Stated intention is no longer an exit strategy.

Q2 market data confirms what anyone placing bridging cases has felt for a while: the exit strategy has become the primary underwriting criterion, ahead of loan-to-value, borrower experience, and the asset itself. And the bar for what counts as an exit has moved. Lenders now want evidence-based planning, comparable sales data, a mortgage-in-principle, and actual documentation, rather than a stated intention that the borrower will sell or refinance. “I’ll sell it” used to get a case through. It no longer does.

Two other numbers that point the same way

First-charge deals have risen to 91% of all bridging lending, which suggests the market is drifting toward simpler, cleaner files. And demand for decisions in principle rose 6% quarter on quarter in bridging, so this is not a slowdown; it is a tightening of what gets through. Set against a market that reached a £13.4 billion loan book in 2026, the picture is one of a sector with plenty of appetite and rising standards. Both of those things can be true, and for borrowers they combine into one practical conclusion: the deals are there, and the preparation decides who gets them.

There is a clear counter-current worth knowing about

Lender appetite for land with detailed planning consent rose 61% between Q4 2025 and Q2 2026, the fastest-growing category in the market. That is not a contradiction of the tightening; it is the same logic from the other direction. Land with detailed consent has a legible, evidenced route to value. It is precisely the kind of asset that survives an evidence-led underwriting standard. If you are working on development finance with consent in place, appetite is stronger than it has been in years.

What the exit pack should actually contain

This is the part borrowers can control. Before a case goes to a lender, the exit evidence should be assembled, not promised. For a sale exit, that means comparable sales data for the specific street or scheme rather than a broad postcode average, an agent’s written marketing appraisal, a realistic timeline that accounts for the current transaction cycle, and, if the property is already on the market, the listing and any offers. For a refinance exit, it means a mortgage in principle or a written lender indication, evidence of how the affordability or rental cover is met at the exit point, and a note on anything about the borrower or the asset that would need to change before the term lender would proceed.

For a development scheme, it means the planning consent, the build programme with drawdown schedule, cost plan and contingency, and evidence of sales demand in the immediate area. And in every case there should be a second exit. Not as a formality, but because the lender is asking what happens if the first one slips, and having a real answer to that question is often what separates an approval from a decline.

Why this cuts both ways

A tighter evidence standard means more work up front, but it is not bad news for borrowers who are organised. A case that arrives with the exit properly evidenced moves faster, is priced better, and stalls less because the credit team has nothing left to ask. The cases that suffer are the ones submitted on optimism, and those were always the ones that fell over at month ten anyway, just later and more expensively. Across auction finance, where the clock makes preparation non-negotiable, and second charge bridging, where the exit has to satisfy two lenders rather than one, this is now the whole game. Get in touch if you want your exit stress-tested before it goes to market.