Chapter 7
Zoning, planning and approval processes
7.1
This chapter considers the effect of zoning, planning and approval
processes on housing supply and affordability.
7.2
A number of witnesses suggested the lack of an adequate supply response
to housing demand in Australia, and by extension poor housing affordability,
was in large part due to inefficient zoning and planning processes. For
instance, some argued that the rate of release of new land for development to
the market can have a significant effect on the cost of new homes on the urban
fringe. Other witnesses, however, countered that housing affordability is not
necessarily improved simply through greater land release. Indeed, they argued
that to the extent that new housing developments are not supported by adequate
infrastructure and services, this can add hidden housing costs, which may not
be reflected in traditional measures of affordability. This chapter weighs and
assesses these different viewpoints.
7.3
This chapter further considers the influence of development assessment
processes on the supply of housing stock, and by extension on housing
affordability. Some witnesses expressed concern that the success of urban
infill developments and densification projects were too often subject to the
whims of a small number of existing residents (or, to use the common
pejorative, 'nimbys') or narrow special interest groups. The incidence and
associated costs of third party appeal and objection rights, according to these
witnesses, underlined the need for development assessment reform.
7.4
These concerns, along with the broader question of the Commonwealth's
role in urban planning and development, are addressed in this chapter.
Planning systems and housing affordability
7.5
The Henry Review, which recommended that COAG review institutional
arrangements to ensure zoning and planning do not unnecessarily inhibit housing
supply and housing affordability, outlined the occasional tension between the
need for planning systems and housing affordability:
Features of the planning system intend to enhance the
efficiency of land use in two ways: by managing or preventing perceived
negative spillovers from development activities that may extend beyond the site
of the development itself; and by facilitating positive spillovers through the
provision of public goods. However, planning can also add costs, such as where
the regulations are not well-targeted and lengthy development assessment
processes are involved. The key question is whether the benefits outweigh the
costs.[1]
7.6
Some witnesses argued that Australian planning systems, on balance,
imposed costs that were not commensurate with the benefits they provided. The
HIA, for example, argued that in many instances planning systems in Australia
were 'acting as a disincentive, or worse still, a barrier to growth' in housing
supply. It submitted that while planning systems are the responsibility of the
states and territories, the Commonwealth 'can have a significant influence in
the delivery of streamlined approval processes and in encouraging greater
standardisation across borders'.[2]
7.7
Similarly, BIS Shrapnel submitted that 'uncertainty over the planning
provisions in various jurisdictions will act as a constraint on dwelling
supply'.[3]
The REIA focused on apparent delays in the approvals process for new land
release, and the effect this had on housing affordability.[4]
The UDIA raised similar concerns, suggesting that overly complex and
restrictive planning regimes at the state and local government levels:
...are often a major barrier to the supply of new housing, and
can contribute considerably to the affordability problem by increasing costs.
The holding costs involved in the urban development process
are often very high, which means that development projects are usually very
sensitive to time delays, as they blow out holding costs. Unfortunately
planning, zoning and approvals processes in many cities can be extremely slow,
adding considerably to the cost of new housing. The 2011 Productivity
Commission Report on planning, zoning and development assessment found that
across Australia's five largest cities, it can be as long as a decade from the
commencement of rezoning to subdivision approval and the installation of
infrastructure, indicating the need for planning system reform.
There is an urgent need for state and local governments
around the country to work together to undertake major planning system reform,
to increase the supply of urban land and reduce delays and uncertainty
associated with zoning, planning and approvals processes.[5]
7.8
Professor Beer told the committee that it was often the case that a
particular planning regulation may have once served a purpose, but has since
become outdated and an impediment to the development of affordable housing. He
argued that there was a need for policy flexibility in this regard, with
planning legislation reviewed 'to achieve better outcomes in terms of
affordability'.[6]
7.9
According to Professor Beer, local councils 'at the sharp end of the
planning system' were not always concerned with housing affordability. Instead,
he suggested, they tended to: reflect local interests; be tactical, not
strategic; be affected by nimbyism; and de-prioritise housing affordability.[7]
7.10
JELD-WEN recommended the Commonwealth provide financial incentives for
state and local governments that 'embrace planning reforms that support
economic growth':
In recognition of the financial constraints operating on the
federal budget, it might be appropriate to consolidate existing housing funds
into a renewed national competition payments system to reward States and Local
Government that facilitate new housing development through the release of land
and reduced development assessment and approval times.[8]
7.11
While some witnesses submitted that inefficient regulations were adding
to housing costs, others reminded the committee that regulations serve a range
of policy purposes that extend beyond housing affordability. In its submission,
the RBA acknowledged that planning and approval processes could create delays
that in turn add to housing costs. However, it also pointed out that such
issues:
...are not specific to Australia and many of these regulations
are intended to promote other social goals, such as ensuring buildings are
constructed safely and that neighbouring residents do not have costs and
inconveniences imposed upon them about which they are not consulted.[9]
7.12
Housing researchers from Swinburne University of Technology argued calls
for planning deregulation sometimes had less to do with a genuine interest in
affordability, and more to do with increasing profitability through lower
regulatory compliance costs. They submitted:
There is some logic in the planning reform arguments but we
argue that this is not about deregulation per se, it is about better
performance which could require in some cases more regulation [in] parallel
with deregulation.[10]
7.13
Mr Cameron Murray also challenged the idea that local
government planning regulations were acting as a constraint on housing supply.
Mr Murray—who more broadly disputed the underlying assumption that housing affordability
in Australia had deteriorated in recent decades—referred to this as the
'planning constraint myth'. If constraints on development type and scale
through local government planning regulations existed, Mr Murray argued, then
this would show up as an increase in rents commensurate with house prices, and
a reduction in the stock of approved but undeveloped housing sites. Mr Murray
presented evidence suggesting neither phenomena existed, including evidence
that local councils in Queensland had, in fact, approved 'far more dwellings
than can [be] absorbed into the market'.[11]
Land release and rezoning
7.14
Some witnesses argued that the failure of governments and other parties
to release land for housing development was a key reason housing supply was not
keeping pace with demand. JELD-WEN expressed concerns regarding planning
strategies adopted by state governments to limit greenfield development and
contain urban expansion. It argued that these strategies, combined with higher
infrastructure contributions from developers, 'have seen marked increases in
the cost of supplying serviced land for new housing, causing purchasers to
shift buyer activity towards existing dwellings'.[12]
7.15
BIS Shrapnel explained that improved land release did not only mean
releasing new land on city fringes, but could also include:
...rezoning existing commercial and industrial land that may be
more valuable as residential or increasing the height and density limits of
sites. Implementing taxation reform to discourage 'land banking' and encourage
the development of available land would also assist in increasing the supply of
new dwellings. This would serve to limit future increases in the cost of land
and ultimately improve the affordability of new housing.[13]
7.16
MBA, meanwhile, recommended that local governments should be required to
develop individual land release plans with a ten-year horizon, 'with greater
roles for market signals and the private sector'.[14]
7.17
In its submission, WALGA submitted that the inadequacy of land release
was not simply due to inaction by state and local governments, but was also
partly attributable to developers and investors withholding land from market:
In examining issues concerning housing affordability, the WA
State Government's Community Development and Justice Standing Committee found
that 'undeveloped land in Western Australia is relatively plentiful [and]
25,000 subdivided and undeveloped lots are being withheld from the market in
the Perth region by developers.' Whilst many of these lots are being withheld
from the market by large scale property developers and investors, a large
number of lots are being withheld by small scale 'mum and dad' investors,
speculating in increases in the value of land. These investors are attracted by
the existing tax regime which offers deductions for expenses such as loan
interest and council rates on land that is bought with the intention of
constructing a rental property.[15]
7.18
Similarly, Professor Dalton suggested there was some evidence that
developers in Victoria were preventing the release of land to the market.
Noting that there are about 8 to 11 large land companies releasing land in
master-planned estates on the fringes of Melbourne, Professor Dalton suggested
there were:
...some hard questions to be asked of the companies that are
operating in that area about the way in which they approach supply.
