Viability remains stretched, local authority capacity is under pressure, and delivery risk continues to sit uncomfortably across the market. What is less developed is a clear view of what actually needs to change to move schemes forward at pace.
If the last year has been about recognising the constraints, the next needs to be about how we respond to them in practice. Across conversations with authorities, investors and delivery partners, three areas are coming through consistently. Not as theory, but as approaches that are starting to work when properly applied: (i) aggregation of projects, (ii) a more pragmatic approach to risk, and (iii) broader use of funding mechanisms to close the viability gap.
1. Aggregation as a route to scale
One of the most persistent issues is fragmentation. Too many schemes are still brought forward on a stand‑alone basis, each with their own structure, procurement and risk profile. For investors, that makes deployment inefficient. For authorities, it slows delivery and increases cost.
Bringing projects together into a single programme or platform changes that dynamic. It creates scale, allows risk to be spread across a portfolio, and gives investors something that looks more like a pipeline than a one‑off opportunity. We are seeing this emerge through place‑based funds, programme‑level structures, and in some cases cross‑sector portfolios where different asset types are combined.
There is also a delivery benefit. Once projects are considered as part of a programme, it becomes easier to standardise approaches, streamline decision‑making and build repeatable processes. That, in turn, reduces the burden on already stretched public sector teams.
The shift here is as much cultural as it is financial. It requires authorities to think less about individual schemes and more about how a series of projects can be brought forward together in a way that attracts capital and improves delivery certainty – this approach has huge opportunity in the next 12 months to push forward New Towns, the Strategic Sites Accelerator and plenty more projects across the market.
2. A more realistic approach to risk
The current market has exposed some of the limitations in how risk has traditionally been allocated. Full transfer of construction or demand risk is often no longer priced in a way that makes schemes viable. At the same time, the public sector is not in a position to absorb that risk on its own.
What is emerging instead is a more balanced position. Joint ventures are an obvious example, where risk and return are shared over the life of the project rather than pushed in one direction.
But there are also more subtle shifts: greater willingness to share construction risk, more flexible approaches to programme and cost uncertainty, and a reconsideration of how operational and lifecycle risks are managed.
In practice, this often comes down to being clear about which risks can genuinely be managed, and by whom. Trying to transfer risk that cannot be controlled tends to result in either pricing that kills viability or delivery issues further down the line.
What needs to be changed is how schemes are structured at the outset. That means being more deliberate about where risk sits and then designing a commercial model that integrates these risks.
Investors are not stepping back from risk, but they are looking for clarity and credibility in how it is understood and managed. Structures that demonstrate this tend to gain traction; those that rely on pushing risk away tend not to.
3. Broadening the funding toolkit
Even with better structuring and more pragmatic risk allocation, many schemes still do not stack up on a purely commercial basis. Closing that gap requires more deliberate use of the tools available.
Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy continue to play a role, but they are rarely sufficient on their own. There is increasing focus on how land value can be captured more effectively, how business rates or other local revenues can support borrowing, and how different forms of public funding can be used to unlock private capital.
What is changing is not just the range of tools, but how they are combined. Blended funding structures that bring together grant, debt and equity are becoming more common. In some cases, this includes subordinated positions, guarantees or income‑backed structures designed to improve the overall risk profile of a scheme.
From an advisory perspective, the challenge is often less about whether funding exists and more about how it is assembled. The right combination will differ from scheme to scheme, but having a clear framework for assessing options and making decisions is becoming increasingly important.
From discussion to delivery
Across all three areas, the common theme is that progress depends on moving beyond individual transactions towards more structured, repeatable approaches. That means building platforms rather than one‑off deals, forming partnerships that can work over time and being prepared to approach risk and funding in a more flexible way.
There is no single solution that will unlock delivery across the board. But where these approaches are being applied together, there are clear signs that schemes are moving forward where previously they would have stalled.
The opportunity now is to take those examples and apply them more widely. Devolution has a role to play here. Greater control over funding, more flexibility in how it is deployed, and a stronger link between local priorities and investment decisions should, in theory, make it easier to structure and deliver schemes in a way that reflects local market conditions.
The capital is there. The question is whether we can organise ourselves in a way that allows it to be deployed effectively.