Funded by someone who has stood on his own sites at progress-payment time.

Yes, case by case. Major banks will consider it for the right sponsor with the right project, and non-bank and private credit pathways are built for it. The trade-off is usually cost against speed and gearing, and we set that out explicitly so you are choosing rather than accepting. The regulator does not set the bar: APRA confirmed on 13 February 2025 that it has not set minimum requirements or expectations for presales, and that the 100% debt-cover figure in its 2017 letter described industry practice at the time, not a rule. Each lender sets its own coverage, and a small project of two to four dwellings is often funded with none.

Up to 80% of total development cost through non-bank pathways. Bank pathways typically sit lower but price sharper. Subject to lender criteria, sponsor profile, feasibility and valuation.

A construction loan generally funds a build on land you already own, drawn progressively against completed stages. Development finance funds the whole project, site acquisition, construction, holding costs and often the exit, and is assessed against the project’s feasibility rather than only your personal position.

Do not accept it as final. We arrange separate valuations and challenge lender figures. One of our clients had a $26,000 shortfall across three separate lender valuers corrected this way. It is not always winnable, but accepting the first number without testing it is a choice, not a rule.

Yes, and they are frequently the deals that fall between residential and commercial policy, too complex for a home loan, too small for a development desk. That gap is where much of our work sits.

That is the right time to talk. Feasibility, structure and capital strategy set before acquisition are worth far more than finance arranged after it.

Yes: Class 1B rooming houses and co-living projects, Australia wide, at up to 80% of construction cost or 70% of the as-if-complete value excluding GST, whichever is the lower, through a progressive-draw facility with a lender on our panel, from September 2026, subject to valuation and the lender’s servicing criteria. Rooming houses have their own page because licensing, front setbacks and the land tax exemption decide the project before the finance does: see rooming house finance.

Because the lender values the project as it would have to sell it if the build stopped: several dwellings on one undivided title, sold together to one buyer. Valuers call it an in-one-line valuation, and the discount from the sum of the individual sale prices is typically substantial, because a wholesale buyer of three townhouses on one title pays less than three families buying one each. The facility is then sized against that lower figure, which is why a project can look 70% funded on the brochure and be short of equity on the day. The feasibility is run on the in-one-line figure from the start, and the takeout is planned on the titled, individually valued dwellings, which is where the equity reappears.

Both, and the lower of the two binds. A development facility is sized as a share of total development cost (land, construction, professional fees, holding costs, interest and contingency) and as a share of the end value, and the facility is the smaller number. On our panel a rooming house build is funded at up to 80% of construction cost or 70% of the as-if-complete value excluding GST, whichever is lower, and development finance more broadly runs to 80% of total development cost through non-bank pathways. The cost test usually binds on a small project with a strong margin; the value test binds where the site was bought dear. Your contribution is the land at valuation, the part of the cost the lower test leaves uncovered, and the soft costs lenders rarely fund. Checked September 2026; subject to valuation and the lender’s servicing criteria.

Usually, and it should be planned that way. Interest on a construction or development facility is charged on the drawn balance and is normally capitalised into the facility rather than paid monthly, so it is part of total development cost and part of the facility limit from the first draw. The trap is a facility sized without it: interest over a twelve-month build at development pricing is a material line, and a limit that leaves it out runs dry before the last claim. Where the borrower services interest from elsewhere the lender still tests that the money is there. The feasibility carries interest, holding costs and a contingency as separate lines, and the facility is sized on all three.

Yes, on a project the lender can underwrite without your track record. That means a licensed builder with a fixed-price contract and the right insurance, a quantity surveyor’s report on cost and progress, a contingency in the budget, a site with the permit in hand, and a feasibility that still works after the in-one-line discount and the interest are counted. Leverage is usually lower for a first project and the sponsor’s own equity higher; a dual occupancy or a small subdivision on land you already own is the usual first project for that reason. The advice on this page comes from a broker with ten-plus completed projects of his own, and the development consultancy exists for the feasibility before the finance.

A licensed, insured builder on a fixed-price contract, with a program and a payment schedule that matches the lender’s progress stages. The lender’s quantity surveyor or valuer checks the contract price against the plans before the facility is approved, then verifies each stage before a claim is paid, and reads the builder’s financial standing on larger projects. Cost-plus contracts, owner-builder arrangements and unlicensed trades are where files stall, because the lender cannot fix its exposure. A contingency of the lender’s own choosing sits on top of the contract, and variations are the usual reason a project runs past its limit, which is why they are approved in writing before the work, not discovered at the next claim.

At this scale, yes. Where a company or a trust develops, the directors or trustees stand as guarantors on the facility with every mainstream and non-bank lender; recourse limited to the project alone is a feature of institutional development lending far above the size of a townhouse project. What can be negotiated is what sits beside the guarantors: whether the family home is taken as security or the site and the works stand alone, and whether presales or a takeout commitment reduce the security the lender asks for. Development finance without presales is available case by case; development finance without guarantors is not, and a broker who says otherwise is describing a different market.