Essentially, they are not going to be releasing lots of land into the market
that interferes with their long-term projections about their profits. So there
is some institutional behaviour within the land companies themselves—the people
who are not doing the building but actually releasing the land on the fringe,
and that is the area we are concentrating on for the moment—that I think needs
a bit more questioning. We saw a policy initiative that started in the
1970s—the nationally supported land development companies run by state
governments, some of which still exist in various forms—to challenge that
oligopolistic behaviour on the fringes. I think that oligopoly still exists to
some extent and needs investigation.[16]
7.19
A key focus of the HIA's submission was what it regarded as the need for
a more effective, efficient and transparent land supply pipeline in Australia.
To meet this need, the HIA recommended the establishment of a mandatory national
reporting framework for land supply. This recommendation and the reasoning
underlying it, is worth quoting at length:
The assessment, development and delivery of new land to
market can take over 10 years, yet accurate and holistic information about
Australia's land supply pipeline is scarce. HIA recommends the federal
government establish a mandatory national reporting framework for land supply
as a matter of priority.
State and territory governments collect and publish
information on land supply. However, in several instances it is not timely, in
some cases it is not accurate, and in all cases it is not related to the
projected housing delivery commitments envisaged in capital city metropolitan
strategies.
The federal government needs to play a role in the
co-ordination of this information, which is critical to supporting the delivery
of homes to meet Australia's growing population.
The accurate collection of data on land supply needs to
capture all stages of the land supply pipeline. This should include nationally
consistent definitions to describe the various stages of the land supply
pipeline. Timely periodic reporting should include information on land that has
received 'works approvals' to more accurately identify any blockages in the
planning process.
Much of the information needed to achieve a holistic grasp of
land, infrastructure and housing supply is captured variously by local and
state/territory governments. However, the scope of data collection and its
interpretation lacks consistency and is rarely compiled and shared across
agencies. HIA supports the establishment of a national unit within Commonwealth
Treasury with a sole focus being to collect, analyse, interpret and report on
both housing and land supply pipelines, with a terms of reference similar to
those of the Indicative Planning Council for Housing, which undertook this
important function during the 1990s.[17]
Land release and challenges in outer suburban areas
7.20
In contrast to some of the arguments summarised above, a number of
witnesses told the committee that increased land releases were not a panacea
for affordability issues. Professor Carolyn Whitzman discussed Melbourne's
experience in recent decades to illustrate the point:
It has essentially been a supply-side approach for the last
20 years. The urban growth boundary of Melbourne was expanded four times under
the rationale that there was a need for an increased land supply, which would
create an increased housing supply and somehow that, through magic fingers,
would turn into affordable housing. But affordable housing is far worse than it
ever was, including in the growth areas. That is not affordable housing. In
2011 there were 70,000 properties available in greater Melbourne and three per
cent of them were affordable to median income earners. Over 50 per cent of them
were unaffordable to anyone but the highest quintile of earners. Affordability
through supply has not worked.[18]
7.21
Poorly managed new land releases could, some witnesses warned, create
new problems, and in some cases actually damage housing affordability.
