Bypassing planning regulations is likely to have impacts on social inequity and wellbeing that could prove very costly for both governments and people.
The housing crisis is . Governments see a rapid increase in supply as the main solution.
The importance of supply is not disputed. But : new housing must be provided in ways that do not between the 鈥溾.
Our in Sydney, for instance, shows how the planning system already overlooks what is needed to make the city equitable and liveable. Planning decisions contradict or ignore that are meant to help ensure communities are healthy and sustainable.
The rush to build new housing risks creating even more inequitable cities.
Poorly regulated housing development often means services and infrastructure such as public transport or schools are added later. This ends up costing both governments and households. And it costs us more than dollars to fix the long-term problems that come with inequity.
Only housing 鈥溾 鈥 quality, affordable and accessible housing 鈥 will truly solve the housing crisis.
The federal government鈥檚 new aims to put A$3 billion on the table for states and territories to build more housing.
State governments like those in and have now to speed up the supply of more homes.
While that sounds like good policy, this approach extends decades of short-sightedness that overlooks what matters most for cities: its people.
The NSW government wants to 鈥溾 on planning regulations so developers can build more housing. Worryingly, it admits wrongdoers may take advantage. The Victorian government unveiled plans on Wednesday to .
Such short-sighted policies risk poorly planned neighbourhoods and .
There鈥檚 plenty of for the need to reform the NSW land-use planning system. Simply freeing up housing supply . Planning systems need to do the job of ensuring new housing supports the city and the wellbeing of all residents.
NSW鈥檚 two main land-use planning mechanisms: and . We assessed the ways they help promote the building of safe, liveable neighbourhoods.
We compared these policies against the NSW government鈥檚 own on how to do it well. We found this checklist to be one of the best guides in the world for how cities can enhance human health and wellbeing.
The checklist sets out 11 principles covering topics that the planning system should use to guide development. We added a 12th best-practice theme to highlight the growing importance of safeguarding mental health.
We counted the number of clauses within each policy and plan that corresponded to each of the 12 themes. We used a traffic-light system (shown below) to highlight whether and how these clauses considered, mentioned and/or addressed issues relating to equity.
Chart: The Conversation,
Because SEPPs are (generally) applicable to the whole state, we found their focus was more thematic and focused on broader issues such as 鈥渞esilience鈥. Most only corresponded to a small number of the best-practice themes as show below.
Counts of the number of clauses within each State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) corresponding to 12 healthy planning themes, with colour-coded equity ratings.
Counts of the number of clauses within each State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) corresponding to 12 healthy planning themes, with colour-coded equity ratings.
The Design and Place SEPP was the most likely to have provided any equity guidance.
In contrast, LEPs are by design more focused on specific local government areas and need to more comprehensively guide local land use. Most included clauses that aligned with the healthy planning themes.
Nevertheless, as the mostly red coding shows, few of these land-use planning mechanisms considered the known ways to promote equity in any notable ways.
At the local level, only two of the eight LEPs we looked at really paid equity any attention.
Counts of the number of clauses within each of eight Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) corresponding to 12 healthy planning themes, with colour-coded equity ratings.
Short-term fixes for the housing crisis create a big risk of even worse outcomes for communities.
鈥淯nleashing鈥 housing supply in cities like Sydney and Melbourne, without reforming narrowly focused planning mechanisms, will increase inequities between the haves and have-nots. The result is likely to be more spending in future 鈥 by governments and affected households 鈥 to deal with the consequences.
We know how to create great suburbs and cities. Indeed, the NSW government should heed its own policy advice when changing the planning system if cities like Sydney are to remain quality places to live.
We need to refocus planning strategies on who they are meant to serve 鈥 the people and their communities. .
Councils in south-western Sydney, for instance, are to develop innovative health-focused planning and urban design. Similarly, the is supporting innovation, including our research, to place public health at the centre of delivering infrastructure for the region.
Boosting housing supply by and responsibilities, as both NSW and Victoria are doing, risks worse, not better, outcomes.
Planning systems need to for housing to be 鈥渄one well鈥 and avoid the costs of inequity that come with a blinkered focus on housing supply.
, Senior Research Fellow, Acting Director, CHETRE, and , Senior Research Fellow, SPHERE's Sustainability Platform / City Futures Research Centre,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .