Branches work best where everyday life already happens: near the shops, schools, medical centres and services people use most weeks. This prototype looks for those places, and for the places the current network leaves poorly served. It keeps two scores apart instead of averaging them into one, because where a branch would perform and where a branch is most needed are separate questions, and a network strategy has to answer both.
Score 1. Commercial opportunity (0–100)
score = demand + coverage gap − existing presence
Demand = 0.35·population + 0.25·median household income + 0.40·activity density (supermarkets, shopping centres, schools, universities, hospitals, entertainment, sport, post offices, standing in for foot traffic and spend). Coverage gap = 0.70·distance to nearest CBA branch (capped 15 km) + 0.30·competitor presence (competitors thriving where we are absent = validated demand). Existing presence penalises areas already served. Inputs are z-scored across Greater Sydney, then min–max scaled. Demand uses the population within 5 km of the locality centre, not the locality alone. A branch-viability gate then applies: localities with fewer than 20,000 residents in that 5 km catchment, or fewer than 25 residents per km², are marked below viability and excluded from the commercial ranking, and a ramp discounts catchments under 50,000. The floor comes from the network itself: 95% of localities hosting a CommBank branch today have more than 32,000 residents within 5 km, and the median is 206,000, so 20,000 sits well below anywhere the bank actually operates. Service need is never gated, because community need does not depend on commercial viability.
Score 2. Service need (0–100)
0.25·seniors + 0.25·disadvantage + 0.15·service anchors + 0.15·cash economy + 0.20·branch distance
Seniors = share of residents 65+. Disadvantage = inverted SEIFA IRSAD (lower advantage = less digital substitution). Service anchors = Centrelink offices (3×) + aged care homes. Cash economy = gaming machines per 1,000 residents. Branch distance = distance to the nearest branch of any brand. This score leaves income out on purpose. It asks where the absence of a physical service point causes the most difficulty.
Candidate location models. Seven testable hypotheses
01
Errand-chaining & walkability
Hypothesis. People bank where they already do everything else. A site inside a daytime errand cluster picks up trips that are happening anyway, while an isolated site has to create its own reason for the trip.
Score. Complementary daytime anchors within a 400–800 m walk shed, weighted by co-visit likelihood. After-hours precincts score for smart-ATM presence instead.
Expect. Visits concentrate at sites within 200 m of a supermarket. Standalone sites do worse on acquisition even where the population is large.
02
Working-from-home suburbs
Hypothesis. Working from home moved weekday daytime population out of the CBD. Family suburbs now hold weekday demand that their commuter-era foot traffic never showed.
Score. Weight demand by daytime-present population (residents × WFH share + workers) rather than resident count.
Expect. Middle-ring family suburbs rise and pure CBD sites fall. Tuesday 11am transaction data is where the split should show up.
03
Branch-preferring segments
Hypothesis. Older residents and cash-heavy communities use branches more than average, so raw population understates demand.
Score. Regress branch transactions per capita on age profile, SEIFA and EGM density; apply fitted weights as propensity-weighted population.
Expect. The Central Coast belt around The Entrance and Toukley already tops the public-data ranking, with no branches of any brand.
04
Advice-demand anchors
Hypothesis. Real estate agent density generates home-lending conversations; car dealer strips generate asset finance. Staffing should match the anchor mix.
Score. Anchor density × market activity − existing specialist coverage, per specialty. The output is a staffing mix for each site rather than a single number.
Expect. A small number of branches carry heavy lending demand with generalist staffing, which makes redeployment a cheap win.
05
Language & cultural service fit
Hypothesis. Where many residents speak a language other than English at home, language-matched staff lift engagement, uptake and trust.
Score. Gap between catchment LOTE profile and branch staff language profile; trial translation tooling in the 10 highest-gap branches against matched controls.
Expect. High-LOTE catchments show lower digital adoption and greater reliance on branches, so service need and language need stack on top of each other.
06
Cash cycle & merchant services
Hypothesis. Cash-intensive venues need deposit, float and cash logistics. That is a business banking signal, and resident demographics do not show it.
Score. EGM and cash-venue density → expected commercial cash volume → weight branches with business capability and smart-deposit hardware.
Expect. A small set of catchments accounts for most commercial cash volume. Deposit-capable points in those places are worth more than several retail-only sites.
07
Format & coverage optimisation
Hypothesis. Where to put a site is only half the question. The other half is what format it should be: full branch, advice centre, agency or smart ATM.
Score. p-median coverage optimisation, minimising cost subject to 95% of customers being within 20 minutes and no high-need locality left uncovered.
Expect. The two maps disagree in predictable places, and a mix of formats should beat uniform branches on both objectives.
Data sources
ABS Census 2021 G01/G02 (SA2)
ABS SEIFA 2021 (IRSAD, IEO)
ASGS 2021 SA2 boundaries
L&G NSW premises list, May 2026
L&G NSW quarterly gaming reports
OpenStreetMap via Overpass (ODbL)
Caveats
ABS layers are authoritative. Gaming venues and machine counts come from the official L&G NSW list; net profit is published at LGA level only, so the $/resident figure applies the LGA rate to every locality in it. OSM branch, ATM and POI coverage is community-maintained and incomplete, so production would use the bank's own site data instead. Distances are straight-line rather than drive-time. No confidential banking data is used, and every score weight is a starting assumption to be calibrated with the business owners.