DA Approval in Australia: Complete Developer's Guide to Costs, Timelines & Feasibility

Development Application (DA) approval in Australia may represent one of the most significant variables in property development feasibility, yet many developers underestimate its impact on project timelines, costs, and ultimately, returns. With statutory timeframes often bearing little resemblance to actual approval durations, and costs that can easily exceed initial budgets by 50-100%, understanding DA approval processes across Australian states is typically understood as critical for successful development outcomes.

This comprehensive guide covers what developers may need to know about DA approval across all Australian states and territories, from understanding when approval is required through to managing costs, navigating state-specific processes, and modelling financial impacts on your project feasibility.

What is DA approval and when is it required

Development Application approval is generally understood as the formal planning permission required from local councils or state planning authorities before commencing most forms of property development in Australia. The approval process typically assesses whether a proposed development complies with relevant planning controls, environmental considerations, and community standards.

DA approval requirements may apply to a wide range of development activities, including construction of new buildings, alterations to existing structures, changes of use, subdivisions, and demolition works. However, it’s worth noting that not all development requires DA approval—some projects may fall under exempt development provisions or qualify for alternative approval pathways such as Complying Development Certificates.

Who decides on DA applications

The consent authority for DA applications typically varies based on the development type, location, and value. In most cases, local councils serve as the consent authority, assessing applications against their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) and Development Control Plans (DCPs). However, larger or more complex developments may require assessment by state-level bodies such as regional planning panels, State Assessment and Referral Agencies, or Development Assessment Panels, depending on the jurisdiction.

For developments with significant state or regional impact, ministers or planning commissions may become the consent authority. Projects triggering environmental legislation may also require concurrent approvals from environmental protection authorities, adding complexity to the approval pathway.

DA approval outcomes and conditions

When councils or consent authorities determine DA applications, they generally have three options: approve the application, approve with conditions, or refuse the application. Approval with conditions is commonly understood as the most frequent outcome, with conditions typically requiring modifications to plans, infrastructure contributions, environmental mitigation measures, or specific construction methodologies.

These conditions can materially impact project costs and timelines. Infrastructure levies, additional car parking requirements, upgraded stormwater systems, or heritage conservation measures may add thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to development budgets. Understanding potential conditions early in the planning process could help developers model these costs accurately in feasibility studies.

How DA approval impacts your project feasibility

While most property development content treats DA approval as a compliance exercise, the reality for developers is that approval processes represent significant financial variables that can make or break project viability. Understanding and accurately modelling these impacts typically determines whether projects proceed, require refinancing, or face abandonment.

The true cost of DA approval

DA approval costs may extend well beyond council application fees. Total costs typically include council fees (which could range from a few hundred dollars to several thousand depending on development value), town planning consultant fees ($2,000-$8,000 for straightforward projects, $8,000-$25,000 for complex developments), architectural plans and documentation ($5,000-$30,000+ depending on project scale), and specialist consultant reports.

Specialist reports could include traffic and parking assessments ($2,000-$7,000), acoustic studies ($2,000-$4,000), stormwater and drainage engineering ($1,500-$5,000), bushfire assessment reports ($700-$2,000), heritage impact statements ($900-$3,000), contamination assessments (varies significantly by site), geotechnical investigations (site-dependent), and arborist reports ($500-$2,000).

Additional costs might include section 7.12 development contributions in NSW (typically 1% of development cost for residential), infrastructure charges in Queensland, development bonds, utility connection fees, and legal fees for complex applications or appeals. In total, developers should generally expect DA costs to range from $15,000-$50,000 for medium-scale developments, with larger or more complex projects potentially exceeding $100,000.

Timeline impacts on project cash flow

Statutory DA timeframes—typically 40 days in NSW, 60 days in Victoria and Western Australia, and 40 business days in Queensland—often bear little resemblance to actual approval durations. Research by the Property Council of Australia suggests average DA processing times may range from 70 days to over 250 days depending on the council and project complexity.

These extended timeframes create holding costs that erode project margins. For a development site acquired with a $600,000 loan at current interest rates, holding costs might include monthly interest payments ($2,500-$3,500), council rates ($200-$400), land tax (depending on total land holdings), insurance ($100-$200), and site maintenance or security ($200-$500). Each additional month beyond expected timelines could add $3,500-$5,000 in unbudgeted holding costs.

Beyond direct holding costs, delays may impact project feasibility through construction cost escalation (materials and labour costs typically increase during approval periods), extended marketing budgets for pre-sales campaigns, lost rental income for build-to-hold strategies, opportunity cost of capital tied up in non-performing assets, and increased market risk exposure over longer project durations.

Financial modelling considerations

Accurate feasibility modelling typically requires developers to move beyond optimistic statutory timeframes and incorporate realistic approval scenarios. This might involve modelling multiple timeline scenarios: optimistic (3-4 months for straightforward projects), realistic (6-9 months for standard DAs), and pessimistic (12+ months for complex projects or difficult councils).

Holding costs should generally be calculated on actual phased loan draw-downs rather than flat loan amounts, include all cost categories (not just interest), and be modelled monthly over the realistic timeline range. DA consultant costs may warrant contingency provisions of 20-30% to account for additional information requests or specialist reports that weren’t initially anticipated.

With Feasly’s feasibility software, you can model different DA timeline scenarios and their impact on project NPV, IRR, and development margins, helping you make informed decisions before committing to land acquisition or proceeding with applications.

State-by-state DA approval processes

Australia’s planning systems vary significantly by state, creating complexity for developers operating across multiple jurisdictions. Understanding state-specific terminology, processes, and requirements typically proves essential for successful multi-state development activities.

New South Wales: Development Applications

New South Wales operates under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, with applications lodged through the mandatory NSW Planning Portal. NSW is generally understood to have Australia’s most complex planning system, with nine different approval pathways ranging from Exempt Development (no approval required) to State Significant Development (Minister determines).

For standard residential and commercial developments, the DA pathway typically applies. Applications may be lodged electronically through the Planning Portal, with councils serving as the consent authority for most projects. The statutory determination period is generally 40 days, though actual processing times often extend to 6-12 months depending on the council and project complexity.

NSW’s “stop the clock” provisions allow councils to request additional information within 25 days of lodgement, effectively pausing the assessment period. Each request for information cycle might add 2-4 weeks plus $2,000-$5,000 in consultant fees to prepare responses. Applicants typically have 12 weeks to respond to information requests, or their application may lapse.

Section 7.12 development contributions represent a significant cost consideration in NSW. These levies—calculated as a percentage of development cost—fund local infrastructure and services. For residential development, the contribution rate is typically 1% of development cost (capped), while commercial and industrial developments may face different rates depending on council policies.

Deemed refusal provisions in NSW could provide strategic options when councils delay decisions beyond statutory timeframes. After 40 days without determination (or 90 days for integrated development), applicants may appeal to the Land and Environment Court rather than waiting indefinitely for council decisions.

Recent reforms through the Planning System Reforms Bill 2025 established the Development Coordination Authority to streamline referrals and the Housing Delivery Authority to accelerate housing delivery. Council performance is now publicly reported through league tables ranking DA processing times, potentially encouraging faster determinations.

Victoria: Planning Permits

Victoria operates under fundamentally different terminology—it’s a Planning Permit not a Development Application. This distinction extends through all legislation, processes, and professional terminology under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Unlike NSW’s centralised portal, Victoria maintains a decentralised system where applications lodge directly with individual councils. Each of Victoria’s 79 councils administers its own planning scheme, creating significant local variation in requirements and interpretation. The Victorian Planning Authority provides overall guidance, but implementation may vary council by council.

Statutory timeframes in Victoria generally allow 60 days for council determinations (not 40 days as in NSW). However, the “clock” stops during public notification periods, referral response times, and requests for further information. Actual average processing times might extend to 155 calendar days (over 5 months) for standard planning permits, according to Archistar’s analysis.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) plays a more prominent role in Victorian planning than equivalent bodies in other states. Section 79 appeals allow applicants to appeal to VCAT after 60 days without a decision, even if the council hasn’t formally refused the application. This creates strategic considerations where appealing may prove faster than waiting for determinations.

VicSmart represents Victoria’s fast-track pathway for simple applications, offering 10-day determinations for qualifying developments. This pathway might suit straightforward projects meeting specific criteria, potentially saving months compared to standard planning permit processes.

Planning permits in Victoria typically expire after two years if development doesn’t commence, compared to five years in NSW. This shorter expiry period may require strategic timing considerations for projects with longer lead times or where market conditions favour delayed commencement.

Recent Victorian planning reforms include the proposed Plan for Victoria framework expected in 2025, ResCode reforms moving toward “Deemed to Comply” assessments, and major Planning and Environment Act reviews. Housing targets by municipality released in February 2024 may influence assessment priorities for residential developments.

Queensland: Development Applications

Queensland’s planning system operates under the Planning Act 2016, with development applications assessed under a shared state-local responsibility model. The State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) becomes involved when developments affect state interests, adding an additional assessment layer.

Queensland distinguishes between Code Assessment (straightforward developments meeting development codes) and Impact Assessment (complex developments requiring discretionary judgment). Understanding which pathway applies to your project typically determines both timeline expectations and approval likelihood. Code Assessment generally proceeds faster as councils assess against objective criteria, while Impact Assessment may involve public notification and greater discretion.

Statutory timeframes in Queensland use business days (not calendar days)—40 business days for most applications. However, actual processing times could vary significantly depending on assessment pathway, SARA involvement, and council capacity. Queensland’s deemed approval provisions represent a unique positive feature: in certain circumstances, applications not determined within statutory timeframes may be deemed approved.

Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) handles Priority Development Areas (PDAs), which bypass normal council processes for major development projects. For significant projects in designated PDAs, this alternative pathway might offer streamlined assessment and faster approvals.

Development application fees in Queensland typically follow a standardised structure based on development value and complexity. Brisbane City Council, Australia’s largest local government area, provides detailed fee schedules that might serve as a reference for expected costs.

Western Australia: Development Applications and DAPs

Western Australia operates under the Planning and Development Act 2005, with the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) handling state-level planning matters. Applications may lodge through the Planning Online portal (recently launched to replace the ePlan system).

WA’s unique feature is the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) system for larger projects. DAPs become mandatory assessment authorities for projects valued over $10 million in metropolitan areas or $5 million in regional areas, with optional “opt-in” provisions for projects between $2-10 million (metropolitan) or $1-5 million (regional).

DAP panels typically comprise five members: three specialist members and two local councillors. This structure removes some decision-making power from councils and could expedite approvals for qualifying projects. However, panel dynamics differ from traditional council assessment, requiring adjusted strategic approaches for presentations and addressing concerns.

Statutory timeframes in Western Australia allow 60 calendar days where no consultation is required, or 90 calendar days if consultation or referrals are needed. Note these are calendar days (not business days like Queensland), which affects timeline calculations. Deemed refusal provisions apply if councils don’t determine applications within statutory timeframes.

R-Codes (Residential Design Codes) specific to Western Australia provide detailed design requirements for residential development. Compliance with R-Codes may significantly impact project design and feasibility, particularly for medium-density housing projects.

South Australia: The digital planning leader

South Australia operates under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 with the most digitally advanced planning system in Australia. The PlanSA portal has been fully operational since March 2021, with 100% online lodgement and assessment.

SA’s unique feature is the single statewide Planning and Design Code, which replaced all 72 former Development Plans. This eliminates the local variation complexity present in other states, where each council maintains separate planning schemes. The Planning and Design Code provides consistent state-wide standards, potentially simplifying multi-site developments across different council areas.

The Approval Wizard on the PlanSA portal helps determine whether development requires approval and which pathway applies. This pre-assessment tool might save significant time and cost by clarifying requirements upfront, before engaging consultants or preparing detailed documentation.

Assessment timeframes in South Australia vary by pathway: Deemed-to-Satisfy (5 business days), Performance Assessed without referrals (20 business days), Performance Assessed with referrals (60 business days), and Impact Assessed (95 business days). SA’s digital system generally delivers better adherence to statutory timeframes compared to other states, making timeline predictions more reliable for feasibility modelling.

The State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) assesses certain development types, while most applications remain with local councils. Accredited professionals may act as decision-makers for simpler applications, providing an alternative pathway that could expedite straightforward developments.

Combined planning and building consent applications are possible in South Australia, potentially streamlining the overall approval process by consolidating two traditionally separate approval stages into a single assessment.

The DA approval process step-by-step

While specific processes vary by state, most DA approval pathways typically follow similar stages from concept through to determination. Understanding each stage and its potential timeline implications may help developers plan more effectively and avoid common delays.

Pre-lodgement consultation and feasibility review

Pre-lodgement meetings with council planners are generally recommended before formal application lodgement. These consultations, offered by most councils free of charge or for nominal fees, provide opportunities to discuss proposal concepts, identify potential issues, clarify documentation requirements, understand likely assessment approaches, and receive preliminary feedback on compliance.

Effective pre-lodgement consultations typically require preparation. Developers might bring concept plans or sketches, site analysis and constraints identification, preliminary compliance review against planning controls, and specific questions about contentious aspects. Documented minutes from pre-lodgement meetings could provide valuable reference points if disputes arise during assessment.

This stage might also involve preliminary due diligence activities including title searches to identify easements or covenants, planning certificate reviews to understand zoning and overlays, contamination desktop reviews for potential environmental issues, and heritage database searches for listed items. Identifying major constraints early could prevent wasted expenditure on applications with low approval likelihood.

Documentation preparation and consultant engagement

DA documentation requirements vary significantly based on development type, location, and state-specific requirements. Standard documentation typically includes completed application forms, architectural plans and elevations, site plans showing existing and proposed conditions, Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) or planning reports, and statutory declarations of land ownership.

Supporting documentation might include specialist reports as required: traffic and parking impact assessments for developments generating significant vehicle movements, acoustic reports for noise-sensitive developments, stormwater management plans showing drainage compliance, waste management plans for multi-unit developments, and landscape plans for projects with significant vegetation.

Consultant engagement sequences generally follow a logical progression: town planners first to advise on approval pathway and requirements, architects or designers to prepare plans and documentation, engineers (structural, civil, hydraulic) for technical reports, and specialist consultants as required by site constraints or development type.

Cost management during documentation preparation might involve obtaining fixed-price quotes from consultants, confirming exactly which reports are required (not over-documenting), using pre-lodgement feedback to target documentation appropriately, and staging consultant engagement to manage cash flow.

Application lodgement and validation

Most states now require electronic lodgement through online portals: NSW Planning Portal for NSW applications, individual council portals in Victoria (no centralised system), Planning Online for Western Australia, PlanSA for South Australia, and various systems in Queensland depending on council.

Application fees are typically calculated based on development value (Estimated Development Cost or EDC), with fee schedules published by each council or state authority. Accurate EDC calculations are important as significant underestimation might trigger fee adjustments or penalties. Some jurisdictions now require quantity surveyor certifications for projects above certain thresholds.

Upon lodgement, councils typically conduct validation checks to ensure applications include all required documentation and fees. Invalid applications might be returned without assessment, effectively adding weeks to timelines while deficiencies are rectified. Careful preparation and checklist-based validation before lodgement could prevent these delays.

The statutory clock generally starts on the date councils formally accept applications as valid (not the lodgement date if documentation is incomplete). Understanding this distinction helps developers track actual assessment periods accurately.

Assessment, notification and referrals

During assessment, council planners typically review applications against relevant planning controls: zoning objectives in Local Environmental Plans, development standards (height, setbacks, floor space ratio), design guidelines in Development Control Plans, and state planning policies or SEPPs.

Public notification requirements vary by development type and state. Notification might involve letters to adjoining property owners, signs displayed on site, newspaper advertisements for major developments, and public exhibition periods (typically 14-30 days). Objections from neighbours could trigger additional assessment time as councils consider submissions and potentially request modified plans.

Referrals to external agencies may be required when developments affect matters under other authority’s jurisdiction: state environmental agencies for heritage, contamination or ecology matters, transport authorities for traffic or road access issues, water authorities for stormwater discharge, health departments for food premises or health facilities, and fire services for bushfire-prone areas.

Each referral agency typically has specified response timeframes (often 21 days), but responses may extend beyond these periods, stopping the assessment clock. Strategic engagement with referral agencies during pre-lodgement phases might identify and resolve potential issues before formal application, reducing referral-related delays.

Councils generally have three determination options: approve as submitted (relatively rare for complex applications), approve with conditions (most common outcome), or refuse the application. Conditions typically fall into several categories: conditions requiring plan modifications, infrastructure or monetary contributions, construction methodology requirements, and deferred commencement conditions (approval granted but certain requirements must be met before commencing).

Conditions can materially impact project costs. Infrastructure levies might add 1-3% of development cost, additional parking requirements could reduce developable area or require expensive basement construction, upgraded services connections might cost $5,000-$30,000, and environmental mitigation measures could require ongoing monitoring and reporting.

Deferred commencement approvals grant consent but prevent commencement until specified requirements are met. These might include: easement arrangements being registered on title, infrastructure works completed by council or developer, detailed design plans submitted and approved, or services capacity confirmed by utility providers. Deferred commencement could add 2-6 months post-approval before construction can begin.

Approved applications typically include conditions requiring compliance certification, construction management plans, and post-completion requirements such as landscaping inspections or occupation certificates. Understanding all conditions before accepting approval helps developers model complete cost and timeline implications.

Appeals and review mechanisms

If applications are refused or approved with unacceptable conditions, appeal options generally exist in all states, though processes differ significantly. In NSW, appeals proceed to the Land and Environment Court, which operates as a judicial body hearing both merit appeals and judicial reviews. Appeals typically cost $20,000-$100,000+ in legal and expert witness fees, with 6-12 month timeframes.

Victoria’s VCAT operates as a tribunal (not a court), making appeals more accessible and common. Filing fees typically range from $800-$3,000, though expert witness and representation costs could add significantly. VCAT’s Section 79 appeals allow applicants to appeal 60 days after lodgement if councils haven’t determined applications, even without formal refusal.

Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia maintain similar tribunal or court-based appeal systems. The formality, cost, and typical duration vary by jurisdiction, but all provide avenues for challenging refusals or unreasonable conditions.

Success rates for appeals vary significantly based on refusal reasons, quality of evidence presented, and consistency with planning controls. Applications refused for fundamental non-compliance with planning controls face lower success rates than applications refused for discretionary amenity concerns where expert evidence might demonstrate acceptable impacts.

Required documents and specialist reports

DA documentation requirements typically vary based on development type, site constraints, and state-specific regulations. Understanding exactly what’s required for your project may help prevent costly delays from incomplete applications or unnecessary over-documentation.

Core planning documents

Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) or Planning Reports typically form the central planning document supporting DA applications. These documents, usually prepared by town planners, generally address the development against relevant planning controls, demonstrate compliance with zoning objectives, assess potential impacts on the locality, and respond to likely concerns from councils or neighbours.

SEE documents for straightforward residential projects might range from 10-30 pages, while complex commercial or industrial developments could require 50+ page reports with detailed impact assessments. Cost typically ranges from $2,000-$8,000 depending on project complexity and site constraints.

Architectural plans and elevations must generally show existing conditions, proposed works, compliance with development standards (setbacks, height, floor space ratio), material and colour schedules, and shadow diagrams for projects affecting neighbours. Architectural documentation costs might range from $5,000-$15,000 for residential projects, $15,000-$50,000+ for commercial developments.

Site plans showing existing site features, proposed building locations, access and parking arrangements, landscaping areas, and services infrastructure are typically required. Civil engineering input may be needed for detailed site plans, particularly where access, drainage or site works are complex.

Traffic and parking assessments

Traffic impact assessments are generally required when developments generate significant vehicle movements. This might include multi-unit residential (typically 10+ dwellings), commercial or retail developments, industrial facilities, and mixed-use projects. Assessments typically address existing traffic conditions, development-generated traffic volumes, intersection performance and safety, parking demand and supply, and loading and servicing arrangements.

Costs for traffic assessments might range from $2,000-$7,000 for basic residential projects, $7,000-$20,000 for major commercial developments, and potentially higher for complex intersection upgrades or detailed modelling. Traffic engineers may also prepare swept path analysis for large vehicles, parking layouts demonstrating code compliance, and traffic management plans for construction phases.

Parking requirements often prove contentious, with councils typically applying minimum parking rates from planning controls. However, parking demand studies might justify reductions based on actual usage patterns, particularly for developments near public transport or in activity centres. Independent parking studies typically cost $3,000-$8,000 but could save significant construction costs if they support reduced parking provision.

Acoustic and noise impact reports

Acoustic reports are typically required for noise-sensitive developments (residential near roads, railways, or commercial areas) or noise-generating developments (entertainment venues, industrial facilities, or commercial kitchens). Reports generally assess existing noise environment, predict noise levels from the development, recommend acoustic treatment measures, and demonstrate compliance with noise criteria.

Residential developments might require acoustic reports to demonstrate compliance with sleep disturbance criteria, particularly near major roads or entertainment precincts. Costs typically range from $2,000-$4,000 for straightforward assessments. Complex projects requiring detailed modelling or extensive mitigation design might cost $5,000-$10,000.

Mechanical services noise from air conditioning, ventilation, or refrigeration equipment often requires assessment. Design recommendations might include equipment selection, placement strategies, enclosure or shielding, and operational restrictions. These assessments help prevent post-construction noise complaints and potential enforcement orders.

Stormwater and drainage engineering

Stormwater management plans are typically required for most developments, demonstrating how stormwater will be collected, treated, and discharged without increasing flooding risk or pollutant loads. Plans generally address stormwater quantity management (detention or retention basins), water quality treatment measures, connection points to public drainage systems, and maintenance requirements.

On-site detention (OSD) requirements typically apply in most urban areas, requiring stormwater to be held temporarily on-site during storms to match pre-development flow rates. OSD design might involve underground tanks ($3,000-$8,000 installed for residential), surface basins (requiring significant site area), or proprietary treatment systems.

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) measures are increasingly required, incorporating rain gardens, permeable paving, or bio-retention systems. While these measures add upfront costs ($5,000-$15,000 for typical residential developments), they might reduce drainage infrastructure requirements and contribute to sustainability objectives.

Civil engineering fees for stormwater documentation typically range from $1,500-$5,000 for residential projects, $5,000-$15,000 for commercial developments requiring detailed hydraulic modelling.

Environmental and heritage assessments

Contamination assessments may be required for sites with current or historical industrial use, former service stations or dry cleaners, filled land or proximity to contaminating activities. Phase 1 desktop assessments typically cost $1,500-$3,000 and review historical records to identify potential contamination. If contamination is identified, Phase 2 intrusive investigations with soil sampling might cost $5,000-$15,000+, followed by remediation if required.

Heritage impact statements are generally required when developing heritage-listed properties or properties within heritage conservation areas. Assessments typically address heritage significance, impact of proposed works on heritage values, and measures to conserve heritage fabric. Heritage consultants typically charge $900-$3,000 for statements on local heritage items, potentially more for state heritage items requiring detailed analysis.

Bushfire assessment reports are typically mandatory in bushfire-prone areas, assessing bushfire attack level (BAL rating), recommending construction measures for bushfire protection, and demonstrating compliant asset protection zones. Costs generally range from $700-$2,000 depending on site complexity and hazard severity.

Ecological assessments might be required where native vegetation or threatened species habitat exists. Surveys typically occur during appropriate seasons for species detection, with reports addressing biodiversity values, impact assessment, and offset or mitigation proposals. Costs vary significantly based on survey requirements but might range from $3,000-$15,000+.

How much DA approval costs in Australia

Understanding the complete cost picture for DA approval may help developers budget accurately and avoid the margin erosion that occurs when initial estimates prove significantly understated. Costs typically vary by state, development type, and project complexity.

Council application fees by state

NSW calculates DA fees based on Estimated Development Cost (EDC) using a sliding scale. For developments valued under $100,000, base fees might range from $110-$680. For developments between $100,000-$250,000, fees typically include a base amount plus a percentage of value (around 0.46%). Projects valued at $500,000-$1 million might pay approximately $2,200-$3,800, while larger projects pay progressively higher fees based on value bands.

Section 7.12 contributions in NSW represent additional costs beyond application fees. For residential development, the contribution rate is typically 1% of development cost (subject to caps varying by council area). Commercial and industrial developments face different rates. A $750,000 residential development might pay approximately $7,500 in section 7.12 contributions, representing a significant additional cost.

Victoria uses a fee unit system ($16.33 per unit in 2024-25) with standardised fees across councils. A single dwelling might cost 8 fee units ($130), while a multi-dwelling development might range from 15-100 fee units ($245-$1,633) depending on dwelling numbers. Commercial developments follow similar unit-based scales, providing more predictable fee structures than NSW’s value-based approach.

Queensland councils set fees based on development value and type, typically ranging from a few hundred dollars for minor works to several thousand for major developments. Brisbane City Council’s fee schedule might serve as a reference point, though fees vary across councils.

Western Australia and South Australia similarly calculate fees based on development value and complexity, with detailed fee schedules published by councils or state authorities. SA’s digital system through PlanSA provides clear fee calculators, potentially offering greater certainty in cost estimation.

Consultant and professional fees

Town planning consultants typically charge fees ranging from $2,000-$5,000 for straightforward residential DAs (single dwellings, small multi-unit), $5,000-$15,000 for medium complexity projects (larger multi-unit, mixed-use), and $15,000-$50,000+ for complex commercial or industrial developments requiring detailed planning analysis. Hourly rates for town planners might range from $150-$300 depending on experience and firm size.

Architectural services for DA purposes generally cost $5,000-$15,000 for residential projects, $15,000-$30,000 for multi-unit residential (6-12 units), and $30,000-$100,000+ for commercial buildings depending on scale and complexity. Some architects charge fixed fees, while others work on percentage-of-construction-cost basis (typically 3-8% for full services, with DA documentation representing 30-40% of total architectural fees).

Engineering consultants providing civil, structural, and services documentation might charge $3,000-$8,000 for residential projects, $8,000-$20,000 for medium commercial developments, and $20,000-$100,000+ for major projects requiring detailed engineering design. Many engineering firms offer package pricing for DA documentation.

Specialist report cost ranges

The following cost ranges represent typical fees for specialist reports commonly required for DA applications:

Traffic and parking assessments: $2,000-$7,000 for residential projects, $7,000-$20,000 for major commercial developments. Acoustic reports: $2,000-$4,000 for standard assessments, $5,000-$10,000 for complex projects. Stormwater and drainage engineering: $1,500-$5,000 for residential, $5,000-$15,000 for commercial. Bushfire assessment reports: $700-$2,000 depending on hazard level. Heritage impact statements: $900-$3,000 for local heritage items. Contamination Phase 1 assessments: $1,500-$3,000. Contamination Phase 2 investigations: $5,000-$15,000+ if required.

Geotechnical investigations: $2,000-$5,000 for basic residential sites, $5,000-$15,000+ for commercial projects. Arborist reports: $500-$2,000 depending on tree numbers. Ecological assessments: $3,000-$15,000+ depending on survey requirements. Waste management plans: $800-$2,000. Quantity surveyor cost reports: $1,000-$3,000.

Hidden costs and additional expenses

Beyond obvious fees and consultant costs, several additional expenses might impact DA budgets. Request for Information (RFI) responses when councils seek clarification or additional documentation might cost $2,000-$5,000 per cycle in consultant fees to prepare responses. Multiple RFI rounds are common for complex projects, potentially adding $5,000-$15,000 to total costs.

Plan revisions or modifications responding to council feedback might require additional architectural and engineering fees. Minor revisions might cost $1,000-$3,000, while substantial redesign could cost $5,000-$20,000 depending on the extent of changes required.

Development bonds might be required by councils to secure performance of conditions, particularly for public domain works, tree protection measures, or stormwater infrastructure. Bonds typically range from $5,000-$50,000+ depending on the value of works secured, though they’re generally refundable upon satisfactory completion.

Infrastructure contributions beyond section 7.12 levies might apply in growth areas. These contributions fund trunk infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, parks) and could range from a few thousand dollars to over $50,000 per dwelling in some areas.

Holding costs during the approval period represent significant hidden expenses. For a typical development site with $600,000 loan at current interest rates (around 6-7%), monthly holding costs might include: interest ($2,500-$3,500), council rates ($200-$400), land tax (varies by total holdings), insurance ($100-$200), and maintenance ($200-$500). Total monthly holding costs of $3,500-$5,000 multiply over 6-12 month approval periods, potentially adding $20,000-$60,000 to project costs beyond initial estimates.

Total DA cost estimates by project type

For a single dwelling residential development, total DA costs might range from $8,000-$20,000 including council fees ($500-$2,000), town planner ($2,000-$4,000), architect ($3,000-$8,000), surveyor ($1,000-$2,000), bushfire/BASIX reports as required ($700-$2,000), and contingency for additional requirements.

Multi-unit residential developments (6-12 units) might incur total costs of $25,000-$60,000 including council fees and levies ($5,000-$15,000), town planner ($8,000-$15,000), architect ($15,000-$25,000), engineers ($5,000-$10,000), traffic assessment ($3,000-$5,000), acoustic report ($2,000-$4,000), and other reports as required.

Commercial developments could face total DA costs ranging from $40,000-$150,000+ depending on scale, including all professional fees, specialist reports, and council contributions. Large commercial projects might require comprehensive environmental impact statements, detailed traffic modelling, and numerous specialist inputs, significantly increasing costs.

These estimates typically exclude holding costs during approval periods, which could add $20,000-$100,000+ depending on site value and approval duration. Accurate feasibility modelling generally requires including both direct DA costs and indirect holding costs over realistic timeline scenarios.

How long DA approval actually takes

While statutory timeframes provide theoretical benchmarks, developers typically benefit from understanding actual approval durations when modelling project cash flows and timelines. The gap between statutory targets and reality often represents one of the largest risks to development feasibility.

Statutory timeframes by state

NSW sets a statutory determination period of 40 days for standard DAs, extending to 90 days for integrated development requiring state agency concurrences. However, councils may “stop the clock” by requesting additional information within 25 days of lodgement, effectively pausing the assessment period. Each information request cycle might add 2-4 weeks or more, depending on complexity of requirements and consultant availability.

Victoria’s statutory timeframe is 60 days (not 40 like NSW), but the clock stops during public notification periods, information requests, and referral response times. VicSmart applications for simple projects offer 10-day statutory periods, though actual processing might extend slightly beyond this for complex VicSmart applications.

Queensland uses 40 business days as the statutory period (approximately 8 weeks). Queensland’s use of business days rather than calendar days requires different calculations than other states. The clock may stop for information requests, but Queensland’s deemed approval provisions in certain circumstances create different risk dynamics than other states.

Western Australia allows 60 calendar days where no consultation is required, or 90 calendar days if consultation or referrals are triggered. Again, calendar days (not business days) are used, affecting timeline calculations. Deemed refusal provisions apply if councils don’t determine applications within timeframes, allowing appeals but not automatic approval.

South Australia provides the clearest statutory timeframes by assessment pathway: Deemed-to-Satisfy (5 business days), Performance Assessed without referrals (20 business days), Performance Assessed with referrals (60 business days), and Impact Assessed (95 business days). SA’s digital system generally delivers better adherence to these timeframes than other states.

Actual average processing times

Research by the Property Council of Australia suggests NSW council performance varies dramatically. Efficient councils might average 70-100 days for standard DAs, while slower councils could average 150-250+ days. Some Sydney councils have averaged over 200 days for standard assessments, creating significant holding cost impacts for developers.

Victoria’s actual average processing time is approximately 155 calendar days (over 5 months) for standard planning permits, according to state data. Individual council performance varies, with efficient councils processing applications in 90-120 days, while others might extend to 180-250 days. VicSmart applications generally meet 10-day targets when all documentation is complete, offering faster alternatives for qualifying projects.

Queensland and Western Australia councils show similar patterns—statutory timeframes rarely reflect actual processing times, with 4-9 months representing realistic expectations for standard applications in most councils. Brisbane City Council and Perth councils might process applications faster than regional councils due to greater resourcing and system maturity.

South Australia’s digital system through PlanSA generally delivers better timeline adherence, with many applications meeting statutory timeframes or extending only marginally beyond. However, complex Impact Assessment applications might still extend to 4-6 months.

Factors that cause delays

Several factors consistently cause DA processing delays beyond statutory timeframes. Incomplete documentation at lodgement triggers validation issues, potentially delaying formal commencement by 1-4 weeks. Multiple requests for information from councils might add 2-4 weeks per cycle, with 2-3 RFI cycles common for complex projects.

Public notification objections from neighbours could trigger extended assessment periods as councils consider submissions, request modified plans, or conduct meetings. Controversial projects might face 2-6 months additional assessment while objections are addressed.

Referral agencies exceeding response timeframes create delays beyond council control. State environmental agencies, transport authorities, or water utilities might take 4-8 weeks for referral responses even when statutory periods specify 21 days.

Council resourcing constraints affect processing speeds. Many councils face planner shortages, creating assessment backlogs. End-of-financial-year periods might see increased lodgements as developers rush to meet internal deadlines, compounding delays. Christmas and holiday periods could add 2-4 weeks to assessment times when staff are on leave.

Political or community controversy around developments might cause councils to delay determinations pending additional consultation, councillor workshops, or external reviews. Developments near elections might face extended timeframes as councils avoid controversial decisions.

Strategies to minimise approval timelines

While some delays remain beyond developer control, several strategies might help minimise approval durations. Thorough pre-lodgement consultation with council planners could identify issues early, clarify documentation requirements, obtain preliminary feedback on compliance, and establish realistic timeline expectations. Documented pre-lodgement meetings could also support later appeals if unreasonable delays occur.

Complete and high-quality documentation at lodgement prevents validation delays. Engaging experienced consultants familiar with council requirements might ensure applications include all required information upfront. Internal quality review before lodgement could catch missing documents or inadequate reports.

Early engagement with referral agencies before formal application might identify and resolve potential issues. Some agencies offer pre-referral discussions, potentially addressing concerns that would otherwise trigger negative referrals or extended response times during formal assessment.

Strategic timing of lodgements could avoid peak periods. Lodging in January-March might face fewer competing applications than June-July (end of financial year rush). Avoiding periods immediately before council meetings might also help, as applications lodged just after meetings face longer waits for council consideration.

Responsive and timely replies to information requests could prevent extended pauses in assessment. Budget contingency funds for urgent consultant responses (2-3 day turnaround) might keep assessment moving rather than waiting weeks for consultant availability.

Maintaining professional and constructive relationships with council planners could facilitate smoother assessment. Regular follow-up calls (without being overbearing), prompt responses to queries, and professional documentation create positive working relationships that might translate to smoother processing.

Timeline provisions in feasibility modelling

Given the gap between statutory and actual timeframes, conservative timeline assumptions typically benefit feasibility modelling accuracy. Feasly’s software allows developers to model multiple timeline scenarios—optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic—helping understand the range of potential outcomes and their impact on project returns.

Optimistic scenarios might assume 3-4 months for straightforward projects in efficient councils. Realistic scenarios should generally assume 6-9 months for standard DAs in most councils. Pessimistic scenarios for complex or controversial projects might extend to 12-18 months, particularly when accounting for potential rejection and resubmission.

Sensitivity analysis testing project viability under extended timelines could identify when projects become unviable. If a project only works with optimistic timelines but fails at realistic durations, it might represent excessive risk. Understanding break-even timelines helps developers make informed go/no-go decisions before committing significant capital.

Alternative approval pathways

Not all development requires standard DA approval. Understanding alternative pathways might save developers months of assessment time and thousands in costs, making some projects viable that would be marginal under DA pathways.

Complying Development Certificates

Complying Development Certificates (CDC) provide faster approval pathways for developments that meet prescriptive standards. In NSW, CDCs are generally available for specified development types where proposals comply with detailed codes in State Environmental Planning Policies or local council codes.

CDC assessment typically occurs within 20 days (compared to 40+ days for DAs), with private certifiers conducting assessment rather than councils. This can significantly reduce timeframes, with many CDCs approved within 3-4 weeks of lodgement. Costs might also be lower as private certifier fees are typically $2,000-$5,000 compared to higher council fees and consultant costs for DAs.

