Winter, Ian --- "Social objectives in planning for affordable housing" [2009] ALRCRefJl 38; (2009) 94 Australian Law Reform Commission Reform Journal 36

---

Reform Issue 94 Summer 2009

This article appears on pages 36–39 of the original journal.

Social objectives in planning for affordable housing

By Ian Winter*

The Ten Commandments—despite being etched in clay tablets an age ago—are today a subject of scholarly debate.

Some Biblical scholars maintain the third commandment (the one about not taking the Lord’s name in vain) was originally about swearing an oath of cooperation with your neighbours rather than today’s version of ‘thou shalt not swear when a hammer has whacked thine thumb’.^[1] It is argued that the third commandment originally had a social objective—mutual collaboration. Neighbourly assistance to bring in the harvest was critical to survival. The third commandment’s collective intent, while apparently obvious in its original social context, is re-interpreted in contemporary society in an individualist manner—my hammer, my thumb, my oath.

As the third commandment has lost sight of its social objectives so too has land use planning. Land use planning has social values embedded within it, but today these are rarely explicit. A conscious effort to make these obscured social objectives part of the public debate about metropolitan planning would, I believe, advance somewhat stalled conversations in urban policy and planning about how we will live together successfully. One illustration of this is planning for affordable housing.

Planning for affordable housing, at its best, makes the value judgment that neighbourhoods in which households on a range of incomes can afford to live are better. It makes an explicit commitment to social difference and thereby justifies the use of planning legislation and practices to deliver an amount of affordable housing that can either preserve or enhance the social mix of a neighbourhood. It is a rejection of socio-economic homogeneity—a rejection of having lower income households living in one part of the city and higher income households in another. It is also a value judgment that planning is rightly concerned about the social dimensions of the neighbourhood.

The South Australian Government provides a good example of land use planning with explicit social objectives. It has made clear that it is planning for affordable housing to promote social mix in the community. Whether or not one agrees with this particular social objective, and the values that go with it, is not my primary concern. The mere fact that the social objective is explicit is, I believe, a starting point for a more constructive urban policy debate. But this approach to land use planning is unusual. Is it unusual because we do not need more affordable housing? Is it unusual because we do not know how to plan for affordable housing? Or is it unusual because we have failed to debate the social objectives of land use planning?

Do we need more affordable housing?

The National Housing Supply Council State of Supply Report 2008 states that ‘housing affordability for first home buyers and private renters declined over the decade to 2008’.^[2] In 2006 the proportion of lower income private renters in housing stress increased to 60%, from 43% in 1996.^[3] Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) research finds that these circumstances will deteriorate to 2045 as ‘the number of lower-income households in housing stress is projected to increase by 84% (or 13,500 households per year).’^[4]

Demography is a key driver of our housing affordability destiny. Single person households represented 1.8 million or 25% of all households in 2001. They are the fastest growing household type and are projected to increase to between 2.8 million and 3.7 million (28% to 34%) of all households in 2026.^[5] Households on one income find it that much more difficult to meet housing costs.

Australians are also consuming more housing space. Despite the average household size falling throughout the 20th century (from 4.5 to 3.0 persons), and down to 2.51 persons in 2006, the size of houses has increased. The size of houses grew one third between 1988 and 2008; from 181 square metres to 239 square metres. The average cost of housing in Australia rose in the same 10 year period by $65,000 to $236,000.

On these figures there can be little doubt that we need to plan for an increased supply of affordable housing.

Do we know how to plan for more affordable housing?

Nicole Gurran and colleagues in some recent work for AHURI found that in many cities of the United Kingdom, Ireland, USA, and Netherlands, the land use planning system plays a central role in promoting the supply of affordable housing. The approaches can be grouped under five different strategic objectives:

1. Increase housing supply

2. Reduce barriers to affordable housing development

3. Preserve and offset the loss of low-cost housing

4. Encourage new affordable housing

5. Seek a dedicated affordable housing supply in new developments.^[6]

Different planning tools will be more or less effective in pursuit of such strategic objectives dependent upon local land and housing market conditions.

