On the following pages the tables summarise the potential outcomes of each planning measure across generalised Australian housing market geographies. The tables need to be read in conjunction with the text about each planning mechanism. They should help in giving priority to approaches that can be investigated for implementation at local or regional levels, but are not a prescription for particular jurisdictions to follow. The assessment was undertaken in relation to the criteria for evaluating planning approaches identified above and draws on AHURI research into planning approaches for affordable housing (Gurran et al., forthcoming).
The resources and guidance in the Affordable Housing National Leading Practice Guide and Tool Kit is not designed to be relied upon. Users of the guide should consider the individual circumstances of each project or policy, use other resources and take independent advice.
The mechanisms are suggested according to the location type where they are to be utilised. The location types are:
The mechanisms can also be viewed according to type:
The measures are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and may be perused simultaneously depending on the particular characteristics of the housing market.
Criteria for evaluating planning approaches
This guide does not prescribe particular planning approaches for affordable housing, but rather supports jurisdictions in selecting the approaches most suitable to their specific contexts. Criteria to consider are:
- Likely scale of impact given the extent and nature of affordable housing needs and local or regional market trends;
- Appropriateness of measure in relation to other strategic planning goals at the local, regional or state level; and its likely legality under state or territorial planning legislation;
- Efficiency the time and resources needed to implement and administer the mechanism on an ongoing basis, relative to other possible mechanisms and likely affordable housing return; and ensuring that measures do not contribute to market inefficiency (associated with additional complexity in regulation);
- Equity ensuring that the measure does not unfairly disadvantage a particular group or individual; that it does not contribute to market distortion (by favouring or unjustifiably deterring certain development sites or circumstances), and that the measure is able to be implemented in a way that is transparent;
- Likely community or political support for the measure and the necessary administrative or procedural changes needed to introduce it; and,
o Sustainability principles, including positive or negative economic outcomes, for each measure, which need to be assessed separately for each region, jurisdiction or market.
These criteria inform the analysis of each mechanism below, each of which is summarised in a table indicating its potential impact. National and relevant international examples are used to illustrate the implementation of these measures in practice. These examples are offered as an example to assist governments in further developing their own practice, and do not necessarily represent the only or best possible interpretation of the approach.
Top of page