I notice there is a gravy-train of "community housing" providers lining up to support the HAFF - presumably on the basis that they will get grants that they might not get if money was spent directly on public housing. I give side-eye to anyone talking about "community" or "social" housing, because the terms are usually deployed deliberately to avoid mentioning public housing - the actual solution.
I once spent a night volunteering with the Property Industry Foundation. For all their talk of "wrap-around support" and "building life skills", they only provide temporary accommodation at best, and ultimately aim to make their "clients" productive enough to afford market rent extraction rates. All of which suits the property industry just fine, while they go sailing for a "charity regatta" (actual event). They NEVER talk about public housing or any form of below market permanent housing. That's not profitable for their sponsors. A charity that truly cares would campaign for policies that make their charity no longer necessary, not this neoliberal self-improvement claptrap.
In a quick scan of the submissions, surprise! The Property Council wants an "industry reference group" (so they can capture the "independent" board). Surprise! AHURI supports more research. Surprise! The Community Housing Industry Association wants to be put on equal footing with states and territories when it comes to grants ("[optimising] the outcomes" with "robust tendering"), presumably so they have a chance to forestall any actual public housing by undercutting it (based on capex only...).
The whole thing is a bucket of vomit, and should be tipped in the toilet.
Cameron, I appreciate this is only one small part of your paper, but in the interests of accuracy, on what are you basing your statement about there being 20 years worth of planning approvals in Queensland? Having worked in Queensland land supply and development monitoring for many years, I do not understand how you could arrive at that statement. For example, the most recent published SEQ Land Supply and Development Monitoring Report (2021) identified 4.4 year of approved but uncompleted residential lots (subdivision approvals) and 9.1 years of approved but unconstructed multiple dwelling approvals (without considering how many of these are likely to be feasible and proceed - historically a significant proportion of the latter in particular tend to fall over or be replaced by other approvals for the same land before development actually proceeds).
My claim is based on the most recent version of the documents you refer to. The stock of approvals has continued to rise while completions have fallen. MCU stock is 116,000 and attached lot registration was 5,900, or 19.7yrs. Is that right in your view?
RaL stock is 60,000 and about 10,000, so that's about 6yrs.
In total we have 176,000 approved dwellings and 16,000 per year registration, so 11yrs overall on average.
Hi Cameron, I guess I would never base calculation of years of supply on one year only worth of take-up, the rate of construction is just too volatile. The SEQ Land Supply and Development Monitoring Report years of supply figures I mentioned are based on the average annual take-up from the most recent four years of take-up (using lot certifications for subdivision and attached dwelling building approvals for multiple dwellings - given that all of those do not lead to lot registrations). I also think that the multiple dwelling approval years of supply figures can be quite misleading because of the significant proportion that do tend to fall over, generally to be replaced by another approval for the same land down the track.
Also worth noting is that the trend in both lots and attached dwellings is rising in terms of years of planning-approved supply - up from 2 to 6 yrs for lots since the 2000s, and up from 10 to 20 yrs for attached dwellings in the past 5 yrs.
My general point is think is quite valid — this data is not widely advertised by those who complain about the planning system. I certainly share many of the industry's valid complaints about planning, but I don't think the planning system is to blame for the price of housing.
I think planning can make it more it more difficult to achieve feasible development, e.g. increasing the time and costs involved in obtaining an approval and if there is a shortage of land with development potential in an area it may increase competition for and the prices paid for sites. Developers, after all, need land to have a business and may end up paying more than they would prefer to secure a site.
The increase in the years of supply of subdivision approvals since 2000 is partly due to changes in the planning legislation, e.g. increasing the standard approval currency period to 4 years in 1998 and in 2006 (ceasing in 2017) providing for extensions of the currency period based on subsequent related approvals (for more details on this see my insight/paper 'How should the approved supply measure inform government actions?' at: https://www.landsupplyinsight.com.au ). The increase in years of supply of attached dwellings is mainly due to the large decline in the rate of construction from the very high levels around the 2015-2018 period.
I agree the planning system (I count infrastructure charging regimes in this) is not the main cause of the very high price of housing in Australia. The main culprit I suspect is the 50% discount on investor capital gains tax that was introduced in about 2000. However, the planning system can make things worse and it is the main thing that developers interact with and can have some influence over so they will complain about it.
One can argue that the planning system doesn't increase the cost of housing under the parameters that the planning regime creates. However, change the parameters and see what happens. For instance:
The cost of housing can be radically reduced by eliminating the up front cost of a parcel of land that carries a title, the product of a subdivision.
Simply allow the construction of homes on land zoned rural and watch a flood of new developers into the housing market. Secondly, let the owners of the land build houses that are appropriately sized. In addition allow the owners of a mobile house to rent a plot on which to locate that house, as in a caravan park.
Getting an automobile to the front door of every house costs a lot in infrastructure and reduces the living amenity by creating an urban heat sink that becomes more severe as lot size is reduced and vegetation is lost. The surroundings of the house become from a child's point of view 'unplayable' and from an adults point of view, distinctly unsocial.
