WA has the same housing crisis as everyone else but without the hysterical catcalls to “blame planning”, which no one said was problem during the very recent development boom. There’s one problem though that needs urgent attention – the habit of new residents in stand alone homes and some apartments to pull out trees to make way for parking.
Most of the time, when hits on one of our stories go stratospheric, we know why. In the case of Western Australia’s new planning code for the “missing middle”, we drew a blank.
Yes, the phrase “missing middle” is great clickbait at a time of coast to coast housing crisis, but still – why exactly was this story so popular.
We called one of the main sources for the piece, Tanya Steinbeck, chief executive of the Urban Development Institute in WA, to see if she could shed some light.
The new residential design code, or “R-Codes”, are “crucial” to addressing the state’s housing crisis by fostering more medium density housing, Steinbeck told The Fifth Estate at the time.On Wednesday she was as perplexed as we were but repeated her initial comment that the codes were “highly anticipated”. If there are other views, please do get in touch!
While we chatted, Steinbeck revealed a housing market on the west coast that’s suffering pretty much the same critical pain points as the rest of the country but with much less hype and misdirection.
On the eve of the WA government’s state budget due to be brought down on Thursday, a few measures that hope to repair at least some of the damaged housing market have had already been announced.
This includes a $5000 incentive for property owners sitting on vacant housing to put their properties onto the long term rental market. We know the last Census claimed there were 1 million empty houses nationwide, which has been hotly disputed as reliable indicated
AHURI (Australian Institute of Housing and Urban Research Institute), for instance, points out some of the empty housing maybe empty because it’s being renovated, is newly built, or located in abandoned rural areas, and so on, but still, the anecdotal evidence is strong that there is a lot of empty property.
Taxing empty property has been flagged as fix, but the institute points out that in other countries this has led to a significant drop in the number of empty housing.
| % unoccupied private dwellings – AHURI | ||
| Australia: 10.1% (1,043,776 unoccupied private dwellings out of 10,318,997 total) | ||
| State/Territory | Capital city | Rest of State/Territory |
| NSW: 9.4% | Sydney: 8.3% | NSW: 11.2% |
| VIC: 11.1% | Melbourne: 10% | VIC: 14% |
| QLD: 9.3% | Brisbane: 6.8% | QLD: 11.7% |
| SA: 10.8% | Adelaide: 7% | SA: 22% |
| WA: 10.9% | Perth: 8.5% | WA: 19.6% |
| TAS: 11.8% | Hobart: 7.3% | TAS: 14.9% |
| NT: 12.8% | Darwin: 9.6% | NT 18.7% |
| ACT: 6.6% | ||
It also points out that forcing the issue is a political hot potato in this country (as are mining taxes, offshore windfarms and serious tax reform on housing.)
“There are significant political costs and risks if democratically elected governments compel local owners of unoccupied dwellings to make their properties available for rental in the private market or for resale,” AHURI says.
Steinbeck says vacancy rates in the Perth rental market are down to around 0.7 per cent but have been at 0.4 per cent.
Even the buying market is low on offerings with an average of 3000 offered for sale, down from 12,000 in more regular times.
The government has also said it will add 4000 social housing units, up from its previous target of 2000.
And it wants to solve at least part of the shortage with tiny homes for for seniors on the public housing waiting list. The plan is for one bedroom/one bathroom homes of about 43 square metres – not much bigger than a shipping container – built off site through Summit Homes’ modular prefabrication facility, at a cost of around $250,000 each, according to WA Today.
Housing Minister John Carey said, “The pilot showed the government was thinking out of the box to address the state’s housing crisis.”
Let’s hope they’re not stand alone boxes for old people to live in without any associated social infrastructure.
What’s wrong with more of a co-living arrangement that provides the option of social interactions?
There’s a growing cohort that asks why quality boarding houses are demonised in places like Sydney, in particular. The established locals obviously think they are icky and campaign against them, but seriously, what are the alternatives in the face of a trenchant and increasingly wealthy property owning class that is progressively excluding reasonable solutions for others? Including any notion of reforming taxes that can change the dynamic.
Boarding houses are not even on the radar. Nor more affordable co-living spaces which tend to be expensive. Strange that with all the focus on poor housing options, this is still not vehemently demanded.
It would be wonderful to see the YIMBYs switch their arguments from more abundant housing – which is likely to be very high cost – to abundant affordable housing.
An added complication is that in Sydney at least, there’s the dogged focus on planning as the main cause of the housing crisis. Though the “red tape” didn’t seem to prevent the most recent proliferation of apartment towers in the near city areas – some of which though were built shoddily are now being pinged by David Chandler.
Actually maybe it’s the “red tape” around Chandler’s work that’s the real impediment to more apartment towers. Imagine having to build quality housing that stands up and doesn’t leak! And how many are now game to withstand his perambulations with a ruler and biro that he sticks into tiles to discover there’s no waterproofing?
Construction contraints
In WA, the blame for the housing crisis seems to be more even-handedly placed on market dynamics.
There’s a capacity constraint with only two “key constructors” in the market, and with tender prices coming in at 20-30 per cent above feasibility numbers, Steinbeck says.
“This blows the viability out of the water.”
Underpinning the cost issue is the skills shortages and if more skilled people come to WA, there’s not enough places to house them –so the problem worsens.
But planning as a major impediment? No, so much.
“I think we’re ahead of the game here; the state government has been very active in planning reform,” Steinbeck says.
