Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 455–472 | Cite as

Planning and affordable housing in Australia, New Zealand and England: common culture; different mechanisms

  • Patricia M. Austin
  • Nicole Gurran
  • Christine M. E. Whitehead
Policy and Practice

Abstract

This paper compares approaches to planning and delivery of affordable housing across England, Australia and New Zealand. While all three nations began with a common starting point—early British town planning legislation—underlying differences in urban regulation, property rights and housing provision soon emerged. However, signs of convergence have lately re-appeared, as all three countries have responded to affordable housing shortages by exploring new strategies to boost supply through the planning system. In the tradition of comparative housing research, this paper examines these strategies in the context of each country’s particular historical, socio-cultural, governance and urban planning frameworks. Our analysis shows how differences in planning systems and approaches to housing assistance can delimit opportunities to secure new affordable homes, particularly in the context of increasing land values. Effective delivery of affordable housing through the planning system depends on consistent and enforceable policy articulation, government commitment, a mature affordable housing sector, and particular market conditions.

Keywords

Affordable housing Comparative housing research Inclusionary zoning Land use planning Value capture 

References

  1. ABS. (2009). Catalogue 65230, household income and income distribution, Australia 2007–08. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  2. ABS. (2010). Catalogue 6416, house price indexes, eight capital cities, September 2010. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  3. AIHW. (2011). Housing assistance in Australia 2011; Cat. no. HOU 236. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, P. M. (2009). The affordable housing: Enabling territorial authorities Act 2008—When policy transfer fails. Housing Finance International, 14–17.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Government. (2011). Nation building economic stimulus and jobs planSocial housing 2010. Retrieved February 7, 2011 from www.economicstimulusplan.gov.au/housing/pages/default.aspx.
  6. Barker, K. (2004). Review of housing supply delivering stability: Securing our future housing needs, final report. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  7. Barker, K. (2006). Barker review of land use planning—Final report—Recommendations. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  8. Beer, A., Kearins, B., & Pieters, H. (2007). Housing affordability and planning in Australia: The challenge of policy under neo-liberalism. Housing Studies, 22, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calavita, N., & Grimes, K. (1998). Inclusionary housing in California—The experience of two decades. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64, 150–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calavita, N., & Mallach, A. (2010). Inclusionary housing in international perspective: Affordable housing, social inclusion, and land value recapture. Washington: Lincoln Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Chiu, R. L. H. (2007). Planning, land and affordable housing in Hong Kong. Housing Studies, 22, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. COAG Reform Council. (2009). COAG Communique 7 December 2009. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments.Google Scholar
  13. COAG Reform Council. (2012). Housing supply and affordability reform. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments: Housing Supply and Affordability Reform Working Party.Google Scholar
  14. Cowan, S. M. (2006). Anti-snob land use laws, suburban exclusion, and housing opportunity. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28, 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crook, A. D. H., Bibby, P. R., Ferrari, E. T., Jones, M., Monk, S., Tang, C., et al. (2011). New affordable homes: What, for whom and where were registered providers building between 1989 and 2009. London: Homes & Communities Agency.Google Scholar
  16. Crook, A. D. H., & Monk, S. (2011). Planning gains, providing homes. Housing Studies, 26, 997–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crook, A. D. H., Monk, S., Rowley, S., & Whitehead, C. M. E. (2006). Planning gain and the supply of new affordable housing in England. Town Planning Review, 77, 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crook, A. D. H., & Whitehead, C. M. E. (2002). Social housing and planning gain: Is this an appropriate way of providing affordable housing? Environment and Planning A, 34, 1259–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davison, G., Gurran, N., van den Nouwelant, R., Pinnager, S., & Randolph, B. (2012). Affordable housing, urban renewal and planning: Emerging practice in New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) Final Report Series, 195. Melbourne: AHURI.Google Scholar
  20. DBH. (2010). New Zealand housing report 2009/2010: Structure, pressures and issues. Wellington: Department of Building and Housing.Google Scholar
  21. DCLG. (2010). Live tables. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  22. DCLG. (2011). Laying the foundations: A housing strategy for England. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  23. DCLG Various years. Housing strategy statistical appendix (HSSA) London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  24. De Kam, G. (1998). Value for money. Quality, and price of land for social housing in the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 13, 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Department of the Environment. (1977). Housing policy: A consultation document. Cmnd 6851. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  26. DPMC. (2007). Final report of the house prices unit: House price increases and housing in New Zealand. Wellington: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.Google Scholar
