The West Australian
There’s a sweet spot between infill and sprawl
Tanya Steinbeck
Having “housing choice” suggests freedom to choose between several options. But as anyone in WA looking to buy or rent a home knows, choice is a luxury few have — let alone can afford.
Well-intentioned infill targets set by the State for local government areas in Perth and Peel are nowhere near being met. At the same time, there is a well-worn critique of “urban sprawl”, with calls for government to stop developers providing affordable housing on the urban fringe.
What we need is a balanced approach to delivering housing in both infill and new areas.
A select committee of the Upper House will now investigate why infill targets have not been met, which could further delay housing delivery. Perhaps it is necessary, because the key drivers of the issue are often ignored in the narrative about why Perth is struggling to densify where it makes the most sense. Building above three storeys is prohibitively expensive, driven by onerous construction codes (now paused) and a lack of sector capacity. The approvals process is hampered by prescriptive, if well-intentioned, design codes, while charges for public art appear to take priority over affordable homes. The only antidote is to reduce delivery costs, increase purchase costs, or subsidise development with public funds.
Most people would prefer to live minutes from the city. What stops them is supply and affordability. Infill infrastructure demands are significant, with ageing water, sewerage and power systems and schools already beyond capacity.
In a housing crisis, this highlights the inconvenient truth that urban fringe developments are best placed to respond quickly with more affordable options. Without them, today’s pain would be sharper and longer lasting.
Developers’ investment in community and essential infrastructure to support urgently needed housing supply helps mask historic underfunding and poor planning by governments at all levels. What is not discussed is more than a billion dollars of developer contributions sitting in government coffers to fund infrastructure such as water, power, roads and community facilities. You might think providing essential infrastructure to support population growth would be a government responsibility — but in a country where the private sector delivers 95 per cent of housing, it is not.
We need all forms of housing, in both infill and new areas. There is nothing wrong with having targets. But we must be realistic about the commercial and market realities that determine where, when and what supply is delivered as WA accommodates a growing population.
Tanya Steinbeck is CEO of
Urban Development Institute of Australia (WA).