Property developers in Australia may face one of the most complex planning systems in the developed world, where a single project can encounter six different approval pathways, eight separate state planning regimes, and council-level variations that can extend approval timeframes from 40 days to over 200 days. With planning costs typically ranging from $25,000 to $100,000+ for medium-density residential developments, and approval delays potentially adding $10,000 to $20,000 monthly in holding costs, understanding town planning is generally understood as critical to development feasibility.
This comprehensive guide covers town planning across all Australian states and territories from a property developer’s perspective, focusing on how planning processes, costs, and timelines directly impact project economics and investment decisions.
Understanding Australian town planning systems
Town planning in Australia is typically understood as the process of regulating land use and development through a hierarchical system of planning controls. Unlike many countries with federal planning oversight, Australia operates a federated system where each state and territory controls its own planning legislation, creating significant variations in processes, terminology, and requirements.
At the highest level, state governments may establish planning legislation that sets the framework for how land can be developed. This legislation is generally administered through state planning departments, which may create strategic plans, planning policies, and development assessment frameworks. Local councils then interpret and implement these frameworks through local planning schemes or development plans, which typically contain zoning controls, development standards, and assessment criteria specific to each local government area.
The fundamental purpose of town planning could be understood as balancing competing interests in how land is used and developed. Planning systems may attempt to manage urban growth, protect environmental and heritage values, ensure adequate infrastructure, maintain neighbourhood character, and facilitate appropriate development. For property developers, this means navigating regulatory requirements that may sometimes appear to conflict with commercial objectives, though well-designed developments can typically achieve approval while delivering community benefits.
State versus local planning authority
The division of planning powers between state and local governments varies across Australia, but most jurisdictions follow a similar hierarchy. State governments may retain authority over significant developments, major infrastructure, and state-owned land, while delegating assessment of most private developments to local councils.
In New South Wales, the Department of Planning and Environment oversees the planning system under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, but most development applications are assessed by local councils. State Significant Developments and State Significant Infrastructure require state government approval, bypassing local councils entirely.
Victoria’s system under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 similarly divides authority between the state Department of Transport and Planning and 79 local councils. The Minister for Planning may call in applications of state significance, but routine development assessment typically occurs at the council level.
Queensland’s Planning Act 2016 establishes a performance-based planning system where state planning instruments set the framework, but local councils assess most applications. The Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development may coordinate major projects through special approval pathways.
South Australia implemented a revolutionary planning reform in 2021, consolidating 72 separate development plans into a single state-wide Planning and Design Code. Despite this centralisation, local councils still assess most applications, though the process has been standardised significantly.
Western Australia operates under the Planning and Development Act 2005, with the Western Australian Planning Commission providing state-level oversight and local councils handling most development assessment through local planning schemes.
Tasmania’s Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 establishes a two-tier permit system administered primarily by councils, with the Tasmanian Planning Commission handling appeals and state planning policy. The Australian Capital Territory’s Planning and Development Act 2007 creates a Territory Plan administered by the planning authority, while the Northern Territory operates a similar centralised system.
How planning controls affect development potential
Planning controls directly determine what can be built on any given site, typically affecting development feasibility more than any other regulatory factor. Understanding these controls before acquiring land is generally considered essential to avoiding costly mistakes.
Zoning represents the primary control, designating permitted land uses for each parcel. Residential zones may allow housing developments but prohibit industrial uses, commercial zones might permit retail and offices, while mixed-use zones could enable diverse development types. Each state uses different zoning terminology—NSW employs zones like R1 General Residential and B4 Mixed Use, Victoria uses General Residential Zone and Commercial 1 Zone, Queensland has Low Density Residential and Centre zones—but the fundamental concept remains consistent.
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) controls may limit the total floor area that can be built relative to site area. An FSR of 2:1 on a 1,000-square-metre site would typically permit 2,000 square metres of gross floor area. This control might be the single most important determinant of development yield for medium and high-density projects. A site purchased assuming a 3:1 FSR that actually has a 2:1 FSR could see development potential reduced by 33%, potentially making the project unviable.
Height limits commonly restrict building height measured in metres or storeys, which may interact with FSR to further constrain development potential. A generous FSR combined with a restrictive height limit might require larger floor plates, while a tight FSR with generous height could permit taller, slimmer buildings. Understanding this interaction is typically important for maximising site potential.
Setback requirements may mandate minimum distances from boundaries, roads, and neighbouring buildings, which can significantly reduce buildable envelope. Front setbacks might range from 3 to 10 metres depending on zone and location, side setbacks could be 1 to 3 metres, and rear setbacks typically match or exceed side setbacks. On smaller sites, setbacks can reduce buildable area by 20-40%.
Site coverage limits may restrict the percentage of site area that can be occupied by buildings, commonly ranging from 40% in low-density areas to 80%+ in commercial zones. This control interacts with FSR and height to determine overall development capacity.
Car parking requirements typically mandate minimum spaces per dwelling or per 100 square metres of commercial floor area, which may substantially impact project economics. Underground parking might cost $50,000-$80,000 per space in major cities, while basement parking in multi-storey developments could reach $100,000+ per space when excavation, structure, ventilation, and wayfinding are considered. Developments requiring 50 parking spaces might therefore face $2.5-$5 million in parking costs before any revenue-generating floor area is created.
Overlays add additional controls to certain areas, potentially including heritage overlays (restricting alterations to heritage buildings or new development in heritage areas), environmental overlays (protecting vegetation, waterways, or habitat), bushfire overlays (requiring specific construction standards), flood overlays (limiting development in flood-prone areas), and airport overlays (restricting height near airports). Each overlay may add complexity, cost, and timeline to development approval.
State-by-state planning approval processes
Australia’s federated planning system means approval processes, terminology, and requirements differ significantly across states and territories. Understanding state-specific frameworks is generally considered essential for developers operating across multiple jurisdictions or entering new markets.
New South Wales: Development applications and approval pathways
NSW operates under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which establishes several approval pathways depending on development type and complexity. The state planning system may be considered one of Australia’s most advanced but also most complex.
Development Application (DA) represents the standard approval pathway for most private developments. Developers submit applications to local councils (or occasionally joint regional planning panels or the state government for significant developments), which assess proposals against State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), Local Environmental Plans (LEPs), and Development Control Plans (DCPs). The statutory determination period is 40 days, though actual timeframes typically extend to 90-150 days for routine applications, with complex projects sometimes taking 180-250+ days.