  27. Ferguson, G. (1994). Building the New Zealand dream. Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gilmour, T., & Milligan, V. (2012). Let a hundred flowers bloom: Innovation and diversity in Australian not-for-profit housing organisations. Housing Studies, 27, 476–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gleeson, B., & Low, N. (2000). Australian urban planning: New challenges, new agendas. Melbourne: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  30. Golland, A., & Oxley, M. (2004). Housing development in Europe. In A. Golland & R. Blake (Eds.), Housing development: Theory, process and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Gurran, N., Milligan, V., Baker, D., Bugg, L. B., & Christensen, S. (2008). New directions in planning for affordable housing: Australian and international evidence and implications. AHURI Final Report Series, 120. Melbourne: AHURI.Google Scholar
  32. Gurran, N., Ruming, K. & Randolph, B. (2009). Counting the costs: Planning requirements, infrastructure costs and residential development in Australia. AHURI Final Report Series, 140. Melbourne: AHURI.Google Scholar
  33. Gurran, N., & Whitehead, C. (2011). Planning and affordable housing in Australia and the UK: A comparative perspective. Housing Studies, 26, 1193–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. HNZC. (2005). Building the future: The New Zealand housing strategy. Wellington: Housing New Zealand Corporation.Google Scholar
  35. Holmans, A. (2012). The implications of the 2008-based household projections for estimates of housing need. Town and Country Planning, 81, 9.Google Scholar
  36. Jacobs, K., Atkinson, R., Peisker, V. C., Berry, M. & Dalton, T. (2010). What future for public housing? A critical analysis. AHURI Final Report Series, 151. Melbourne: AHURI.Google Scholar
  37. Louw, E., van der Krabben, E., & Priemus, H. (2003). Spatial development policy: Changing roles for local and regional authorities in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 20, 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meltzer, R., & Schuetz, J. (2010). What drives the diffusion of inclusionary zoning? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 578–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Memon, P. A. (1991). Shaking off the colonial legacy? Town and country planning in New Zealand. Planning Perspectives, 6, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merrill, W. W., & Lincoln, R. K. (1993). Linkage fees and fair share regulations—Law and method. Urban Lawyer, 25, 223–308.Google Scholar
  41. MfE. (2010). Building competitive cities: Reform of the urban and infrastructure planning system—A discussion document. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.Google Scholar
  42. Milligan, V. (2003). How different? Comparing housing policies and housing affordability consequences for low income households in Australia and the Netherlands. Netherlands Geographical Studies, 318, 220 pp.Google Scholar
  43. Milligan, V., Gurran, N., Lawson, J., Phibbs, P. & Phillips, R. (2009). Innovation in affordable housing in Australia: Bringing policy and practice for not-for profit housing organisations together. AHURI Final Report Series, 134. Melbourne: AHURI.Google Scholar
  44. Monk, S., & Burgess, G. (2012). Capturing planning gain: The transition from S106 to the Community Infrastructure Levy, RICS Research Report. London: RICS.Google Scholar
  45. Monk, S., Crook, T., Lister, D., Rowley, S., Short, C., & Whitehead, C. M. E. (2005). Land and finance for affordable housing. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. Montague, A. (2012). Review of barriers to institutional investment in private rented homes. London: Department for Communities & Local Government.Google Scholar
  47. NHPAU. (2009). More homes for more people: Advice to Ministers on housing levels to be considered in regional plans. London: National Housing and Planning Advice Unit.Google Scholar
  48. NHSC. (2010). Second state of supply report. Canberra: National Housing Supply Council. Canberra: Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.Google Scholar
  49. Norris, M. (2006). Developing, designing and managing mixed tenure estates: Implementing planning gain legislation in the Republic of Ireland. European Planning Studies, 14, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. NZPC. (2012). Housing affordability inquiry. Wellington: New Zealand Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
  51. Parliament of Australia. (2008). A good house is hard to find: Housing affordability in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  52. Pretty, D., & Hackett, P. (2009). Mind the gap—Housing supply in a cold climate. London: The Smith Institute, Town and Country Planning Association.Google Scholar
  53. Satsangi, M., & Dunmore, K. (2003). The planning system and the provision of affordable housing in rural Britain: A comparison of the Scottish and English experience. Housing Studies, 18, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stephens, M., Whitehead, C. M. E., & Munro, M. (2005). Lessons from the past, challenges for the future for housing policy: An evaluation of English housing policy 1975–2000. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  55. UTAG. (2010). Report of the Minister for the Environment’s Urban Technical Advisory Group. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.Google Scholar
  56. White, M., & Allmendinger, P. (2003). Land-use planning and the housing market: A comparative review of the UK and the USA. Urban Studies, 40, 953–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitehead, C. M. E. (2007). Planning policies and affordable housing: England as a successful case study? Housing Studies, 22, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Williams, P. (2000). Inclusionary zoning and affordable housing in Sydney. Urban Policy and Research, 18, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams, P., Whitehead, C. M. E., Clarke, A., & Jones, M. (2012). Freedom to Succeed: Liberating the potential of housing associations. Cambridge: CCHPR.Google Scholar
  60. Wright, B. (2001). Expectations of a better world. Canberra: Royal Australian Planning Institute.Google Scholar
  61. Yates, J. (2008). Australia’s housing affordability crisis. Australian Economic Review, 41, 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia M. Austin
    • 1
  • Nicole Gurran
    • 2
  • Christine M. E. Whitehead
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Architecture and Planning, NICAIUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Urban and Regional Planning Program, Faculty of Architecture Design and PlanningUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning ResearchUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations