<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The recent announcement by the Minister for Planning to defer the introduction of the medium density (complying development) code in some councils is negatively impacting the wrong families or target market.
The government should not link community pushback and pressure  for high rise apartment growth - with the growing need for more modest medium density housing – especially terraces and dual occupancies.
There is justified concern across Sydney that local living conditions and growth/enhancements in social facilities have not improved at the same pace as recent growth and intensification of housing. This is not ‘nimbyism’. It is a response to the difficulties faced by governments to raise and spend sufficient infrastructure dollars in the right place at the right time – in the face of rapid growth. 
The Greater Sydney Commission is right to highlight those areas (eg Ryde and Canterbury-Bankstown) where the mismatch between recent growth and amenity is great. There are opportunities for State and Local Government to improve infrastructure investment and build capacity, divert growth - or just pause to catch up. But, the approaches taken must be evidence-based and strategic – and not be seen as a reaction to key electorates. 
The planning framework needs to offer a predictable basis for investment in the types of housing we need – in ways that reflect the communities’ values and needs for a place.
Sydney has sound regional plan and district plans that set out the challenge to accommodate another 740,000 dwellings by 2036. They cannot all be apartments  in inner city areas or homes on the edge of Sydney. Our population is getting older, more people are choosing to live in smaller housing, while many households are also looking for well-designed and more affordable accommodation closer to jobs and centres. 
Offering greater choice for medium density housing in Sydney’s ‘missing middle’ is vital for a fair and socially sustainable city.
A planning system that only offers a complying development pathway for single detached houses is not balanced. PIA has supported having the same incentive for a diversity of medium density housing types including terraces, dual occupancies and even ‘manor homes’ if well-designed and in the right setting.
Local Housing Strategies offer a way of checking that Council zoning approaches and contributions plans respond to the diverse housing needs and characteristics of the community – including amenity and infrastructure provision. These strategies could provide solid evidence for any deferral of major planning proposals at the ‘gateway’ stage. 
Local Housing Strategies can also help councils to get a handle on how a model code for medium density housing will take effect in their area. Depending on whether a council permits multi-unit or medium density development in low density residential zones is significant. If a council already has specific floor space ratios and setbacks then the outcomes of the code on housing supply would potentially be much lower.
PIA acknowledges that infrastructure delivery at a local scale has often not kept pace with apartment growth. A solution is to focus on funding infrastructure and strengthening amenity alongside acceptable rates and patterns of growth. 
Ad hoc deferral of new policy supporting medium density housing is not necessarily going to assist many communities across the state who wish to stay in their local suburb and age in place.
Jenny Rudolph is the PIA NSW President
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

We still need well planned medium density housing: PIA

<html><body>
A regional development inquiry has found another reason for a national settlement strategy.
The Planning Institute Australia (PIA) has welcomed a Parliamentary Select Committee’s call for greater investment in Australia’s rural and regional towns, citing their report, “Regions at the Ready: Investing in Australia’s Future”, as further clear evidence of the need for an integrated national settlement strategy.
After the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation report published its findings last week, Chief Policy Officer Rolf Fenner acknowledged PIA had consistently called for the Commonwealth to acknowledge the wider implications of its policy actions and investment decisions and to better promote regional development.
PIA believes that governments need to adequately fund research into the drivers of population change and settlement patterns in regional areas to understand to a greater degree the effects of it's policy actions.
As well as tp empower local communities to promote sustainable development and a better quality of life through integrated land use policies or spatial planning.
In its submission to the House of Representatives inquiry into the Australian Government’s role in the Development of Cities in 2017, PIA repeated its call for a "clear spatial planning framework" to guide and promote regional development and "guard against growing inequality between city and country Australia".
Mr Fenner said efforts to counter regional inequality needed to go beyond the traditional emphasis on direct tax/transfer redistribution and 'pork-barreling' grant programs.
Instead they should focus more on geographically appropriate and targeted investments.
These include infrastructure provision, training and job creation activities, and strategic urban and regional planning frameworks endorsed by all levels of government.
“It’s pleasing the inquiry grasps what PIA has long understood, namely that our rural and regional communities must be great places to live and work if Australia is to continue to prosper as a nation,” Mr Fenner said.
“The liveability or amenity of a city, town or community is essentially how it feels and looks: the choice, quality and location of buildings, the parks, streetscapes, and the access to shops, schools, and recreational facilities,” Mr Fenner said.
“If we fail to invest in amenity, we will also fail to entice people to live or invest in regional Australia,” he concluded.
</body></html>

PIA support Parliamentary committee's call for increased rural and regional investment

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Affordable housing supply is a critical issue for governments – but so too is ensuring Australians have good access to meaningful employment, good social services and facilities, and quality environments.
The Planning Institute of Australia endorses in principle the wider use of inclusionary zoning practices that are in the new Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) study on how planning incentives could be used to build more affordable dwellings.
However, governments could not continue to ignore the fact that the housing affordability crisis stemmed in large part from demand-side factors such as capital gains tax exemptions, negative gearing, and strong population growth.
The biggest impact on affordable housing supply comes from the preferential tax treatment accorded home-owners and investors.
Until governments reform these arrangements, low to medium-income earners will struggle to get a foot on the home-ownership ladder.
For many people, including the homeless, the increased use of planning incentives would make little practical difference.
The unemployed, the socially disadvantaged, and those suffering from mental illness or substance abuse disorders usually needed public and/or charitable housing.
Inclusionary zoning codes implemented in San Francisco or London might not transplant well to Sydney, Melbourne or our other capital cities.
Wholesale adoption of inclusionary zoning provisions may lead to perverse outcomes if they’re implemented without due regard to local market conditions and specific city-wide, or regional plans.
A surer bet would be affordable housing targets developed in consultation with the community and based on quality urban design and architectural foundations.
As well as boosting supply, housing targets backed by good design standards would improve the quality of our built environments and help alleviate the twin problems of diminished social capital and growing economic inequality.
AHURI conducts valuable research on how we might best tackle the big housing and planning challenges facing our cities, towns, and regions.
The use of planning incentives is an example of a possible mechanism that would, ideally, be on the agenda of a COAG planning and housing ministerial council. 
Unfortunately, the Federal Coalition Government does not have a dedicated housing department, let alone a housing minister. 
Rolf Fenner is chief policy officer of the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA).
</body></html>

Inclusionary zoning may lead to perverse outcomes if implemented poorly: Rolf Fenner

<html><body>
The Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) has welcomed the appointment of experienced professional town planners to the new Independent Hearing Assessment Panels (IHAPS) being implemented across the greater Sydney and Wollongong regions.
Of the 41 chairs allocated to the IHAPS by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 18 are accredited planners and PIA members.
The panels became operational on 1 March.
PIA chief executive David Williams said that many eminent NSW planners had been successful, who will bow help to grow the NSW government’s partnership with councils, local communities and environmental groups.
PIA represents over 5000 planners nationally, and each year engages with nearly 10,000 planners working in the public and private sectors.
Planners who are PIA members have undertaken accredited planning degrees and gained professional experience working in diverse areas of planning ranging from the neighbourhood to the national level.
They also adhere to a comprehensive Professional Code of Conduct.
Experienced planners understand the complexity of legislation that impacts Australia’s diverse urban environments and appreciate the critical role played by community in the planning process, Williams said.
</body></html>

Pia

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Pia