Promoting informed debate around infill housing in Australian cities 1
SGS has long been interested in promoting infill housing in Australian cities. This support reflects the recognised net benefits infill housing provides for the community, as established by the growing evidence base, which has been developed under the banners of urban consolidation, compact city or smart growth policies (e.g. SGS 2007 and 2012; CIE 2010) 1. This evidence base usually takes the form of a cost benefit analysis which is framed at the metropolitan/ regional level. That is, the evaluation framework compares the outcomes that are generated by alternative development scenarios, i.e. comparing scenarios with more or less infill housing development, and assessing the costs and benefits that are attributable to these outcomes. Using this approach, those scenarios with less infill housing must service housing demand through increased greenfield development, and this causes significant costs to accrue over the long term. For instance, the evidence base suggests that the following costs are attributable to greenfield development: Non-urban land consumption - with less non-urban land being available for productive uses such as agriculture, recreational, environmental and aesthetic uses. Infrastructure connection costs - particularly with respect to transport and utilities infrastructure but also potentially in terms of social infrastructure service provision. Transport congestion costs - as greenfield residents are distantly located from jobs and services, lengthy commuting times and distances result, causing significant social and environmental costs. 2 1 SGS (2007) of Urban Form, report for DPCD; SGS (2012) Cost Benefit Analysis of Lower Hunter Housing Scenarios, report for DOPI; CIE (2010) and of Alternative Growth Paths for Sydney, report for DOPI. 2 Greenfield residents are also largely car dependent, encouraging a dispersed urban form that further Labour force productivity costs as agglomeration economies and human capital benefits are thwarted by spatial dislocation and congestion. Reduced housing choice as constrained infill housing options fail to match the latent demand for inner and middle ring suburban living, with prospective residents prepared to trade-off private space with improved accessibility to jobs and services. 3 Of course infill housing does not come free of cost. In terms of comparable housing products, infill housing is more costly to construct, requires a degree of supporting infrastructure investment, and may cause existing residents to experience amenity reductions (assuming they have a clear preference for lower density living) 4. Additionally, poor infill housing design can impart real costs on individual properties, be it through overshadowing, loss of privacy, or increased noise. The importance of the statutory planning system to sufficiently enforce good design should not be underestimated. Nonetheless, the evidence base clearly shows that at the aggregate level, the benefits of infill housing substantially outweigh the costs. The research also suggests that the most productive distribution of infill housing is in and around town centres, enabling capacity in the public transit and other infrastructure networks to be leveraged. However, it is often difficult to promote this in-centre development, which generally is higher density in nature, without an established medium density housing market. Preferably medium density development is directed towards the periphery of designated town centres, leaving the centre s core for employment, mixed and higher density residential development, and thereby creating a gradual reduction in density as you move away promotes car use, which is the least efficient means of moving people around a large city. 3 There are also limited opportunities for people to enter the housing market in locations other than the urban fringe. 4 Offsetting this amenity reduction is often an increase in land value, as infill housing development potential of existing residential land rises. Further complicating matters is that any amenity loss for existing residents must be weighed against the amenity afforded to incoming residents. 2
from the centre s core. The incidence of infill housing costs and benefits Given this context, it would seem obvious that infill housing should be supported by all and sundry. However, because the evaluation frameworks used rightly take a metropolitan whole of community perspective, the evaluation exercises potential gloss over the extent to which the costs and benefits are unevenly distributed across the metropolis. That is, there is the potential that some localities may bear more of the costs than the benefits. This certainly seems to accord with the anecdotes that come from local government, where local urban planners often support infill housing development approvals only to be overruled by elected councillors, who oppose what they and their constituents see as inappropriate development. Planning tribunals, who reflect on state and local policies when deliberating over appeals, just as often reverse the council s rejection, approving the development s implementation. While SGS supports infill housing development because of the aforementioned aggregate benefits generated, we do collectively acknowledge that not all development proposals are appropriate, and that development approvals ultimately need to be adjudicated on a case by case basis, particularly with regards to site specific design. Having said this, the automatic assumption by some community members that infill housing is not in their best interest needs to be challenged. Exploration of middle ring stakeholder impacts In line with our mission to promote informed public policy debate, SGS has identified a range of stakeholders that are impacted by infill housing development, and has subsequently scoped the likely costs and benefits that each of these will be exposed to if it is assumed that they are located in the middle suburbs of an Australian city.these stakeholders include the following: Resident homeowner Resident tenant External landowner (residential investor) Retail & commercial traders Local government State government 3
