The plan looks clean… until the timeline moves
On paper, planning targets can look straightforward: around 8 weeks for many applications and 13 weeks for major developments.
In reality, timelines often extend through agreed extensions, workload pressures, and complexity. A Financial Times analysis highlighted how widely extensions are used and how actual decision times can stretch far beyond headline targets.
That matters because a development rarely fails in one dramatic moment.
It usually slows down quietly – week by week – when funding is not matched to delivery reality.
Why this becomes stressful for developers and delivery teams
A build only moves as fast as the funding structure allows.
When your programme shifts but your facility is rigid, the pressure shows up in predictable places:
- Contractors wait for payments
- Work slows or stops between stages
- Costs creep while momentum drops
- Timelines extend, which increases holding costs
And cost creep is not rare. Research on major projects consistently finds overruns are common; Flyvbjerg and co-authors reported cost overruns in the majority of projects, with averages around the high 20% range in some datasets.
So the real risk is not “taking finance.”
The real risk is taking the wrong structure for the way projects actually behave.
What usually goes wrong
Most development funding problems come from misalignment between four moving parts:
1) The programme is treated as fixed, when it is naturally variable
Weather, labour, surveys, suppliers, access, building control, and variations all change the sequence.
A stronger approach is to build time buffers and decision points into the plan from day one.
2) Drawdowns do not match real build stages
If stages are defined poorly, valuation points become bottlenecks.
A stronger approach is to align stages to practical milestones that can be evidenced clearly.
3) Contingency is under scoped
Even well run projects face surprises, especially during strip out, utilities, and groundworks.
A stronger approach is to include realistic contingency and demonstrate how it will be governed.
4) The exit is assumed, not engineered
Many developments stall near the end when the refinance route is not ready or the end value does not clear the target LTV.
A stronger approach is to plan the refinance criteria early and build toward it throughout delivery.
The “Funding Fit” test
Before you commit, you should be able to answer these clearly:
- You can explain your funding route and exit route in one sentence.
- You can show your build programme with realistic buffers and dependencies.
- You can show a cost plan that includes contingency and who controls it.
- You can show how drawdowns map to evidence able build milestones.
- You can show what happens if planning, build, or sales timelines slip.
- You can show your refinance or sale route is realistic for the completed asset.
If any of those answers are vague, the finance is not “wrong”-it is just not yet structured well enough to carry the project calmly.
What a lender ready development pack typically needs
This is what reduces delays, avoids rework, and keeps underwriting confidence high:
- A clear summary of the scheme, timeline, and exit plan.
- A build programme with stages that match drawdowns logically.
- A cost plan with contingency and governance rules.
- Evidence supporting end value assumptions and demand.
- A clear explanation of what changes if the programme slips.
- Clean documentation that stays consistent across the process.
Good funding packages do not feel “optimistic.”
They feel controlled.
How Butterfly helps
When developers come to us, they usually want one thing: predictability.
We help by creating structure around what normally causes drift:
- We clarify the most realistic finance route for your scheme and timeline
- We align milestones, drawdowns, and evidence so progress stays fundable
- We pressure test contingency and cost assumptions so the plan holds under stress
- We strengthen the exit pathway early, so you are not relying on hope at the end
- We coordinate the process so next steps are clear and underwriting friction is reduced
Where specialist support is required, we can also coordinate introductions to appropriate third parties. Lending is subject to status and lender criteria.
The bottom line
Planning targets can look neat, but real timelines move.
Build stages rarely go perfectly to plan. Cost overruns are common across complex projects.
That is why the safest development finance is not the fastest finance.
It is the finance that stays aligned when reality changes.
Information only. Funding outcomes depend on eligibility and third-party criteria.