Complying Development Certificate (CDC) provides a fast-track pathway for developments meeting prescriptive code requirements. Private certifiers or councils may issue CDCs within 5-20 days, bypassing neighbour notification and detailed assessment. This pathway could save developers $10,000-$30,000 in consultant fees and 60-120 days in approval time, though strict compliance with all code provisions is required.
State Significant Development (SSD) and State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) pathways apply to major projects meeting capital investment thresholds or specific criteria. These are assessed by the Department of Planning and Environment rather than councils, which may provide certainty for strategic projects but typically involves longer timeframes and more rigorous assessment.
The NSW Planning Portal handles most planning applications electronically, which has generally improved transparency and consistency. Developers can track application progress, respond to requests for information, and access decision notices online.
Application costs in NSW may include council DA fees ranging from $1,500 to $5,000+ based on development value, Section 7.11 (previously Section 94) infrastructure contributions potentially reaching tens of thousands of dollars for large developments, and Section 7.12 levies of 1% of development value over $250,000 in many areas. These contributions fund local infrastructure like parks, community facilities, and roads, and are typically factored into acquisition pricing and feasibility models.
Victoria: Planning permits and assessment pathways
Victoria’s planning system operates under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with most applications assessed against the Victoria Planning Provisions and local planning schemes. The state uses “planning permit” terminology rather than “development application,” which can initially confuse developers familiar with other states.
Planning permit applications follow a standard process where developers lodge applications with local councils (79 councils across Victoria), which then advertise proposals allowing neighbour objections, assess against planning scheme provisions, and issue decisions within statutory timeframes. The standard statutory period is 60 days, though this may be extended where applications are incomplete or additional information is requested. Actual approval times typically range from 90 to 180 days for routine residential developments.
VicSmart provides an expedited pathway for low-impact developments meeting specific criteria, with guaranteed 10-day assessment and no neighbour notification. This pathway could be particularly valuable for modest developments, subdivisions, and alterations, potentially saving developers $5,000-$15,000 in holding costs and consultant fees compared to standard permits.
Applications requiring third-party referrals (such as VicRoads for access to arterial roads, Melbourne Water for drainage, or heritage bodies for heritage properties) may face extended timeframes as these authorities have their own assessment periods. Strategic developers typically engage referral authorities early through pre-application meetings to identify and address potential concerns before formal lodgement.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) handles planning disputes, including applicant appeals against refusals, applicant appeals against failure to determine within statutory timeframes, and third-party objector appeals against approvals. VCAT hearings might cost $15,000-$50,000+ in legal and expert witness fees, though the tribunal offers a less formal and less expensive process than court-based systems in other states.
Development contributions in Victoria may include developer contributions under planning scheme provisions, infrastructure levies for growth area developments (which can be substantial), and various local requirements. The Development Contributions Guidelines provide the framework, though specific requirements vary significantly by council.
Queensland: Development applications and assessment pathways
Queensland’s Planning Act 2016 establishes a performance-based planning system focusing on intended outcomes rather than prescriptive standards. This approach may offer flexibility but can create assessment uncertainty for developers.
Development applications in Queensland follow a categorisation system that determines assessment requirements. Accepted development requires no approval and simply needs to meet prescribed standards. Code assessable development requires approval but is assessed only against applicable codes with no public notification, typically representing the simplest approval pathway. Impact assessable development requires public notification and may involve more discretionary assessment against planning scheme outcomes.
The statutory assessment period is 40 business days for most applications, though this may be extended where further information is requested or the application is considered complex. Actual timeframes could range from 60 to 150+ days depending on project complexity and council efficiency.
Queensland’s development assessment system may involve multiple concurrent approvals for building works, operational works, reconfiguring a lot (subdivision), and material change of use. Understanding which approvals are required and how they interact is generally important for timeline and cost planning.
The Development Assessment Rules provide standardised processes for application lodgement, referral coordination, decision-making, and appeals. The Planning and Environment Court handles appeals, offering a more formal judicial process than Victoria’s tribunal system, which may result in higher legal costs for disputed applications.
Infrastructure charges in Queensland can be substantial, particularly in growth areas. The State Planning Policy sets the framework for local government charges, with some councils operating infrastructure charge schedules that could reach $15,000-$30,000+ per dwelling for multi-unit developments.
South Australia: Planning approvals under the new system
South Australia implemented comprehensive planning reform in 2021, replacing 72 separate development plans with a single state-wide Planning and Design Code. This reform may represent Australia’s most significant planning system change in recent decades, aiming to create consistency, reduce complexity, and accelerate development assessment.
Under the new system, all applications are lodged through the PlanSA portal, South Australia’s online planning system. The digital platform may offer a streamlined experience compared to traditional paper-based systems, with real-time tracking, electronic communication, and integrated referral coordination.
Development applications are categorised as Deemed-to-Satisfy (meeting prescriptive code requirements with streamlined assessment), Performance Assessed (assessed against performance outcomes allowing design flexibility), or Restricted (prohibited in specific zones). Most residential and commercial developments are typically performance assessed, requiring professional planning assessment against multiple code provisions.
Assessment timeframes in SA target 20 business days for simple applications and may extend to 40 business days for more complex proposals, with the planning portal providing clear timeline tracking. The system’s newness means some councils are still optimising processes, and actual timeframes might vary as organisations adapt to new requirements.
Infrastructure schemes in SA may charge significant contributions for major developments, with costs varying substantially by council and development location. The Planning and Design Code includes infrastructure provisions that councils apply when assessing applications.
Other states and territories
Western Australia operates under the Planning and Development Act 2005, with development assessment primarily handled by local governments through local planning schemes. The Western Australian Planning Commission provides state-level oversight and assesses significant developments. WA’s system may be considered relatively straightforward compared to eastern states, though approval timeframes can still extend to 90-120+ days for routine applications.
Tasmania uses a two-tier permit system under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. Permitted development requires no permit if meeting prescribed standards, while Discretionary development requires council assessment and may involve public notification. Assessment timeframes might be 28 days for permitted development and 42 days for discretionary, though complex applications could take longer.
Australian Capital Territory planning operates through the Territory Plan administered by the planning authority rather than local councils. The centralised system may offer consistency, with development applications assessed against Territory Plan provisions and development codes.
Northern Territory planning is similarly centralised through the NT Planning Scheme, with development assessment handled by local councils or the Development Consent Authority depending on location and development type.
The development approval process step by step
Understanding the development approval process is typically important for accurate timeline and cost forecasting. While specific requirements vary by state and development type, most applications follow a broadly similar sequence from pre-application consultation through to formal approval.
Pre-application consultation and planning
Effective pre-application work may save developers tens of thousands of dollars in redesign costs and months of approval delays. This phase typically involves engaging professional consultants, researching planning controls, and consulting with approval authorities before formal application lodgement.
