Planning regulation and the mediation of housing outcomes: new evidence from planners in four metropolitan regions

Declining housing affordability is a challenge for many metropolitan regions in Australia. While the causes are multifaceted, the national policy debate has focused largely on the role of the planning system, which is seen to limit new residential land supply and increase housing production costs. Procedural inefficiencies and diversity in planning controls and requirements at the local government level are often implicated (COAG Reform Council, 2012). However, evidence of these impacts, particularly in the Australian context, is currently limited. Internationally, research examining the influence of differences in planning regulation on patterns of new housing supply has focused largely on quantitative measures of regulatory 'constraint' (e.g. Gyourko et al. 2008; Glaeser and Ward 2009; Bramley 2013). However, research has also pointed to important, qualitative differences in how planning systems are implemented at the local level and mediated by regulators and the development industry, with implications for housing outcomes (Monk and Whitehead 1999). In this context, this paper goes beneath the quantitative analysis of regulatory difference to understand qualitatively how different planning settings might affect residential development decisions and patterns of new housing supply in four metropolitan regions. Drawing on the findings of in-depth interviews with state and local government planners across Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney, the paper examines how Australian planners address housing supply and affordability through their statutory planning and development assessment roles, and how they think their planning policies influence housing outcomes. In conclusion, the paper outlines the potential implications of the study findings for planning system reform.