Zoning

<html><body>
EXPERT INSIGHT

Among the many explanations put forward for <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/australia-first-home-buyers-priced-out-of-property-market-by-extreme-offers/d7de770f-c492-46fa-a774-bda0ea45718e">soaring home prices</a>, one we hear repeatedly is <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/zoning-rules-cost-home-buyers-a-fortune--and-itll-get-worse-says-rba-20180308-h0x6uh">zoning</a> — the regulations that govern the purposes for which land can be used, including how densely people can be housed in different locations.

The real estate industry says if only we <a href="https://udia.com.au/media-release/housing-affordability-woes-need-solutions/">relaxed the zoning rules</a> and allowed more houses and apartments to be built on each block, housing would be cheaper, maybe A$355,000 per unit cheaper if the <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2020/pdf/rdp2020-04.pdf">Reserve Bank</a> is right.

It’s a story as grounded in simplicity as it is (on the part of developers) in self-interest.

The simple story is that zoning regulations restrict development, restricted development means restricted supply of houses and apartments, and restricted supply means higher prices. Scrap the planning laws, the argument goes, and property developers will shower the market with housing, driving down prices.

So effective is the mantra it has become part of the official story in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-our-broken-housing-market">Britain</a> and the <a href="https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2020/04/06/no-more-picket-fences-how-sb50-could-have-solved-the-california-housing-crisis/">United States</a>, and to <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2020/pdf/rdp2020-04.pdf">some extent</a> here.

What’s missing is evidence.

Studies which point the finger at the planning system almost universally fail to quantify the extent of housing permitted by planning regulations and how it has changed over time.

Rarely have changes in zoning been examined

Analysis by Australia’s <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2018/pdf/rdp2018-03.pdf">Reserve Bank</a> for example, treats zoning rules as though they exist in stasis; an ever-present yet spatially-varied regulation measured by whatever price remains once structure and land values are subtracted.

Our <a href="https://osf.io/zkt7v/">new research</a> fills the gap by measuring changes in zoning at the level of individual properties in greater Brisbane.

<figure class="align-right zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388744/original/file-20210310-20-synd5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" sizes=" 600px) 600px, 237px" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388744/original/file-20210310-20-synd5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388744/original/file-20210310-20-synd5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=970&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388744/original/file-20210310-20-synd5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=970&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388744/original/file-20210310-20-synd5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=970&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388744/original/file-20210310-20-synd5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1219&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388744/original/file-20210310-20-synd5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1219&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388744/original/file-20210310-20-synd5d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=1219&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w"></a>

<figcaption>The 19 Brisbane centres studied.
</figcaption></figure>We examined 20 years of changes to zoning, housing supply and prices across more than 25,000 sites in 19 major centres subject to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2399808320951583">repeated</a> zoning changes designed to encourage urban infill.

The centres had within them a wide variety of land use types (detached dwellings, medium-density dwellings, commercial and retail use, etc.) and housing densities. We reviewed and mapped historic and current rules to determine how the zoned capacity changed on each site.

We combined this with data on the changes in land use on each site, changes to the actual supply of dwellings, and property prices.

If the semi-official story was true, we would have expected increases in zoned capacity to lead to falling prices.

Our results show no such thing. Locations with increased zoned capacity for housing saw increased (not reduced) property prices. Across the selected sites, houses increased in value by a factor of three and apartments by 2.3 over the two decades studied, as they did elsewhere in Australia.

Weaker zoning, not weaker prices

During this time, the zoned capacity for housing at these locations doubled. But there was no rush to take up the increase in capacity.

The vast majority of sites (94%) were not developed within five years of the zoning changes.

Even after 20 years, 71% of the extra capacity remained unexploited.

We found evidence for an alternative story: that planning regulations permit development, but it is the market price that determines if and where development occurs.

Higher sales prices make development more feasible.

Under this story, developers select their sites, build, and sell in strong markets and wait or avoid selling when markets are weak.

This partly explains why locations with highest initial property prices were the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08111146.2020.1792284">most likely</a> to be developed.

Like all good stories, the semi-official one contains an element of truth. If the planning system failed to allow for enough growth, it would almost certainly drive up prices.

Rarely is supply a problem

To avoid this, planning authorities go to <a href="https://planning.dsdmip.qld.gov.au/planning/better-planning/state-planning/regional-plans/seqrp/lsdm">great lengths</a> to ensure there is enough zoned capacity to cater for projected growth.

This is one reason why we <a href="https://osf.io/r925z">don’t have a housing supply problem</a>. Deregulating the planning system won’t change that, but nor will it ease price pressure.

What it will do is reduce the environmental and other benefits zoning provides, while continuing to allow developers to sell properties at times <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137720300449">of their choosing</a>.

What is driving up house prices now has little to do with zoning, and it is happening worldwide.