Planning consultant or town planner engagement could be the first step for most medium to complex developments. Experienced planners may provide critical guidance on zoning interpretation, applicable planning controls, approval pathway selection, required documentation, and potential objection issues. Fees for planning services might range from $3,000 to $15,000+ depending on project complexity and consultant seniority.
Site analysis and constraints review involves comprehensive assessment of the property’s development potential. This may include title searches revealing easements or covenants, zoning verification confirming permitted uses and development standards, overlay identification finding heritage, environmental, or other special controls, and physical constraints assessment identifying site topography, access, and servicing issues.
Pre-application meetings with councils or approval authorities are typically recommended for projects of any complexity. Most councils offer pre-DA meetings (sometimes free, sometimes $200-$500) where planning staff may provide preliminary feedback on proposal compliance, identify likely concerns, clarify documentation requirements, and suggest design improvements. While pre-application advice is generally not binding, it could substantially reduce assessment delays and refusal risk.
Preliminary feasibility and concept design should integrate planning requirements from the outset. Architects or designers may develop concepts responding to FSR/FAR limits, height and setback controls, parking requirements, and site-specific constraints while balancing commercial objectives with planning compliance.
Preparing and lodging the development application
Development application preparation typically involves coordinating multiple specialist consultants to produce comprehensive documentation addressing all planning requirements and referral authority needs.
Architectural or design drawings form the core of most applications and may include site plans showing existing conditions and proposed development, floor plans for all levels with room layouts and dimensions, elevations showing building facades and materials, and sections demonstrating height, floor-to-ceiling dimensions, and relationship to adjoining properties. Drawing preparation might cost $10,000-$30,000+ for multi-unit residential developments depending on complexity and architectural firm fees.
Planning report or statement of environmental effects (terminology varies by state) provides the planning justification for the proposal. Prepared by town planners, these documents may typically address zoning compliance and consistency with planning objectives, demonstrate compliance with numerical controls (FSR, height, setbacks), respond to design quality and character provisions, assess potential impacts on amenity and infrastructure, and address likely planning concerns proactively. Planning report fees could range from $2,000 to $10,000+ depending on project complexity.
Specialist consultant reports may be required depending on development type, location, and specific planning controls. Common reports might include traffic impact assessments ($3,000-$8,000) for developments generating significant traffic, stormwater management plans ($2,000-$5,000) showing drainage design, acoustic reports ($3,000-$6,000) for noise-sensitive developments, arborist reports ($1,500-$3,000) for sites with significant trees, contamination assessments ($2,000-$5,000+) for sites with potential contamination history, and heritage impact statements ($3,000-$8,000) for heritage properties or heritage conservation areas.
Survey and site documentation typically includes surveyor’s site plans ($1,500-$3,500) showing boundaries, levels, and existing features, and potentially utility service location plans identifying underground services.
Application lodgement now occurs electronically in most jurisdictions through state planning portals or council systems. Application fees are typically calculated based on development value or cost of development, commonly ranging from $1,500 to $5,000+ for residential developments, with larger commercial projects potentially facing fees of $10,000+.
Assessment, referrals, and requests for information
Once lodged, applications enter the formal assessment phase where planning staff review documentation, coordinate referrals, and may request additional information.
Completeness check typically occurs within 5-10 days of lodgement, where council staff verify all required documentation has been submitted. Applications deemed incomplete might be returned or placed on hold until deficiencies are addressed, which could extend overall timeframes by weeks or months.
Public notification (for advertised applications) may involve placing signs on the development site, sending notices to adjoining property owners, and potentially publishing newspaper advertisements. Notification periods typically run 14-21 days, during which anyone may submit objections or submissions. Strategic developers sometimes conduct their own neighbour consultation before lodgement to address concerns proactively.
Referrals to specialist authorities occur where applications trigger assessment requirements from agencies like roads authorities (VicRoads, RMS, DTMR), water authorities (Melbourne Water, Sydney Water, etc.), environmental protection agencies, heritage bodies, or airport authorities. Referral authorities may have 20-40 days to respond, which could add substantial time to assessment periods.
Requests for information (RFI) are common where planning staff identify documentation gaps or require clarification. RFI response timeframes might be 14-28 days, and each RFI typically resets or extends the statutory assessment clock. Thorough initial applications may minimise RFIs, while incomplete applications could face multiple rounds of requests adding months to approval timelines.
Assessment against planning controls involves detailed review of the proposal against all applicable planning instruments. Planning officers may prepare assessment reports recommending approval (with or without conditions), refusal, or deferral for additional information.
Decision-making and post-approval requirements
Development application decisions may be delegated to council staff for routine applications or referred to council committees or full council meetings for complex or contentious proposals.
Approval with conditions represents the most common outcome for well-prepared applications. Conditions might require specific construction materials or methods, landscaping installation and maintenance, infrastructure works or upgrades, cash contributions for infrastructure, ongoing operational requirements, and compliance with approved plans and specialist reports. Understanding conditions before approval is typically important, as some conditions could impact project feasibility if they require unexpected works or contributions.
Approval timeframes for construction commencement typically range from 1 to 3 years in most states, meaning development must substantially commence within this period or the approval lapses. Some approvals may permit extensions, while others could require new applications if not commenced.
Refusal or deferral may occur where applications don’t comply with planning controls, generate substantial neighbour opposition on valid planning grounds, conflict with strategic planning objectives, or lack necessary supporting information. Refusal rates vary by council and development type but might range from 5% to 20% of applications.
Appeals and reviews are available in most jurisdictions where applicants disagree with refusals or conditions, though appeal costs and timeframes may be substantial. Victorian developers might lodge VCAT appeals ($3,000-$5,000+ in tribunal fees plus $15,000-$50,000 in legal and expert costs), NSW developers could appeal to Land and Environment Court (potentially higher costs), while Queensland offers Planning and Environment Court appeals.
Post-approval compliance typically requires obtaining construction certificates or building permits (separate processes in most states), complying with approval conditions throughout construction, and obtaining occupation certificates or compliance certificates before use commences.
True costs of town planning approval for developers
Town planning costs may represent a significant component of pre-construction development expenditure, typically ranging from $15,000 to $100,000+ depending on project scale, complexity, and state requirements. Understanding full cost exposure is generally considered essential for accurate feasibility modeling and funding arrangements.
Professional consultant fees
Planning consultants and specialist advisors might charge fees based on project complexity, consultant experience, and time requirements. Entry-level consultants or junior planners could charge $120-$180 per hour, mid-level planners with 5-10 years experience might charge $180-$250 per hour, while senior planners or directors typically charge $250-$400+ per hour.
