05. Town Planning Report · MCU10/2127

                 4. Scenario Analysis
Occupancy Rate Matrix - Comparative Analysis, 2010                                                                                                                                                                                   Table 4.6
Total Visitor & Resident Expe                                                                                                 Owner Occupiers
Retail ($)     Occ. Rates             0%          5%        10%        15%        20%        25%        30%       35%       40%        45%        50%         55%         60%         65%         70%         75%       80%       85%       90%
                          0%        -        165,890   325,611    479,335     627,231    769,460    906,184 1,037,558 1,163,732 1,284,856 1,401,074     1,512,525   1,619,348   1,721,675   1,819,638   1,913,362 2,002,972 2,088,588 2,170,327
      V                   5%   191,873       357,763   517,484    671,208     819,104    961,333 1,098,057 1,229,430 1,355,605 1,476,729 1,592,947      1,704,398   1,811,221   1,913,548   2,011,510   2,105,235 2,194,844 2,280,460       -
                         10%   383,746       549,636   709,357    863,081 1,010,976 1,153,206 1,289,930 1,421,303 1,547,478 1,668,602 1,784,820         1,896,271   2,003,094   2,105,421   2,203,383   2,297,107 2,386,717       -         -
       i
                         15%   575,619       741,509   901,230 1,054,954 1,202,849 1,345,079 1,481,803 1,613,176 1,739,351 1,860,475 1,976,692          2,088,144   2,194,967   2,297,294   2,395,256   2,488,980       -         -         -
      s
                         20%   767,491
                                  ,          933,381
                                                ,    1,093,103
                                                      ,   ,     1,246,827
                                                                 ,   ,     1,394,722
                                                                            ,    ,    1,536,952
                                                                                       ,    ,    1,673,676
                                                                                                  ,    ,    1,805,049
                                                                                                             ,   ,    1,931,224
                                                                                                                       ,   ,     2,052,348
                                                                                                                                  ,   ,     2,168,565
                                                                                                                                             ,   ,      2,280,017
                                                                                                                                                         ,   ,      2,386,839
                                                                                                                                                                     ,   ,      2,489,167
                                                                                                                                                                                 ,   ,      2,587,129
                                                                                                                                                                                             ,   ,            -         -         -         -
       i
                         25%   959,364     1,125,254 1,284,975 1,438,700 1,586,595 1,728,825 1,865,548 1,996,922 2,123,097 2,244,221 2,360,438          2,471,890   2,578,712   2,681,040          -          -         -         -         -
       t
                         30% 1,151,237     1,317,127 1,476,848 1,630,573 1,778,468 1,920,697 2,057,421 2,188,795 2,314,969 2,436,094 2,552,311          2,663,763   2,770,585          -           -          -         -         -         -
      o                  35% 1,343,110     1,509,000 1,668,721 1,822,445 1,970,341 2,112,570 2,249,294 2,380,668 2,506,842 2,627,966 2,744,184          2,855,635          -           -           -          -         -         -         -
       r
                         40% 1,534,983     1,700,873 1,860,594 2,014,318 2,162,213 2,304,443 2,441,167 2,572,540 2,698,715 2,819,839 2,936,057                 -           -           -           -          -         -         -         -
      s
                         45% 1,726,856     1,892,746 2,052,467 2,206,191 2,354,086 2,496,316 2,633,040 2,764,413 2,890,588 3,011,712               -           -           -           -           -          -         -         -         -
                         50% 1,918,729     2,084,619 2,244,340 2,398,064 2,545,959 2,688,189 2,824,913 2,956,286 3,082,461              -          -           -           -           -           -          -         -         -         -
Source: Urbis




       Further, the KPMG analysis concludes that:                                                                                 Consequently, in our view the most likely scenarios are as follows:
       “…very few owners at Viridian Resort would permanently occupy their                                                        ƒ Owner occupier occupancy rates in the range of 0-10% [NB: likely
       dwelling – even if they could do so under revised zoning approvals
                                                                approvals.
                                                                                                                                       less than 5%]
       ….if the permanently occupied percentages from the most comparable
                                                                                                                                  ƒ Visitor/tourist occupancy rates in the range of 40%-50%.
       resorts analysed in this report…are applied to the 38 units at Viridian
       Noosa Resort, it would suggest that the maximum number of dwellings                                                        The likely range of retail expenditures is therefore $1.53 million –
       that would be permanently occupied would be 3 [6.35%]” 1                                                                   $2.24 million, with the higher figure assuming a 10% occupancy rate by
                                                                                                                                  owner occupiers
                                                                                                                                                i    or th
                                                                                                                                                        their
                                                                                                                                                           i ddelegates,
                                                                                                                                                                l   t    and
                                                                                                                                                                           d th
                                                                                                                                                                             the llower fifigure b
                                                                                                                                                                                                 based
                                                                                                                                                                                                     d on short
                                                                                                                                                                                                           h t
                                                                                                                                  term visitor/tourist occupation only and an occupancy rate of 40%.
       Consequently, it is considered that medium-long term occupancy of the
       units within the subject development proposal is unlikely to exceed                                                        The previously discussed maximum, based on 20% occupancy by
       10%. Considering KPMG’s findings, 10% is clearly a conservative                                                            owners or their delegates and 50% occupancy by visitors, yields total
       assumption. Similarly, the occupancy rate, on average across the                                                           retail expenditure of $2.55 million in 2010.
       year, for
             f visitors/tourists,
                  i it /t i t is  i in
                                    i our view,
                                           i    unlikely
                                                  lik l to
                                                         t exceed
                                                                d 50%.
                                                                   50%




       1report prepared by KPMG titled “Market Research Report – Comparable Resorts, Final Research Paper” dated

       November 2010,
                2010 page 8




                                                                                                                                                                                                                        29