Throughout the globe we have seen increases in easy access to cheap credit and tax regimes that encourage speculative property investment.

Unlike planning regulations, which vary hugely by location, these macroeconomic factors are common. They help explain why the housing affordability crisis transcends national boundaries.

It is the liberalisation of finance and the treatment of housing as an investment product that got us into this mess. Further liberalisation of planning regulations is unlikely to get us out.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" jfhjlrx="" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/154482/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" yyupy4q2g="" z="">

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-limb-1185405">Mark Limb</a>, Lecturer in Urban and Regional Planning, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cameron-murray-172480">Cameron Murray</a>, Research Fellow - Henry Halloran Trust, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a>

This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/zoning-isnt-to-blame-for-australias-soaring-house-prices-154482">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Studies which point the finger at the planning system almost universally fail to quantify the extent of housing permitted by planning regulations and how it has changed over time

jordan_55689

Zoning isn’t to blame for Australia’s soaring house prices

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A commonly held view is that changing planning rules could significantly increase housing supply and hence make housing more affordable. Recent commentary, <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-make-housing-more-affordable-this-is-what-state-governments-need-to-do-105050" target="_blank">including here</a>, repeats this. It’s a view that glosses over the special features of land, which allow property developers to control housing supply to a significant extent.
To understand what’s going on, we need to look at why land makes the housing market different from any other.
Economic theory and the special features of land
<a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=oACQM7HMDDoC&amp;pg=PA1658&amp;lpg=PA1658&amp;dq=land+is+not+a+homogeneous+product&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=7zrLO8-FDl&amp;sig=ymeg8EJNeO5A2_15zvWF3hir6gQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=_n4CVbD8HIjr8AXjxgI&amp;ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=land%20is%20not%20a%20homogeneous%20product&amp;f=false" target="_blank">Land has special features</a> that other goods don’t usually have. The most fundamental of these features is fixed location.
What’s more, land does not physically degrade over time. As a result, it doesn’t have to be sold but instead can be withheld from sale without financial cost.
These features are important when considering the application of standard supply-demand theory to housing markets.
Economic theory says increasing the supply of a good will lower the price for a given level of demand. Like a lot of economic theory, this is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition" target="_blank">based on simplifying assumptions</a>. The following assumptions are particularly relevant when considering land:
<ul>
<li>the good is homogeneous</li>
<li>all market participants have full information about the market</li>
<li>no participant has an undue influence on the market</li>
<li>there are no barriers for new market participants.</li>
</ul>
However, we know that land is not homogeneous. Location is particularly important.
And property developers generally have much more knowledge of the market than individual buyers, potentially giving developers undue influence.
The capacity of developers to withhold land from sale and the fact that new developers wanting to enter the market face significant barriers – importantly the financial capacity to hold back land when demand and sales are reduced – are also at odds with the assumptions of supply-demand theory.
UK economist <a href="http://evonomics.com/josh-ryan-collins-land-economic-theory/" target="_blank">Josh Ryan-Collins notes</a> that current economic theory does not differentiate between land and capital (such as machinery). This may well be one of the main reasons the special features of land are often overlooked in discussions about housing supply.
Governments don’t control housing supply
<a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/2013/09/03/saul-eslake-50-years-of-housing-failure/" target="_blank">In the past, governments developed more housing directly</a>, but over the past 20-30 years the role of government has been mainly to enable private developers to provide housing.
Governments may release enough land for the expected population, but <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/from-big-land-banks-little-things-grow-20120601-1znb4" target="_blank">private developers decide</a> how much housing is <a href="http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament%5Ccommit.nsf/%28Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID%29/F4088CA4544382084825793D00061BD2/%24file/30105662.pdf" target="_blank">offered for sale</a> at any time. It’s no secret that, for larger residential estates in particular, <a href="https://www.lmw.com.au/media/1369/gold-coast-residential-land-review-october-2016.pdf" target="_blank">demand dictates the rate at which lots are released</a> to market. This is a logical business strategy, but much of the commentary on housing supply fails to acknowledge this.
In the Gold Coast region, for example, where a relatively small number of larger estates provide most of the new residential land, the <a href="https://statistics.qgso.qld.gov.au/profiles/rlda/pdf/DZ4A2J5N7IOXGDVO39YD9X7VBGEUPH6YKQM08T3EY6W1HMYQUQYMKFWPFI5S0CLS8BXP7Z22FVERJ5L56CGAW3NZ9RS96P67HUQPL1S9LDE3LIVLVM2XG9SI2QYEO89X/rlda-profiles#view=fit&amp;pagemode=bookmarks" target="_blank">median price of vacant residential land has remained remarkably stable</a> since the GFC despite large fluctuations in the number of sales. This suggests something other than the standard supply-demand theory is operating.
As noted above, developers of new estates in outer areas can “drip-feed” the market to keep prices up.
For new apartments in established suburbs, off-the-plan sales allow developers to test the market before building. If interest in the apartments at prices set by the developer is insufficient, the project will not go ahead. Of course, there can still be an <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/news/offtheplan-apartments-face-price-falls-as-market-supply-exceeds-demand/" target="_blank">oversupply of apartments</a> if future demand is overestimated.
Planning rule changes won’t make much difference to supply
Markets for residential land are distorted by three main factors:
<ul>
<li>location is very important</li>
<li>land is a not a homogeneous good</li>
<li>developers can influence supply.</li>
</ul>
This means that changing planning rules is unlikely to make much difference to housing supply or affordability. Housing supply can’t readily be increased without direct government construction. Even then developers will be likely to respond by restricting overall housing supply if they can.
With supply restricted, <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/first-home-ownership/submissions/sub199/sub199.pdf" target="_blank">price is significantly influenced by demand factors</a>. These include finance interest rates, tax concessions and buyers’ expectations of future capital gains.
Therefore, policy that focuses on <a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-on-unearned-gains-is-the-missing-piece-of-the-affordable-housing-puzzle-77010" target="_blank">managing demand factors</a> offers much more hope of improving housing affordability than do changes to planning rules.
Brian Feeney, Adjunct Fellow, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/land-makes-the-housing-market-different-so-changing-planning-rules-wont-fix-affordability-107182" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Land makes the housing market different, so changing planning rules won’t fix affordability

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Australia has a housing affordability problem. There’s no doubt about that. Unfortunately, one of the reasons the problem has become so entrenched is that the policy conversation appears increasingly confused. It’s time to debunk some policy clichés that keep re-emerging.
Is ‘zoning’ to blame?
It can be tempting to frame the housing affordability problem as all about inadequate new supply. According to this argument, the “demand side” drivers – such as low interest rates and tax incentives for property investment – have combined with population growth in the capital cities to fuel house prices, and new housing construction simply hasn’t kept up.
“Zoning” is often blamed. There is little hard evidence, though, to show systematic regulatory constraint.
Supply is at record highs, and in the right places
Australia’s new housing supply per capita is actually very strong by international standards. Over the past decade, supply of new units and apartments has been flowing in job-rich metropolitan areas with dense populations, which are also higher-value locations.
According to the cliché, this supply response should have cooled prices. Yet dwelling price inflation has surged even in metropolitan areas where new housing supply has exceeded population growth.
The fallacies of ‘filtering’
One of the great hopes underpinning the supply cliché is that new housing stock improves affordability even if these homes are not affordable for lower-income groups. This faith is based on a theory called “filtering” whereby older housing moves down to the affordable end of the market over time.
The empirical data on filtering are thin. Indeed, the academic literature has historically cast doubt on the theory. However, some commentators continue to claim that American rental housing markets provide evidence that “filtering” can occur in practice.
But whatever might happen in the US, in Australia there’s still no evidence to suggest new housing supply has filtered across the housing stock to expand affordable housing opportunities for low-income Australians, or that it will do so any time soon.
Prominent economists continue to produce data that suggest the potential impact of new supply on price is minimal. The shortage of affordable housing opportunities for low-income households in Australia remains persistent. And the evidence indicates that low-income working households in our cities consistently face housing costs well above accepted affordability levels regardless of the quality of the housing they live in.
Sustaining supply in a cooling market?
Some commentators cite cooling house prices as evidence that the supply response is taking effect. Whether or not that is so (above and beyond demand-side factors like higher interest rates for investor loans), expect the pipeline to start slowing down. Private sector development is driven by profit and risk and, as we have seen over many years, is characterised by speculative booms and busts.
Developers can turn off the new supply tap much more quickly than they can turn it on. Falling prices, weak consumer sentiment and economic uncertainty mean many developers will not follow through on building approvals until the market recovers.
This means that high levels of supply output are rarely sustained. Recent housing data in Western Australia provide a case in point. WA recorded rising completions in 2014, 2015 and 2016. But 2017 completion figures are expected to show a drop of around a third as prices have shaded off since the end of the mining boom.
Put simply, the market on its own will never solve Australia’s housing affordability problem. Expecting developers to keep building in order to reduce house prices is pure fantasy.
Planning reform is not an affordable housing strategy
We’ve written before about the political appeal of calling for planning reform instead of real solutions to housing affordability pressures. In fact, Australian states have embarked on more than a decade of planning reforms.
They have aimed to: standardise and simplify planning rules; promote mixed use and higher-density housing near train stations; and overcome local political opposition to development through the use of independent expert panels.
Housing targets for both urban infill and new greenfield areas have been a feature of metropolitan plans to drive dwelling approval rates since at least 2000.
These reforms have been effective in overcoming regulatory constraints. The scale of the recent supply response shows clearly that zoning and development assessment processes are not inhibiting residential development approvals in cities like Sydney and Melbourne.
But trying to accommodate Australia’s population growth in towers around railway stations will fail as an affordable housing strategy – even if “zoning” and height rules were completely scrapped.
Rather than narrow deregulation agendas, bigger picture reforms are needed. Aligning infrastructure funding with metropolitan and regional decentralisation is a critical long-term strategy. Reforms to deliver affordable housing in communities supported by new infrastructure are long overdue.
A bigger affordable housing sector is needed
Australia needs a more realistic assessment of the housing problem. We can clearly generate significant dwelling approvals and dwellings in the right economic circumstances. Yet there is little evidence this new supply improves affordability for lower-income households. Three years after the peak of the WA housing boom, these households are no better off in terms of affordability.
In part, this may reflect that fact that significant numbers of new homes appear not to house anyone at all. A recent CBA report estimated that 17% of dwellings built in the four years to 2016 remained unoccupied.
If we are serious about delivering greater affordability for lower-income Australians, then policy needs to deliver housing supply directly to such households. This will include more affordable supply in the private rental sector, ideally through investment driven by large institutions such as super funds. And for those who cannot afford to rent in this sector, investment in the community housing sector is needed.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92993/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">In capital city markets, new housing built for sale to either home buyers or landlords is simply not going to deliver affordable housing options unless a portion is reserved for those on low or moderate incomes.
Nicole Gurran, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Sydney 
Bill Randolph, Director, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW 
Peter Phibbs, Director, Henry Halloran Trust, University of Sydney 
Rachel Ong, Professor of Economics, School of Economics and Finance, Curtin University 
Steven Rowley, Director, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Curtin Research Centre, Curtin University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/affordable-housing-policy-failure-still-being-fuelled-by-flawed-analysis-92993" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Affordable housing policy failure still being fuelled by flawed analysis

<html><body>
Restrictive zoning contributes about 40% to the price of houses in Sydney and Melbourne, according to <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2018/pdf/rdp2018-03.pdf" target="_blank">new research from the Reserve Bank of Australia</a>. The study looked at zoning restrictions, such as minimum lot sizes and maximum building heights, which affect what kind of housing can be built, and where.
Of course, zoning and planning rules <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/productivity-review/report/productivity-review-supporting10.pdf" target="_blank">play an important role</a> in managing the growth of cities and protecting the character of particular neighbourhoods. But as Australia confronts a housing affordability crisis, the question is whether the costs of our planning rules outweigh the benefits.
Zoning restrictions added A$489,000 to the price of a detached house in Sydney in 2016, according to <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2018/pdf/rdp2018-03.pdf" target="_blank">the research</a> by RBA economists Ross Kendall and Peter Tulip. The figure was A$324,000 in Melbourne, A$159,000 in Brisbane, and A$206,000 in Perth.
<iframe style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/u8WJj/3/" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
The RBA research refers to the impact of zoning restrictions on house prices as the “zoning effect”. This can be thought of as the price a developer would be willing to pay for permission to build a home on a given plot of land, if the rules allowed them to.
Within Sydney, the zoning effect is largest in northern councils such as Willoughby and the Northern Beaches; in Melbourne it’s in inner and eastern councils, including Boroondara and Stonnington.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209437/original/file-20180308-146691-xecna1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209437/original/file-20180308-146691-xecna1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Sydney zoning effect estimate by local government area. Figures are an average from 2016, A$‘000s. ABS; Authors’ calculations; CoreLogic
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209436/original/file-20180308-146655-dszk8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209436/original/file-20180308-146655-dszk8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Melbourne zoning effect estimate by local government area. Figures are an average from 2016, A$‘000s. ABS Authors’ calculations; CoreLogic
The impact is not restricted to houses. The zoning effect added about A$400,000 to the price of an average apartment in Sydney in 2016. For apartments in Melbourne and Brisbane, the extra cost was more than A$100,000.
By contrast, the RBA economists find that zoning rules added relatively little to the cost of housing in Australia 15 years ago. As demand for housing has increased, the zoning effect as a share of the price of housing has increased.
<iframe style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/vFmrt/2/" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
The RBA research adds to international studies on the costs of zoning rules.
A <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.jstor.org/stable/26297967?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" target="_blank">study in the United States</a> found the prices of existing homes vastly exceed the cost of building new housing in a handful of coastal cities with the most restrictive planning rules, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York and Boston.
<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12213/abstract" target="_blank">Another study</a> found that house prices in the south-east of the United Kingdom would be 35% lower if as many planning permits were issued as in the north-east. And a <a href="http://www.superu.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Impact%20of%20land%20use%20report%20110717.pdf" target="_blank">study in New Zealand last year</a> also found that land use regulation accounts for a large share of the cost of homes in major cities, particularly Auckland and Wellington.
The RBA research does not measure the benefits of zoning restrictions in Australia, but overseas studies generally conclude that the local benefits of current planning rules (such as protecting the character of particular neighbourhoods) are not nearly large enough to justify the costs.
<iframe style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/6dINQ/2/" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>Increasing supply will make the biggest difference to affordability in the long run</h2>
The new RBA research confirms that planning rules have pushed up the price of housing by restricting the number of new homes built at a time of strong demand. <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-migration-affects-housing-affordability-92502">Our own research</a> shows that for much of the decade from 2005 to 2014, annual housing construction was at or lower than the average of the previous 25 years, even though population growth was much higher.
We estimate that if an extra 50,000 homes were built each year for the next decade, national house prices could be between 5% and 20% lower than they would be otherwise. And building more homes will improve housing affordability for everyone, not just those who purchase new houses.
All levels of government in Australia need to build the public case for increased density. State and local governments should change planning rules to allow more medium-density housing in established suburbs that are close to jobs and transport.
State governments should allow denser development along key transport corridors, with height limits set-up front. State governments should also use carrots and sticks to ensure local councils help meet the housing needs of our growing cities.
When councils fail to meet housing targets, independent planning panels should be given power to assess development applications, as is increasingly occurring in Sydney.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93064/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Housing affordability is a big problem. The RBA’s findings show that reforming planning rules is a big part of the solution.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" target="_blank">John Daley</a>, Chief Executive Officer, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644" target="_blank">Brendan Coates</a>, Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/trent-wiltshire-316914" target="_blank">Trent Wiltshire</a>, Associate, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168" target="_blank">Grattan Institute</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/rba-research-shows-that-zoning-restrictions-are-driving-up-housing-prices-93064" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Zoning restrictions are driving house prices up: Grattan Institute

