A feasibility study should do one thing exceptionally well: remove ambiguity before you commit.
In NSW development, value is rarely lost on the headline concept, it’s lost in the assumptions that weren’t tested early: planning friction, yield reality, construction cost exposure, time/program risk, funding constraints, and the exit buyer’s underwriting logic.
Property-wise feasibility work is built from real “on-the-ground” development conditions. We don’t just model a base case, we stress-test what moves outcomes, document assumptions transparently, and show you where the deal breaks, what fixes it, and what to do next.
Whether you’re a rezoned landowner weighing sell vs uplift vs JV/option, or a syndicate/developer assessing an acquisition, our feasibility output is designed to support confident decisions and stronger negotiations.
A feasibility study tests whether a development pathway is commercially viable based on planning assumptions, costs, program, and end values/income. A proper feasibility shows not only the base case, but what happens when time, cost or value moves.
Because many are built on optimistic single-point assumptions and don’t stress-test the variables that actually change outcomes: time, cost escalation, scope drift, approvals friction, and end-value/income softness.
Yes. We help rezoned owners understand highest and best use options and compare pathways (sell vs uplift vs JV/option vs staged control) with a clear view of time, risk and likely counterparty behaviour.
Yes, rapid screening is available to determine if deeper feasibility is worthwhile.
Yes. We provide decision-ready feasibility and sensitivities to support acquisition pricing and terms strategy, so you’re not buying a deal that cannot be funded or delivered.
Typically: ± construction cost movement, ± end value/GRV or income, and time/program impacts. We focus on combined downside scenarios as well (value down + cost up + time out).
Yes. The methodology changes by asset type, but the discipline is consistent: transparent assumptions, sensitivity testing, and decision outputs.
We don’t replace valuers. We provide commercial feasibility and decision-grade modelling that can support valuation discussions and counterparty engagement, but formal valuation is undertaken by licensed valuers.
We apply a lender-style lens to assumptions and outputs, ensuring the pathway remains credible under typical counterparty diligence (QS/cost, program, planning evidence). This reduces late-stage funding friction.
A base case model, sensitivity matrix, explicit assumptions register, key risks/mitigants, and a clear recommendation with next steps.
Because we’ve seen how feasibilities behave under real approvals, delivery, and credit conditions. Our focus is not “a model” it’s a decision that holds up.
Yes, with transparent assumptions. However we do not provide accounting advice and assumptions in this regard should be verified with your accountant.
Yyes, as part of testing price/terms and the viability envelope.
Yes. Base case plus upside/downside scenarios in a decision-ready format.
Feasibility must be credible to capital providers; we align assumptions and outputs to typical credit underwriting logic.
A governance process that checks how planning/design changes affect cost/time/value so viability isn’t quietly destroyed by drift.
We test sensitivity and discuss mitigation pathways (contingency governance, procurement strategy, program realism).
Early feasibility provides a range and key sensitivities; accuracy improves as scope and inputs are verified.
Yes. Different risk assumptions and timeframes apply, and we model accordingly.
Yes. Agents, in most cases, have extremely limited comprehension on accurate feasibility as their experience and knowledge is typically limited to comparative analysis and per box methodologies. Access to accurate inputs is limited within the scope of agency. We test yield, costs, program, and risk allocation assumptions that impact price.
Decision feasibility produces a clear recommendation, risks/mitigants, and next steps, not just a spreadsheet.
Yes, where staging is material to cashflow, approvals, delivery risk or exit strategy.
Yes, to test timing and cashflows in a structured way.
We apply sponsor + credit + transaction thinking—focusing on what will survive approvals, funding diligence and delivery pressure.
Base case, sensitivities, assumptions register, key risks/mitigants, and a decision-ready recommendation with next steps.
Office 3, Level 1, 12 Churchill Ave, Strathfield NSW 2135, Australia
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.