In this week's piece, we find ourselves once again drawn into the political wrangling around housing plans as the national-level spending review beckons. Chances are, you should be reading this on Wednesday of this week, perhaps en route to the country's premier financial services expo hosted by our lovely friends at the NACFB (I digress); you may already have the full scope of the announcements to hand - but at the time of writing, we are still very much speculating as to whose mouths will be fed and who will go proverbially hungry as the money is finally committed.
The chancellor is expected to announce much-needed increases across schools, the NHS and defence, but many in the industry fear that housing may be overlooked. For purposes of this article, we must work off the assumption that all government-led endeavours will be at least nominally successful, if for no other reason than to lead us onto the core of the piece: what kind of homes are we planning on building? Will the scramble for housing create a 'make-do and mend' approach, where it's simply good enough to produce volume with no concern for the aesthetics of our land? Kevin Hollinrake certainly thought so when debating this point in the Telegraph, highlighting that ‘Labour will not create greener, cleaner communities you’re proud to be a part of’ and arguing the fact that Britain could be flooded with "soulless settlements".
Mass-produced and beautiful designs are sometimes welcome bedfellows, as Apple has historically monetised, but rarely is that the case in housing, where new towns and cities have often been built for speed and practicality, creating a clinical, industrial feel bereft of community, urban sprawl into the Greenfields without a cohesive centre or character. The counterargument here is that we are never going to be mass-producing the picturesque fishing villages of the South Coast or the rural communities of the past century that still characterise the UK in the eyes of our international counterparts; modern needs demand modern homes, but could we go too far with that, and how do we mitigate that?
Now, a trope of these pieces you may have picked up on is that the solution almost always meanders back to the significance of our sector's role in solving the country's problems, and we can take that on the chin, but to give us some rope with this one, there is a certainly a strong case for granulating the mass housing production with a substantial sprinkling of smaller developers back into the mix. The UK housing market is a patchwork of architectural diversity, but a clear contrast exists between the quality and appeal of homes built by smaller property developers versus those mass-produced by major housebuilding firms. While large developers such as Barratt, Persimmon, and Taylor Wimpey dominate in quantity, many observers and buyers argue that it is the smaller developers—often working regionally or locally—who produce more beautiful, characterful, and community-oriented housing. This distinction stems from several core differences in business models, priorities, planning philosophies, and relationships with place and people.
One of the most immediate differences lies in design philosophy. Smaller developers often treat each project as a unique opportunity rather than a replicable product. They typically work with bespoke architects, respond sensitively to local character, and are more willing to integrate traditional and regional architectural features. From vernacular materials to thoughtful rooflines and proportions, these developers craft homes that complement their surroundings rather than dominate them. In contrast, volume builders rely heavily on standardised house types. These templates are rolled out across the country with minimal variation, leading to “cookie-cutter” estates that lack a sense of place. The focus is on cost efficiency and speed rather than creating a memorable or fitting aesthetic.
The scale of smaller developments allows for greater sensitivity in design and layout. A scheme of 5–20 homes can be integrated into a village or town far more discreetly than a 200-home estate. Smaller developers are more able to work around existing trees, hedgerows, and contours of the land, preserving the natural beauty of the site and fostering a sense of organic growth. Larger developers, by contrast, often reshape entire landscapes to suit their uniform layouts. This can lead to bland and environmentally insensitive schemes that erode the area's character. The mass-grading of land, the felling of mature trees, and the creation of wide roads for construction vehicles diminish the visual and ecological quality of the new community from the outset.
For investors in our sector, the benefits are both financial and philosophical. Returns can be strong, especially compared to traditional savings or bonds, and investments are often secured against real property. But beyond yield, there's also the satisfaction of backing developments that enhance places, supporting housing that is genuinely desirable, sustainable, and socially beneficial. Moreover, as public sentiment and planning authorities increasingly favour well-designed, community-oriented housing, lenders who align with quality developers may face fewer delays, reputational risks, or political challenges. In short, by prioritising funding for thoughtful, human-scale development, our lenders not only support a better-built environment but also position themselves within a growing movement that values homes as more than just financial assets—they’re places to live, belong, and thrive.
Invest & Fund has returned over £300 million of capital and interest to lenders with zero losses, showing the rigour that governs our business.
To take maximum advantage of this robust and exciting asset class, please visit www.investandfund.com
Don't invest unless you're prepared to lose money. This is a high-risk investment. You may not be able to access your money quickly, and are unlikely to be protected if something goes wrong. Take 2 minutes to learn more.