Town planner or planning consultant fees for DA preparation typically include initial site assessment and pre-application consultation, planning report or statement preparation, coordination of consultant reports, application lodgement and tracking, and RFI response and liaison with planning authorities. Total fees might range from $3,000 to $8,000 for straightforward residential projects, $8,000 to $15,000 for medium complexity multi-unit developments, and $15,000 to $30,000+ for complex commercial or mixed-use projects.
Architectural or design fees for DA-level documentation could range from $10,000 to $20,000 for small townhouse projects, $20,000 to $40,000 for medium-density residential developments, and $40,000 to $80,000+ for substantial apartment or commercial projects. Fees typically represent 5-8% of construction value at DA stage, with full architectural services (including construction documentation) reaching 8-12% of construction value.
Surveyor fees for site plans and surveys might range from $1,500 to $3,500 for standard residential lots, with larger or more complex sites potentially requiring $3,500 to $6,000+. Additional fees may apply for detailed contour surveys, boundary adjustments, or subdivision certificates.
Specialist consultant reports could add substantial costs depending on requirements. Traffic consultants might charge $3,000 to $8,000 for impact assessments, acoustic consultants typically charge $3,000 to $6,000 for noise impact studies, arborists may charge $1,500 to $3,000 for tree reports and impact assessments, geotechnical engineers could charge $2,000 to $5,000 for soil and stability reports, contamination consultants might charge $2,000 to $8,000+ for Phase 1 and potentially Phase 2 assessments, and heritage consultants typically charge $3,000 to $8,000 for heritage impact statements.
Government fees and infrastructure charges
Council application fees represent the direct cost of development assessment and are typically calculated based on development value or cost of works. Fee structures vary significantly between councils and states, with some councils charging flat fees while others use percentage-based calculations.
Development application fees might range from $1,500 to $3,000 for small residential projects under $500,000 development value, $3,000 to $5,000 for medium developments valued at $500,000 to $2 million, and $5,000 to $10,000+ for larger projects. Some councils may charge higher fees for fast-track assessment or pre-DA services.
Infrastructure contributions could represent the largest single planning cost for substantial developments. NSW Section 7.11 contributions might range from $5,000 to $20,000+ per dwelling in growth areas, NSW Section 7.12 levies could equal 1% of development value over $250,000, Victorian developer contributions vary widely by council and project type potentially reaching $10,000-$30,000 per dwelling, Queensland infrastructure charges might range from $10,000 to $25,000+ per dwelling in outer suburban councils, and growth area levies in Melbourne or Sydney growth corridors could reach $30,000 to $50,000+ per dwelling when all contributions are combined.
Other potential fees may include building information certificate fees, water and sewer connection fees (separate from planning approval but often considered concurrently), road opening permits for new crossovers, and street tree removal or replacement fees.
Hidden costs and contingencies
Beyond direct consultant and application fees, developers typically face additional costs that may not be immediately apparent when budgeting for planning approval.
Holding costs during approval period could represent significant expense, particularly where acquisition occurs before approval is secured. A $2 million site purchase financed at 8% interest would incur approximately $13,300 monthly in holding costs. A 90-day approval taking 180 days instead would therefore cost an additional $40,000 in finance costs alone. Council and land tax might add $5,000-$15,000 annually depending on site value and location.
RFI response costs are typically unbudgeted but common, as most applications receive at least one request for additional information. Preparing responses might require additional consultant time ($2,000-$5,000+), supplementary specialist reports ($3,000-$10,000+), and design modifications with revised drawings ($2,000-$8,000+).
Redesign costs following pre-application feedback or initial refusal could be substantial. Where proposals require significant design changes, architects might charge $5,000-$15,000 for revised documentation, planning consultants may charge $2,000-$5,000 for updated planning reports, and specialist consultants could charge $3,000-$8,000 for updated impact assessments. Total redesign costs might range from $10,000 to $30,000+ depending on extent of changes required.
Appeal costs where applications are refused and developers pursue tribunal or court appeals could include tribunal or court filing fees ($3,000-$5,000+), legal representation ($15,000-$30,000+ for straightforward appeals, $30,000-$100,000+ for complex matters), expert witness fees for planners, architects, or specialists ($5,000-$15,000+ per expert), and extended holding costs during 3-12 month appeal processes.
Opportunity costs of delayed approvals may be harder to quantify but could be substantial in rising markets where construction cost inflation and delayed revenue realisation impact project returns. A 6-month delay in a $5 million project with 20% target profit could reduce IRR by 3-5 percentage points depending on project timeline and market conditions.
Realistic cost ranges by development type
Based on typical consultant fees, application costs, and infrastructure contributions, total planning costs might range as follows for different development types in major metropolitan areas:
Small residential projects (single dwellings, granny flats, minor alterations) may typically incur town planner $2,000-$4,000, architect/designer $5,000-$10,000, surveyor $1,500-$2,500, application fees $1,000-$2,000, and infrastructure charges $0-$5,000, totalling approximately $9,500-$23,500.
Medium residential projects (townhouses, villas, 2-4 units) could face town planner $5,000-$10,000, architect $15,000-$25,000, surveyor $2,000-$3,000, specialist reports $5,000-$10,000 (traffic, stormwater, acoustic), application fees $2,000-$4,000, and infrastructure charges $10,000-$40,000, totalling approximately $39,000-$92,000.
Small apartment developments (5-20 units) might incur town planner $10,000-$20,000, architect $25,000-$50,000, surveyor $2,500-$4,000, specialist reports $10,000-$20,000 (multiple disciplines), application fees $3,000-$6,000, and infrastructure charges $30,000-$100,000+, totalling approximately $80,500-$200,000.
Commercial developments typically face similar or higher costs depending on scale, with larger projects potentially incurring $100,000 to $300,000+ in total planning costs when all consultants, reports, and contributions are included.
These ranges may vary significantly based on state and council requirements, project complexity, site constraints, and market conditions. Conservative feasibility modeling typically adds 10-20% contingency to anticipated planning costs to account for potential RFIs, design changes, or unforeseen requirements.
Timeline expectations and managing delays
Development approval timeframes may vary dramatically based on state, council, development type, application quality, and potential objections. Understanding realistic timeframes is typically important for accurate project programming, cashflow forecasting, and feasibility modeling.
Statutory versus actual approval times
Most Australian states establish statutory timeframes for development assessment, though actual approval times commonly exceed these targets by substantial margins.
NSW statutory timeframes set 40 days for most development applications, though actual performance might be considerably longer. Analysis of NSW council performance shows median approval times ranging from 60 to 120+ days, with fastest councils like Narrandera averaging 20 days and slowest councils like Liverpool reaching 256 days for residential applications. Complex commercial applications could take 180-250+ days in slower councils.
Victoria’s statutory period of 60 days for planning permits similarly may be exceeded in practice, with routine residential permits typically taking 90-120 days and complex applications potentially requiring 150-200+ days. VicSmart applications with their 10-day guarantee represent the exception, generally meeting statutory timeframes.
Queensland’s 40 business days (approximately 55 calendar days) statutory period might extend to 80-120 days in practice for code assessable development, with impact assessable development potentially taking 120-180+ days when public notification and potential objections are factored in.
South Australia’s new system targets 20 business days for simple applications and 40 business days for complex applications, though implementation is still bedding down and actual performance may vary as councils adapt to new digital processes.
Understanding council-specific performance helps developers make informed acquisition decisions. Buying in a council averaging 60-day approvals versus one averaging 150 days could mean the difference between a viable project and an unviable one when holding costs are considered.
Factors that extend approval timeframes
Several common factors may substantially extend approval periods beyond statutory timeframes, many of which can be anticipated and potentially mitigated through careful application preparation.
Incomplete applications represent the most common cause of delays. Missing required documentation, inadequate specialist reports, or drawings lacking necessary detail may trigger requests for information that reset or extend assessment clocks. Each RFI round might add 14-28 days plus the time required to engage consultants and prepare responses, potentially extending total approval time by 30-60+ days per RFI.
Public notification and objections could add significant time, particularly where objections raise valid planning concerns requiring detailed responses. Objection periods typically run 14-21 days, but assessment of objections and preparation of council reports addressing concerns might add another 30-60 days to overall timelines.
Referrals to external authorities often create delays, as each referral authority may have 20-40 days to respond and some responses trigger additional information requests or design changes. Developments requiring multiple referrals (roads authority, water authority, heritage body, environmental authority) could face cumulative delays of 60-90+ days beyond standard assessment.
Council workload and resourcing varies significantly, with some councils understaffed or facing application backlogs that extend assessment times. Councils with fewer planners or high application volumes might take substantially longer to assess applications regardless of statutory targets.
Political or community sensitivity around certain development types or locations may extend assessment as councils carefully consider controversial proposals, potentially referring applications to committee or full council meetings rather than delegating to staff. This could add 30-60+ days to decision-making.
Seasonal variations occur in some councils where Christmas/New Year shutdown periods (mid-December to late January) and Easter closures effectively pause assessment, adding 4-6 weeks to applications lodged in late November through early January.
Calculating holding costs during approval delays
Development approval delays translate directly into holding costs that impact project feasibility, making timeline forecasting and scenario planning typically important for financial modeling.
Land holding costs may accumulate monthly during approval periods. For a $2 million site acquisition financed at 8% annual interest, monthly holding costs would be approximately $13,300. A 90-day delay extending approval from 90 days to 180 days would therefore add approximately $40,000 in finance costs. At 10% interest, the same delay would cost $50,000.
Council and land tax continues to accrue during approval periods, potentially adding $5,000-$15,000+ annually depending on site value and applicable rates. Three months of delay might therefore add $1,250-$3,750 in holding taxes.
Opportunity costs of delayed construction commencement and revenue realisation may be harder to quantify but could be substantial. In a rising market, each month of delay might mean higher construction costs (potentially 0.5-1% monthly during inflationary periods), delayed sales revenue (potentially missing market peaks), and reduced internal rate of return from extended project timelines.
Feasibility modeling should typically test multiple timeline scenarios. Conservative developers might model best case (statutory timeframe), base case (median council performance plus 20%), and worst case (slowest council performance or objection scenario) to understand approval delay impacts on project returns. With Feasly’s feasibility software, you can model different approval timeline scenarios and their impact on project cashflow, holding costs, and overall returns to understand which council variations or delays might push your project from viable to unviable.
Common mistakes that delay approval or cause refusal
Development applications may be refused or delayed for numerous reasons, many of which could be avoided through careful planning and thorough documentation. Understanding common pitfalls typically helps developers improve approval success rates and minimise delays.
Non-compliance with planning controls
The most fundamental approval risk comes from proposals that don’t comply with applicable planning controls, particularly numerical standards like FSR, height, or setbacks.
Exceeding FSR or FAR limits represents a common refusal reason, particularly where developers assume compliance without careful calculation. FSR might be calculated differently across jurisdictions (gross floor area versus net floor area, inclusion or exclusion of parking, treatment of basements), and minor calculation errors could result in proposals exceeding limits. A 2.5:1 FSR on a 1,000-square-metre site permits 2,500 square metres of floor area—proposing 2,600 square metres would likely trigger refusal unless the excess is minor and well-justified.
Height limit breaches similarly may cause refusals. Height might be measured to different points (top of parapet, ridge line, mechanical plant), and failing to account for site topography or measurement methodology could result in non-compliant proposals. Proposals exceeding height limits by 1-2 metres might sometimes be approved where exceptional circumstances exist, but substantial exceedances typically face refusal.
Setback non-compliance is particularly common in higher-density developments where maximising floor area creates pressure to minimise setbacks. Most planning schemes specify minimum setbacks from boundaries, and proposals not meeting these requirements might require compelling justification or design excellence arguments to succeed.
Inadequate parking provision triggers frequent refusals, particularly in inner-city areas where developers attempt to minimise parking to reduce costs. While some councils may accept reduced parking with strong justifications (proximity to public transport, car-share facilities, demonstrated lower parking demand), many maintain strict parking requirements that must be met.
Poor application quality and documentation gaps
Application completeness and documentation quality may significantly impact assessment timeframes and approval likelihood, yet many developers submit incomplete or poorly prepared applications.
Missing specialist reports might trigger immediate RFIs extending assessment periods. Traffic impact assessments, acoustic reports, stormwater management plans, or heritage impact statements should typically be commissioned before lodgement if planning controls indicate they’ll be required. Waiting for council to request reports wastes 4-8 weeks while consultants are engaged and reports prepared.
Inadequate architectural documentation could prevent proper assessment. Drawings should clearly show compliance with all numerical standards, demonstrate design quality and amenity outcomes, indicate materials and finishes, and show relationship to adjoining properties. Dimensioned drawings allowing measurement verification might be essential, and perspective views or renders may help communicate design intent.
Insufficient planning justification in planning reports or statements might result in refusals where discretion is required. Where proposals don’t strictly comply with all standards, planning reports should typically provide robust justification for variations, demonstrate compliance with planning objectives despite non-compliance with some standards, address potential concerns proactively, and reference relevant precedents or similar approved developments.
Failure to address referral authority requirements upfront could cause delays. Where referrals are anticipated, engaging referral authorities during pre-application phase might identify requirements that can be addressed before lodgement, avoiding post-lodgement RFIs from referral authorities.
Neighbour objections and community concerns
Public objections represent a significant approval risk, particularly for medium to high-density developments in established residential areas. While not all objections result in refusals, substantial neighbourhood opposition on valid planning grounds may influence council decisions.
Amenity impacts on adjoining properties trigger the most common valid objections. Overshadowing of neighbouring open space or living areas (particularly where proposals don’t comply with solar access provisions like NSW’s 45-degree overshadowing rule or Victorian sunlight to secluded private open space requirements) often generates objections. Privacy impacts from overlooking windows or balconies might also cause concern, and bulk and scale impacts where large buildings dominate smaller-scale neighbours could trigger opposition.
Traffic and parking concerns frequently feature in objections, particularly where developments generate significant traffic in quiet residential streets or provide reduced parking. While councils generally assess traffic impacts based on professional traffic engineering advice rather than neighbour opinion, substantial objections might trigger requests for additional traffic analysis or parking provision.
Design quality and neighbourhood character arguments may be raised where proposed developments differ significantly from surrounding built form. Heritage conservation areas, neighbourhood character overlays, or design quality provisions might give weight to these concerns, requiring careful design responses demonstrating contextual sensitivity.
Proactive neighbour engagement before lodgement could sometimes mitigate objections. Developers who consult affected neighbours, modify designs to address genuine concerns, and build goodwill might face fewer objections during formal notification periods. However, consultation carries risks where it galvanises opposition or raises expectations that can’t be met.
Strategic and policy conflicts
Beyond specific control compliance, proposals may face refusal where they conflict with strategic planning directions or policy frameworks.
Inconsistency with local strategic planning might trigger refusals where proposals don’t align with council strategic plans, local area plans, or structure plans guiding future development. Developments proposing uses or densities inconsistent with strategic directions could face opposition regardless of technical compliance with current zoning.
Premature development in areas lacking adequate infrastructure might be refused where councils determine existing roads, drainage, or community facilities can’t accommodate additional development. This particularly affects greenfield or growth area developments where infrastructure delivery lags residential development.
Heritage impacts that fail to adequately consider heritage significance or comply with heritage policies might face refusal in heritage areas or for heritage-listed properties. Heritage impact statements should typically demonstrate how proposals respect heritage values, maintain significant fabric, and use appropriate materials and design approaches.
How town planning affects development feasibility
Town planning controls and approval processes directly impact project economics through multiple pathways, from constraining development potential to adding costs and extending timeframes. Understanding these feasibility impacts is typically essential for making informed acquisition and development decisions.
Planning controls determining development potential
The quantum of development permitted on any site is fundamentally determined by planning controls, which directly affects revenue potential and project viability.
FSR or FAR controls may represent the single most important feasibility determinant for medium and high-density projects. Consider a 1,000-square-metre site in an area with 2:1 FSR versus 3:1 FSR. At 2:1, the site could support 2,000 square metres of gross floor area, while at 3:1 it could support 3,000 square metres—a 50% increase in development potential. If apartments sell for $8,000 per square metre, this FSR difference might represent $8 million additional revenue (3,000sqm × $8,000 = $24m versus 2,000sqm × $8,000 = $16m). With construction costs of approximately $3,000-$4,000 per square metre, the additional 1,000 square metres might cost $3-4 million to build, generating $4-5 million additional profit. The FSR control could therefore mean the difference between a marginally viable project and a highly profitable one.
Height restrictions interact with FSR to determine development yield. A site with generous FSR but restrictive height might require larger floor plates across fewer levels, potentially limiting design efficiency. Conversely, a site with tight FSR but generous height could permit slimmer towers across more levels, potentially improving efficiency and premium pricing for upper floors. Understanding this interplay typically helps optimise site acquisition decisions.
Site coverage and setback controls may reduce buildable envelope substantially. A 1,000-square-metre site with 50% site coverage would permit only 500 square metres of building footprint. Combined with 2:1 FSR (2,000sqm total floor area), this would require a minimum 4-storey building (500sqm × 4 levels = 2,000sqm). If height limits permit only 3 storeys, the site couldn’t achieve its maximum FSR, reducing development potential by 25%.
Parking requirements directly impact construction costs and potentially reduce saleable floor area where basement parking is required. Each basement car space might cost $50,000-$80,000 in metro areas, and a 20-dwelling development requiring 40 spaces could face $2-3.2 million in parking costs. If parking can be provided in secured ground-level spaces at $10,000-$15,000 per space instead, total parking costs might be only $400,000-$600,000—a saving of $1.6-$2.6 million that flows directly to project profit.
Affordable housing requirements in some jurisdictions may mandate provision of below-market housing, directly impacting revenue. A requirement to provide 10% affordable housing in a 100-unit development might mean 10 units sold at 70% of market rate. If market apartments average $600,000 and affordable units sell for $420,000, this represents $1.8 million in foregone revenue (10 units × $180,000 discount) that must be factored into acquisition pricing and feasibility.
Approval timeline impacts on project cashflow
The time required to obtain planning approval directly affects holding costs, construction commencement timing, and revenue realisation, all of which impact project IRR and NPV.
Holding cost accumulation during approval periods may be substantial. A $3 million site acquisition financed at 9% incurs approximately $22,500 monthly in interest costs. A 6-month approval period would accumulate $135,000 in holding costs, while a 12-month period would accumulate $270,000. These costs typically come off profit and reduce returns.
Construction delay resulting from extended approval processes might cause developers to miss optimal construction timing. Where approval is delayed from winter into summer, wet weather might prevent ground works, extending overall project duration. Where approval is delayed by 6-12 months, construction cost escalation at 5-8% annually could add $150,000-$300,000 to construction budgets on $3-4 million builds.
Revenue deferral from delayed project completion might impact returns significantly. A project with $8 million in sales revenue delayed by 6 months might lose 6 months of investment returns at opportunity cost rates of 12-15%, representing $480,000-$600,000 in foregone returns. Additionally, market conditions might shift during delays, potentially affecting pricing.
Finance costs on construction facilities typically don’t commence until construction starts, meaning approval delays might not directly increase construction finance costs but do defer project commencement and revenue, extending overall project timelines and reducing IRR.
Planning cost impacts on project budgets
Direct planning costs and contributions typically range from 2-8% of total development costs depending on project type and location, representing a significant budget component that must be accurately forecasted.
Consultant and application fees of $40,000-$100,000 for medium-density residential developments might represent 1-2% of total development costs on $4-5 million projects, while potentially reaching 3-5% on smaller projects with similar absolute planning costs.
Infrastructure contributions could represent the largest planning cost, potentially reaching $30,000-$50,000 per dwelling in growth areas. A 20-unit development might therefore face $600,000-$1 million in contributions, representing 12-20% of total development costs on typical construction budgets. These contributions directly reduce profit and must be factored into acquisition pricing.
Cost contingencies for planning should typically be included in feasibility models to account for potential RFIs, design changes, or unforeseen requirements. Industry practice commonly applies 10-20% contingencies to anticipated planning costs, recognising that few applications proceed without some additional expense beyond initial estimates.
Modelling planning risks in feasibility analysis
Prudent feasibility analysis typically models planning risks through scenario testing, understanding how approval delays, cost variations, or design changes might impact returns.
Best case scenarios might assume statutory approval timeframes, minimal consultant fees, and no unexpected contributions—essentially assuming everything proceeds smoothly. These scenarios help understand maximum potential returns.
Base case scenarios should typically assume realistic council performance (median approval times plus 10-20%), standard consultant fees and contributions, and minor RFI contingencies. Base case modeling might provide the most likely return expectations.
Worst case scenarios could assume substantial approval delays (slowest council performance), maximum anticipated consultant fees and contributions, design changes requiring consultant re-engagement, or potential refusal and appeal. Understanding worst case returns typically helps assess whether projects remain viable even under adverse circumstances.
Sensitivity analysis on planning variables might show which factors most significantly impact returns. If a project shows 18% IRR with base case planning costs and timelines but drops to 12% IRR with worst case assumptions, planning risk might be considered moderate. If returns drop from 18% to 8% or negative, planning risk could be considered high, potentially warranting additional due diligence or acquisition price reduction.
Improving development approval success rates
While planning assessment involves some unavoidable uncertainty, developers can typically improve approval chances and reduce timeframes through strategic engagement, quality documentation, and careful process management.
Pre-application engagement and due diligence
Thorough pre-application work might prevent costly mistakes and improve approval outcomes substantially.
Comprehensive site and planning analysis before acquisition could identify fatal flaws early. This typically includes verifying actual zoning and permitted uses (not relying on real estate marketing), identifying all applicable overlays and their requirements, calculating maximum FSR/FAR achievable within height and setback constraints, checking for easements, covenants, or encumbrances limiting development, and reviewing recent similar applications in the area to understand council assessment approaches.
Pre-application meetings with council planners are typically valuable for any project of moderate complexity. Most councils offer pre-DA or pre-application meetings where staff might provide preliminary feedback on proposal viability, identify likely concerns or objections, clarify documentation requirements, and indicate whether proposals might require committee or council assessment. While pre-application advice is generally not binding, it could substantially reduce refusal risk and assessment delays.
Engaging experienced local consultants who understand council-specific requirements and assessment approaches might provide significant advantages. A planner who has achieved approvals with the relevant council may know which officers assess applications, understand informal council policies or preferences, and recognise which design approaches succeed or fail in that jurisdiction.
Precedent research showing similar recently approved developments could strengthen applications where discretion is required. If neighbouring properties have been approved for similar height exceedances or parking reductions, these precedents might support approval of similar variations in new applications.
Quality application documentation
Application quality directly impacts assessment timeframes and approval likelihood, with complete, well-prepared applications typically assessed faster and approved more readily than incomplete or poorly documented applications.
Comprehensive architectural documentation should clearly demonstrate compliance with all numerical controls through dimensioned plans and sections, show integration with surrounding context through elevations and perspectives, indicate materials, colours, and finishes, include detailed landscape plans, and provide sufficient information for meaningful assessment without requiring additional information.
Robust planning reports might address every relevant planning consideration systematically, demonstrate compliance with or justification for variations from applicable standards, respond to anticipated concerns proactively, reference relevant precedents, and provide clear recommendations. Where variations are sought, planning reports should typically explain why variations are appropriate in the specific circumstances, how planning objectives are achieved despite numerical non-compliance, and what design responses mitigate potential impacts.
Professional specialist reports meeting referral authority requirements typically prevent RFIs and delays. Traffic reports should model peak hour impacts and demonstrate road network capacity, acoustic reports must show compliance with relevant noise standards, stormwater plans should demonstrate water sensitive urban design principles, and arborist reports need to address both tree retention and removal justifications.
Complete documentation at lodgement might save 30-60+ days compared to applications requiring multiple RFI rounds. Lodging applications only when all required documentation is prepared, formatted correctly, and professionally presented typically improves assessment efficiency substantially.
Strategic design responses to planning concerns
Development design can be optimised to address common planning concerns while maintaining commercial viability.
Compliance-focused design where projects meet all numerical standards without requiring variations might significantly improve approval chances and reduce timeframes. While compliant designs sometimes sacrifice development yield, the approval certainty and timeline reduction could outweigh the revenue impact.
Amenity protection measures might address the most common objection grounds. Appropriate window placement and screening may reduce privacy impacts, building articulation and setback variations could reduce perceived bulk, high-quality materials and landscaping might address design quality concerns, and solar access protection responding to overshadowing rules may prevent neighbour objections.
Context-sensitive architecture that responds to neighbourhood character, heritage values, or local design preferences might improve approval chances in sensitive areas. This doesn’t necessarily mean replicating existing built form but rather demonstrating how contemporary design responds to and respects local context.
Negotiated design modifications where pre-application feedback identifies concerns might prevent refusal. Reducing height by one level, increasing setbacks, modifying materials, or enhancing landscaping in response to council feedback could transform likely refusals into approvals, even where modifications slightly reduce development yield.
Appeals and alternative pathways when approvals are refused
Where initial applications are refused, developers typically have several options depending on circumstances and jurisdiction.
Reapplication with modified design might be the most straightforward response to refusal, particularly where refusal reasons are clearly addressed through design changes. This approach might save costs compared to appeals but extends overall timelines by the full assessment period again (potentially 90-120+ days).
Tribunal or court appeals are available in most jurisdictions but involve substantial costs and time. VCAT appeals in Victoria might cost $20,000-$60,000 including legal representation and expert witnesses over 6-12 month timeframes. NSW Land and Environment Court appeals could cost similar or higher amounts, while Queensland Planning and Environment Court appeals follow similar cost and timeline patterns. Appeals are typically most appropriate where refusal reasons are considered unreasonable, where planning assessment was procedurally flawed, or where development value justifies appeal costs and risks.
