Birmingham Mixed-Use Exit Finance Case Study
Project Overview
This Birmingham development exit finance case study examines a completed mixed-use scheme where residential elements were market-ready, but commercial units required additional time to secure tenants and stabilise income.
The project combined residential apartments with ground-floor commercial space intended for long-term occupation.
Construction completed successfully, but leasing timelines for the commercial units extended beyond initial projections, creating a mismatch between development funding structures and the operational reality of the asset.
The Challenge
At completion, the developer faced a structural timing issue common in mixed-use developments. Residential units could be sold immediately, while the commercial elements required further fit-out, marketing, and tenant negotiation to achieve optimal rental levels.
Exiting the project too early would have reduced the scheme’s overall valuation, weakened covenant quality, and limited long-term income potential.
The original development facility was not designed to accommodate this stabilisation period, creating pressure to act before value had fully crystallised. The developer therefore required development exit finance capable of supporting both asset classes through their respective timelines.
Mixed-use developments frequently reach completion with assets moving at different speeds, and this scheme was no exception.
While residential units are typically valued and sold based on comparable evidence, commercial elements derive a significant proportion of their value from income certainty, tenant covenant strength, and lease duration.
At the point of completion, the commercial units had not yet reached that stabilised position, meaning an early exit would have crystallised value before the scheme had fully matured. This disconnect between construction completion and commercial readiness is one of the most common exit risks in mixed-use projects.
Funding structures that fail to recognise this often force developers into premature decisions that prioritise speed over outcome. In this case, development exit finance was used to realign the funding horizon with the operational reality of the asset, allowing value to continue forming post-completion rather than being truncated by arbitrary deadlines.
Exit Finance Structuring
A tailored exit finance solution was arranged based on completed residential values and prudent assumptions around stabilised commercial income. This allowed the developer to repay the original development funding while retaining control over leasing strategy and asset management decisions.
The facility recognised the longer value-creation cycle inherent in mixed-use schemes and avoided imposing artificial deadlines that could undermine returns. For further context on how these risks are assessed, see Development exit finance risks and pitfalls.
This type of funding transition is a common application of Development Exit Finance, particularly where assets require post-completion stabilisation.
Leasing and Stabilisation Phase
With funding pressure removed, the developer focused on completing high-quality finishes within the commercial units and targeting occupiers aligned with the scheme’s positioning. Additional time enabled more robust tenant negotiations, improved lease terms, and stronger covenant selection.
Rather than accepting early compromises to meet funding deadlines, the developer was able to enhance the scheme’s income profile and long-term investment appeal. Residential sales progressed in parallel, benefiting from the improved perception created by a well-let commercial component.
A further benefit of the extended post-completion period was the impact on overall scheme perception. Well-let commercial space materially improves the attractiveness of mixed-use developments, not only for investors but also for residential buyers, who often view active ground-floor units as a proxy for long-term vitality.
As tenant discussions progressed, the developer was able to refine unit layouts, improve frontage presentation, and secure occupiers aligned with the character of the scheme rather than defaulting to short-term solutions. This had a reinforcing effect across the project, supporting residential pricing and strengthening valuation assumptions.
By allowing the asset to reach a more complete operational state before final exits, the developer reduced long-term risk and enhanced both income quality and capital value. This illustrates how development exit finance can act as a bridge between physical completion and commercial maturity, particularly in schemes where multiple asset classes intersect.
These considerations align closely with the principles set out in our guide to post-development exit refinance strategies.
Outcome
The structured exit approach produced a materially stronger outcome. Commercial units secured high-quality tenants, residential disposals achieved planned pricing, and the overall scheme valuation increased as income stabilised.
The developer achieved a strong return across both residential and commercial elements, demonstrating how exit finance plays a critical role in unlocking full value in mixed-use projects where timing asymmetry is unavoidable.
Key Takeaways
Mixed-use developments rarely stabilise uniformly, and funding structures must reflect this reality. Development exit finance enables value to be realised post-completion rather than deferred or forfeited, allowing assets to mature commercially before exit. For wider market context, see our Development Exit Finance Market Outlook 2025–2026.
For a residential-led example where timing rather than leasing complexity shaped the exit strategy, see our Glasgow development exit finance case study.
Speak to our Exit Finance Expert