Funding the planning bottleneck: What the NHB–Richborough deal tells us about the future of land promotion
Written by
Last week’s announcement of the National Housing Bank/Richborough facility was both newsworthy, as one of the first investments made via the NHB and can be viewed as a pilot for a particular type of operator. So, what was the facility and is it replicable for other land promoters?
Homes England has entered into a multi-million pound debt facility with independent land promoter Richborough, representing one of the first investments made through the Government’s newly established National Housing Bank (NHB). The transaction was announced by Homes England on 8 April 2026 and is positioned as part of the agency’s wider public investment strategy to accelerate housing delivery by addressing structural constraints within the planning system.
The NHB operates as a dedicated financing arm within the Homes England investment platform. It has been established to deploy government-backed, long term capital across debt, equity and guarantee products in order to unlock housing and regeneration schemes that the private market struggles to progress unaided. While the NHB is not a regulated deposit taking bank, it functions as a public sector investment vehicle, subject to Homes England’s statutory remit, Treasury oversight and value for money obligations. Its role is explicitly catalytic: reducing early-stage risk, enabling projects to reach commercial readiness and facilitating subsequent private sector investment, rather than substituting for mainstream development finance.
The facility agreed with Richborough is expressly characterised as debt finance, rather than equity or grant funding, and is described as a “flexible facility”. According to Homes England, the funding will support Richborough’s early-stage site acquisition and planning promotion activity across England. The stated objective is to increase the supply of consented residential land available to SME developers, registered providers and major housebuilders, thereby easing a key bottleneck in the housing delivery pipeline.
While the precise size and commercial terms of the facility have not been disclosed, Homes England has confirmed that the funding runs to tens of millions of pounds, with detailed financial information treated as commercially sensitive. Public disclosure has instead focused on anticipated delivery outcomes, with Richborough indicating that, supported by the facility, it expects to submit over 30 planning applications during 2026, representing approximately 12,500 homes, building on a substantial existing pipeline.
From a public law and governance perspective, the transaction sits within the established accountability framework applicable to Homes England and its investment activities. As a public body deploying government-backed capital, Homes England (and by extension the NHB) must comply with Treasury principles of regularity, propriety and value for money, and be able to demonstrate a clear public interest rationale for the deployment of funds. While individual commercial terms may legitimately remain confidential, the existence, purpose and policy justification for the investment are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, National Audit Office review and aggregate public reporting. Accountability is therefore expressed less through deal level transparency and more through outcome based assessment, including whether the investment can be shown, in due course, to have contributed materially to increased planning throughput and housing delivery, consistent with Homes England’s statutory objectives.
At a high level, the NHB facility addresses a recognised market failure: the difficulty of funding planning risk at scale where capital is tied up for long periods and outcomes are uncertain. That issue is not unique to Richborough. In principle the model could extend to other promoters that operate primarily at the pre-consent stage and generate value via planning promotion and enabling downstream delivery by third-party house builders and developers. The potential availability of such facility is not automatic: NHB constraints include: value for money rules, additionality (the activity would not have otherwise taken place) and must be proportionate. This hurdle is likely to be harder to meet for single site projects or promoters without a track record. In summary, yes, the model is capable of replication – but most likely, at least for now, to promoters whose scale, governance and delivery role allow public capital to be deployed transparently, proportionately and with demonstrable housing outcomes.
Contact us for more information on the advice we offer to promoters and landowners looking to work with promoters.