Urban sprawl is so easy
But while development costs for apartments are going through the roof, the market has turned to the fast and furious option of single lot housing.
How much easier not to deal with local residents? How much easier not to have to get a professional (maybe unionised) building contractors to build multi-storey?
And how much easier it is to ask the government – our taxes – to pay for most of the vast infrastructure that people will need to live ever further away from business and commercial activity centres. A few developer contributions, and you’re done.
Steinbeck concedes medium density infill targets are not being met.
The government wants 47 per cent infill, but the market is delivering just 24 per cent, she says.
But at least there’s a limit on urban sprawl – thanks to the sub-regional planning frameworks that control the spread of development, she says.
Maybe, but if Melbourne’s constantly shifting urban boundary is anything to go by, this is just a line on a map, and it can magically, miraculously balloon outwards every time the catcalls from certain areas get louder and politicians bow to the pressure.
Trees and canopy cover
A big problem that’s occurring in Perth but not only in Perth, according to our urban greening sources, is the antipathy towards trees. In new single lot developments in Perth but also apartments, new residents are pulling out trees to replace that gaps with paved parking spaces.
Steinbeck says the state government in WA currently has an urban greening strategy out for consultation to increase the amount of tree canopy across Perth. This is something that’s important with the impacts of climate change and the urban heat island effects, she says.
But getting trees to stick is another challenge altogether.
“I think is an issue, and the industry recognised it’s something that could be done better, but it has to be done in collaboration with local government authorities.
“If it’s street trees or on verges, it ends up being a council issue.
“Currently, this is very project dependent, and in most projects, developers will provide street trees, but the reality is that when the projects are finished and trees established, a lot of the residents pull them out, or they’re not adequately maintained and there’s not a lot a developer can do about that.”
We’ll cover this and related issues of how to increase viable and resilient green infrastructure, including how local government can value and plan for its establishment, maintenance and replacement, in our next masterclass, Extreme Green Infrastructure, on 4 June.
I am responding to your piece on the removal of newly planted trees on council verges, an issue that I have observed in my role as a judge for urban development awards. I have also observed the removal of newly planted trees within properties once the occupation certificate is issued. The attitude drives me to despair. The trees on the nature stirps and within properties are there for a good reason. They are also there because of planning controls. The removal of trees within developments underscores a debate between the aesthetic, environmental and practical impacts of urban forestry.
I see trees as undoubtedly contributing significant environmental benefits. However, not all residents see these benefits, instead some view these trees as obstructions or maintenance burdens. This dichotomy perhaps reflects a broader disconnect with nature, highlighting a need for increased community education on the multifaceted value of trees.
I would love these tree killers to recognise that urban trees are not merely decorative but integral to sustainable urban planning. They enhance quality of life, boost property values and can even reduce council costs by mitigating stormwater runoff and urban heat islands.
As an optimist the answer lies in not giving up. We need to pursue a multifaceted approach. Education campaigns that articulate the benefits of urban trees could cultivate a greater appreciation and stewardship among residents. Additionally, engaging community members in the planning and maintenance of urban greenery could foster a sense of ownership and responsibility, potentially reducing acts of vandalism.
While fines and penalties can be deterrents, they also alienate residents and create a contentious relationship between the council and the community. Instead, a strategy that includes education, community engagement and thoughtful placement and selection of trees considering local residents’ feedback might yield better compliance and satisfaction.
It is not just about planting trees but growing community rooted in environmental stewardship and mutual respect. We have to aim for a solution that addresses the immediate issue but also fosters a long-term collaborative relationship between residents and urban planners.
Great to get your insights Sylvia. I hesitated to believe this but sadly it’s corroborated elsewhere. We heard around our Urban Greening summits that people pull out trees they don’t like and tend to be kinder if they’ve been asked to select a species. So there’s a ray of hope. But for car parking? I’m gobsmacked.
Councils could take action if they wanted as it is all set out in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Local Government Act 1993. My observation is that Councils are selective in how they administer contraventions of their planning controls. For example when Ron Hoenig was mayor of Botany, he had Council’s planning department and the landscape architects on speed dial. When he was driving around the suburbs he would observe if landscaping was being maintained. Premises received a letter from Council advising of a contravention and asking them to fix it or council would take legal action. For example – there would be a condition on the DA consent that the front of the premises had to be landscaped and maintained. If he saw it wasn’t a letter would be issued. Legally, the consent runs with the land forever until it is superseded by another DA or amended conditions.
that’s brilliant Sylvia! We need to bring back people who care about these issues and enforce… though of course I hear the state gov in NSW is moving in entirely the wrong direction… still not tracked down the veracity but I find in Sydney where there’s smoke there’s fire (or a very powerful development lobby like the Urban Taskforce which is quite capable of ridding itself of a problematic planning minister because they wanted a cool light coloured roof and a single tree in a housing lot!
Apologies – I just saw my wondering apostrophe in the first sentence. It is getting late in the day.
fixed.. late in the day for us too… we do normally like to check the typos!
I could never understand why there seemed to be no trees when I lived north of Perth for a while – and it seems I was probably incorrectly blaming council!
Getting so hot there in summer, the suburban streets are an absolute nightmare to walk along. I guess I was making the mistake of walking rather than parking my car on the verge and driving….
Completely agree with your ideas Sylvia – community education and engagement a must for this one.
thanks for sharing – incredible state of affairs…