Housing Development

<html><body>
Shelter WA recommends the Australian Government to appoint a Minister for Housing and Urban Development with the responsibility of coordinating decision-making across government. In their submission for the Inquiry into Home Ownership, Shelter WA recommended this coordination to be mirrored at the state level.
"Affordable housing is a structural issue, which needs to be addressed at a structural level through tax reform, employment growth and urban and regional development.
"While the affordability crisis in WA is less extreme than in some other areas of the country, housing remains unaffordable for many Western Australians. In WA, six times the median annual income is required to purchase a home at the median price (Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, 2014). 
"This is up from 3.6 times the annual income which was required to purchase a dwelling in WA in 2001. Between 2006 and 2011, mortgage repayments in Perth increased by 54% and rents increased by 78%, while incomes only increased by 34% (Australians for Affordable Housing, 2012). 
"The household debt to income ratio has tripled over the past two decades (Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, 2015). This includes mortgage debt as well as personal loans, credit cards and student loans."
In the submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Shelter WA also suggested that a study should be conducted on the impact of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount on home purchase affordability and on the rental market. 
Also, utilising the revenue obtained from potential reforms negative gearing and capital gains discounts to improve tax incentives for investment in new affordable rentals.
"Owners are entitled to a fair return on their investment, however government policies should only provide incentives to investors that contribute to affordable rental accommodation. 
"The ACT Government is phasing out stamp duties over the next twenty years, noting that this would support their agenda of making taxes ‘fairer, simpler and more efficient’ (ACT Government Treasury, 2014). 
"Shelter WA strongly supports the recommendations made in the Henry Review and the final report of the Senate Inquiry into Affordable Housing to abolish stamp duty and introduce a broad-based land tax over a transitional period. 
Another recommendation from Shelter WA is that State Governments continually review and reform planning processes to achieve a planning system that facilitates affordable housing. 
"Planning laws can encourage or inhibit the supply of new housing, including affordable home ownership. Initiatives to increase affordability include removing zoning and planning regulations, which prohibit smaller dwellings, and providing incentives to developers to provide affordable housing in new developments.
Shelter WA is concerned that the current system is not focused on the delivery of affordable housing.
"Recent changes to Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) made it easy for developers to bypass local government planning, through new opt-in thresholds. While this may streamline approval times, this process may actually be detrimental to achieving better affordable housing outcomes. 
"For instance, developers could use DAPs to side step a more stringent local government planning approvals process with affordable housing requirements. 
"Shelter WA is encouraged by the WA Department of Housing’s programs, which are aimed at making home ownership more accessible for low and moderate income households. These programs include shared equity schemes and Keystart loans, which report lower default rates than commercial lenders. 
"Since its inception, Keystart has assisted 85,000 Western Australians transition into home ownership. Since 2011, 1,029 families purchased a home through the SharedStart program, via co-ownership with the Housing Authority and Keystart home loans. 
"[Shelter WA] Support the continued development of shared equity programs, such as those administered by Keystart in WA, and other alternative home loan mechanisms. 
After conducting a joined survey with Aboriginal Legal Service of WA (ALSWA) in 2010, Shelter WA was able to identify 92% of respondents agreeing that 'stability and security, being settled' was a benefit of home ownership. The second most popular response was, 'freedom to make decisions about my home and who I live with'. 
"Respondents identified several risks to home ownership, with 87% selecting the primary drawback as 'interest rate rises lead to higher mortgage payments that people might not be able to afford'. 
"Additional comments included, 'restriction to lifestyle and stress about mortgage', 'Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) loans do not allow for refurbishment or additional loans to do the house up'and 'Process too long and restrictive'. 
"Qualitative research indicates that for some Indigenous Australians the positive social attributes of home ownership, such as being able to pass the house down in the family, are more important than the potential short-term financial benefits. 
"Intergenerational asset building for future generations and housing security are the primary motivators driving these aspirations. 
"For the benefits of home ownership to be fully realised, it is imperative that programs exist to educate Aboriginal peoples about home ownership and the obligations it entails. It is also essential that culturally appropriate support is available to assist Aboriginal peoples meet these obligations where necessary. 
"We cautioned against extending credit to people who do not have the means to make the necessary payments. Extending credit to low income people who cannot afford to service a loan of the size necessary to secure appropriate housing, without providing them with the tools and resources they need to repay the loan, sets them up for failure. 
"One of the major barriers to private home ownership in remote communities is the legal nature of community-title land. In our submission, Shelter WA and ALSWA did not support transferring community-title land to individual free hold land in order to promote individual home ownership. 
"Such transfers would dilute community-title, native title interests and communities’ rights to self- determination, and would remove the strength of land held in perpetuity for the benefit of the local peoples. 
"The recent announcement of the cessation of Federal and State funding to some remote communities in WA may have a significant impact on housing outcomes in those communities and surrounding areas. 
Shelter WA's final recommendation is that the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments share joint responsibility for Aboriginal housing. 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

National housing call for new government housing development minister

<html><body>
Australia does not build enough new housing to support the growing population according to the Urban Development Institute of Australia with inadequate investment in urban infrastructure, high taxes and charges and excessive red tape on new developments driving the shortage in housing supply.
Whilst the overall rate of home ownership has only declined by a relatively modest 7%, from 71.3% of households in 1982 to 64.3% of households in 2011, according to UDIA, it masks the disproportionate decline experienced by younger generations, where rates of home ownership have collapsed. 
"The 25-34 and 35-34 year old demographics have seen the largest declines in the rate of home ownership, falling by 39% and 20% respectively. 
<a href="/images/2015/08/26/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-26%20at%209.31.53%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/08/26/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-26%20at%209.31.53%20PM.png" alt="">
In the submission to the inquiry into Home Ownership, UDIA says there is an urgent need for governments to take necessary action in order to resolve these issues and restore housing affordability.
"UDIA is strongly of the view that Australia has not built enough new dwellings to support population growth for many years, and that the country now suffers from a significant underlying shortage of homes, pushing up both rents and house prices. 
"Population growth must be planned for, with the necessary land, new housing and infrastructure to support population growth. Doing so will ensure that population growth is managed sustainably and for the benefit of the entire community. 
"Timely and sufficient provision of new urban infrastructure, such as transport, utilities, and community facilities is a particularly important factor for ensuring an adequate supply of new land. Infrastructure investment can act as a critical catalyst for development and new supply, by improving access and opening up new areas for urban growth."
UDIA made several recommendations to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics such as provide additional funding for investment in new urban infrastructure, in order to unlock land for development. 
"The Commonwealth should work with state governments to prepare comprehensive strategic plans for future urban infrastructure, land-use planning, and land supply, to align with forecast population growth. 
"Facilitate non-traditional methods of funding infrastructure, to increase the level of funding available for infrastructure investment at both a federal and state level."
UDIA believes that costs associated with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) are a concern for the development industry.
"The Commonwealth should work with State Governments to undertake planning system reform to reduce delays and increase certainty in planning, zoning, assessment and approval systems, and increase the flexibility with which they operate. 
"UDIA supports the creation of a single, streamlined environmental approvals system to reduce the red tape associated with duplicated systems, without harming environmental outcomes. The Government should continue with its plan to streamline the environmental approval process to create a ‘one stop shop’. 
"The Commonwealth should stop attempts to restrict development around airports and airport corridors beyond the current and existing standards. 
"Stamp duty on property purchases should be phased out, and replaced with more efficient taxes, such as a broadening of the GST. 
"Governments should avoid revenue raising through the application of up front developer charges, and should seek to fund infrastructure through recurring charges directly related to specific infrastructure investment, over extended time frames. 
"The Commonwealth should cease plans to shift the cost of providing the National Broadband Network to new home buyers through up front connection, network and backhaul charges. 
"Governments should commit to broadening the base and reducing the rate of land tax regimes over a number of years, as an efficient way to raise revenue and reduce reliance on up front developer charges. 
"Governments should ensure land taxes apply per land holding, not on an aggregate basis, to in order promote large scale land development. 
"Land taxes should be levied on only the unimproved value of land, to avoid distorting disincentives to invest in improvements. 
"Exclude state and local government taxes and charges from GST calculations on land development, to reduce double taxation and improve tax system integrity. 
</body></html>

New housing needed to support population: UDIA

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">GUEST OBSERVER</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">
<div class="column">Dwelling approvals may have eased in August but it was largely driven by the volatility in apartment approvals. More encouragingly house approvals lifted by healthy 4.4 per cent August. From a longer term sense the lift in home building over the past couple of years has been extraordinary. </div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">Over the past year a record 225,406 new homes were approved – a boom that will continue to support economic activity over the next 12-18 months. Interestingly with the tightening in bank lending standards and news of another bank pulling back from investor loans in the last day, it is pretty clear that the lift in supply should result in a much more balanced housing sector.</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column">
There is no housing bubble, rather an imbalance between supply and demand in key markets like Sydney and Melbourne. When demand exceeds supply, prices can soar at an unsustainable rate. But the homes are being built to meet demand, it just takes time. Investors clearly must tread warily. Private sector credit remains healthy with lending lifting by 0.6 per cent in August. From an annual sense, credit growth is holding at the best levels in over six years. The key driver remains housing and in that context it is investor housing in particular that has driven the strength.
Investor finance is up 10.7% on a year ago. However it is likely that investor demand eases over the coming year.
More encouraging was the lift in business credit. There is no doubt that businesses are still rather tentative but the lift in borrowings is certainly encouraging and resonates with the lift in business confidence and conditions. The key driver of future lending will be an ongoing improvement in labour market conditions, rise in business hiring intentions and lift in consumer confidence. The disappointment in the latest result lies with the consumer borrowings which have been weak for the most part of this year. Interestingly the consumer credit figures may not be painting a true picture with some home owners likely to dipping into home equity to borrow at cheaper rates, rather than tapping personal loans. 
</div>
</div>
<div class="column"> </div>
<div class="column"><a href="/images/2015/09/30/Screen%20Shot%202015-09-30%20at%202.04.57%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></div>
<div class="column"><img src="/images/2015/09/30/Screen%20Shot%202015-09-30%20at%202.04.57%20PM.png" alt=""></div>
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
What do the figures show?
Building Approvals:
Dwelling approvals fell by 6.9% in August after rising by 7.9% in July. In trend terms, approvals fell by 0.7% in August.
House approvals rose by 4.4% in August (private sector rose 4.9%). Meanwhile ‘lumpy’ apartment approvals fell by 16.9% in August after rising by 20% in July. Private sector apartment approvals fell by 11.4% in August.
Dwelling approvals are up 5.1% on a year ago with house approvals up by 2.2% while apartments are up by 8.4%.
Across states and territories in August: NSW approvals rose by 27.1%; Victoria rose by 8.3%; Queensland fell by 17.2%; South Australia fell by 8.1%; Western Australia fell by 1.1%; Tasmania fell by 24.7%. In trend terms, approvals rose by 7.3% in the Northern Territory and rose 4.4% in the ACT.
The value of all commercial and residential building approvals fell by 5.6% in August after rising by 9.2% in July. Residential approvals fell by 3.5% with new building down by 3% while alterations &amp; additions fell by 7.9%. Commercial building fell by 10.1% in August but was still up by 6.6% over the year (up 10.6% over the year in trend terms).
Private sector credit
Private sector credit (lending) rose by 0.6% in August after a 0.6% gain in July. Annual credit growth rose from 6.1% to 6.3% – a 61⁄2-year high.
Housing credit grew by 0.6% in August after a similar rise in July. Housing credit is up 7.5% on a year ago – the strongest annual growth since September 2010.
Owner occupier housing credit rose by 0.6% in August to stand 5.6% higher than a year ago – the fastest annual growth since January 2012. Investor housing finance lifted 0.7% in August. Investor housing credit was up by 10.7% over the year.
Personal credit rose by 0.1% in August after a flat result in July. Personal credit was up 0.7% over the year.
Business credit rose by 0.5% in August. Business credit is 5.3% higher than a year ago.
Term deposits held with banks fell by $2.2 billion in August to $509.9 billion. Term deposits are down 5.7% on a year ago – the sharpest decline in 12 years. Term deposits have been regularly falling in annual terms for 21 months – the longest period in records going back almost 30 years.
What is the importance of the economic data?
Private sector credit figures are released by the Reserve Bank on the last working day of the month. Credit is separated into three categories – housing, other personal and business. 
Private sector credit is effectively the amount of loans outstanding in the economy. If growth in lending is strong then it suggests that credit from financial institutions is freely available, underlying demand for assets such as cars and houses is firm and that the price of credit (interest rates) is attractive.
The Bureau of Statistics' monthly Building Approvals release contains figures on local council approvals to build residential structures such as homes and units as well as commercial premises such as offices and shops. Approval is one of the first stages of the construction ‘pipeline’ and is thus a key leading indicator of future activity. An increase in approvals would point to stronger future activity for construction-related companies.
What are the implications for interest rates and investors? The home building boom will support the economy over the next 12-18 months, and the benefits will last longer in Sydney given that high rise apartments take longer to build.
The Reserve Bank is unlikely to shift interest rates in any direction. Rather an extended period of time on the sidelines is the most likely outcome. 
<a href="/images/2015/09/30/Screen%20Shot%202015-09-30%20at%202.13.38%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/09/30/Screen%20Shot%202015-09-30%20at%202.13.38%20PM.png" alt="">
 Savanth Sebastian is an economist for <a href="https://www.commsec.com.au" target="_blank">CommSec</a>. 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