<html><body>
SPONSORED POST
Zoning is a key ingredient to your commercial property and business success.
There is no point finding the perfect location if you cannot legally run your business there or if there are restrictions on how you can operate.
What is a zone?
Across Australia, all land has a designated zone and this tells you how the land within that certain area can be used.
There are generally four zones: residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural. Within these there are often sub-categories, such as those defining what type of commercial and industrial business can be carried out.
The laws around zoning are established by state and territory governments and this means they differ around the nation.
What role does council play in zoning?
It’s up to local councils to decide what zoning is appropriate in their area and to ensure all businesses and properties comply with their regulations.
Anyone buying commercial property, or planning to change or modify their commercial property, should contact their local council to see what they are able to do and what plans and permits they will need.
Zoning matters when…
Business Victoria also suggests checking whether any overlays apply to your property or whether there are any heritage listings that might restrict what you can do.
It says that might be necessary for commercial property if you want to:
* Set up a store, a food business or other type of business.
* Change the look of the existing shop front.
* Put advertising signs on the building.
* Change the internal fit-out of the building.
* Put outdoor seating or heaters on a footpath.
WBP Property Commercial Valuation Manager Justin Thomas says zoning and planning issues dictate use and development, and hence value.
 “The existing use may not be allowable under the zoning and could possibly be prohibited,” Thomas says.
“Purchasers must also have regard to planning overlays and investigate future planning proposals in their purchasing decision.”
Thomas says it’s also important to consider the zoning around the immediate area of a property you are thinking about buying.
“Large areas of former industrial land in inner city areas have been rezoned to allow for a more flexible use,” he says.
For more information, <a href="https://bs.serving-sys.com/BurstingPipe/adServer.bs?cn=tf&amp;c=20&amp;mc=click&amp;pli=18755997&amp;PluID=0&amp;ord=%5Btimestamp%5D" target="_blank">click here</a>.
About realcommercial.com.au: realcommercial.com.au is the leading website in Australia for commercial property, attracting an average of 1.7 million visitors a month (Source: Nielsen Online Market Intelligence, Total Traffic, average calculation May-July 2015, includes app traffic from Omniture Site Catalyst as Nielsen doesn’t report on app). It is owned and operated by realestate.com.au Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of ASX-listed REA Group Limited ACN 068 349 066 (ASX:REA).
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Zoning: why it matters for commercial property

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The recent changes to the NSW Standard Instrument zoning definitions to allow hardware and building supplies in the IN1 zone is very welcome and long overdue. 
Retail stores are becoming more mixed and varied in the products they sell and zoning laws in planning systems must reflect the changing nature of retail.
These changes should have been made a long time ago. Land use zones and definitions which are flexible and less restrictive encourage competition and efficiency among retailers which keep prices low for consumers.
While the changes to the zoning definitions are positive, more flexibility is needed to ensure there is sufficient appropriately zoned land to accommodate retail stores, particularly those with a large floor plate. Retailers must often pursue lengthy and complicated rezoning processes, which are costly and create significant delays.
Given the substantial contribution that retail sector provides to NSW Gross Domestic Product, we encourage the NSW Government to continue reforming the Standard Instrument LEP to accommodate innovative emerging retail and business models.
A vibrant retail sector provides economic growth and significant positive benefits to the community in terms of lower prices, increased consumer choice, investment and job creation in the retail industry.
 
