The impact of planning delays and other holding costs on housing affordability

Housing affordability is gaining increasing prominence in the Australian socioeconomic landscape, despite strong economic growth and prosperity. It is a major consideration for any new development. However, it is multi-dimensional, has many facets, is complex and interwoven. One factor widely held to impact housing affordability is holding costs. Although it is only one contributor, the nature and extent of its impact requires clarification. It is certainly more multifarious than simple calculation of the interest or opportunity cost of land holding. For example, preliminary analysis suggests that even small shifts in the regulatory assessment period can significantly affect housing affordability. Other costs associated with “holding” also impact housing affordability, however these costs cannot always be easily identified. Nevertheless it can be said that ultimately the real impact is felt by those whom can least afford it - new home buyers whom can be relatively easily pushed into the realms of un-affordability.

Selected elements of housing affordability impacting otherwise potentially sustainable communities

It is widely held that strong relationships exist between housing, economic status, and well being. Therefore, recent events emerging from the United States, culminating in widespread housing stock surpluses in that country and others, threaten to destabilise many aspects related to individuals and community. However, despite global impact, the position of housing demand and supply is not consistent. The Australian position provides a strong contrast whereby continued strong housing demand generally remains a critical issue affecting the socio-economic landscape. Underpinned by strong levels of immigration, and further buoyed by sustained historically low interest rates, increasing income levels, and increased government assistance for first home buyers, this strong housing demand ensures elements related to housing affordability continue to gain prominence. A significant, but less visible factor impacting housing affordability – particularly new housing development – relates to holding costs. These costs are in many ways “hidden” and cannot always be easily identified. Although it is only one contributor, the nature and extent of its impact requires elucidation. In its simplest form, it commences with a calculation of the interest or opportunity cost of land holding. However, there is significantly more complexity for major new developments - particularly greenfield development. Analysis suggests that even small shifts in primary factors impacting holding costs can appreciably affect housing affordability. Those factors of greatest significance not only include interest rates and the rate of inflation, but even less apparent factors such as the regulatory assessment period. These are not just theoretical concepts but real, measurable price drivers. Ultimately, the real impact is felt by the one market segment whom can typically least afford it – new home, first home buyers. They can be easily pushed out of affordability. This paper suggests the stability and sustainability of growing, new communities require this problem to be acknowledged and accurately identified if the well being of such communities is to be achieved.

The conceptualisation, sensitivity and measurement of holding costs and other selected elements impacting housing affordability (Literature review and research methodology for confirmation of PhD candidature)

It is widely held that strong relationships exist between housing, economic status, and well being. This is exemplified by widespread housing stock surpluses in many countries which threaten to destabilise numerous aspects related to individuals and community. However, the position of housing demand and supply is not consistent. The Australian position provides a distinct contrast whereby seemingly inexorable housing demand generally remains a critical issue affecting the socio-economic landscape. Underpinned by high levels of immigration, and further buoyed by sustained historically low interest rates, increasing income levels, and increased government assistance for first home buyers, this strong housing demand ensures elements related to housing affordability continue to gain prominence. A significant, but less visible factor impacting housing affordability – particularly new housing development – relates to holding costs. These costs are in many ways “hidden” and cannot always be easily identified. Although it is only one contributor, the nature and extent of its impact requires elucidation. In its simplest form, it commences with a calculation of the interest or opportunity cost of land holding. However, there is significantly more complexity for major new developments - particularly greenfield property development. Preliminary analysis conducted by the author suggests that even small shifts in primary factors impacting holding costs can appreciably affect housing affordability – and notably, to a greater extent than commonly held. Even so, their importance and perceived high level impact can be gauged from the unprecedented level of attention policy makers have given them over recent years. This may be evidenced by the embedding of specific strategies to address burgeoning holding costs (and particularly those cost savings associated with streamlining regulatory assessment) within statutory instruments such as the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy, and the South East Queensland Regional Plan. However, several key issues require investigation. Firstly, the computation and methodology behind the calculation of holding costs varies widely. In fact, it is not only variable, but in some instances completely ignored. Secondly, some ambiguity exists in terms of the inclusion of various elements of holding costs, thereby affecting the assessment of their relative contribution. Perhaps this may in part be explained by their nature: such costs are not always immediately apparent. Some forms of holding costs are not as visible as the more tangible cost items associated with greenfield development such as regulatory fees, government taxes, acquisition costs, selling fees, commissions and others. Holding costs are also more difficult to evaluate since for the most part they must be ultimately assessed over time in an ever-changing environment, based on their strong relationship with opportunity cost which is in turn dependant, inter alia, upon prevailing inflation and / or interest rates. By extending research in the general area of housing affordability, this thesis seeks to provide a more detailed investigation of those elements related to holding costs, and in so doing determine the size of their impact specifically on the end user. This will involve the development of soundly based economic and econometric models which seek to clarify the componentry impacts of holding costs. Ultimately, there are significant policy implications in relation to the framework used in Australian jurisdictions that promote, retain, or otherwise maximise, the opportunities for affordable housing.

The impact of holding costs in the housing affordability puzzle

Research is now emerging which exposes the significance and extent to which even small shifts in the regulatory assessment period, and other factors, affect housing affordability. It suggests that the extent of its significance has not been hitherto completely demonstrated.

Implications of the National Rental Affordability Scheme on the valuation of residential property

The provision of shelter is a basic need and in Australia there has been a history of home ownership. However recent economic growth and rising construction costs, particularly over the past decade, has placed home ownership out of reach for some. In response to increased affordability pressures, the Australian Federal Government established the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) in 2008. The aim of establishing the NRAS initiative is to stimulate the supply of new affordable rental dwellings, targeting 50,000 new properties by June 2012, through the provision of a National Rental Incentive for each “approved” dwelling. To be approved the dwelling must be newly constructed and subsequently rented to eligible low and moderate income households at rentals no greater than 80 percent of market rates. There is a further requirement that the accommodation be provided as part of the scheme for no less than 10 years. The requirement to provide new residential accommodation at below market rentals for no less than 10 years has an impact on value and as such the valuation methodologies employed. To give guidance to valuers this paper investigates the scheme, the impact on value and expectations for the future.

An analysis of holding cost impact on housing affordability in relation to midsized Greenfield residential property developments in South East Queensland

The position of housing demand and supply is not consistent. The Australian situation counters the experience demonstrated in many other parts of the world in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, with residential housing prices proving particularly resilient. A seemingly inexorable housing demand remains a critical issue affecting the socio-economic landscape. Underpinned by high levels of population growth fuelled by immigration, and further buoyed by sustained historically low interest rates, increasing income levels, and increased government assistance for first home buyers, this strong housing demand level ensures problems related to housing affordability continue almost unabated. A significant, but less visible factor impacting housing affordability relates to holding costs. Although only one contributor in the housing affordability matrix, the nature and extent of holding cost impact requires elucidation: for example, the computation and methodology behind the calculation of holding costs varies widely - and in some instances completely ignored. In addition, ambiguity exists in terms of the inclusion of various elements that comprise holding costs, thereby affecting the assessment of their relative contribution. Such anomalies may be explained by considering that assessment is conducted over time in an ever-changing environment. A strong relationship with opportunity cost - in turn dependant inter alia upon prevailing inflation and / or interest rates - adds further complexity. By extending research in the general area of housing affordability, this thesis seeks to provide a detailed investigation of those elements related to holding costs specifically in the context of midsized (i.e. between 15-200 lots) greenfield residential property developments in South East Queensland. With the dimensions of holding costs and their influence over housing affordability determined, the null hypothesis H0 that holding costs are not passed on can be addressed. Arriving at these conclusions involves the development of robust economic and econometric models which seek to clarify the componentry impacts of holding cost elements. An explanatory sequential design research methodology has been adopted, whereby the compilation and analysis of quantitative data and the development of an economic model is informed by the subsequent collection and analysis of primarily qualitative data derived from surveying development related organisations. Ultimately, there are significant policy implications in relation to the framework used in Australian jurisdictions that promote, retain, or otherwise maximise, the opportunities for affordable housing.

Monitoring the price and affordability of foods and diets globally

Food prices and food affordability are important determinants of food choices, obesity and non-communicable diseases. As governments around the world consider policies to promote the consumption of healthier foods, data on the relative price and affordability of foods, with a particular focus on the difference between ‘less healthy’ and ‘healthy’ foods and diets, are urgently needed. This paper briefly reviews past and current approaches to monitoring food prices, and identifies key issues affecting the development of practical tools and methods for food price data collection, analysis and reporting. A step-wise monitoring framework, including measurement indicators, is proposed. ‘Minimal’ data collection will assess the differential price of ‘healthy’ and ‘less healthy’ foods; ‘expanded’ monitoring will assess the differential price of ‘healthy’ and ‘less healthy’ diets; and the ‘optimal’ approach will also monitor food affordability, by taking into account household income. The monitoring of the price and affordability of ‘healthy’ and ‘less healthy’ foods and diets globally will provide robust data and benchmarks to inform economic and fiscal policy responses. Given the range of methodological, cultural and logistical challenges in this area, it is imperative that all aspects of the proposed monitoring framework are tested rigorously before implementation.

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.

Burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Nepal and the availability and affordability of NCD medicines

Background: Traditionally communicable diseases were the main causes of burden in developing countries like Nepal. In recent years non-communicable diseases (NCDs), mainly cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), cancer, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes mellitus, impose a larger disease burden compared to communicable diseases. Most elements of health and medicine policies in Nepal are still focused on communicable diseases. There is limited evidence about NCDs and NCD medicines in Nepal. Aim: To explore the gap between the burden of NCDs and the availability and affordability of NCD medicines in Nepal. Methods: Biomedical databases like Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and other online sources (including Global Burden of Diseases data) were searched for data on the burden of NCDs in term of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). The Essential Medicines List (EML) of Nepal was compared with World Health Organisation (EML) for inclusion of NCD medicines. Results: In Nepal, NCDs caused nearly 45% of the total 10.5 million DALYs in 2010. CVDs (15.2%), were the leading cause of NCDs burden followed by chronic respiratory diseases (14.7%), cancer (7.3%) and diabetes mellitus (3.2%). One hospital based national survey found that 37% of hospitalised patients had NCDs. Among them, 38% had heart disease followed by COPD (33%) , and diabetes (10%). Most (23 out of 28) non-cancer NCD medicines recommended in WHO-EML were present in Nepal's EML, theoretically indicating good availability. However, it is difficult to say whether they are accessible and affordable due to the lack of adequate data on access and pricing. Conclusion: This study gives some insight into the burden of NCDs. Although NCD medicines are available in Nepal, further research is required to determine whether they are accessible and affordable to the general population.

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.

Implementation of National Rental Affordability Scheme in Queensland

In 2008 the Australian government introduced the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) to increase the supply of affordable rental in Australia. This Federal Government initiative was progressively rolled out through four different rounds over the years with fifth round to be announced some time in 2014. Although the scheme has been successful evident there have been numerous setbacks experienced. This paper focuses on understanding lessons learnt from the performance of the scheme to make recommendations for future government initiatives. This evaluation is based on the combination of document analysis, government officers as well as approved NRAS participants operating throughout Queensland. The most significant challenges for the NRAS participants is the involvement of three levels government which cause delays in the scheme approval process.

De-risking development of medium density housing to improve housing affordability and boost supply

Housing price inflation is a national concern given the serious decline in the number of low and middle income households able to purchase housing. In addition housing supply lags well behind demand. In Melbourne, urban consolidation policies explicitly seek intensification to promote housing supply but planning regulation is often criticised for being a significant cost driver for medium density housing. It is assumed that easing supply constraints will improve affordability. We suggest that laissez-faire planning exacerbates affordability issues because this approach fails to address the basic economic problem: the current inability of the market to efficiently match supply and demand in order to progress an orderly and de-risked development process. The role of “exchange” one of the four housing market sub-systems identified by Burke (2012) has until recently generally been ignored but our examination reveals significant economic transaction costs that manifest as development risks that impact on affordability. Fortunately these can be mitigated, but only if there is a more consumer driven supply response.

Submission to the Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into affordable housing 20 August 2014: De-risking development of medium density housing to improve housing affordability and boost supply

This submission addresses the problem of housing price inflation, the chronic under-supply of new housing stock, and the resultant decline in housing affordability for low and middle income households. It specifically focusses on the supply of medium density housing (multi-unit development) in Melbourne, although we believe that the observations made about housing in supply in Melbourne are relevant in other urban centres and to other types of housing supply. In terms of medium density housing (MDH) our concern also extends to the poor quality and design. Why the market tends to deliver generic apartments of poor quality and design which are uncompetitive with lower density housing and amenity despite planning objectives, and how this apparently intractable problem can be overcome is the topic of this submission...

Measuring cost and affordability of healthy and less healthy diet globally

The INFORMAS food prices module proposes a step-wise framework to measure the cost and affordability of population diets. The price differential and the tax component of healthy and less healthy foods, food groups, meals and diets will be benchmarked and monitored over time. Results can be used to model or assess the impact of fiscal policies, such as ‘fat taxes’ or subsidies. Key methodological challenges include: defining healthy and less healthy foods, meals, diets and commonly consumed items; including costs of alcohol, takeaways, convenience foods and time; selecting the price metric; sampling frameworks; and standardizing collection and analysis protocols. The minimal approach uses three complementary methods to measure the price differential between pairs of healthy and less healthy foods. Specific challenges include choosing policy relevant pairs and defining an anchor for the lists. The expanded approach measures the cost of a healthy diet compared to the current (less healthy) diet for a reference household. It requires dietary principles to guide the development of the healthy diet pricing instrument and sufficient information about the population’s current intake to inform the current (less healthy) diet tool. The optimal approach includes measures of affordability and requires a standardised measure of household income that can be used for different countries. The feasibility of implementing the protocol in different countries is being tested in New Zealand, Australia and Fiji. The impact of different decision points to address challenges will be investigated in a systematic manner. We will present early insights and results from this work.