Professor Wilkins added that land supply decisions should not be made without
proper reference to the need for land to be appropriately located and supported
by quality infrastructure and services:
When we are talking about available supply, it is not a
simple matter of more land being available for building houses on. As we all
know, the price of housing is very location determined. What are the factors
that are driving location-based price differentials? It is things like
proximity to services, jobs and the like. Any supply response has to be
thinking in terms of supply of housing that is proximate to where people want
to be. It is probably pretty affordable to build a house in the middle of
nowhere, notwithstanding some difficulties in getting workers to go out there
and build it. What this really suggests is that you cannot divorce this from
infrastructure development and in particular transport infrastructure, and I am
speaking of both public and private infrastructure.[19]
7.22
Like Professor Wilkins, a number of witnesses told the committee that
real affordability on the urban fringe was dependent on the adequate provision
of infrastructure and services. For instance, the National Growth Areas
Alliance argued that while population growth rates in outer urban areas were
twice the national average, there had been no corresponding growth in
infrastructure. This lack of infrastructure, it told the committee, resulted in
higher costs of living, particularly in terms of transport costs. Inadequate
service provision in outer urban areas, meanwhile, contributed to poorer
educational and employment outcomes for residents. To some extent then, the
greater availability of affordable housing options on the urban fringe was
negated by these hidden costs. What might at first appear to be affordable
housing, as the Chief Executive of the Alliance, Ms Ruth Spielman, explained,
'quickly becomes unaffordable living.'[20]
7.23
Ms Spielman continued that the funding and creation of supporting
infrastructure needed to be more strategic and integrated than was currently
the case. Rather than the states putting their priorities to the Commonwealth
and having projects assessed on a project-by-project basis, the various levels
of government needed to identify region-wide infrastructure needs.[21]
7.24
Professor Dodson raised similar issues in his appearance before the
committee, highlighting the problem of spatial disadvantage apparent in outer
suburban areas where most 'affordable' housing was located. Inadequate infrastructure
in those areas, and a lack of health, education and employment services and
opportunities relative to core areas, was a dimension of housing affordability
that was not, Professor Dodson suggested, 'coordinated very well within our
policy architecture'.[22]
7.25
Other witnesses, including Professor Pawson, expressed concern that
people on low incomes were being pushed to the urban fringe in search of
affordable housing. He argued that because employment opportunities were
relatively poor in many of these areas, this had the effect of entrenching
spatial disadvantage.[23]
Similarly, housing researchers from Swinburne University of Technology noted
that the housing affordability problem in Australia 'has an evolving and
deepening spatial dimension'. Households on low to moderate incomes are forced
to live in areas with poor access to employment, transport, services and
facilities. Ultimately, a housing market which:
...pushes low income households generally, and families
specifically, to the urban edge may create major issues of workforce
opportunity and participation and social connectedness.[24]
7.26
The Swinburne researchers added that higher rates of land release on the
urban fringe would not improve affordability if it placed 'more households in
areas of poor employment and social service':
This spatial polarisation issue is one reason why the
simplistic arguments about releasing more land on the urban fringe as a
solution to the affordability problem are in themselves problematic; the
existing evidence suggests it will inevitably create highly polarised cities
with social and political dysfunction and lack of liveability for many.[25]
7.27
Professor Frank Stilwell, while suggesting that Australia's housing
affordability problems were a function of the land price inflation, argued that
simply releasing more land on the urban fringe was unlikely to provide an
effective solution. Developments on the urban fringe, he argued, are 'quickly
absorbed into the overall working of the metropolitan land and property
markets'. Whereas other witnesses argued that developments in outer urban areas
required better supporting infrastructure and services, Professor Stilwell
argued that policymakers should instead focus on creating new cities in
regional and rural Australia. These new population centres:
...would both 'take the heat off' the metropolitan areas and
give a much needed boost to regional localities that currently need economic
stimulus. It is essential that any such decentralization programs should also
focus on policies for job-creation or job-transfer to those non-metropolitan
regions: so housing development must be integrated with urban and regional
economic policy.[26]
Commonwealth land supply
7.28
Generally speaking, responsibility for the release or rezoning of land
for residential development lies with state and territory governments. However,
several witnesses, including the UDIA, the REIA and JELD-WEN, suggested that
the Commonwealth should look to release the surplus land it owned. It was
argued that the release of this land, including substantial Department of
Defence land holdings near or within capital cities, would help improve housing
supply and go some way toward improving affordability outcomes.[27]
7.29
It is worth noting at this juncture that the Department of Finance
maintains a Register of Surplus Commonwealth Land Potentially Suitable for
Housing and Community Outcomes on its website. However, as the National
Commission of Audit (NCOA) noted, there appears to be no complete
whole-of-government public register of Defence and non-Defence
Commonwealth-owned property. The NCOA suggested that a 'central register of the
Commonwealth estate would benefit planning and strategies to improve the use of
property, including identifying properties with potential for sale'.[28]
Infill development and densification
7.30
JELD-WEN questioned the underlying contention of supporters of urban
consolidation that there is substantial under-utilised capacity in existing
urban infrastructure to accommodate a marked increase in population densities in
established areas. It pointed instead to evidence of an infrastructure renewal
gap in established areas, with infrastructure deteriorating due to
under-spending on maintenance and improvement.[29]
7.31
Housing researchers from Swinburne University of Technology questioned
the effect of higher density developments on affordability outcomes. They
argued that while developers often pushed for planning deregulation to allow
higher density developments:
...without some parallel interventions the effect more often
than not is to push land prices up not down making residential property more
expensive for everyone including ordinary home purchasers.
