverage	Higher where consent is usable and constraints are manageable
Evidence emphasis	Planning rationale, professional input, contingency planning	Permission details, conditions, obligations, access and services
Exit vulnerability	Often dependent on a single planning outcome	More options available but still timeline and cost sensitive
Timeline risk	High and less controllable	Reduced but still present through conditions and infrastructure

Costs and the cost of time

Land bridging can be an effective tool, but it is particularly sensitive to delays because the short-term nature of bridging means that each additional month of extended term represents a meaningful additional cost. On a land transaction where the gross loan is significant, monthly interest at bridging rates adds up quickly, and if that interest is rolling up rather than being serviced monthly, the redemption amount grows with each additional month. A plan that assumed six months of bridging and actually requires ten months has incurred approximately 67% more interest than budgeted, before accounting for any extension fees or additional charges. The cost of time is not a background consideration in land bridging: it is one of the primary financial risks of the transaction.

This is why the term buffer that lenders require is not just a procedural preference but a genuine financial protection for both the lender and the borrower. A well-structured land bridging facility builds a realistic allowance for the planning, condition discharge, services, or marketing process to take longer than the central estimate, and models what the total cost looks like if the extended term is reached. The bridging loan calculator allows illustrative figures to be modelled across different term lengths, which is a practical way to understand the financial impact of a planning or delivery delay before committing to a structure. The guide to bridging loan fees explained covers all the cost elements of a bridging facility in detail, including how the interest structure affects the balance over time.

Related guides

Frequently asked questions

Does having planning permission guarantee bridging finance is available?

No. Planning permission improves the case for bridging finance by providing a more certain valuation basis, a broader range of exit options, and a more defined timeline, but it does not guarantee that a lender will provide finance or on what terms. Lenders will still assess the specific consent in detail: whether the conditions are manageable, whether infrastructure and Section 106 obligations are proportionate, whether access and services are resolved, and whether the exit plan is credibly achievable within the proposed term. A planning permission that looks strong on paper but has complex pre-commencement conditions, expensive infrastructure requirements, or unresolved access may still be viewed cautiously.

The quality of the consent matters as much as its existence. A clean, deliverable full planning permission with modest conditions and clear access on a site with straightforward services is a materially different proposition from an outline permission with multiple reserved matters still to be determined, a significant Section 106 with affordable housing and highways contributions, and access dependent on a third-party agreement that has not yet been reached. Lenders and valuers assess the specific consent rather than treating all consented land as equivalent. Presenting the permission in full, with a clear assessment of the conditions and obligations and how they will be managed within the exit timeline, is the most effective way to demonstrate that the consent is genuinely usable.

Can bridging finance be obtained on unconsented land?

Yes, in some cases, though lenders are typically more conservative on unconsented land and the range of lenders willing to consider it is narrower than for consented sites. The key factors are the current value of the land in its existing use, its saleability in that form, and the credibility and resilience of the exit strategy given the planning uncertainty. A site that has genuine marketability at existing use value, a well-evidenced planning thesis backed by professional input, and a realistic timeline with contingency for a delayed planning outcome is a more fundable proposition than one where the only viable exit is obtaining planning quickly.

Unconsented land cases often require a larger equity contribution relative to the purchase price, because the lender is applying conservative LTV limits to reflect the valuation uncertainty. Additional security from another asset can sometimes support a higher loan amount where the equity in the land alone is insufficient. The most practical starting point for a borrower considering bridging finance on unconsented land is to obtain a planning consultant’s assessment of the site’s planning prospects and a preliminary valuation of the existing use value, so that the realistic funding available can be assessed before the acquisition price is agreed. Committing to a purchase price that reflects development potential, on the assumption that bridging finance will be available at that value, is one of the most common and most avoidable mistakes in land acquisition.

What is the difference between outline and full planning permission for lenders?

Both outline and full planning permission represent consented land for lending purposes, but lenders typically treat them differently because they represent different levels of certainty about what will be built and when. Full planning permission provides detailed consent for a specific scheme including layout, scale, appearance, and landscaping. The path from full consent to development commencement is shorter and more predictable, subject to condition discharge, than from outline consent. For a lender whose exit depends on development commencing or development finance being drawn down, full consent provides a more certain basis for assessing the timeline.

Outline planning permission establishes the principle of development but leaves significant detail to be resolved through reserved matters applications. Each reserved matters application involves a further planning process (covering submission, consultation, and determination) that adds time and introduces further potential for delay or revision. For a lender assessing a site with outline consent, the relevant questions are how many reserved matters remain to be determined, what the realistic timeline is for resolving them, and whether any of them could be contentious or subject to objection. A site with outline consent where all reserved matters have been approved is functionally similar to full consent. A site where reserved matters are yet to be submitted is at an earlier stage of deliverability that requires more cautious treatment.

Why do lenders still scrutinise access and services if planning has been granted?

Planning authorities grant consent based on the principle and design of the development, but they do not guarantee that the site is deliverable within any particular timescale or cost envelope. Access rights are a legal matter that sit outside the planning process, and planning consent for a scheme that requires access across third-party land does not resolve the legal and financial questions of how that access will be secured. A ransom strip holder or an adjacent landowner who owns the only practical access route to a site retains their negotiating position regardless of whether planning has been granted for the development the access would serve.

Services connections are similarly separate from the planning decision. A utility provider confirming capacity and cost for a connection is a different process from the planning authority granting consent for the development the connection would serve. Where connection costs are high, lead times are long, or wayleave agreements across third-party land are required, the deliverability of the development can be significantly affected in ways that the planning permission itself does not resolve. Lenders who have experience with land transactions have encountered projects where planning was in place but the site stalled because services costs were prohibitive or because a wayleave negotiation took far longer than expected. This experience is reflected in the scrutiny applied to access and services even on consented sites.

How does planning status affect the exit strategy a lender will accept?

Planning status determines what a credible exit looks like and what evidence is needed to support it. For unconsented land, an exit that depends entirely on obtaining planning permission within a tight bridging term is a single-point-of-failure plan that lenders assess cautiously. The exit is stronger when it includes a realistic fallback: evidence that the land is marketable at existing use value if planning is delayed, or that the bridging term is long enough to accommodate a more extended planning process without creating a crisis. Lenders responding to an unconsented land application are essentially assessing how much of the exit risk rests on a single uncertain event, and how the borrower has planned for that event not going to plan.

For consented land, the exit plan can be more specific and more evidence-based, because the planning outcome is already known and the remaining uncertainties are about execution rather than probability. A sale at consented land comparable values, a refinance onto development finance once specific conditions are discharged, or a progression to development and exit through unit sales are all exits that can be worked through against the specific consent, conditions, and site characteristics. Lenders will assess the specific exit plan against the specific permission rather than accepting a general statement that planning is in place as a sufficient answer. The exit needs to be connected to the actual state of the consent and site, not just to the general principle that consented land is more financeable than unconsented land.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. Your property or land may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on a bridging loan. Before proceeding, review the full costs including interest structure, fees, and any exit charges, understand how much you will actually receive as a net advance, and make sure your exit strategy is realistic and time-bound. Consider whether other funding routes could be more suitable and take independent professional advice if you are unsure. Actual outcomes will depend on your individual circumstances.