However, CDC pathways require strict compliance with detailed codes. Development must meet all specifications—any non-compliance typically disqualifies projects from CDC pathways, requiring DA lodgement instead. Understanding CDC requirements early in design could allow projects to be modified to qualify, potentially saving months and costs.

Common CDC categories might include single dwellings on certain lots, secondary dwellings (granny flats) meeting size and location requirements, alterations and additions to existing dwellings, commercial and industrial buildings meeting specific criteria, and subdivision works complying with detailed standards.

Exempt development

Exempt development provisions typically allow certain minor works to proceed without any approval. While exempt development provisions exist in all states (with different terminology and scope), they generally cover minor residential alterations, repairs and maintenance, small outbuildings and sheds, fences meeting height and material standards, swimming pools and spas (with certification), and certain landscaping works.

Understanding exempt development provisions could save unnecessary approval costs for minor works. However, exempt development typically requires compliance with development standards and building codes even though planning approval isn’t required. Some work might be exempt from planning approval but still require building approval or certification.

Developers should carefully verify that proposed works genuinely qualify as exempt development. Using exempt development provisions for works that don’t qualify could result in council orders to cease work, potential fines, and requirements to retrospectively seek approval or remove non-compliant work.

State Significant Development

In NSW, State Significant Development (SSD) represents an alternative pathway for major projects with state or regional significance. SSD applications are assessed by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure rather than councils, with the Minister for Planning typically making final determinations.

Projects qualifying as SSD might include developments with capital investment value exceeding $30 million (generally), residential developments of 250+ dwellings, commercial or retail developments over specified thresholds, and infrastructure projects of state importance. While SSD involves detailed environmental impact statements and potentially lengthy assessment, it bypasses council decision-making, which might benefit projects in councils with poor approval records.

Other states have equivalent pathways for significant projects, such as Victoria’s Development Assessment Committee system for regionally significant projects, Queensland’s Priority Development Areas through EDQ, or Western Australia’s State Agreements for major developments.

Fast-track pathways

VicSmart in Victoria offers 10-day approvals for simple planning applications meeting prescriptive standards. Qualifying developments might include single dwellings in certain zones, buildings and works up to specified heights and floor areas, subdivision creating up to two lots, and signage meeting size and location criteria. VicSmart’s rapid turnaround could significantly benefit projects qualifying for this pathway.

South Australia’s Deemed-to-Satisfy pathway provides 5 business day approvals for developments fully complying with quantitative requirements in the Planning and Design Code. This represents the fastest approval pathway nationally for qualifying developments, though compliance must be objective and demonstrable.

Understanding which pathways your development might qualify for typically requires early engagement with councils or qualified planning consultants. Design modifications to meet pathway criteria might prove worthwhile if they enable significantly faster or cheaper approvals.

What happens if your DA is rejected

DA rejection represents one of the most significant risks to development feasibility, potentially resulting in months of wasted time, tens of thousands in sunk costs, and strategic dilemmas about whether to resubmit, appeal, or abandon projects.

Common reasons for DA refusal

Non-compliance with planning controls frequently leads to refusals. Developments exceeding height limits, floor space ratios, or minimum setback requirements without demonstrating exceptional circumstances typically face refusal. While some planning controls allow variation through discretionary assessment, fundamental non-compliances generally result in rejection.

Unacceptable impacts on neighbours through excessive overshadowing, privacy loss, or visual bulk might trigger refusals even where developments technically comply with quantitative controls. Councils exercise discretionary judgment about amenity impacts, particularly in established residential areas where neighbourhood character receives significant weight.

Traffic and parking concerns commonly lead to refusal or deferral, particularly where developments generate significant vehicle movements but cannot demonstrate adequate parking provision or safe access. Traffic engineer opinions might differ from council assessments, creating conflicts that sometimes resolve through tribunal or court proceedings.

Heritage impacts on listed items or conservation areas could result in refusal if councils determine proposals don’t adequately conserve heritage significance. Heritage considerations often override other planning objectives, making sensitive heritage sites particularly challenging for substantial development.

Environmental constraints such as flooding, bushfire, contamination, or biodiversity might lead to refusal where developments cannot adequately mitigate risks. Some environmental constraints prove impossible to satisfactorily address, making certain sites unsuitable for intended development regardless of planning permission.

Cost implications of rejection

Rejection results in complete loss of DA preparation costs, typically $15,000-$50,000 in consultant fees, architectural documentation, specialist reports, and council application fees. These sunk costs are generally irrecoverable, representing pure loss if projects don’t proceed.

Holding costs continue accumulating during the rejection and decision period about next steps. An additional 2-4 months of holding costs while determining whether to resubmit, appeal, or abandon might add $7,000-$20,000 in interest, rates, and other carrying costs.

If proceeding with resubmission, modified applications might cost 50-70% of original DA costs ($7,500-$35,000) if addressing specific council concerns without major redesign, or full costs ($15,000-$50,000+) if substantial redesign is required. Resubmission assessment typically takes another 6-9 months, compounding holding costs further.

Appeal proceedings add significant costs depending on jurisdiction. Land and Environment Court appeals in NSW typically cost $20,000-$100,000+ in legal fees, expert witness fees, and barrister costs. VCAT appeals in Victoria are more accessible ($800-$3,000 filing fees) but still require expert reports and often legal representation ($10,000-$40,000 total). Appeal proceedings generally take 6-12 months, further extending project timelines and carrying costs.

Appeal processes by state

NSW appeals proceed to the Land and Environment Court under Class 1 appeals for merit reviews or Class 4 for judicial reviews. The Court can uphold refusals, approve applications, or approve with modified conditions. Deemed refusal provisions allow appeals 40 days after lodgement (90 days for integrated development) if councils haven’t determined applications.

Victoria’s VCAT provides more accessible appeal processes. Section 79 appeals allow challenges to refusals or non-determination after 60 days. VCAT operates less formally than courts, with many applicants self-representing (though legal or planning consultant representation typically improves success rates). VCAT can vary or set aside council decisions, though it generally defers to council on policy matters.

Queensland’s Planning and Environment Court, Western Australia’s State Administrative Tribunal, and South Australia’s Environment, Resources and Development Court provide similar appeal mechanisms in their respective states. Formality, cost, and typical duration vary, but all offer avenues for challenging refusals.

Appeal success rates vary significantly based on refusal reasons and quality of evidence. Applications refused for fundamental non-compliance with planning controls face uphill battles, while applications refused on amenity grounds might succeed if expert evidence demonstrates acceptable impacts.

Resubmission strategies

If choosing to resubmit rather than appeal, strategic approaches might improve approval prospects. Addressing specific concerns raised in refusal reasons demonstrates responsiveness to council feedback. Modified plans targeting identified issues show good faith engagement rather than simply resubmitting identical proposals.

Pre-resubmission consultation with council planners could clarify what modifications might gain support. Some councils offer without-prejudice discussions about refused applications, providing guidance on paths to approval without committing to support modified proposals.

Scaled-back proposals might prove necessary if original designs fundamentally exceed site capacity or planning controls. Reducing height, floor space, or dwelling numbers might make projects approvable, though this affects project economics and might render developments unviable.

Additional expert reports addressing concerns might support resubmissions. If councils refused applications due to traffic concerns, comprehensive traffic studies by reputable consultants might overcome objections. Similarly, if heritage impacts caused refusal, heritage architect involvement might demonstrate acceptable conservation approaches.