The range of costs and benefits includes those discussed above, as well as some of the more qualitative impacts that are likely to be experienced and which may be bundled into the headline costs and benefits. Consider this development scenario: An infill housing development (3 storey, multi-unit building) is proposed in a middle ring residential suburb of an Australian capital city. The design quality and the appropriateness of design to the specific site is unknown. Considering the above scenario, the costs and benefits that might be experienced by respective stakeholders over time are presented below. Resident homeowner It is assumed that the resident homeowner lives adjacent to or close to the proposed development. Table 1: Resident homeowner impacts Local traffic congestion (assuming prospective residents have cars) Reduced availability of on street parking (unless provided for by development) Enhanced local relocation options (inc. downsizing), potentially allowing a better dwelling match without moving suburbs Increased property development potential (higher property values/ potential rental) Overshadowing/ overlooking development (unless designed Increased potential for enhanced quantity and diversity of appropriately) local area services (public & private) Additional street noise/ activity (unless designed appropriately) Loss of vegetation (unless protected or replaced on site) Loss of view or vista (unless designed appropriately) Competing demands on existing local area services (shops, cafes, schools, GPs, etc.) Increased potential for enhanced local area job opportunities Improved street activity, vibrancy and potentially safety Potentially increased public realm quality due to increased local demand Note: There is no evidence that urban liveability or crime rates are related to infill development 4
Resident tenant It is assumed that the resident tenant lives directly next to the proposed development. Table 2: Resident tenant impacts Local traffic congestion (assuming prospective residents have cars) Reduced availability of on street parking (unless provided for by development) Enhanced local relocation options (inc. downsizing), potentially allowing a better dwelling match without moving suburbs Increased potential for enhanced quantity and diversity of local area services (public & private) Overshadowing/ overlooking development (unless designed Increased potential for enhanced local area job appropriately) opportunities Additional street noise/ activity (unless designed appropriately) Loss of vegetation (unless protected or replaced on site) Loss of view or vista (unless designed appropriately) Competing demands on existing local area services (shops, cafes, schools, GPs, etc.) Potentially increased rent, reflecting dwelling s enhanced redevelopment potential External landowner (residential investor) Table 3: External Landowner (residential investor) Possibility that, through poor design, development potential is harmed Local Government Table 4: Local Government impact Improved street activity, vibrancy and potentially safety Potentially increased public realm quality due to increased local demand Increased property development potential (higher property values/ potential rental) Higher service delivery expectations linked with Higher rate revenues linked with higher property values in competing demands on existing local area council services local areas Higher development approvals costs (assuming not fully recovered by development application fees) State Government Table 5: State Government impacts Potentially higher infrastructure contributions, as new developments progressively fund infrastructure needs Potential to achieve strategic council objectives, such as affordable housing, housing diversity, etc. Higher service delivery expectations linked with competing demands on existing local area State services Higher State land taxes linked with higher property values in local areas Potential for Victoria/ Melbourne to achieve strategic objectives, such as continued growth, enhanced productivity, affordable housing, etc. 5
Table 6: Comparative analyis Consistent costs Local traffic congestion Reduced availability of on street parking Overshadowing/ overlooking development Additional street noise/ activity Loss of vegetation Loss of view or vista Competing demands on existing local area services Resident landowner Resident tenant External landowner (residential investor) Local Gov t State Gov t Consistent benefits Enhanced local relocation options Increased potential for enhanced quantity and diversity of local area services Increased potential for enhanced local area job opportunities Improved street activity, vibrancy and potentially safety Variable cost/ benefit Increased property development potential (and therefore property prices/ rentals) Benefit Cost Benefit Drives benefit below Drives benefit below Government costs/ benefits Higher service delivery expectations linked with local area population increases Higher revenues streams linked with land values and/ or development approvals Greater potential to achieve strategic objectives 6
Preliminary conclusions Drawing from the above analysis, it is clear that: 1. Generalising about middle ring suburb stakeholders is difficult, as an array of deferent costs and benefits are experienced depending on the stakeholder type. 2. Generalising about infill housing impacts is difficult, as the quality of design in relation to the subject site/ street obviously influences the degree to which costs and benefits arise. 3. Importantly, the degree to which desirable design attributes detract from housing viability/ affordability is a related issue. 4. Future intentions of resident stakeholders are relevant, i.e. if they desire to downsize or redevelop their properties, they are more likely to experience positive benefits. 5. Given that renters do not benefit but lose when property prices rise (i.e. to the extent that this rise is related to increased property development potential), their potential for negative impacts is higher than that of homeowners. 6. Government benefits are linked to the degree to which there is excess capacity within existing infrastructure services/ networks. 7. Even though the key cost and benefits of infill housing can be readily identified, the relative scale of these costs and benefits needs to be further investigated. A number of case study examinations is recommended to further explore this issue; potentially post hoc case studies, enabling residents to reflect on anticipated versus actual impacts across a range of projects that are viewed as being good versus poor examples of infill housing development. 7