For example, in high growth areas, protective mechanisms may be required to retain existing levels of low-cost housing, whereas in areas of lower land value non-financial incentives could be introduced that encourage a proportion of the development to be set aside for purchase by social housing providers or low-income households.^[7]

Table 1: Planning strategies and mechanisms for affordable housing

Strategic objective	Approach/mechanism
Increase housing supply	• Audit of potential residential land • Government dedication/acquisition of land • Land development or renewal authority • Land development incentives/penalties
Reduce barriers to affordable housing development	• Audit existing planning controls • Assess impact of proposed regulations on housing affordability • Development controls permit diverse housing, in as many areas as possible • Faster approvals for preferred development • Overcome local barriers to affordable housing construction
Preserving and offsetting the loss of low-cost housing	• Social impact framework • Preserving particular house types at risk • Assistance for displaced residents
Encouraging new affordable housing	• Graduated planning standards relating to building use and context (eg boarding houses near transport require less parking) • Planning bonuses/concessions on development standards for designated affordable housing creation or contribution • Fast track approvals for affordable housing meeting defined criteria • Fee discounts for affordable housing meeting defined criteria
Securing new dedicated affordable housing	• Voluntary negotiated agreements for affordable housing contribution • Inclusionary zoning—mandatory contributions for all identified development in the zone to contribute to affordable housing fund/supply • Impact fees—mandatory contribution to offset impact of development on affordable housing needs

The following table details a range of planning mechanisms that can be used to pursue affordable housing objectives.^[8]

The South Australians have progressed one of these approaches—inclusionary zoning to secure new dedicated affordable housing. In March 2005 the Housing Plan for South Australia was released with the explicit aim of providing for affordable housing in major, new developments on government land. Fifteen per cent of such developments are to include affordable housing with 5% being for those who have complex housing needs:

In implementing the 15% target, an important aspect of Housing SA’s strategy has been to work closely with the Department of Planning and Local Government, and the Local Government sector to provide support for planning mechanisms that provide specific provisions and incentives for affordable housing developments. Emphasis has also been on supporting socially inclusive and sustainable communities that provide a mix of household types throughout the community.^[9]

An amendment to the Development Act 1993 (SA) gave explicit legal definition to affordable housing with the objects of the Act expanded to include ‘to promote or support initiatives to improve housing choice and access to affordable housing within the community’.

Since July 2007 some 900 housing starts have been undertaken to meet these affordable housing commitments in South Australia.

Other states and territories have taken steps, less comprehensive than South Australia, to plan for affordable housing. Victoria and NSW, through their respective land development agencies, have instigated affordable housing supply targets. VicUrban aims to have 25% of house and land packages sold in the lowest quartile of house prices. In NSW, Landcom targets 7.5% of its house and land packages to be sold at prices affordable to moderate income households. In Western Australia, the East Perth Redevelopment Authority aims to deliver up to 15% of all new housing as affordable housing. In the ACT, 15% of all new house and land packages are to be sold in the $200,000–300,000 price range.

We know how to use the planning system to provide for an increased supply of affordable housing. We also know we need more affordable housing. So why in Australia do we not use our land use planning system more frequently to affect an increased supply of affordable housing? One reason is because we have not debated and made explicit what the social objectives in planning for affordable housing should be.

Planning and social values

Though contemporary land use plans might articulate social aspirations such as ‘protecting liveability’, or ‘increasing the supply of well located affordable housing’, these lack a clear commitment to an express social objective. What is meant by ‘liveability’? Whose ‘liveability’? Does ‘increasing the supply of well located affordable housing’ mean something about creating greater social mix, or is it about access to jobs? Moreover, without the legislative change needed to drive them and the concrete measures needed to implement them, such statements remain aspirations rather than clear strategic objectives.