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Zoning changes will lead to more retail competition: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
Land use zoning is a tool used by local governments to define the types of land use permitted or prohibited in each zone.
Simply put, zoning is a framework to decide what can and what cannot be built in specific areas.
Zoning differs from state to state in Australia, but land under the control of the Commonwealth (federal) government is not subject to state planning controls.
Although zoning differs from state to state, zones are generally classified into these broad categories: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural and Mixed-Use. Within these are sub-categories, with zones typically identified by a colour on a map.
When considering investing in commercial property, it pays to check with the local council about the zoning of the land to avoid running afoul of the law and nasty surprises later.
Listed below is the zoning for states and the ACT.
Australian Capital Territory
The ACT has commercial zones from CZ1 through to CZ6, with CZ5 for mixed-use, while CZ6 is a leisure and accommodation zone.
New South Wales
NSW has a Standard Instrument Local Environment Plan in place with that covers residential, commercial and mixed use among others. Listed is the zoning for commercial: 
B1 Neighbourhood Centre
B2 Local Centre
B3 Commercial Core
B4 Mixed Use
B5 Business Development
B6 Enterprise Corridor
B7 Business Park
B8 Metropolitan Centre
Northern Territory
The NT has a long list of codes, with commercial zones divided into the following:
CB Central Business
C Commercial
SC Service Commercial
TC Tourist Commercial
The residential goes from single dwelling to high density.
Queensland
The Queensland Planning Provisions (QPP) document provides a format and structure for local governments to prepare their planning schemes while allowing the flexibility to address each local government's circumstances. Zoning is controlled by individual councils and differ from council to council across the state.
South Australia
In SA, zoning differs from council to council across the state.
Tasmania
Tasmania has 23 different zones, and all its 29 councils each have a planning scheme within the guidelines of the Tasmania Planning Commission , with the exception of the Hobart City Council which has two.
Victoria
All land in Victoria has a zone, specifying particular purposes for land, such as residential growth, low density residential or commercial 1. The framework is managed by the Victoria Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure.
Western Australia
Local councils in Western Australia set their own planning schemes, which are controlled by the Western Australian Planning Commission.
</body></html>

prateek24-ezbwHMbNAk

Property 101: Get in the zone on commercial property 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
One routine governance decision prone to corruption is the zoning of our cities. Land zoning rules supposedly ensure complementary uses are co-located while conflicting uses are not. For instance, zoning ensures chemical plants are not built next to schools and electricity grids are planned for areas with future population pockets. 
But zoning also determines the value of land, meaning that changes to zoning can provide windfall gains to some landowners, providing the incentive for collusion between politicians and landowners about which areas are favourably rezoned.
<div class="grid-twelve grid-last content-wrapper">
<div class="grid-twelve instapaper_body">
<div class="content entry-content">
<div class="body grid-eight">
An important economic question therefore, is whether there is systematic favouritism in rezoning decisions and, if so, what can we do about it?
Answering the favouritism question is quite tricky, requiring the statistical quantification of gains from rezoning decisions along with the probabilities of rezoning success arising from relationships, donations, and lobbying.
This is exactly what we did in <a href="https://ftp.iza.org/dp9028.pdf" target="_blank">our recent study</a>.
We used a sample of planning decisions made by one State authority in Queensland, the Urban Land Development Authority (ULDA), which took planning powers away from local councils in a number of areas which it rezoned between 2008-2012. The ULDA was no stranger to accusations of bias, with the Local Government Association of Queensland arguing the government is “playing politics and favouring developers”.
To establish how well-connected landowners were, we trawled through a wide range of data on political donations, lobbyists and their clients, industry groups memberships, politicians and their former employers, relationships of ULDA board members, and landowner’s corporate records, to construct a relationship network.
Our main finding is that well-connected landowners owned 75% of the rezoned land, but only 12% of comparable land immediately outside the rezoning boundaries, indicating that these decisions were primarily driven by the relationship networks of the landowners, rather than technical assessments of the efficiency urban expansion locations. The peculiar shape of the rezoned areas, which conflicts with other State and local plans, is further evidence against a technical determination of the rezoned areas.
We also compiled historical sales data to estimate that these rezoning decisions increased the value of the rezoned land by $710 million, with well-connected landowners capturing $410 million of these gains at the expense of the public at large who could have instead sold those additional development rights.
The data tell quite a story. Connected property developers bought land unsuitable for development on the urban fringe, then lobbied State politicians and bureaucrats through their relationship networks to rezone areas where they owned properties, wrong-footing both councils and other property developers, in a process taking seven years on average.
Political favours were found to be more about being part of the entrenched well-connected political class, whose tight-knit mutual relationships support implicit favouritism, than about visible activities such as making political donations.
With such knowledge at hand, the question for reformers is how this game of favour exchange be disrupted.
One way to disrupt the game is with cooling-off periods for politicians and bureaucrats involved in key decisions. While Queensland has a nominal cooling off period for politicians to be professional lobbyists, the narrow scope of this regulation means that directly working for developers or industry groups falls outside this regulation.
It is too easy to exchange favours with a revolving door swinging so openly, and where politicians can immediately be repaid for favours. The two-year cooling off period <a href="https://theconversation.com/archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/1184/PDF/Australian_Auditor_Independence_Requirements.pdf">s</a>ensuring auditor independence in corporate finance could easily be adopted more widely in the political environment. Such a plan is currently being debated in Germany.
A second disruption is to take away the honeypot. Rezoning decisions can provide billions in windfall gains. Pricing these new property rights will ensure the gains are captured by the public and not the landowner with the right political connections.
Rights to additional development density can be sold in local auctions. For example, a decision can be made for only one of a menu of possible rezoning decisions to go ahead, with landowners in the different areas required to bid against the other areas to get the one they want.
Such an auction needs to have competing feasible rezoning plans drafted, which in the case of the ULDA could have included both the original state plans, the various updated plans, and their final zoning locations. To get the outcome the connected property developers got, they would have had to bid up the price of that particular rezoning plan against landowners of other regions, thereby transferring much of the windfall gain to the community.
Auctions are just one example of an explicit market for development rights, which could also include rights to various other development exemptions or variations for existing properties. The basic idea is always to create a situation where different potential buyers can compete for scarce rights. Secondary markets in such development rights can then also improve efficiency by allowing others to buy the rights in order to preserve the area for its current use.
Another option is a betterment tax, briefly considered by the Henry Tax Review, whereby rezoning triggers a fee that amounts to the value gain from rezoning, payable by the landowner at the time they choose to develop or sell the land.
Outside of pricing, democratic processes such as local referenda on urban expansion locations would enabling countervailing community interests to be part of the decision. More direct community involvement would thus erode the entrenched political duopoly that currently dominates the dirty system.
 