What could a different arrangement look like?
It’s currently unlawful to locate a fixed form of shelter for permanent use other than in a zone dedicated to residential use. Developers release land at a rate calculated to maintain profitability and commonly insist on minimum floor areas to ‘maintain standards.’ This, and the taxation regime promote overinvestment and price escalation.
The alternative is to provide shelter on rural land via a site fee. Freed of a mortgage, mobility is enhanced enabling a worker to realise his potential while improving national productivity.
Village development that integrates employment, commerce, and recreation is highly beneficial. Rendering the surroundings of the house a safe place for children and gardeners by keeping automobiles at an appropriate distance from the home will reduce the urban heat sink effect, promote intergenerational support, assist with child reading and enable children to find role models. We should invest in providing space for hobby, play, gardens, and interactive spaces in conjunction with homes rather than roads, pavements, and fences.
Building costs can be reduced by constructing appropriately sized units to be transported in flat packed or preassembled form, facilitating the temporary use of scarce land, allowing an easier transition to larger or smaller forms to suit changing life circumstances including the size of the family unit. Increasing the span of the building will reduce site costs, enable the retention of vegetation, allowing shelter to be more easily accommodated in natural landscapes affording shade, shelter and cooler air due to enhanced leaf transpiration.
Good luck Cameron you'll need the fortitude of Don Quixote. Maybe ask the senators if they are so willing to spend $368 billion or $11 billion a year for 33 years to prop the US defense industry for a technology which may be rendered obsolete by 2050, what's so hard about having a meaningful go at fixing our social housing crisis for a third of the subs spend? Let me guess the answer
This is true. This is why I suggest buying new homes to that these sales trigger construction that wouldn't otherwise happen. However, buying homes and giving them to people does solve the housing problem. At the extreme, if every rental home was purchased and given to the current tenant, this would solve all our housing problems.
" At the extreme, if every rental home was purchased and given to the current tenant, this would solve all our housing problems."
Make sense. Although it wouldn't reduce the cost of housing to the country, it would shift resources from other kinds of activity towards towards housing, and also transfer wealth from homeowners to renters. I'm neutral about whether either of those is a good idea, but I see that the effect exists.
That is a cracker of a submission.
I notice there is a gravy-train of "community housing" providers lining up to support the HAFF - presumably on the basis that they will get grants that they might not get if money was spent directly on public housing. I give side-eye to anyone talking about "community" or "social" housing, because the terms are usually deployed deliberately to avoid mentioning public housing - the actual solution.
I once spent a night volunteering with the Property Industry Foundation. For all their talk of "wrap-around support" and "building life skills", they only provide temporary accommodation at best, and ultimately aim to make their "clients" productive enough to afford market rent extraction rates. All of which suits the property industry just fine, while they go sailing for a "charity regatta" (actual event). They NEVER talk about public housing or any form of below market permanent housing. That's not profitable for their sponsors. A charity that truly cares would campaign for policies that make their charity no longer necessary, not this neoliberal self-improvement claptrap.
In a quick scan of the submissions, surprise! The Property Council wants an "industry reference group" (so they can capture the "independent" board). Surprise! AHURI supports more research. Surprise! The Community Housing Industry Association wants to be put on equal footing with states and territories when it comes to grants ("[optimising] the outcomes" with "robust tendering"), presumably so they have a chance to forestall any actual public housing by undercutting it (based on capex only...).
The whole thing is a bucket of vomit, and should be tipped in the toilet.
Cameron, I appreciate this is only one small part of your paper, but in the interests of accuracy, on what are you basing your statement about there being 20 years worth of planning approvals in Queensland? Having worked in Queensland land supply and development monitoring for many years, I do not understand how you could arrive at that statement. For example, the most recent published SEQ Land Supply and Development Monitoring Report (2021) identified 4.4 year of approved but uncompleted residential lots (subdivision approvals) and 9.1 years of approved but unconstructed multiple dwelling approvals (without considering how many of these are likely to be feasible and proceed - historically a significant proportion of the latter in particular tend to fall over or be replaced by other approvals for the same land before development actually proceeds).
All good points Geoff.
My claim is based on the most recent version of the documents you refer to. The stock of approvals has continued to rise while completions have fallen. MCU stock is 116,000 and attached lot registration was 5,900, or 19.7yrs. Is that right in your view?
RaL stock is 60,000 and about 10,000, so that's about 6yrs.
In total we have 176,000 approved dwellings and 16,000 per year registration, so 11yrs overall on average.
https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/statistics/theme/industry-development/residential-land-supply-development/residential-development#current-release-residential-land-development-activity-spreadsheet
Hi Cameron, I guess I would never base calculation of years of supply on one year only worth of take-up, the rate of construction is just too volatile. The SEQ Land Supply and Development Monitoring Report years of supply figures I mentioned are based on the average annual take-up from the most recent four years of take-up (using lot certifications for subdivision and attached dwelling building approvals for multiple dwellings - given that all of those do not lead to lot registrations). I also think that the multiple dwelling approval years of supply figures can be quite misleading because of the significant proportion that do tend to fall over, generally to be replaced by another approval for the same land down the track.
Fair points and I agree.
Also worth noting is that the trend in both lots and attached dwellings is rising in terms of years of planning-approved supply - up from 2 to 6 yrs for lots since the 2000s, and up from 10 to 20 yrs for attached dwellings in the past 5 yrs.
My general point is think is quite valid — this data is not widely advertised by those who complain about the planning system. I certainly share many of the industry's valid complaints about planning, but I don't think the planning system is to blame for the price of housing.
I think planning can make it more it more difficult to achieve feasible development, e.g. increasing the time and costs involved in obtaining an approval and if there is a shortage of land with development potential in an area it may increase competition for and the prices paid for sites. Developers, after all, need land to have a business and may end up paying more than they would prefer to secure a site.
The increase in the years of supply of subdivision approvals since 2000 is partly due to changes in the planning legislation, e.g. increasing the standard approval currency period to 4 years in 1998 and in 2006 (ceasing in 2017) providing for extensions of the currency period based on subsequent related approvals (for more details on this see my insight/paper 'How should the approved supply measure inform government actions?' at: https://www.landsupplyinsight.com.au ). The increase in years of supply of attached dwellings is mainly due to the large decline in the rate of construction from the very high levels around the 2015-2018 period.
I agree the planning system (I count infrastructure charging regimes in this) is not the main cause of the very high price of housing in Australia. The main culprit I suspect is the 50% discount on investor capital gains tax that was introduced in about 2000. However, the planning system can make things worse and it is the main thing that developers interact with and can have some influence over so they will complain about it.
One can argue that the planning system doesn't increase the cost of housing under the parameters that the planning regime creates. However, change the parameters and see what happens. For instance:
The cost of housing can be radically reduced by eliminating the up front cost of a parcel of land that carries a title, the product of a subdivision.
Simply allow the construction of homes on land zoned rural and watch a flood of new developers into the housing market. Secondly, let the owners of the land build houses that are appropriately sized. In addition allow the owners of a mobile house to rent a plot on which to locate that house, as in a caravan park.
Getting an automobile to the front door of every house costs a lot in infrastructure and reduces the living amenity by creating an urban heat sink that becomes more severe as lot size is reduced and vegetation is lost. The surroundings of the house become from a child's point of view 'unplayable' and from an adults point of view, distinctly unsocial.
What could a different arrangement look like?
It’s currently unlawful to locate a fixed form of shelter for permanent use other than in a zone dedicated to residential use. Developers release land at a rate calculated to maintain profitability and commonly insist on minimum floor areas to ‘maintain standards.’ This, and the taxation regime promote overinvestment and price escalation.
The alternative is to provide shelter on rural land via a site fee. Freed of a mortgage, mobility is enhanced enabling a worker to realise his potential while improving national productivity.
Village development that integrates employment, commerce, and recreation is highly beneficial. Rendering the surroundings of the house a safe place for children and gardeners by keeping automobiles at an appropriate distance from the home will reduce the urban heat sink effect, promote intergenerational support, assist with child reading and enable children to find role models. We should invest in providing space for hobby, play, gardens, and interactive spaces in conjunction with homes rather than roads, pavements, and fences.
Building costs can be reduced by constructing appropriately sized units to be transported in flat packed or preassembled form, facilitating the temporary use of scarce land, allowing an easier transition to larger or smaller forms to suit changing life circumstances including the size of the family unit. Increasing the span of the building will reduce site costs, enable the retention of vegetation, allowing shelter to be more easily accommodated in natural landscapes affording shade, shelter and cooler air due to enhanced leaf transpiration.
Good luck Cameron you'll need the fortitude of Don Quixote. Maybe ask the senators if they are so willing to spend $368 billion or $11 billion a year for 33 years to prop the US defense industry for a technology which may be rendered obsolete by 2050, what's so hard about having a meaningful go at fixing our social housing crisis for a third of the subs spend? Let me guess the answer
Buying houses and then giving them to the people doesn't automatically get new ones built. It will, if supply constraints aren't the problem.
This is true. This is why I suggest buying new homes to that these sales trigger construction that wouldn't otherwise happen. However, buying homes and giving them to people does solve the housing problem. At the extreme, if every rental home was purchased and given to the current tenant, this would solve all our housing problems.
" At the extreme, if every rental home was purchased and given to the current tenant, this would solve all our housing problems."
Make sense. Although it wouldn't reduce the cost of housing to the country, it would shift resources from other kinds of activity towards towards housing, and also transfer wealth from homeowners to renters. I'm neutral about whether either of those is a good idea, but I see that the effect exists.
To be clear, it would shift resources. Only who owned them. Just like trading second hand houses or second hand shares doesn’t change anything
Amen!