Site asking price
$200k$5m
The land is the only price still negotiable
A monthly development cash flow: S-curve construction draw, capitalised interest, GST on the margin scheme. It returns the two numbers a site negotiation turns on - the residual land value at your hurdle and the sale price the project breaks even at.
Below your hurdle - margin on cost vs 20% target
Margin on cost
19.4%
Development profit
$766,605
16.2% on revenue
Residual land value at 20%
$931,266
The asking price of $950,000 is $18,734 above what the site supports at your hurdle. Below $706,679 average sale price the project makes no profit at all - a 17% fall from the $850,000 assumed.
Measured against the hurdle you set, not a recommendation. Every figure below follows from the assumptions on the left.
Feasibility summary
Gross realisation
$5.10m
6 x $850k
Net realisation
$4.61m
after GST and selling
Total dev cost
$3.96m
incl. finance
Cost per dwelling
$659k
all in
Peak debt
$2.60m
month 20 - 66% of cost
Equity required
$1.20m
cash in
Project IRR
23.6%
ungeared, annualised
NPV
$426k
at 10%
Where the money goes
| Land purchase | 24% | $950,000 |
| Transfer duty | 1% | $35,775 |
| Acquisition costs | 0% | $14,250 |
| Construction | 55% | $2,160,000 |
| Contingency | 3% | $108,000 |
| Professional fees | 5% | $194,400 |
| Statutory and infrastructure | 5% | $192,000 |
| Marketing | 1% | $45,000 |
| Selling costs | 3% | $112,200 |
| Finance costs | 4% | $144,497 |
| Total development cost | $3,956,122 | |
| Revenue net of GST | $4,722,727 | |
| Development profit | $766,605 | |
Sensitivity - margin on cost
Sale price down the side, build cost across the top. Shaded cells clear your 20% hurdle.
| Sale / build | -10% | -5% | 0% | +5% | +10% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -10% | 15.6% | 11.6% | 7.9% | 4.4% | 1.2% |
| -5% | 21.7% | 17.6% | 13.6% | 10.0% | 6.6% |
| 0% | 27.9% | 23.5% | 19.4% | 15.5% | 11.9% |
| +5% | 34.0% | 29.4% | 25.1% | 21.1% | 17.3% |
| +10% | 40.0% | 35.3% | 30.8% | 26.6% | 22.7% |
Monthly cash flow
| Mo | Phase | Land | Construction | Fees | Statutory | Marketing | Selling | Finance | Revenue | Net | Cumulative | Debt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Acquisition | $1,000,025 | - | $9,720 | - | - | - | $19,528 | - | −$1,009,745 | −$1,009,745 | - |
| 2 | Approvals | - | - | $9,720 | - | - | - | - | - | −$9,720 | −$1,019,465 | - |
| 3 | Approvals | - | - | $9,720 | - | - | - | - | - | −$9,720 | −$1,029,185 | - |
| 4 | Approvals | - | - | $9,720 | - | - | - | - | - | −$9,720 | −$1,038,905 | - |
| 5 | Approvals | - | - | $9,720 | - | - | - | - | - | −$9,720 | −$1,048,625 | - |
| 6 | Approvals | - | - | $9,720 | - | - | - | - | - | −$9,720 | −$1,058,345 | - |
| 7 | Approvals | - | - | $9,720 | - | - | - | - | - | −$9,720 | −$1,068,065 | - |
| 8 | Approvals | - | - | $9,720 | - | - | - | - | - | −$9,720 | −$1,077,785 | - |
| 9 | Construction | - | $44,625 | $9,720 | $192,000 | $2,813 | - | - | - | −$249,158 | −$1,326,943 | $146,470 |
| 10 | Construction | - | $123,375 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $964 | - | −$135,908 | −$1,462,850 | $283,342 |
| 11 | Construction | - | $186,375 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $1,865 | - | −$198,908 | −$1,661,758 | $484,115 |
| 12 | Construction | - | $233,625 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $3,187 | - | −$246,157 | −$1,907,915 | $733,459 |
| 13 | Construction | - | $265,125 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $4,829 | - | −$277,658 | −$2,185,573 | $1,015,945 |
| 14 | Construction | - | $280,875 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $6,688 | - | −$293,407 | −$2,478,980 | $1,316,041 |
| 15 | Construction | - | $280,875 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $8,664 | - | −$293,407 | −$2,772,388 | $1,618,113 |
| 16 | Construction | - | $265,125 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $10,653 | - | −$277,658 | −$3,050,045 | $1,906,423 |
| 17 | Construction | - | $233,625 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $12,551 | - | −$246,158 | −$3,296,203 | $2,165,131 |
| 18 | Construction | - | $186,375 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $14,254 | - | −$198,907 | −$3,495,110 | $2,378,292 |
| 19 | Construction | - | $123,375 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $15,657 | - | −$135,908 | −$3,631,018 | $2,529,857 |
| 20 | Construction | - | $44,625 | $9,720 | - | $2,813 | - | $16,655 | - | −$57,158 | −$3,688,175 | $2,603,669 |
| 21 | Settlement | - | - | - | - | $2,813 | $28,050 | $17,141 | $1,180,682 | $1,149,819 | −$2,538,356 | $1,470,990 |
| 22 | Settlement | - | - | - | - | $2,813 | $28,050 | $9,684 | $1,180,682 | $1,149,819 | −$1,388,536 | $330,855 |
| 23 | Settlement | - | - | - | - | $2,813 | $28,050 | $2,178 | $1,180,682 | $1,149,819 | −$238,717 | - |
| 24 | Settlement | - | - | - | - | $2,813 | $28,050 | - | $1,180,682 | $1,149,819 | $911,102 | - |
Revenue is shown net of GST. Costs are GST exclusive. Finance is capitalised interest on the drawn balance plus the establishment fee in the month the facility is opened.
Holding a completed dwelling rather than selling it is a different decision. The full audit models that path.
Deal Auditor - in build, not yet available
A development feasibility is usually run the wrong way round. The instinct is to plug in the asking price for the site and see what profit falls out - but the profit number is the one thing you cannot negotiate. The build cost belongs to the builder, the end values belong to the market, the statutory charges belong to council. The land price is the only line still in play, so the useful output is the residual: the number that leaves your required margin intact once everything else is paid.
The second thing a feasibility has to get right is timing. Costs do not land evenly - the site settles as a single large payment, construction follows an S-curve that peaks in the middle of the build, and revenue arrives in a rush at the end, months after the last dollar has been spent. That shape is what creates peak debt, and peak debt drives both the interest bill and whether a lender will fund the project at all. A static spreadsheet that totals costs against revenue will quietly understate both.
Two sensitivities matter more than the rest. A 5% fall in end values and a 5% overrun on construction cost are both ordinary events, and on a thin deal either one is enough to erase the margin - which is what the grid above is for. If the deal only works in the centre cell, it does not work. For a completed dwelling you intend to hold rather than sell, the tax picture changes entirely under the post-May-2026 rules: run it through the Deal Auditor, and check the acquisition class with Am I Grandfathered? first.
It is the site price that leaves exactly your target profit once every other cost is paid: revenue less construction, professional fees, statutory charges, selling costs, finance and your required margin. Developers bid off it rather than off comparable land sales, because the land is the only cost still open to negotiation once the build cost, the programme and the end values are known. If the asking price sits above the residual, the deal only works if one of the other assumptions moves.
Most feasibility work in Australia uses 20% profit on total development cost as the working hurdle, and financiers commonly want to see at least that before committing to a construction facility, though the number varies with risk, programme length and how much of the stock is pre-sold. Margin on cost measures profit against everything spent; margin on revenue measures the same profit against gross realisation and always reads lower. Compare like with like when someone quotes you a margin.
Sale of new residential premises is a taxable supply, so GST comes off the revenue side. Under the margin scheme the liability is one eleventh of the margin between the sale price and the original land acquisition cost rather than one eleventh of the whole price, which is why the eligibility of the site matters so much to a small project feasibility. This model applies GST to revenue and treats all costs as GST-exclusive, on the basis that input tax credits are recovered.
Peak debt is the largest amount the facility ever has outstanding, usually late in construction just before the first settlements land, and it is the number the lender sizes the loan against. A project can carry a healthy margin and still be undeliverable because peak debt exceeds what the lender will advance against total development cost, typically somewhere near 65 to 75%. Interest is the consequence; peak debt is the constraint.
It follows the same method - a monthly cash flow with an S-curve construction drawdown, capitalised interest, a residual land value solve and a two-way sensitivity grid - at a scale that suits small residential projects of a few dwellings. It does not handle staged releases, multiple land parcels, escalation curves, tenancy schedules or corporate consolidation, which is where dedicated packages earn their licence fee.
This model covers a single-stage residential project with one land parcel and one product type. It does not model staged releases, cost escalation curves, pre-sale deposits held in trust, rental of completed stock, land tax during the holding period, or income tax on the profit. Transfer duty uses the general investor scale for the state selected. General information only.