Developer charges and housing affordabilty in Brisbane, Australia

Purpose - This paper empirically examines the effect of developer charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia. Developer paid fees or charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new urban infrastructure. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify passing on of these charges to home buyers. Design/methodology/approach - This research applies a hedonic house price model to 4,699 new and 25,053 existing house sales in Brisbane from 2005 to 2011. Findings – The findings of is research are consistent with international studies that support the proposition that developer charges are over passed. This study has provided evidence that suggest developer charges are over passed to both new and existing homes in the order of around 400%. Research limitations/implications - These findings suggest that developer charges are thus a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability. Practical/Social Implications: By testing this effect on both new and existing homes, this research provides evidence in support of the proposition that not only are developer charges over passed to new home buyers but also to buyers of existing homes. Thus the price inflationary effect of these developer charges are being felt by all home buyers across the community, resulting in increased mortgage repayments of close to $1000 per month. Originality/value - This is the first study to empirically examine the impact of developer charges on house prices in Australia. These results are important as they will inform governments on the outcomes of growth management strategies on housing affordability, providing the first evidence of its kind in Australia.

Inefficient tax slugs all homebuyers

Housing affordability is more than just house prices. It also includes ready access to public transport, schools, good road networks, and of course access to all the basic utilities. However, local governments don’t have the money to build all the infrastructure new housing estates need. So developer charges were introduced as a “user pays” method of funding new urban infrastructure. These charges are levied on property developers by local authorities at the time of planning approval. Some think these costs are passed back to the original land owner by way of lower land prices. But property developers claim these charges are instead added on to new house prices, with a negative impact to housing affordability. When new house prices increase, existing house prices are also dragged up, extending the housing affordability issue throughout the community. However, new research by QUT has uncovered evidence that these costs are not merely passed on to homebuyers, but are passed on at significantly over-inflated rates. In an Australian first, the study empirically examines the impact of developer charges on housing affordability, providing evidence that developer charges are passed on to all homebuyers in the community. So while policy makers think they are charging developers for the provision of infrastructure in new communities, the cost is really being borne by all homebuyers.

Who really pays for urban infrastructure? : the impact of developer infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia

This thesis advances the understanding of the impact of developer infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia through the development of an econometric model and empirical analysis. The results indicate substantial on-passing of these government charges to purchasers of both new and existing homes, thus negatively impacting housing affordability across the whole community. The results of this thesis will inform policy makers and assist in the development of evidence based policy related to housing affordability and funding of urban infrastructure. Being generic, the econometric model is expected to be a tool that is suitable for estimating similar house price effects in other housing markets.

The impact of infrastructure charges on new housing costs : an international comparison

Sourcing funding for the provision of new urban infrastructure has been a policy dilemma for governments around the world for decades. This is particularly relevant in high growth areas where new services are required to support swelling populations. Existing communities resist the introduction of new taxes to fund such infrastructure, hence the introduction of charges to the developer has flourished. The Australian infrastructure funding policy dilemmas are reflective of similar matters to some extent in the United Kingdom, and to a greater extent the United States of America. In these countries, infrastructure cost recovery policies have been in place since the 1940’s and 1970’s respectively. There is an extensive body of theoretical and empirical literature that discusses the passing on (to home buyers) or passing back (to the englobo land seller) of these increased infrastructure charges, and the corresponding impact on housing cost and supply. The purpose of this research is to examine the international evidence that suggests infrastructure charges contribute to increased house prices as well as reduced land supply. The paper concludes that whilst the theoretical work is largely consistent, the empirical research to date is inconclusive and further research is required into these impacts in Australia.

The link between infrastructure charges and housing affordability in Australia: Where is the empirical evidence?

Developer paid charges or contributions are a commonly used infrastructure funding mechanism for local governments. However, developers claim that these costs are merely passed on to home buyers, with adverse effects to housing affordability. Despite a plethora of government reports and industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify this passing on effect to home buyers and hence no data for which governments to base policy decision upon. This paper examines the question of who really pays for urban infrastructure and the impact of infrastructure charges on housing affordability. It presents the findings of a number of international empirical studies that provide evidence that infrastructure charges do increase house prices. Based on international findings, and in the absence of any Australian research, then these findings suggest that if the international findings are transferable, then there is empirical evidence to support the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are a significant contributor to increasing house prices.

The impact of infrastructure charges on house prices in Australia

Developer paid fees or charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new infrastructure. However, property developers claim that these costs are merely passed on to home buyers, with adverse effects to housing affordability. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify this passing on effect to home buyers. Hence there remains no data from which governments can base policy decision on, and the debate continues. This paper examines the question of the impact of infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Australia. It presents the findings of a hedonic house price model that provides the first empirical evidence that infrastructure charges do increase house prices in Australia. This research is consistent with international findings, that support the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are passed on to home buyers and are a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability.

Infrastructure charges and residential land prices in Brisbane, Australia

This paper examines the question of whether the imposition of developer infrastructure charges on housing developers affects the price of residential land. Developer paid fees or charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to fund new infrastructure as a “user pays” method of funding new urban infrastructure. Some argue these costs are passed back to the original land owner by way of lower land prices. However, property developers claim these charges are added on to new land prices, with flow on negative impact to housing affordability. This paper presents the findings of a hedonic land price model that provides the first empirical evidence that infrastructure charges do increase residential land prices in Brisbane, Australia. This research is consistent with international findings and supports the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are over-passed to home buyers and are a significant contributor to reduced housing affordability.

