'Bridging is no longer confined to a single point in a transaction': Henry Manley-Cooper, HTB

FR: You recently moved up to deputy managing director of bridging finance at HTB. How would you describe the bridging market at the moment?

Transactions are taking longer to move through each stage, and that is having a direct impact on how bridging is being used.

Planning delays, building regulations and longer sales periods mean projects are no longer progressing in a straight line. Instead, they move through multiple phases, often with pauses along the way.

We are seeing timelines shift mid-transaction, which means the structure often needs to adapt rather than remain fixed.

As a result, bridging is increasingly being structured into deals from the outset, rather than used as a one-off solution. It is there to support those transition points as the project moves forward.

That puts more emphasis on certainty. Brokers and their clients need to know that the agreed structure will hold as the deal progresses.

FR: How has the usage of bridging finance changed over the last few years?

The most significant change is that bridging is no longer confined to a single point in a transaction.

Historically, it was often used to secure an asset, particularly where speed was required or other funding options were not available. Now, it is used across multiple stages within a deal because the gaps between those stages have become longer and less predictable.

In development, that might mean funding a site while planning is being secured, bridging between build milestones, or providing an exit facility where sales are taking longer than expected. In each case, it is about keeping the project moving when progress is not linear.

In many cases, the original plan does not hold from start to finish, so the structure needs to allow for that, whether it is an extended timeline, a revised exit or a different approach to the asset.

We are also seeing this in investment strategies, where bridging is used to support portfolio repositioning, whether that is creating time to dispose of assets or facilitating a shift in long-term strategy.

Across both, the common thread is that bridging is being used to manage change within a transaction, rather than simply to initiate it.

FR: What are the most important elements for brokers when picking a bridging lender at the moment?

Speed is expected. It is no longer a differentiator.

What matters more is certainty, as brokers and their clients need confidence that a lender will deliver on the agreed structure and within the required timeframe.

That becomes more important where bridging forms part of a wider funding plan. If the bridging element does not deliver, it can affect the wider transaction.

From an underwriting perspective, we are looking beyond day one. It is not just about the asset or the borrower, but how the deal is likely to move forward. In practice, we are often structuring for more than one outcome, because timelines change, exits move and plans do not always hold. That means the structure has to be able to flex as the deal progresses.

Brokers increasingly look to lenders who understand that and can give them confidence the deal will complete as expected.

FR: What impact has the Renters’ Rights Act had on bridging?

Even ahead of implementation, it has influenced how landlords approach their portfolios.

There is more uncertainty around how certain assets will perform under the new framework, particularly in terms of income and how those properties will be managed over time. That is leading investors to reassess what they hold and how those assets fit within their longer-term plans.

In some cases, that means disposing of assets that may be less suited to the new environment. In others, it is about taking time to work out the right next step.

That is where bridging comes in. It gives borrowers the flexibility to manage that period, whether that is facilitating a disposal, supporting a change in use or simply allowing decisions to be taken at the right time rather than under pressure.

Used in that way, it becomes part of how investors manage change, rather than just a short-term funding solution.

FR: What are your hopes for the rest of 2026?

A more stable environment would allow investors and developers to plan with greater confidence.

Recent uncertainty has led some to pause activity, particularly in development where delivery remains below what is needed. Greater stability would help projects move forward more consistently.

What will not change is the direction of the market. Transactions are becoming more complex, and funding needs to be structured around that.

As that continues, the ability to structure funding around how deals actually play out, and to deliver consistently through each stage, will become more important.

That is what will ultimately determine which lenders brokers rely on.