Queensland development feasibility: what the numbers actually need to show

When most people think about a development feasibility study, they think about one number: the profit margin. Is it 15%? 20%? 25%? And while margin matters, it is one of the least useful numbers in isolation. A 20% margin on a project with a 24-month timeline, three critical overlays, and a council that takes nine months to assess DAs is a very different proposition to a 20% margin on a clean site with code assessable approval.

The real question a feasibility study needs to answer is not "is this profitable?" but "is this worth the risk, the capital, and the time?"

The numbers that actually matter

Beyond the headline margin, here is what a useful feasibility study should quantify:

Return on cost, not just margin. Margin measures profit as a percentage of revenue. Return on cost measures profit relative to what you actually spent. On a project where 70% of costs are front-loaded (land purchase, DA, civil works), the return on cost tells you how efficiently your capital is working.

Sensitivity to construction cost variance. Construction costs on the Sunshine Coast have moved significantly over the past three years. A feasibility that models a single cost point is not a feasibility. It is a guess. You need to see what happens to your margin when construction comes in 10% over budget. If the project goes from profitable to breakeven at a 10% overrun, the margin was never real.

Time cost of capital. Money has a cost. A project that takes 18 months longer than planned does not just lose 18 months of your time. It costs you 18 months of interest on your drawn capital, 18 months of holding costs, and the opportunity cost of that capital being tied up in a project that is not generating returns.

Infrastructure charges and DA costs. These are consistently underestimated. On the Sunshine Coast, infrastructure charges alone can run $28,000 to $35,000 per dwelling. On a six-unit townhouse project, that is $168,000 to $210,000 before you have built anything. DA lodgement fees, consultant reports for information requests, and amended application costs add another layer.

The problem with generic feasibility templates

There are plenty of feasibility spreadsheets available online. Some are quite sophisticated. The problem is not the maths. The maths is straightforward. The problem is the inputs.

A generic template does not know that your site has a 12% cross-fall that will add $150,000 in retaining walls. It does not know that the flood overlay affects the rear 30% of the parcel, which is exactly where your driveway needs to go. It does not know that comparable townhouse sales in that suburb have been trending 8% below the suburb median because the local estate has a reputation for poor build quality.

The value of a site-specific feasibility assessment is not in the calculation engine. It is in the data that feeds the calculation. Planning controls, site geometry, overlay interactions, local construction cost benchmarks, comparable transaction data, council decision patterns. These are the inputs that turn a generic spreadsheet into a decision-making tool.

When to get a feasibility done (and when not to)

Not every site needs a formal feasibility assessment. If you are looking at a straightforward house-and-land package in an established estate with clear design guidelines, you probably do not need one. The numbers are relatively predictable.

But if you are looking at an infill site, a site with overlays, a site where the zoning permits multiple dwelling types, or a site where you are planning to spend more than $500,000 on land alone, the cost of a proper feasibility assessment is trivial compared to the risk of proceeding without one.

Our assessments start at $8,000 and are delivered in five to seven business days. That is the cost of a bad weekend in a project that runs off the rails. And unlike engaging three separate consultants over eight weeks, you get an integrated assessment that accounts for the interactions between planning, architecture, and financial viability.