Increasing density means a developer will make a judgment on
how much yield can be obtained from each unit and therefore how much is to be
paid for the land. What we have got out of this process to date is (a) many,
often large scale, small and poor quality one and two bedroom apartments
catering for singles and childless couples who have the residual income to
afford to buy a small apartment. (b) An increase in land values in all those
areas where developers believe that they can maximise the density and yield
from each dwelling, notably in the inner and middle ring suburbs of major
cities. The land takes on the value of the potential yield so the more density
controls are relaxed the more the value of land increases.[30]
7.32
However, some witnesses, such as Professor Beer, argued that higher
density, infill developments would help increase the range of affordable
housing options available to people.[31]
7.33
The RBA drew the committee's attention to a growing trend in Australia
toward higher-density housing, with more than 40 per cent of new
residential building approvals for medium-density and higher-density housing.
This compared, the RBA reported, to about 25 per cent in the 1970s
and 1980s. As well as gradually bringing the composition of Australia's housing
stock more into line with that in other countries, this shift meant there were a
wider range of housing types to satisfy diverse needs. While per dwelling
construction costs were higher and construction lags longer for multistorey
developments, denser construction nonetheless:
...allows households to choose to economise on the amount of
land they consume, rather than being restricted to larger (and more expensive)
blocks and detached structures.[32]
Urban renewal and housing affordability
7.34
Several submitters pointed to the potential to improve housing
affordability through urban renewal activities that are properly supported by
government. For instance, the CFRC argued that Commonwealth support for major
urban infrastructure initiatives, especially in relation to transport
investment and linked to urban renewal outcomes, 'offers significant opportunities
to support the supply of new affordable housing'. The CFRC emphasised the need
for Commonwealth affordable housing investments (a subject discussed in the
second part of the report) to be properly integrated with state and territory
planning policies in order to ensure affordable housing is provided 'in
locations close to the accessible jobs, services and transport that these new
infrastructure investments will provide'. The CFRC concluded that:
...there is a significant opportunity to integrate Commonwealth
investment in new urban infrastructure and ongoing Commonwealth subsidies for
affordable and private sector housing with State and Territory planning
policies for new affordable housing supply via urban renewal projects. In this
way, public investment across these three policy domains could be made to work
much better at generating new affordable housing provision in accessible urban
locations. At present, this opportunity is being squandered.[33]
The Commonwealth's role in urban planning and development
7.35
Like many other supply-side issues, there was a general recognition from
witnesses that urban planning arrangements were primarily the responsibility of
state and local governments. Mr Luke Foley from the UDIA acknowledged, for
instance, that the Commonwealth's ability to influence policy in this space was
limited. He noted, however, that the now disbanded major cities unit in the
Department of Infrastructure had been doing some good work in this area:
It was bringing the Commonwealth into that space and was
contributing positively to that arena as far as providing direction and getting
the perspective from different parts of the country and building that into a
broader plan for cities.[34]
7.36
The committee notes that in the past the Commonwealth has been actively
involved in the urban planning and development policy space. Notably, in 2011 the
Labor Government released the National Urban Policy (NUP), Our Cities, Our
Future. According to the NUP's foreword by the then Minister for
Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, the NUP:
...establishes the Australian Government’s objectives and
directions for our cities as we prepare for the decades ahead. It recognises
the critical roles of State, Territory and local governments, the private
sector and individuals, in planning, managing and investing in cities. It also
highlights that the Australian Government makes decisions that impact upon
urban Australia. This is the first time that an Australian Government has
sought to outline its overarching goals for the nation’s cities and how we will
play a role in making them more productive, sustainable and liveable.[35]
7.37
The committee further notes that in January 2012, the Labor Government
established the Urban Policy Forum to provide advice to the government on the
implementation of the NUP. The Forum consisted of members from all levels of
government, industry and academia, and was chaired by the Secretary of the
Department of Infrastructure and Transport.[36]
'Nimbyism' and the delivery of new housing stock
7.38
Several housing industry participants and peak bodies expressed concern
that new housing developments, and in particular infill and higher density
developments, often do not proceed or proceed at higher cost than necessary due
to excessive weight given to third party appeals and objections. Asked how to
find a balance between empowering local communities and ensuring this power was