Assessing the impact of infrastructure charges on land values and land supply in SEQ

This is a preliminary scoping presentation. It outlines some of the very early issues identified this research topic.

Axial length charges during accommodation in myopes and emmetropes

Purpose: To investigate the influence of accommodation upon axial length (and a comprehensive range of ocular biometric parameters), in populations of young adult myopic and emmetropic subjects. Methods: Forty young adult subjects had ocular biometry measured utilizing a non-contact optical biometer (Lenstar LS 900) based upon the principle of optical low coherence reflectometry, under three different accommodation demands (0 D, 3 D and 6 D). Subjects were classified as emmetropes (n=19) or myopes (n=21) based upon their spherical equivalent refraction (mean emmetropic refraction -0.05 ± 0.27DS and mean myopic refraction -1.82 ± 0.84 DS). Results: Axial length changed significantly with accommodation, with a mean increase of 11.9 ± 12.3 µm and 24.1 ± 22.7 µm for the 3 D and 6 D accommodation stimuli respectively. A significant axial elongation associated with accommodation was still evident even following correction of the axial length data for potential error due to lens thickness change. The mean ‘corrected’ increase in axial length was 5.2 ± 11.2 µm, and 7.4 ± 18.9 µm for the 3 D and 6 D stimuli respectively. There was no significant difference between the myopic and emmetropic populations in terms of the magnitude of change in axial length with accommodation, regardless of whether the data were corrected or not. A number of other ocular biometric parameters, such as anterior chamber depth, lens thickness and vitreous chamber depth also exhibited significant change with accommodation. The myopic and emmetropic populations also exhibited no significant difference in the magnitude of change in these parameters with accommodation. Conclusions: The eye undergoes a significant axial elongation associated with a brief period of accommodation, and the magnitude of this change in eye length increases for larger accommodation demands, however there is no significant difference in the magnitude of eye elongation in myopic and emmetropic subjects.

Infrastructure charges and increases to new house prices : a preliminary analysis of the US empirical models

Sourcing appropriate funding for the provision of new urban infrastructure has been a policy dilemma for governments around the world for decades. This is particularly relevant in high growth areas where new services are required to support swelling populations. The Australian infrastructure funding policy dilemmas are reflective of similar matters in many countries, particularly the United States of America, where infrastructure cost recovery policies have been in place since the 1970’s. There is an extensive body of both theoretical and empirical literature from these countries that discusses the passing on (to home buyers) of these infrastructure charges, and the corresponding impact on housing prices. The theoretical evidence is consistent in its findings that infrastructure charges are passed on to home buyers by way of higher house prices. The empirical evidence is also consistent in its findings, with “overshifting” of these charges evident in all models since the 1980’s, i.e. $1 infrastructure charge results in greater than $1 increase in house prices. However, despite over a dozen separate studies over two decades in the US on this topic, no empirical works have been carried out in Australia to test if similar shifting or overshifting occurs here. The purpose of this research is to conduct a preliminary analysis of the more recent models used in these US empirical studies in order to identify the key study area selection criteria and success factors. The paper concludes that many of the study area selection criteria are implicit rather than explicit. By collecting data across the models, some implicit criteria become apparent, whilst others remain elusive. This data will inform future research on whether an existing model can be adopted or adapted for use in Australia.

Data requirements of hedonic models in determining the impact of infrastructure charges on new housing costs

The use of hedonic models to estimate the effects of various factors on house prices is well established. This paper examines a number of international hedonic house price models that seek to quantify the effect of infrastructure charges on new house prices. This work is an important factor in the housing affordability debate, with many governments in high growth areas having user-pays infrastructure charging policies operating in tandem with housing affordability objectives, with no empirical evidence on the impact of one on the other. This research finds there is little consistency between existing models and the data sets utilised. Specification appears dependent upon data availability rather than sound theoretical grounding. This may lead to a lack of external validity with model specification dependent upon data availability rather than sound theoretical grounding.

Improving information in project appraisal using hedonic pricing : a case study of marina berthing charges

Hedonic pricing techniques can be used to generate quantitative information useful to the project appraiser at various stages of the project cycle, most notably project formulation and investment appraisal. To illustrate, a hedonic pricing model is applied to marina berthing charges in England and Wales. The technique determines the relevant marina facilities that are reflected in marina rental price. The contribution of the key marina facilities is expressed in monetary terms as the contribution to cost per overall rental price per foot.

Innovative design : developing strategies to improve developer attitudes to sustainable housing

The literature advocates more widespread adoption of a particular type of house – a manufactured high performance green house and/or house components (MHPGH) and this is the focus of the research proposal outlined in this conceptual paper. The aim of the current paper is to outline a robust program of work to improve adoption of MHPGH. The contribution of houses to climate change is investigated, the conservatism of the construction industry is documented, a conceptual framework through which to understand the problem is presented; a program of research to bring about change is outlined; and the benefits of doing so are summarised. The contribution of the paper is the presentation of novel theory and methods to address sustainability problems in the construction industry. Future work will involve execution of the proposal. A limitation of the paper is that the effectiveness of the proposed theory and methods are yet to be tested.