There is no housing bubble: CommSec's Savanth Sebastian

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Melbourne is well-suited to urban sprawl; it’s flat, easy to build on and lacks geographic boundaries like waterways and cliffs that force other cities into higher densities.
It’s possible to continue building low-density housing out as far as Geelong in the west, Seymour in the north and Warragul in the east. But is that really the best way forward for Melbourne’s population growth and housing affordability?
Broadly speaking, urban sprawl works in this country because Australians prefer to live in houses with a yard. The most popular search criteria on realestate.com.au in 2016 was for a four-bedroom, two-bathroom, two-car garage house on a 708 sqm block, all for the bargain price of $520,000. But, finding a house that fits this criteria in Melbourne is almost impossible in the inner and middle ring suburbs. And the preference for the Aussie house means neighbourhoods end up opposing council plans for higher density developments. The result is far greater house and land development on the outer fringes of the city.
So far, Victoria has done very well out of its widening sprawl. One of the key drivers of the Victorian economy over the past decade has been housing development on the fringes. Victoria has developed more housing than any other state, which means greater affordability for all job types, not all of whom are high-income earning.
Affordability may seem like a big problem in Melbourne, but Sydney is worse. Sydney has built 30% fewer dwellings over the past 10 years than Melbourne and housing continues to be the main problem in the NSW capital. Continuing to provide affordability through increasing housing supply has been crucial in maintaining Victoria’s economic growth. 
If more housing is the key to maintaining affordability, and if people prefer to live in big homes and are happy to live on the fringes of big cities to do so, then why do we need to consider alternatives? There are three main problems with this scenario:
1. Cost: It’s far more expensive to develop and maintain infrastructure and public services in low density areas. From greater car dependency to the provision of water, sewers and electricity, many of these government-funded services are more expensive to provide in outer areas.
2. Isolation: There are important social disadvantages in living in low densities. There is less social interaction, there is a lack of walkability in neighbourhoods because destinations like shops, services and and restaurants are concentrated too far away from housing, and residents often face long commutes to places of employment.
3. Jobs: The final challenge is that it’s easy to get urban sprawl but harder to form employment hubs close to where the sprawl is occurring. The radial nature of our road and public transport networks makes it easy to get people into the CBD and inner suburban locations, not fringe employment hubs. Ultimately, companies want to locate in areas where they can get the best talent.
Locating in an outer suburban area close to where much of the house and land development is taking place, such as Craigieburn or Cranbourne, would make sense for some occupiers, but the reality is that the majority of people would find it far easier getting to the CBD. Rent may be cheap but access to the right type of workers is almost impossible.
The solution is to provide the housing that people want while reducing the sprawling nature of our cities. That will mean developing regional cities where people can access houses without being isolated from the city centre, and encouraging a greater acceptance of apartment dwelling in Melbourne.
Although large homes remain the preferred dwelling type on realestate.com.au, suburbs that provide good schools, public transport and retailing tend to see the highest engagement. These amenities are typically found in the inner and middle ring suburbs, which will require higher densities if more housing is to be provided. However, more and more, they can also be found in regional cities such as Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat. Importantly, these cities also contain employment.
For those wanting to remain close to central Melbourne, people need to get more comfortable with the idea of apartment living. Over the next five years, living in an inner Melbourne house will continue to become more expensive, but apartment living, influenced by massive development, is going to become more affordable.
In the Melbourne CBD alone, around 18,000 apartments will be completed this year, almost 10 times the annual average. Prices are already coming down and affordable options are no longer restricted to the urban fringe.
Urban sprawl is the simple solution to providing affordable housing in a growing city, but it is not the best way forward. By focussing on regional city development, as well as continuing to encourage higher densities in inner and middle ring suburbs, we can create the types of housing that people most desire, or alternatively, housing in locations that people most desire. This will give people choice and allow them to make trade-offs between living in a big city but small home, or in a smaller city with a big home.
Nerida Conisbee is REA Group Chief Economist. 
This article was first published on <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/" target="_blank">Pursuit</a>.
</body></html>

Greater residential density or urban sprawl - solving the housing challenge 

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66410/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Many housing types are totally at odds with how people live today because people don’t have as many material goods as they used to. 
Those under 30 may not own much at all. Music is digitised and streamed (Sonos, Spotify), treasured photo albums live in the cloud or within applications (Dropbox, iPhoto), tools are pooled (Open Shed), vehicles and rides are shared (Flexicar, BlaBlaCar, Uber), there’s no landline phone or TV cable, kitchen appliances are redundant with the ubiquity of food delivery services (Foodora, Deliveroo) and pets are borrowed (DogVacay, BorrowMyDoggy). 
The young are also likely to be renting their accommodation. Data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research reveal that barely 50 percent of Australians lived in a house they owned in 2014. If this trend continues, many of today’s young Australians will never own their own home.
With transformations in digital technologies and housing-price pressures changing living habits, people will not only possess fewer physical objects in the future, but new apartment dwellers will be more likely to occupy less space at a later age. These private domestic spaces are decreasing in size to become more efficient, hopefully more affordable and, for some restless millennials, more desirable.
<h2>Corporatising the co-living model</h2>
One model to emerge in the trend towards downsizing private domestic space is branded co-living spaces. Examples include The Collective (London), Zoku (Amsterdam) and Roam (London, Madrid, Miami, San Francisco, Tokyo, Ubud). In the corporatised co-living model, occupants rent private bedroom space (some bedrooms are as small as ten square metres) on a rolling contract for weeks or months, but share living and working spaces. 
These collective spaces are often programmed with extracurricular activities such as yoga, business workshops, cooking classes and guest talks that promote social exchange between renters. 
Systems of logistics, such as apps and chat platforms, facilitate the sharing of objects and space. Access to the co-living space is granted if you are part of a tribe (students, communes, families or business people). 
One of the global market leaders in co-living arrangements is the Chinese You+. The company has built over ten co-living spaces and claims to house more than 10,000 people across 25 branches. Private bedrooms (with bathroom) range in size from 20 to 50 square metres. The minimum stay is six months at an average monthly rent of A$470. 
At You+, people over 45 are discouraged. Couples with children or those who are anti-social are not permitted. Tech entrepreneurs tend to be given preference.
Subscribing to a co-living or dormitory arrangement such as You+ can mean lower rental costs (relative to renting a single-bedroom apartment on an above-average income), a surfeit of potential friends and a flexible rental contract. For some, this may be a genuinely desirable option. For others it may be the only option in a competitive rental market at a time when there are few affordable housing options.
<h2>Blurring the public-private divide</h2>
As private interior space contracts and shared domestic spaces become more common, the public realm is also changing.
Formerly private activities such as working and communication are occurring more frequently outside of the home, while the public sphere is taking on characteristics of interior or domestic settings: intimate spaces, interior furnishings and finishes, pocket parks, guerrilla gardening. The idea of what constitutes a home may be changing and expanding to consider urban space.
A lot of hyperbole surrounds the branded co-living spaces like You+ that have emerged under the so-called sharing economy – also known as the communal, collaborative, inclusive, gig or social economy. But there is a tension between the realities of the model and the benevolence of the act of sharing. 
At the behest of the property owner, co-living spaces tend to have less fixed furnishings and cheaper construction. They also have more occupants because typical apartment spaces (living room, laundry, kitchen) are compressed. Behind You+ and its ilk there are venture capitalists looking for high returns.
Co-living arrangements are transforming the physical typologies and financial models of housing and are the latest in a long tradition of collective housing arrangements, from the kibbutz to student dormitories to share houses, baugruppen and boarding houses. 
With lone-person households to account for more than a quarter of all Australian households by 2031, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, we need to rethink how we build collective and individual space in a denser city that reflects how many people want to live today – and tomorrow. 
We can see that market and societal demands are pushing people towards sharing space, but many co-living arrangements do nothing to improve housing affordability in the long term.
Timothy Moore is PhD candidate, Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/timothy-moore-292089" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Reinventing density: co-living, the second domestic revolution

<html><body>
Curtis Pitt, Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, supports an efficient fairer tax system.
In the submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics he said Queensland government policies offer significant advantages to owner-occupiers over investors and investors receive tax advantages through the income tax and transfer system.
The Queensland Government has promised to introduce a new planning bill into parliament by October 2015.
"It is anticipated the new planning system will reduce development costs by reducing complexity and duplication and providing greater certainty, both to the community and industry.
"This includes simplifying the state planning hierarchy from four state instruments to two; simplifying the rules for assessment decisions; better processes for plan making, removing step by step detail from the legislation, allowing local government to be more flexible and innovative in their processes and engagement; and replacing the planning provisions with more focused standard requirements for planning schemes, improving consistency and reducing complexity."
The new planning system promises to be more transparent by removing Ministerial discretion, enhancing public reporting and by ensuring that all publicly notified application continue to attract third party appeal rights.
"The Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning is currently undertaking a review of the South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan in concert with local government. A key focus of this plan will be ensuring sufficient sites are identified to ensure the supply of housing can expand to meet the needs of a growing population.
"The Queensland government has committed to establishing an independent statutory body Building Queensland, to provide the government with expert advice on infrastructure projects, based on rigorous business cases including cost-benefit analysis and assessment of community benefits.
"This should enable more efficient land use and reduce the costs of providing new housing and the associated economic and social infrastructure.
"The Queensland government has identified housing affordability as one of the priority issues for analysis by the new Queensland Productivity Commission. The issue will be added to the forward work program so that a comprehensive analysis of the Queensland-specific factors can be made."
The MP also encouraged the inquiry to look into Indigenous home ownership. 
"In Australia only 29% of Indigenous people owned their own home in 2008. Ownership rates for Indigenous people were significantly lower in remote and very remote areas (8%) than in major cities (38%)."
In the submission to the Inquiry into Home Ownership, Curtis Pitt has observed that home ownership in Queensland has decreased from approximately 70% in 1994-95 to 65% in 2011-12.
"Total dwelling approvals have increased significantly in Queensland in recent years. They have risen by 64% between December 2011 and April 2015. However this is still below the levels reached in 2007-08.
"In recent years Brisbane residential prices have not increased as strongly as other markets, with house prices in the last five years increasing on average less than inflation. Brisbane house prices have become relatively more affordable.
The Queensland Government asserted it will work with the Federal Government to implement policies, which will improve housing outcomes in Queensland. 
</body></html>