Paul Frijters is Professor of Economics at The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://www.uq.edu.au/economics/frijters-paul-146359" target="_blank">here</a>. Cameron Murray is an Economist at The University of Queensland. 
<h1 class="entry-title grid-eight instapaper_title"> </h1>
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Paul Frijters gratefully acknowledges funding from the Australian Research Council to research socially damaging forms of coordination, such as that discussed in this article.
Cameron Murray receives funding from the Australian Department of Education and Training in the form of a Post-Graduate Award.
<h1 class="entry-title grid-eight instapaper_title"> </h1>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

Four ways to clean up land zoning corruption

<html><body>
City of Sydney Council has refused requests for large tracts of industrial land in the city’s inner south to be rezoned for residential development.
The Council’s Central Sydney Planning Committee voted last Thursday (26 March) to preserve most of the area, called the South Sydney Employment Lands, for mainly business uses.
A report put on public exhibition mid-last year discussing proposed changes to the area’s zoning received 59 submissions. Many argued that residential development should be allowed more broadly than proposed on the 265 hectare area, which lies mainly in the suburbs of Rosebery and Alexandria in Sydney’s inner south.
“Most of these submissions come from landowners in the investigation areas … however, there are also some submissions from landowners in the proposed B6 Enterprise Corridor zone who also see a role for residential on their land,” the report that considered the submissions noted.
The latest report’s review and analysis determined that, in general, residential development should be banned on those sites.
There will be a limited number of exceptions in the so-called investigation areas around Botany Road south of Beaconsfield and between McEvoy Street and Bowden Street near Green Square station.
Council accepted the report’s recommendations to allow affordable housing and consider private residential developments on a site-by-site basis in those areas. One condition on any private residential development would be that developers would have to share half of any monetary benefit they received when rezoning increased the value of their land with Council to provide services such as infrastructure and affordable housing.
Residential development will be banned elsewhere in the South Sydney employment lands.
<img src="/images/2015/03/31/zoe-mar-31-one.jpg" alt="">
Source: City of Sydney
Noise and other environmental factors made residential uses incompatible with existing industrial operations in the area, the report said.
It argued that residential developments were more profitable for land owners, which would discourage them from keeping their land for business uses if the zoning changed.
“Where sites are being developed for residential uses there can be significant resistance to providing even a small amount of commercial or retail space in a development. This is because of markedly higher returns that developers receive from developing a residential product as opposed to a commercial product,” the report said.
“Importantly, once this land is developed for residential purposes and subdivided it can almost never be converted for commercial uses in the future. This puts the burden on government to be cautious about allowing residential uses on those lands that may be needed for productive purposes in the future.”
Many former industrial sites around the country are being redeveloped as apartments and private housing, <a href="/expert-insights/subdivision-zoning/41280-rezoning-from-industrial-yielding-fresh-residential-infill-housing" target="_blank">where local government policies are encouraging urban renewal</a>.
In neighbouring Green Square, another previously industrial area which has been rezoned to allow residential development, few sites are now wholly dedicated to business.
“In the southern employment lands, permitting residential uses would almost certainly have a similar impact that it has had in the Green Square urban renewal area … Restricting residential development is essential to ensuring employment uses can continue to locate in the area,” the report said.
It noted that the City of Sydney was ahead of its targets for housing development so there was “no clear or urgent argument for why strategically important employment lands should be immediately released in favour of residential development”.
In the greater Sydney area, 8597 new housing lots were released for development in 2014, up from 6690 in 2013, the<a href="https://www.udia.com.au/reports-and-submissions/reports-submissions-2015" target="_blank"> latest UDIA State of the Land report</a> showed.
</body></html>