Abandonment economics

Sometimes rejection leads to rational decisions to abandon projects. If modification costs plus resubmission costs exceed profit potential, abandonment might be most economically sound despite sunk costs. Developers should carefully analyse whether continuing to pursue approval makes financial sense or whether accepting losses and redirecting capital to alternative opportunities proves wiser.

The sunk cost fallacy—continuing projects simply because money has already been spent—often leads developers to throw good money after bad. Dispassionate analysis of remaining costs to achieve approval versus potential returns helps make rational decisions rather than emotional ones.

For projects acquired speculatively or at prices reflecting development potential, rejection might mean selling sites for less than acquisition cost plus sunk costs. However, this loss might prove smaller than further costs pursuing unlikely approvals or developing marginal projects.

Financial modelling and feasibility considerations

Sophisticated feasibility analysis typically requires developers to model DA approval as a key variable rather than treating it as a fixed assumption. Understanding how to incorporate DA costs, timelines, and risk into financial models may significantly improve decision-making and reduce project failures.

Variables to include in development feasibility

DA costs should be itemised separately in feasibility models rather than buried in generic “professional fees” categories. This might include council application fees and contributions, town planner and architect fees for DA purposes (not full architectural fees), all specialist consultant reports, and contingency provisions (typically 20-30% of estimated DA costs) for additional information requests or unforeseen requirements.

DA timeline assumptions should generally replace optimistic statutory periods with realistic ranges. Models might include optimistic scenarios (3-4 months), realistic scenarios (6-9 months), and pessimistic scenarios (12-18 months), with weighted probability analysis showing expected outcomes across scenarios.

Holding costs during approval periods should be calculated on phased loan draw-downs reflecting actual advance schedules rather than flat total debt. This might include interest on land acquisition debt, council rates and land tax, insurances, site maintenance and security, and opportunity cost of equity capital tied in non-performing assets.

Conditions of consent cost provisions might include infrastructure levies and contributions (1-3% of development cost), additional works required by consent conditions, deferred commencement compliance costs, and bond requirements.

Sensitivity analysis frameworks

Testing project viability across multiple variables typically reveals break-even points and risk thresholds. DA timeline sensitivity might test +25% scenarios (9 months becomes 11 months), +50% scenarios (9 months becomes 13.5 months), and +100% scenarios (9 months becomes 18 months, including potential rejection and resubmission).

DA cost sensitivity could test +30% scenarios ($30,000 becomes $39,000), +50% scenarios ($30,000 becomes $45,000), and +100% scenarios ($30,000 becomes $60,000, reflecting rejection and resubmission costs).

Combined sensitivity analysis testing multiple variables simultaneously provides most realistic risk assessment. For example, testing DA timeline +50% combined with DA costs +50% and construction costs +10% shows compound effects that single-variable sensitivity misses.

Probability-weighted analysis assigns likelihood percentages to different scenarios. For example, 60% probability of 6-8 month approval (base case), 25% probability of 9-12 months (delayed case), 10% probability of 12-18 months including rejection (worst case), and 5% probability of outright rejection requiring project abandonment. Expected value calculations across weighted scenarios provide more accurate return predictions than single-point estimates.

Cash flow modelling with realistic DA timelines

Development cash flow models should generally sequence payments realistically rather than assuming even monthly draw-downs. Initial payments might include land deposit and settlement, immediate engagement of town planner and architect for DA preparation, and staged consultant payments for specialist reports as prepared.

During DA assessment periods, cash flow typically shows holding costs (interest, rates, tax, insurance, maintenance) without offsetting revenue. This negative cash flow period of 6-12+ months materially impacts project NPV and IRR but is often underestimated in optimistic models.

Post-approval but pre-construction phases might include deferred commencement compliance costs, detailed design and documentation for construction, construction finance establishment, and continued holding costs until construction commences.

Accurate sequencing of these cash flows allows proper NPV calculations discounting at appropriate rates (typically 8-15% for development projects depending on risk profile). Projects showing positive returns under optimistic timelines might show negative returns under realistic cash flow sequences, fundamentally changing investment decisions.

Risk-adjusted return calculations

Development projects typically warrant risk premiums above stabilised investment returns due to execution risk, market risk, and approval risk. DA approval uncertainty represents significant approval risk that should generally be reflected in required hurdle rates or risk provisions.

Pre-DA projects might warrant IRR hurdle rates 2-4% higher than post-DA projects to reflect approval uncertainty. For example, if post-DA developments target 18% IRR, pre-DA projects might require 20-22% to compensate for approval risk and potential rejection losses.

Contingency provisions in development budgets might include general construction contingency (5-10% of construction costs), DA-specific contingency (20-30% of estimated DA costs), and time contingency (additional holding costs for 3-6 months beyond expected timeline).

Risk provisions could also take the form of reduced land acquisition prices for pre-DA purchases. If similar sites with approved DAs trade at $1 million, pre-DA sites might reasonably trade at $800,000-$900,000 reflecting the discount for approval risk and time cost of pursuing approval.

Break-even and viability thresholds

Calculating critical thresholds helps developers understand risk tolerances and decision points. Maximum DA timeline before project becomes unviable might be determined by holding cost accumulation reaching margin threshold. For example, if a project has 15% development margin and holding costs represent 1% of project value per month, theoretically the project becomes unviable after 15 months of approval delays.

Minimum sale price or rental rate to cover extended holding costs shows revenue sensitivity. If initial feasibility assumes 6-month approval generating $50,000 holding costs, but 12-month approval generates $100,000 holding costs, sale prices might need to increase 5-8% to maintain margins.

Maximum land price given DA cost and timeline reality might reveal that land acquisitions predicated on optimistic approval assumptions become unviable with realistic assumptions. Recalculating land residual values based on conservative DA assumptions could prevent overpaying for sites.

Finding and engaging the right consultants

Successful DA approval typically requires engaging qualified professionals with relevant expertise and local knowledge. Understanding who to hire, when to engage them, and how to manage consultant coordination might significantly impact both approval likelihood and cost management.

Town planning consultants

Town planners typically serve as the strategic advisors for DA processes, providing pathway advice, requirements identification, application preparation and lodgement, and ongoing liaison with councils during assessment. When selecting town planners, developers might consider local experience with relevant councils (important for understanding specific council preferences and relationships), expertise in relevant development types, and professional accreditation through the Planning Institute of Australia.

Engagement timing for town planners generally occurs early in project conception, ideally before site acquisition. Pre-purchase planning advice might identify fatal flaws, confirm development capacity assumptions, clarify approval pathways and likely requirements, and provide timeline and cost estimates to inform acquisition decisions.

Town planner fees typically range from $150-$300 per hour or $2,000-$50,000+ fixed fees depending on project scope. Fee structures might involve fixed fees for defined scopes (preferred for budget certainty), hourly rates with caps, or retainer arrangements for ongoing projects.

Questions to ask when engaging town planners might include: What experience do you have with [specific council]? What’s your assessment of approval likelihood for this project? What timeline should we realistically expect? Are there alternative pathways worth considering? What are your fee structures and inclusions?

Architects and designers

Architects provide design services and documentation for DA purposes, though full architectural services extend through construction documentation and contract administration. For DA purposes, architects typically provide concept designs responding to brief and site, DA documentation (plans, elevations, sections, schedules), and responses to council or consultant feedback requiring design modifications.

Architect selection might consider design approach and style alignment with project vision, DA documentation experience and quality, knowledge of relevant building codes and standards, and coordination capability with consultants and certifiers.

Engagement timing for architects typically occurs after initial planning advice confirms project viability but before detailed design investment. Concept design might occur in parallel with early-stage planning advice, allowing integrated consideration of planning and design constraints.

Specialist consultants

Traffic engineers might be required for developments generating significant vehicle movements, providing traffic impact assessments, parking design and compliance verification, and swept path analysis for large vehicles. Acoustic consultants typically assess noise impacts or recommend acoustic treatment for noise-sensitive developments.

Civil engineers provide stormwater management design, including on-site detention systems, water quality treatment measures, and connection to public drainage. Hydraulic engineers might be needed for complex drainage or services designs.

Environmental consultants provide contamination assessments, ecological surveys for native vegetation or habitat, bushfire assessments for bushfire-prone areas, and heritage impact statements for heritage items or conservation areas.

Surveying consultants deliver site surveys showing existing features and levels, subdivision design for land division proposals, and set-out surveys for construction.

Engagement timing for specialist consultants typically follows initial planning advice identifying which reports are required. Staged engagement might see critical reports (traffic, stormwater) engaged early, with optional reports (acoustic, ecology) engaged only if site investigations or pre-lodgement feedback confirms they’re necessary.

Managing consultant coordination

Effective consultant management typically involves appointing a project coordinator (often the town planner or project manager) who maintains oversight of all consultants, coordinates information sharing between consultants, tracks documentation progress and deadlines, and manages budget against scope.

Communication protocols might establish regular coordination meetings (weekly or fortnightly during documentation), shared file systems for document exchange, consistent naming conventions and version control, and clear approval authorities for consultant scope changes.

Budget management during DA documentation helps prevent cost overruns through fixed-price quotes where possible, change order procedures for additional work, regular cost reporting against budget, and contingency provisions for unexpected requirements.

Quality assurance before lodgement could involve internal review of all documentation for completeness and consistency, cross-referral checking between consultant reports, compliance checklist verification against council requirements, and final coordination review ensuring all consultants address relevant aspects.

Frequently asked questions

How do I know if I need DA approval?

Whether development requires DA approval typically depends on the type of work proposed and applicable planning controls. Most new buildings, alterations to existing structures, changes of use, and subdivisions generally require some form of approval. However, exempt development provisions might allow certain minor works without approval, and some developments might qualify for Complying Development Certificates rather than standard DAs.

The most reliable way to determine approval requirements involves checking planning certificates (Section 10.7 certificates in NSW, similar certificates in other states), reviewing council websites for exempt and complying development provisions, and consulting with town planning professionals who can interpret planning controls for your specific proposal and location.

What’s the difference between DA approval and CDC?

Development Applications (DA) involve discretionary assessment by councils or consent authorities, who consider compliance with planning controls but also exercise judgment about impacts and merit. Complying Development Certificates (CDC) provide faster approval for developments that strictly comply with prescriptive codes, with assessment typically by private certifiers rather than councils and determination periods of around 20 days compared to 40+ days for DAs.

CDC pathways generally offer time and cost savings but require strict compliance with detailed standards. Any non-compliance typically disqualifies projects from CDC pathways, requiring DA lodgement instead.

How much does DA approval typically cost?

Total DA costs typically range from $15,000-$50,000 for medium-scale developments, though straightforward single dwellings might cost $8,000-$20,000 and complex commercial projects could exceed $100,000. Costs typically include council application fees ($500-$5,000+ depending on value), town planner fees ($2,000-$15,000), architect documentation ($5,000-$30,000), specialist reports ($3,000-$20,000), and contingency for additional requirements.

Holding costs during 6-12 month approval periods might add another $20,000-$60,000 to total project costs, though these are typically modelled separately from direct DA costs.

How long does DA approval actually take?

While statutory timeframes typically range from 40-90 days depending on state and development type, actual processing times commonly extend to 6-12 months for standard DAs. Efficient councils might process straightforward applications in 70-100 days, while slower councils or complex projects could take 12-18 months, particularly if requests for information, referral delays, or objections occur.

South Australia’s digital PlanSA system generally delivers better adherence to statutory timeframes than other states. Victoria’s VicSmart pathway offers genuine 10-day approvals for qualifying simple developments.

What happens if my DA is rejected?

If councils refuse DA applications, developers generally have three options: modify and resubmit (typically costs 50-100% of original DA costs and takes another 6-9 months), appeal to relevant courts or tribunals (costs $10,000-$100,000+ and takes 6-12 months), or abandon the project (accepting sunk costs of $15,000-$50,000+ in DA preparation).

The most appropriate response typically depends on refusal reasons, costs of addressing concerns, approval likelihood with modifications, and remaining project viability after accounting for additional costs and delays.

Do I need a town planner for my DA?

While not legally required to engage town planners (applicants can prepare and lodge their own DAs), professional assistance typically improves approval likelihood and can save time and money. Town planners provide strategic advice on approval pathways, prepare applications addressing relevant planning matters, liaise effectively with councils during assessment, and can respond efficiently to requests for information.

For complex projects, commercially significant developments, or controversial proposals, professional planning advice is generally recommended. Even for straightforward projects, initial planning advice might cost $500-$1,500 but could prevent costly mistakes in site acquisition or design approach.

Can I start construction before DA approval?

Commencing development before receiving DA approval generally contravenes planning legislation and could result in council orders to cease work, potential prosecution and fines, requirements to demolish unauthorised works, and difficulties obtaining retrospective approval. Some exempt development might not require approval, and in certain limited circumstances retrospective DA approval might be possible, though councils often view unauthorised work unfavourably.

The prudent approach typically involves waiting for formal DA approval before commencing any development work beyond preliminary site works that might fall under exempt development provisions.

What is a deemed refusal and when can I appeal?

Deemed refusal provisions typically allow applicants to treat non-determination within statutory timeframes as deemed refusals, enabling appeals to courts or tribunals without waiting indefinitely for council decisions. In NSW, deemed refusal applies 40 days after lodgement for standard DAs or 90 days for integrated development. Victoria’s Section 79 appeals similarly allow VCAT appeals 60 days after lodgement.

These provisions provide strategic options when councils delay unreasonably, allowing developers to pursue court or tribunal approval rather than waiting months or years for council determinations.

How does DA approval affect financing?

DA approval status significantly impacts development financing terms and availability. Pre-DA projects typically face higher interest rates (1-2% premium), lower loan-to-value ratios (60-65% vs 70-80% post-DA), shorter facility terms (6-12 months vs longer post-DA), and more stringent covenants.

Most construction finance requires DA approval before advancing funds, creating a cash flow challenge where developers must fund DA costs and holding costs from equity or more expensive pre-construction facilities before accessing full development finance.

What reports will I need for my DA?

Required reports vary significantly based on development type, location, and site constraints. Common reports might include Statement of Environmental Effects or planning report, architectural plans and documentation, stormwater management and civil engineering plans, and survey plans showing existing conditions. Additional specialist reports could include traffic and parking assessments, acoustic reports, bushfire assessments, heritage impact statements, contamination assessments, and ecological surveys—though not all projects require all reports.

Pre-lodgement consultation with councils or town planners typically clarifies exactly which reports your specific project requires, helping prevent over-documentation (wasting money) or under-documentation (causing delays).