Queensland policy favouring owner occupiers, investors

<html><body>
The Customer Owned Banking Association (COBA) has outlined three specific areas of banking reform that would allow customer owned banks to serve the needs of more Australians in its submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Inquiry into Home Ownership.
The three areas are: improving banking competition, making it easier for Australians to save for a deposit, and consumer-empowering reform to mortgage brokers.
COBA has many concerns about the current arrangements in the mortgage broker market.
"A number of consumers incorrectly believe that mortgage brokers have access to the products of all lenders. They don’t. A significant number of banking institutions, including many from the customer owned sector, do not make use of broker channels. 
"Brokers are only required to recommend a loan that is ‘not unsuitable,’ a far cry from the best home loan for the customer, and possibly not even a particularly good product for the individual. 
"COBA is also concerned about the lack of disclosure regarding the level of vertical integration within the finance industry. According to the Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia, aggregation/broking groups that are owned by the big four banks, totally or substantially, comprise an estimated 40 per cent of mortgage brokers. 
"COBA notes the current arrangements adopted around mortgage brokers can create an incentive for them to optimistically assess loan serviceability (i.e. the capacity of the customer to meet regular repayments). 
"Often, a mortgage broker has an incentive to advise a customer to take out a larger loan, rather than the loan that is in the customer’s best interest. 
COBA suggests that the Economics Committee Inquiry into Home Ownership supports the FSI’s findings about regulators and competition. 
"The Financial System Inquiry (FSI), chaired by David Murray, has delivered a blueprint for a more competitive banking market, which would benefit home buyers through increased choice, greater bargaining power, downward pressure on loan pricing, and product innovation."
"A more competitive banking sector will deliver sustainable positive outcomes for all banking customers, including home loan customers. 
"Customer owned banking institutions were strong supporters of First Home Saver Accounts (FHSAs), and were disappointed to see this initiative abolished in 2014. While the product had some limitations and significantly underperformed in terms of uptake, COBA believes that a better targeted product could deliver significant benefits to aspiring FHBs [first home buyers]. 
COBA recommends that consideration be given to introducing a scheme designed to assist first home buyers to save a home deposit. 
Another recommendation is that the tax rate applied to deposits be reduced to place them on a more equitable tax footing relative to other investment options. 
"Stamp duty represents a significant additional upfront cost to home buyers, and is a further barrier standing between FHBs and their first home. While State and Territory governments do provide stamp duty relief in some circumstances, the eligibility requirements are often quite restrictive.
"COBA is also concerned about the level of concentration and vertical integration within the broker market. We believe consumers deserve clearer information so they know who they are dealing with, without having to wade through fine print to uncover ownership structures. 
"[COBA recommends] That the Committee consider reforms designed to improve transparency and the level of consumer education about mortgage brokers. 
"COBA believes that the implementation of these recommendations would improve the operation of the home finance market, and help customer owned banking institutions help more Australians. 
</body></html>

Consumer-driven reform needed for mortgage brokers: Customer Owned Banking Association

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64153/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Truth be told, most Australians live in good housing. This is good news for all of us because our housing is a major determinant of our health and wellbeing. But our very recent research findings, published this month in the Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, and the lessons of history tell us this good news story is at risk.
Ideally, housing provides us with the secure, comfortable shelter that people and their families need to live healthy, productive lives. In general, we have a modern housing stock with good heating and cooling, few major structural problems and few problems with damp and mould. By contrast, bad housing makes it much more likely you will get sick and stay sick once ill.
In Australia’s early years, much of the housing stock was of poor quality, often overcrowded, and posed real risks to people’s health. Slums were common in the inner parts of the major cities and in many country towns.
As late as 1915 bubonic plague was a reality in the poorer parts of our cities and other contagious diseases remained an ever-present risk. Numerous letters to the editor documented a real social concern with the housing standards of the poor.
Government intervention, economic prosperity and tenancy laws all improved housing conditions across Australia. Within a century Australia was defined by good housing and high rates of home ownership. The nation saw off the last of its slums in the late 1940s.
Now the same conditions that gave rise to substandard housing in the 19th century are returning in the 21st, with a likely similar outcome. Recently, the Reserve Bank governor acknowledged young Australians need their parents' help to buy a home in Sydney. But most Australians don’t have a wealthy and doting parent to fund them into the house of their dreams.
The alternative is to live in lower-quality housing and to make do with a home that is relatively inaccessible, fundamentally unaffordable or both.
<h2>A million Australians on the housing brink</h2>
The confronting reality is that poor housing conditions are more prevalent in Australia than we think.
We have a sizeable “hidden fraction” of Australians living in poor-quality housing. In particular, many of our most vulnerable have the double disadvantage of also having housing conditions that we might deem as falling below an unacceptable standard.
In one of the few contemporary analyses of this issue, we used the Household Income and Labour Dynamics (HILDA) Survey, a national longitudinal dataset, and find compelling evidence of a substantial stock of poor-quality housing in Australia.
The scale of our findings is somewhat surprising: we found almost a million Australians are living in poor or very-poor-quality housing. Within this total, more than 100,000 are residing in dwellings regarded as very poor or derelict.
These simple findings are important. They show the existence of a significant (and currently little known) population of individuals living in very poor conditions. At the very least, we need to monitor Australian housing conditions in a systematic way if we are to avoid this problem worsening.
<h2>Harms of poor housing multiply</h2>
Poor-quality housing makes the already disadvantaged even worse off. Younger people, people with disabilities and ill health, those with low incomes, those without full-time (or any) employment, Indigenous people and renters are much more likely to be found in the emerging slums of 21st-century Australia.
Importantly, many of these groups are already disadvantaged and (most probably) have a pressing need for housing that improves or supports their health and wellbeing. People with an existing illness or disability, for example, are almost twice as likely to live in dwellings in very poor condition as people without a disability or illness.
These findings about the size and uneven distribution of the problem should force us to ask what effects poor-quality housing has on people – on their mental, physical and general health? It is clear from our analysis that such housing has measurable impacts on mental, physical and general health. This impact is large enough to be statistically significant.
Given the time it takes to reform policy and plan for our cities and regions, Australia urgently needs to face up to the dismal reality that once again many Australians are living in housing not fit for habitation.
Governments must take steps to ensure the supply of affordable housing of reasonable quality. Otherwise, we are destined to become a nation scarred once again by slums, reduced life chances and shortened lives.
Emma Baker is associate professor, School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Adelaide and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-baker-172081" target="_blank">here</a>.
Andrew Beer is dean, Research and Innovation, University of South Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-beer-111469" target="_blank">here</a>.
Rebecca Bentley is associate professor, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-bentley-173502" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Why 100 years without slum housing in Australia is coming to an end

<html><body>
Sydney’s established suburbs have just one thing in common when we talk about their existing houses in that for years now we have seen no new housing developments – they have simply dried up.
They no longer exist nor will we see any more new developments, so the number of houses in a particular suburb is all but fixed forever. Unlike outer Sydney where new housing estates are being released at the fastest rates ever witnessed before to meet the growing consumer demand – however the new markets are totally different from the established property markets.
It’s interesting to note that the established housing markets are contracting with less properties being offered to the marketplace which is underpinning property prices. Just as interesting is the observation that the overseas buyers are now strong participants in the established Sydney property markets followed by the local buyers in close pursuit.
This is what many are calling the perfect storm where if you removed the overseas buyers the Sydney established property markets would bear no resemblance to what we witnessed in 2015. With the NSW government now fixated on high – density residential strata developments many property buyers are observing that established houses are the best investments because production has ceased.
Whilst the NSW government has no problems encouraging the new residential subdivisions of airspace we certainly don’t envisage we will see any outdoor public spaces being converted to residential housing subdivisions.
We can also throw into the ‘perfect property storm’ record low interest rates where households are leveraging their borrowings to the maximum in order to take full advantage of the lowest rates in property history. When they leverage high this takes longer to pay down the principal home loan which in turn slows down the number of properties being offered to the market place which is exactly what we are witnessing today.
Just as interesting is that the last cash rate increase by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) was back on November 3, 2010 when the RBA increased the cash rate +0.25 percent to 4.75 percent.
To show further proof a recent analysis by Digital Finance Analytics identified that 13 percent of households with an owner occupied loan would be in financial discomfort if rates were to rise at all. This is a smaller proportion to investment property owners who came in at 27 percent. However, more than one third of households said that they would be in difficulty if rates rose by 3 percent.
With many property owners closely following the cash rate musings emanating from the RBA – they may be better advised to watch their respective lenders a lot more closely.
Business analysts warned this week if there are no RBA cuts in 2016 then the banks would again act independently by announcing their own independent rate increases. Many quickly forget that in 2015 the big banks joined hands and raised their respective rates between 15 and 20 basis points.
Based on this data, for that to happen we would see the investment property hardest hit with a very distinct possibility of surging nervous investors trying to off – load their newly acquired investment properties. On the flip – side the major banks are most concerned that this newly created investment property loan portfolio has them exposed – so we in all probability will see them massaging their mortgage books in 2016.
This of course does not bode well for all the new developments awaiting release to the respective marketplaces where Melbourne has approximately another 20,000 new apartments ready to be released over the next five years with Sydney sitting at around 6,000 new apartments.
Then of course we have the dilemma with the apartments already sold off – the – plan with plenty of talk that many of those won’t proceed with their contracts. In particular the Big Four banks are only too well aware of their exposure to these new markets. That would explain why they have commenced their whisper campaigns – where we can expect to read plenty more in coming months.
When the property flows are weak the prices shoot up which is exactly what has happened to the established markets. The new investment markets are the ones that dominated in 2015 so there is a very good chance they may dominate conversations in 2015 for all the wrong reasons. What also needs to be factored in are the new developments where 100 per cent of these apartments were sold offshore. It’s anyone’s guess what may happen should we see these newly created markets start showing the first signs of panic.
<h5>MOSMAN – 2088</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 58
• Number of houses on the market last week – 36
• Number of houses on the market this week – 45
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 43
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 32
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 38
<h5>CREMORNE – 2090</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 8
• Number of houses on the market last week – 9
• Number of houses on the market this week – 11
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 18
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 11
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 15
<h5>NEUTRAL BAY – 2089</h5>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 4
• Number of houses on the market last week – 6
•Number of houses on the market this week – 6
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year– 37
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 23
*Number of apartments on the market this week – 27
 ROBERT SIMEON is a director of <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/" target="_blank" title="RWM" rel="nofollow">Richardson Wrench Mosman and Neutral Bay</a> and has been selling residential real estate in Sydney since 1985.  He has also been writing real estate blog <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/news/" target="_blank" title="Virtual Realty News" rel="nofollow">Virtual Realty News</a> since 2000. 
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

Simply put, property will be as steady as she flows: Robert Simeon

<html><body>
Cities are ever changing environments that are continuously evolving and they reflect the varied and always developing needs of the population.
The complexity of the population is naturally reflected in the make-up of the housing market and while fashions change, our underlying housing preferences appear to be somewhat more rigid than might be expected. And so the question will always be – are we matching demand and how we market to this audience? 
It appears that at times we have a disconnection between where we live and where we would like to live. Work, family, finances and lifestyle balance all play their part, alongside our national, still very dominant desire to have our own homes. This area is still driven by emotion and aspiration. There’s a lot of emotion in almost all parts of the housing market and the desire for homeownership is also closely tied to a feeling of achievement, personal growth and self-worth.
In almost any casual conversation we are often asked, where do you live? And where do you work and what do you do? Where we live in particular is very much seen as part of who we are, and so the character of the housing market is a constant source of fascination.
A Large House Near The City
In research published by the Grattan Institute, a large house near the city was seen as the most desirable goal for many people, but the actual structure of our housing market is somewhat different.
Homeownership is falling, and the numbers of people renting is on the rise. Both trends were evident. When measured in the last census in 2011, homeowners (either owned or with a mortgage) was around 67%, and rental accommodation sat around 29.6%, but the falling trend among homeowners has been constant and was closer to 75% in the 1960’s.
At the same time rents and mortgage repayments have been on the constant increase, and one particular measure remains on an upward trend and that’s the number of households where rent or mortgage payments are taking more than 30% of incomes, with rents at 10.4% and mortgage loan repayments at 9.9%. It’s a trend that the 2016 census is bound to see continue as house prices have increased over recent years.
There’s also a link between the size of families and their incomes and the ability to buy a home. Couples and sole parents with children account for 60.5% of households with both parents being employed either full or part-time making up 25.4%, with only 15.7% being households with just one parent working full-time, and even less with one parent in part-time employment at just 5.4% supporting the household.
Most of Us Still Live in Detached Homes
Where we live and the impact that has on household size and the importance of location also shows some related trends. As the figures above might help reinforce, families are more concerned about the size of a home.
The split is currently 75.6% living in detached homes, but that figure is gradually falling, 9.9% then live in semi-detached and 13.6% in apartments, with both are on an upward trend. The fall in the numbers of people living in detached homes is shown by the fact that in 1976 the figure stood at 78%, and while the decline is not huge, it’s now a constant trend and may well be more marked with recent trends towards the popularity of apartments.
What is somewhat a surprise is that evidence points to the popularity and demand for medium density housing, in reality the supply of semi-detached homes and townhouses has been falling way behind demand. Medium density sits somewhere between high-rise apartment living and the larger more traditional detached home and this would help explain, not surprisingly why these homes are so popular. And when it comes to size, we see that 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom homes together account for 73.9% of housing stock, with the demand for 4-bedroom homes on the increase.
When Location Is Key
While for families home size and the number of bedrooms are the most important factors, location is much more important as we get older and it’s also the same for singles.
While families are concerned about house size, as we get older we look for closer connections to work, being closer to family and facilities like transport, and the same goes for singles as they look for wider community connections. For these groups a central or CBD location and all that it entails is driving demand and pushing prices as sites are absorbed.
Then we also find that across all groups affordability always comes into the picture. This will then influence size, condition, access to transport and the key suburbs people are most attracted to. Our housing preferences are well-established but changing.
However as is clearly demonstrated by some of the shortages being experienced in Sydney, meeting all aspects of household demand isn’t easy. There are many layers that add time, cost and complexity to meeting demand. Finding suitable sites in very popular areas, the time to deliver the finished projects, planning delays and the costs involved will explain why in some markets demand is not being met.
Demand is being seen from the inner-city to major new growth regions on the city fringe. Then some housing preferences, like the demand for more mid-range medium density housing may be falling short. There’s a fine balance between location, cost and size that all buyers have to navigate when making a choice of where to live, and prices are reflecting the key areas of demand.
Peter Chittenden is managing director for residential of Colliers International. He can be contacted <a href="https://www.projectagenda.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Housing Development

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Housing Development

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News