zfielding-GvX3Uq9KTa

City of Sydney refuses inner south residential rezoning requests

<html><body>
Residential developments are popping up on former commercial and industrial sites in the states’ capital cities as governments rezone land to encourage higher density living close to urban centres.
Investec Australia <a href="https://lifemoreinteresting.com.au/vision/" target="_blank">launched a residential project</a> in Adelaide’s inner city suburb of Bowden at the weekend on the former site of manufacturer Clipsal Corporation’s production facility.
Nigel Brophy, a director of Investec’s Infrastructure Finance &amp; Investment business, said Adelaide’s property market was different from the markets in the other eastern states.
“I wouldn’t say the [Adelaide] market is slow,” Brophy said. “It’s steady and always consistent … It doesn’t have the high peaks but it also has not had the deep troughs. It has always been steadier.
“When the east coast markets look hot, Adelaide might look moderate but it doesn’t fall off those peaks. It has always had relatively balanced supply and demand.”
That more moderate pace meant developers needed to take note of what Adelaide residents want in a property, such as access to parkland and convenience to transport, Brophy added.
“We also have to have regard for the fact that the market is small so we have to make sure the project is in proportion to the size of the market,” he said.
The first release includes 20 two-bedroom apartments, called ‘B’ apartments after the New York B-Line which stretches from Brooklyn’s Brighton Beach to the Bronx. It is planned for completion in early 2016.
Investec is working with the South Australian Government’s Renewal SA on the project, which is part of a wider redevelopment of the former Clipsal site.
The six storey ‘B’ apartments building is the tallest development released in Bowden to date.
Brophy said he expected young people looking for convenience and people who wanted to downsize their homes to a property with security and good access to the city to be attracted to the apartments.
The apartments are opposite Kevin Taylor Park, overlooking the future Bowden Town Square and close to public transport.
Bowden is less than 4 kilometres from Adelaide’s CBD and close to park land, making the former industrial zone a prime candidate for renewal.
Similar trends are occurring in Melbourne and Sydney where rising land values in inner city locations are encouraging developers to convert commercial premises into residential property.
CBRE is marketing a warehouse property in Brunswick in Melbourne’s inner north as an infill residential development site.
That site, zoned for general residential, at 31-37 Stewart St and 12-24 Hardy St spans approximately 8,760 square metres of land over five titles with multiple street frontages. The existing property is multi-tenanted on short term leases.
“In recent years, Brunswick has supported dozens of significant and successfully completed, or under construction medium and high density residential projects, underpinned by the close Melbourne CBD proximity, established public transport links, vast amenity and lifestyle attractions on Lygon St and Sydney Rd retail strips,” said CBRE’s David Minty, who is marketing the site along with Scott Orchard and Julian White.
Orchard said developers in Melbourne’s inner north, including Collingwood, Fitzroy, Northcote and Brunswick, were experiencing strong site sales and record prices, and had strong confidence in the pre-sale market for high and medium density residential accommodation.
​ In August, <a href="/expert-insights/buying/34932-r-corp-makes-west-brunswick-acquisition-with-residential-plans" target="_blank">R.Corp acquired a textiles factory site in West Brunswick</a> with plans to develop the site for residential.<a href="/expert-insights/buying/34932-r-corp-makes-west-brunswick-acquisition-with-residential-plans"> </a>
In Sydney, several office buildings around the city <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/property/cbd-office-space-shrinks-as-resi-rises-20150221-13jqh8" target="_blank">are being redeveloped as residences</a>.
The City of Sydney council<a href="/expert-insights/subdivision-zoning/33610-city-of-sydney-planning-to-rezone-swathes-of-southern-industrial-areas"> is consulting on proposals</a> to rezone large tracts of land just to the south of the city to allow residential developments in areas that have traditionally been dominated by industrial property.
</body></html>

Zoning

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Zoning

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News