This lack of explicit social objectives in planning helps to explain the apparent gulf between the views of suburban communities and their governments on our cities’ futures, on how we are going to live together. Plans for a ‘compact city’ seem a long way from our suburban reality. All this ‘compactness’ at least seems to imply a different way of living, different social outcomes. Be it about neighbouring, noise levels, privacy, or time spent with family and friends, these are all aspects of social life in the compact city that could be different. Yet rarely does land use planning purposefully engage with these social outcomes.

It is not that these social outcomes can simply be read from the urban form. The physical dimensions of neighbourhood and cities do not determine these things, but they can shape them.

Observers of land use planning in Australia will recognise this long standing critique that the physical, technical and aesthetic dimensions of land use planning have been embraced and practiced more readily than the social aspects.

This has long been the case despite the origins of Australian town planning in the English social reform movement at the turn of the 19th century. Expert analysts have explained why this is so and made sustained calls for social objectives such as equity to be centre stage in urban policy.^[10]

One obvious reason for the lack of explicit social objectives is because it is difficult. Debate of social objectives is not straight forward. There is not a singular, overarching ‘public interest’ that will come to a comfortable consensus.^[11] It all seems so subjective, judgmental and difficult compared to the ‘obvious’, ‘calculated’, ‘rational’ objective of higher population density. But our discomfort in discussing these issues is no reason to bury them and pretend they do not exist. Such non-decisions also have particular social outcomes. As Skidelsky warns the substitution of words for targets that codify the uncodefiable, and the substitution of bureaucratic directives for professional honour and wisdom, are today too common.^[12] We must drop our ‘moral neutrality’.

The philosopher Michael Sandel, the 2009 Reith lecturer for the BBC, in seeking to revitalise public discourse argues that in recent decades we have tended to shy away from debates about moral values—preferred to ignore them and leave them undisturbed, conducting public life without reference to them but that this means suppressing moral disagreement.

A more robust engagement with our moral disagreements could provide a stronger, not a weaker basis for mutual respect.^[13]

The housing and urban research community has an obligation to contribute to this robust engagement in two ways. First, by being transparent about its value orientation, and there is healthy debate within journals such as Housing, Theory and Society on this matter. Second, by conducting research and providing understanding of the issues important to public life. And this is why AHURI is committed to working with all governments in Australia to develop a national cities’ research program.

Land use planning is unavoidably value-laden. Land use planning affects the shape and form of our residential environment. It shapes how we live together. It shapes our social relations. Decisions about whether to retain or supply affordable housing in particular neighbourhoods are decisions about what types of households will be able to afford to be neighbours. They are decisions about social mix. They are judgments that social mix, social heterogeneity, is better than social homogeneity. We need to identify such objectives, debate them, and pursue them—whatever they ultimately are—so that we can continue to live together successfully.

* Dr Ian Winter is the Executive Director of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

---

[1] D Bodanis, ‘A progressive manifesto’ (2009) 154 Prospect Magazine, 5.

[2] National Housing Supply Council (2009) State of Supply Report, 82.

[3] Ibid.

[4] J Yates et al (2008) Sustaining fair shares: the Australian housing system and intergenerational sustainability, Final Report No:111, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, 2.

[5] ABS (2008) Year Book Australia, 2008, 1301.0.

[6] Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (2008) ‘International practice in planning for affordable housing’, 105 Research and Policy Bulletin, 1.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] South Australian Government (2005) Housing Plan for South Australia.

[10] R Fincher, ‘Seeing cities and their planning with diversity in mind’ (Paper presented at State of Australian Cities national conference, Adelaide, 28–30 November, 2007); B Gleeson, ‘The endangered state of Australian cities (Paper presented at State of Australian Cities national conference, Adelaide, 28–30 November, 2007).

[11] R Fincher, ‘Seeing cities and their planning with diversity in mind’ (Paper presented at State of Australian Cities national conference, Adelaide, 28–30 November, 2007).

[12] E Skidelsky, (2008) ‘The return of goodness’ 150 Prospect Magazine.

[13] M Sandel, ‘Markets and Morals’, Reith Lectures 2009: A new citizenship, BBC Radio 4, 9 June 2009, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ radio4/reith> at 20 September 2009.