TEMPLATE · DEVELOPMENT & REPORTING
A feasibility assumptions
checklist, and which category
fails first.
A development feasibility is a residual: the value of the completed scheme, less every cost of producing it, less the return the money requires, leaves what the land can be worth. Every term in that sentence is an assumption made on a date. The table below is a register for holding them. The section after it says which category moves first when a feasibility is re-run, so a re-check can start there instead of re-deriving the whole model from nothing.
This is a record-design template, not a new reading of any instrument. The input classification and the land-value distinction it uses are read, with their primary sources, in our separate analyses: /insights/development-feasibility and /insights/residual-land-value. No project figures, client data or CPM Group figures appear anywhere on this page.
The assumption register.
One row per input to the feasibility. Copy the header row into your model's working papers.
Six fields. Most feasibility models carry the value and nothing else, which is why a model re-presented six months later cannot say what changed and what did not.
| Field | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| Input name | Land cost, construction cost per m2, sale revenue per unit, contingency, finance rate, target margin - whatever the model's line items are. |
| Category | One of: Estimate / Published schedule / Published schedule with escalation / Choice of basis. See the table below for what each means. |
| Value used | The figure as entered in the model. |
| Source | Who estimated it, or which instrument it was taken from. "Industry experience" is a valid source for an estimate; it is not a valid source for a published schedule. |
| Date taken | When this figure was current, separate from the date the model was built. |
| Re-test trigger | What would make this figure due for checking: a calendar date, a new council resolution, a new ABS release, or a named event. |
The four categories,
and which one moves without warning.
Not every assumption behaves the same way when the model is re-run. Our separate reading of feasibility inputs sets this out in full; the four categories, repeated here as the categories the register's Category column expects:
The category that fails first on any given project depends on what changed since the model was built, not on which category is usually largest. That is the point of recording the category at all: it turns "which number is wrong" into "which category of number is due for a check".
| Category | Behaves like | What fails first |
|---|---|---|
| Estimate | A number that is expected to be wrong by some amount | Drifts gradually. A sensitivity range on this category is the right tool. |
| Published schedule | A fixed figure set by someone else's instrument | Changes suddenly when the instrument is replaced, not gradually. A sensitivity range does not describe this; only a version check does. |
| Published schedule with escalation | A figure that keeps moving under a stated rule after it is set | Moves in one direction only, and the driver is usually a date already sitting elsewhere in the model (a programme or payment date), not a market assumption. |
| Choice of basis | A decision about which definition to apply, not a number at all | Does not fail gradually or suddenly - it fails silently, when two people in the same deal use different bases for the same term (residual land value is the clearest case) and nobody notices until the numbers are compared. |
Development feasibility inputs · Two figures called land value
What we would put in a system
The register above, held so a re-run can be scoped before it starts rather than redone from nothing.
| Beyond the register field | Why it is load-bearing |
|---|---|
| Published and escalating inputs flagged separately from estimates | A sensitivity range tests the wrong thing against a published or escalating figure. Flagging the category stops that mismatch at the point of use. |
| The basis choice recorded in words, not implied by the number | Two people can produce two defensible figures for the same term on different bases. Only a recorded choice shows which one a given model used. |
| A re-test trigger per input, not a blanket review date | A published schedule is due for checking when the instrument changes, not on a calendar the business set. A blanket annual review misses it in between. |
Questions people ask
about feasibility templates
Is there a free development feasibility template?
The register on this page is one: six fields for holding every assumption a feasibility uses. What it adds to a typical feasibility template is the category column, which separates estimates from published figures from basis choices - three different things that behave differently when the model is re-run.
What is a development feasibility calculator missing?
Most calculate a residual from inputs without recording what kind of input each one is. An estimate, a published council charge and a choice between two land-value definitions all look like a number in a cell, and treating them the same is what makes a re-run start from scratch instead of from what actually changed.
Which feasibility assumption usually breaks first?
It depends on the project, not a fixed ranking - but the categories behave differently: estimates drift, published figures change suddenly at a version boundary, escalating figures move in one direction tied to a date, and basis choices fail silently when two people use different definitions. Our separate readings set out the land-value and cost-input cases in detail: /insights/residual-land-value and /insights/development-feasibility.
How is residual land value different from a feasibility assumption?
Residual land value is itself the output of a feasibility calculation, and the choice of which land-value definition to use against it is a basis-choice assumption inside the model. The two are related but not the same question; the land-value definitions themselves are set out in a separate reading: /insights/residual-land-value.
Bring us one feasibility
and we will class its inputs.
Send us a feasibility model, with the figures removed if you prefer. We will show you which of the four categories each input falls into, and which ones are due for a check before the next decision is made on it.
This page is a record-design template, not valuation, legal or investment advice. It states no figure, assumes no project, and names no client, group or CPM figure. The input classification and land-value distinction it uses are read, with their primary sources, in /insights/development-feasibility and /insights/residual-land-value.
Built from
This page makes no new legal or valuation claim. Every mechanic it references is read and sourced in the linked readings, as at 4 November 2026.
- A feasibility treats infrastructure charges as a number. The Act treats them as a moving one.: The four-category input classification this register is built around, including the Queensland automatic increase provision that drives the escalating category.
- Two figures called land value: The statutory site value versus residual land value distinction behind the basis-choice category.
- Feasibility systems: Where this register's fields become a live, versioned model.
RELATED READING
Other readings on the same records.
- A feasibility treats infrastructure charges as a number. The Act treats them as a moving one: Queensland lets a charges resolution carry an automatic increase provision, so a levied charge can rise between being levied and being paid. (Development & Reporting)
- Two figures called land value: one is defined in an Act, the other is a method: Queensland defines site value down to what counts as an improvement. Residual land value, the number a feasibility turns on, has no public definition we could find. (Development & Reporting)
- The Code is a dataset now, and one edition has carried three versions: NCC 2025 ran through three data.gov.au records in forty-seven days, two now titled superseded. The ABCB's test is the date you accessed the file. (Productivity & Technology)