not misused, MBA emphasised the need for long term master-planning for cities
to provide certainty to residents, the community and investors. MBA also pointed
to the need for streamlined appeal processes, to prevent people 'maliciously'
using the appeals process 'to thwart all sorts of developments for whatever
reason'.[37]
MBA argued that while citizens should have a right to influence policy, this
should not mean that:
...if one person opposes a development and 90,000 people
approve it, that the whole thing collapses. In terms of institutional frameworks
and public policy, you might set thresholds above which that one individual
cannot object—they can object but it is not necessarily given the credence that
it deserves.[38]
7.39
MBA also told the committee there was a need to distinguish between 'the
interested party' and 'the impacted party' in appeal processes. In this regard,
MBA explained that its concern was not so much with people directly impacted by
a development being able to object, but rather with 'someone having the
capacity to object to a development that is totally on the other side of their
town'.[39]
7.40
Nimbyism, according to MBA, was also an obstacle to building the
high-rise development that Australia needed to meet the diverse needs of its
growing population.[40]
7.41
The HIA told the committee of its frustrations with regard to nimbyism
and the uncertainty it created for the construction industry in making
decisions about where to add additional housing stock. This uncertainty, it
contended, ultimately added extra costs to the delivery of new housing stock.[41]
These costs, the HIA told the committee, were currently entrenched in the
planning system:
I think we [have] a legacy of the objections that have taken
place over the last decade or two where planning schemes, requirements for
reports, assessments, analysis and so on have been required over the years and
they have become embedded into the planning process. Not only is the planning
process at risk of being frustrated by nimbies, or objectors, today; it is
already frustrated by the residual of objectors of the past where they have
made certain positions and those positions become embedded into planning
policies at a council level, or that the councillors at a local level sell that
particular issue and developers know that in that particular council these are
the issues that apply.[42]
7.42
The HIA told the committee that despite a commitment on the part of
every state and territory government to increase the density of housing within
major cities, even 'low and medium scale housing developments such as dual
occupancies, villas and townhouses, require two approvals, public notification
and in many jurisdictions are open to third party appeals.[43]
7.43
Like MBA, the HIA told the committee that urban master-planning (or
'metropolitan planning') would ensure the rights of local communities were
preserved while providing developers with the certainty they needed to deliver
new housing stock:
In having that helicopter view and feeding that down into the
councils, in a form of code-compliant type development so that we all know what
development is going to be in our area—we all know that it is going to be a
house or apartment or high-rise apartment—the people have an opportunity to
contribute at the strategic stage, at the metropolitan-development stage. Once
that has been resolved, and there is a great opportunity there for the
population to understand that it is not just about them, it is about the
greater population, then there is less opportunity for there to be objection at
the local site-by-site level.[44]
7.44
Concerns regarding the impact of third party objections and appeals on
housing supply were not limited to housing industry bodies. For example, Mr
Eslake noted:
[M]etropolitan planning authorities and inner-city local
governments have made it increasingly more time-consuming and onerous to
undertake higher-density or 'infill' developments on 'brownfields' sites—in
particular by imposing tighter planning controls, and by providing more
opportunities for objections to and appeals against planning decisions.[45]
7.45
Mr Eslake expressed sympathy with the 'desire of residents in
established areas to prevent developments which detract materially from their
quality of life (and/or from the value of their properties)'. However, Mr
Eslake also argued there is a need to reduce the:
...cost, complexity and regulatory uncertainty associated with 'brownfields'
and 'infill' developments in established areas—which doesn't have to mean
traducing the property rights of other property owners, but which should mean
clearer and more uniform planning rules, with fewer opportunities for frivolous
or vexatious objections and appeals.[46]
Development assessment and approval processes
7.46
To reduce the costs associated with third party objections to new
housing developments, and generally improve the efficiency of development
assessment processes, some witnesses argued for limiting the types of
developments subject to third party objections and appeals. In particular, some
witnesses recommended the wider use of code-based frameworks for assessing
residential development applications—that is, where developments of a certain
type in certain locations meet measurable requirements (or 'tick the boxes'),
they are considered compliant and generally exempt from public notification or
third-party objection and appeal processes. Others recommended a broader
harmonisation of development assessment systems across or within
jurisdictions.