Mediation or conciliation is sometimes offered before formal hearings, potentially resolving disputes through negotiated design modifications at lower cost than full hearings.
Withdrawal and site disposal might be the appropriate response where refusals indicate fundamental planning obstacles that can’t be overcome through design modifications or appeals. While this crystallises losses from planning costs and holding costs, it prevents further expenditure on unviable projects.
Understanding when to pursue appeals versus redesign or withdrawal typically requires careful feasibility analysis comparing costs, timelines, and success probabilities across available options. Where appeals might cost $40,000 and take 9 months but only have 30% success probability, reapplication with modified design might offer better economics even if development yield is reduced.
Working with town planners and planning consultants
While some simple developments might proceed without planning consultant engagement, most medium to complex projects benefit substantially from professional planning advice. Understanding how to engage and work effectively with planners typically improves outcomes and cost efficiency.
When to engage a town planner
The decision to engage planning consultants depends on development complexity, planning control compliance, and developer experience, though most developments beyond simple residential projects generally benefit from professional planning support.
Simple projects like single dwellings, minor alterations, or developments clearly complying with all planning controls might sometimes proceed without planning consultants, particularly where developers have experience or architectural consultants provide planning advice. However, even simple projects in heritage areas, with overlay controls, or requiring variations might benefit from planning input.
Medium complexity projects including townhouses, small apartment developments, or commercial fit-outs typically benefit from planning consultant engagement. These developments might face multiple planning controls, referral requirements, and neighbour notification, where professional planning reports and application coordination could substantially improve approval chances and reduce delays.
Complex developments involving significant variations, sensitive locations, heritage properties, or controversial proposals almost always require professional planning support. Planning consultants might navigate complex policy frameworks, prepare robust justifications for variations, coordinate specialist consultants, and engage with councils to resolve concerns.
Pre-purchase due diligence is one of the most valuable planning consultant services, potentially saving developers from acquiring sites with fatal planning constraints. For $2,000-$5,000, planners might provide comprehensive analysis of development potential, identify all applicable controls and overlays, calculate maximum achievable FSR within all constraints, highlight approval risks, and provide preliminary feasibility input. This modest investment could prevent $50,000-$200,000 losses from purchasing undevelopable or less valuable sites.
What planners provide and typical fee structures
Planning consultants might offer a range of services at different project phases, with fees varying based on consultant experience, project complexity, and time requirements.
Pre-application services could include site analysis and constraints review ($1,500-$3,000), preliminary development yield calculations ($500-$1,500), pre-DA meeting attendance ($500-$1,500), and feasibility advice ($1,000-$3,000). These services are typically charged on hourly rates or fixed fees for defined scope.
Development application services might include planning report or statement preparation (typically $3,000-$15,000 depending on complexity), specialist consultant coordination ($1,000-$3,000), application lodgement and council liaison ($1,000-$2,000), and RFI response coordination ($500-$2,000 per RFI round). Total DA services for medium-density residential might range from $8,000-$20,000, with complex commercial projects potentially reaching $20,000-$40,000+.
Post-application services could include condition negotiation, modification applications for design changes, and compliance advice during construction. These services are typically charged hourly as required.
Hourly rates vary by consultant experience and location, with junior planners potentially charging $120-$180 per hour, mid-level planners $180-$250 per hour, and senior planners or directors $250-$400+ per hour. Metropolitan consultants typically charge higher rates than regional consultants.
Fixed fee arrangements are common for defined scopes like DA preparation, providing cost certainty for developers. However, fixed fees typically assume standard scope, with variations or additional RFI work potentially charged separately.
Selecting the right planning consultant
Planning consultant selection might significantly impact approval outcomes, with experienced local consultants often delivering better results than generic firms without local knowledge.
Local experience and track record should be primary selection criteria. Consultants who regularly achieve approvals in the relevant council might understand council policies, assessment approaches, and individual planner preferences. Asking for examples of similar recently approved projects in the same council could indicate relevant experience.
Professional qualifications and memberships provide baseline credibility. Planning Institute of Australia membership (particularly MPIA or FPIA status) indicates professional recognition, while state registration or accreditation in some jurisdictions might be required for certain applications.
Communication and responsiveness matter substantially, as planning applications require ongoing liaison with councils and potentially multiple RFI responses within tight timeframes. Consultants who respond promptly to queries, provide clear advice, and maintain proactive communication typically deliver better experiences.
Fee transparency and scope clarity should be established upfront. Detailed fee proposals clearly defining scope, exclusions, and potential additional costs might prevent disputes and budget overruns. Understanding what’s included in base fees versus what might trigger additional charges typically helps budget accurately.
References from other developers could provide valuable insights into consultant performance, approval success rates, council relationships, and fee management. Speaking with previous clients might reveal strengths or weaknesses not apparent from proposals or initial meetings.
Conclusion: Integrating planning into development decisions
Town planning in Australia might represent one of the most complex and variable regulatory environments developers navigate, with state-specific frameworks, council-level variations, and project-specific requirements creating substantial uncertainty and cost. For property developers, planning approval represents not merely a compliance hurdle but a critical financial variable that may determine project viability through its impacts on development potential, costs, timelines, and ultimately returns.
Successful developers typically approach town planning as an integral component of development strategy rather than an afterthought to be addressed post-acquisition. This means conducting thorough planning due diligence before site acquisition to verify development potential and identify approval risks, accurately forecasting planning costs and realistic approval timeframes in feasibility models, engaging professional planning consultants where complexity warrants, preparing comprehensive high-quality applications to minimise delays, and modeling planning risk scenarios to understand impacts on project returns.
The financial impacts of planning decisions can be substantial—a site purchased assuming one development yield that planning controls don’t actually support could result in losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars, while approval delays of 3-6 months might add $30,000-$60,000+ in holding costs to typical projects. Conversely, developments that achieve approvals efficiently through quality preparation and strategic engagement might commence construction months earlier, potentially capturing market opportunities that delayed competitors miss.
As planning systems continue to evolve across Australian states—with South Australia’s comprehensive reform, NSW’s planning portal modernisation, and Victoria’s incremental reforms all changing how development is assessed—staying informed about regulatory changes and their feasibility implications remains typically important for development success. Professional planning advice, quality documentation, and realistic feasibility modeling that accounts for planning variables might represent some of the highest-return investments developers make in project development phases.
For developers seeking to integrate planning costs, risks, and timelines into comprehensive development feasibility analysis, tools that connect planning variables with project economics could provide significant advantages in acquisition decision-making and project management throughout the development lifecycle.