7.47
For example, to address the abovementioned disconnect between the goal
of higher density housing development and what it regarded as the excessive
influence of opponents of new developments, the HIA recommended the
implementation of:
...a nationally consistent single approval process for detached
housing and low scale housing development, including dual occupancy housing
developments. The application assessment process should be underpinned by a
domestic code compliance mechanism based on transparency, certainty and plain
language criteria.[47]
7.48
Several state and local governments or government agencies told the
committee that they had taken or were taking steps to improve planning and
development assessment processes. Brisbane City Council, for instance, noted
that it has funded improved development assessment processes aimed at
supporting affordable housing by cutting red tape and reducing the assessment
time for development applications:
These efficiencies translate directly to financial benefits
for the housing industry, including reduced holding costs and reduced
application printing costs. The community has benefited through faster decision
times for social infrastructure projects, making these projects more affordable
and expeditious and therefore more feasible. Efficiencies realised by
developers as a result of electronic processing should also have been passed on
to members of the wider community through consultancy fees and cost of housing
products. More efficient and simplified processes have also meant less time and
confusion for 'one off' developers when navigating the development assessment
process for the first time, improving affordability for home makers.[48]
7.49
Mr Kerry Doss from the Brisbane City Council informed the committee that
the Council had 'calibrated' its planning scheme:
...so that zones which are set aside for unit type approvals
have a level of process and approval that is commensurate with that. For
instance, if we have zoned land for multi-unit development, we have code
assessable development for that, which takes out third party appeal rights and
the opportunity for submissions. We have gone through our planning scheme and
lowered the level of assessment to calibrate different land uses to the zone
within which they fit, and that is all about cutting red tape and simplifying
processes. We have also modified our approval processes to streamline for
efficiencies.[49]
7.50
Housing Tasmania pointed to the need for state and local governments to
balance the need for robust planning and development assessment regulations
against the time and cost such regulations can add to housing developments. It
reported that the Tasmanian Government had, to this end:
...committed to reform the current situation of multiple
planning systems to a single State planning system with Regional Land Use
Strategies [and a] streamlined planning and approval process with the view to
increasing development.[50]
7.51
The Department of Housing and Public Works, Queensland, told the
committee that the Queensland government had made some progress in introducing
some simplicity into planning schemes. The shift 'away from prescriptive
approaches' to planning, it reported, 'allowed for a greater level of autonomy
by local governments to actually make changes to planning schemes and to do
things like release land'.[51]
7.52
BIS Shrapnel commended the fact that the New Planning System for NSW
reforms had included a streamlined approvals process, and specifically
provision for code assessment in growth areas. However, after passing the
Legislative Assembly, the legislation for the new system was withdrawn from the
Legislative Council in November 2013, leaving the future of the reforms
uncertain. BIS Shrapnel suggested that with the reform process on hold, 'supply
may not reach its full potential'.[52]
7.53
The committee notes that in responding to the NSW Government's proposed
planning reforms, the then Shadow Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, the Hon Luke
Foley MLC, indicated that the Opposition believed the code assessment proposals
would strip community members of their 'rights to have their say about how
their neighbourhood is developed, meaning high rise can be built without
community members able to object'.[53]
Committee view
7.54
Increased land supply per se, either in greenfield sites or infill
developments, is not a panacea for poor housing affordability. The committee
believes land release should align with long-term urban planning and must be
targeted to the needs of housing buyers, including access to employment
opportunities, health and education services and high quality transport
infrastructure. While these matters are primarily the responsibility of the
states and territories and local governments, the committee believes the
Commonwealth can provide leadership in ensuring best-practice urban planning
approaches are adopted in all jurisdictions. Moreover, because the Commonwealth
has a role in funding and building supporting infrastructure for new housing
developments, the committee suggests the Commonwealth needs be actively engaged
on the issue of city planning and development, including urban regeneration.
7.55
The committee also agrees that greater transparency regarding land
supply pipelines could provide for the more efficient delivery of housing stock
to the market. As such, the committee suggests that the proposed COAG
ministerial council on housing and homelessness (as at recommendation 2)
consider ways to improve the consistency, timeliness and utility of
government-collected and published information about land supply across
jurisdictions.
7.56
The committee notes that a number of submitters argued the case for
improved development assessment processes, including the introduction of code
based assessments. While the committee agrees that code based assessments
promise greater efficiency in the delivery of housing supply, it also notes
public concerns that code assessment risks disempowering local communities and
limiting their ability to shape how their neighbourhoods are developed. The
committee believes that states and territories should continue to seek improved
development assessment processes, and seek new efficiencies without unduly
infringing on the right of local communities to register their legitimate
concerns regarding housing developments.
Recommendation 8
7.57
The committee recommends that the proposed new Council of Australian
Governments ministerial council on housing and homelessness (see recommendation
2) investigate ways to improve the consistency, timeliness and utility of
government-collected and published information about land supply across jurisdictions.
Recommendation 9
7.58
The committee recommends that the Australian Government:
-
show leadership in regard to national urban planning policy and
urban regeneration, given the role both can play in improving and driving
housing affordability outcomes across Australia's major urban centres;
-
reinstate the National Urban Policy and Major Cities Unit given
the former role both played in driving housing affordability policy and
outcomes at the national level; and
-
show leadership in its policy capability and engagement with the
states and territories with regard to urban planning policy.
Recommendation 10
7.59
The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider
developing a long-term strategy for regenerating Australia's urban centres and
transport corridors. This strategy might be incorporated into a revised
national urban policy, and would provide for an intergovernmental and
coordinated approach to infrastructure delivery, including upgrades to social
infrastructure, and the identification of redevelopment opportunities for
government-owned land (as outlined in recommendation 11).
7.60
The committee further recommends that the Australian Government consider
re-establishing the Urban Policy Forum, reconnecting with key stakeholders from
the public and private sectors, academia and the community, and including
responsibility for reviewing jurisdictional performance against targets
relating to urban regeneration.
Recommendation 11
7.61
Government-owned land, whether state or Commonwealth-owned, represents a
potential land supply for affordable housing. Current governance, transparency
and divestment arrangements could be improved so that this potential might be
realised. The committee recommends:
- the creation of a transparent, public, up-to-date register of
government land and buildings that are considered 'surplus' or on the
divestment program, including the location and size of this land, and any
development restrictions attached to it;
-
the direct involvement of the Commonwealth agency with housing
policy responsibility in any asset divestment programs, and the possible
application of affordable housing targets in divestment programs;
-
the development of innovative partnerships involving public,
not-for-profit, community and private consortiums that develop affordable and
diverse housing on government land and buildings; and
-
the exploration of innovative models, such as community land
trusts, on government-owned land where the government retains the land or a
share in the development, but a community or not-for-profit housing provider
develops affordable housing.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page