smh.com.au
Soaring Melbourne Suburb Planning Costs Threaten Housing Supply
The cost of planning new Melbourne suburbs has skyrocketed by 750 percent to \$6 million per plan, while approvals have plummeted, threatening housing supply due to red tape, reduced government productivity, and a policy favoring infill development over greenfield projects.
- How have rising planning costs and reduced approvals for new Melbourne suburbs impacted housing supply and affordability?
- The cost of planning new Melbourne suburbs has increased sevenfold to \$6 million per plan, while approvals have drastically fallen from 10 yearly to 1-2, threatening housing supply. This surge is attributed to increased red tape and reduced government productivity, resulting in multimillion-dollar holding costs for developers.
- What factors contribute to the significant increase in costs and the decline in approvals for precinct structure plans in Melbourne's growth corridors?
- This dramatic slowdown in precinct structure plan (PSP) approvals, coupled with rising costs, significantly impacts housing affordability and supply in Melbourne. Developers cite excessive red tape and government policy that favors infill development over greenfield projects as contributing factors, leading to substantial financial burdens.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the current planning bottlenecks on Melbourne's urban development and housing market, and how might the government's policy on infill versus greenfield development need to adapt?
- The Melbourne housing crisis is exacerbated by planning bottlenecks. The government's 70/30 infill-to-greenfield housing policy, while aiming to curb urban sprawl, appears misaligned with population demand, particularly amongst new migrants who prefer detached houses. Continued delays will likely worsen affordability and further fuel urban sprawl despite government efforts.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue primarily from the perspective of developers, highlighting their financial burdens and frustrations with the planning process. The headline itself emphasizes the cost increase and approval collapse, setting a negative tone. While the government's response is included, it's presented later in the article and doesn't receive the same level of emphasis. The inclusion of quotes from developers expressing frustration creates a narrative that strongly favors their viewpoint.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, although terms like "skyrocketed", "collapsed", "massive amount of red tape", and "painfully slow" carry negative connotations and suggest a deliberate negative portrayal of the situation. The phrase "affordability crisis" is loaded language that may influence reader perceptions. More neutral alternatives could include: 'increased significantly', 'declined substantially', 'extensive regulatory processes', 'slowed considerably', and 'challenges to housing affordability'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the increased costs and delays in developing new suburbs, and the perspectives of developers. However, it omits the perspectives of residents in existing suburbs who may be concerned about urban sprawl or the environmental impact of new developments. It also doesn't delve into the details of the "red tape" causing delays, beyond general statements. While acknowledging the government's 10-year plan, it doesn't fully explore its potential to address the issues raised.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the housing crisis as a choice between density in existing suburbs and greenfield development. It implies these are the only two options, ignoring other potential solutions such as brownfield development or more efficient use of existing infrastructure. The debate around the 70/30 policy for new housing is presented as an eitheor scenario, neglecting the possibility of a more nuanced approach.
Gender Bias
The article features quotes from several male developers and industry leaders, but only mentions one female executive (Cath Evans) briefly toward the end. There is no noticeable gender bias in the language or tone used, however the disproportionate representation of men's voices suggests a potential for bias in source selection.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights significant delays and increased costs in developing new suburbs in Melbourne, hindering the creation of sustainable and affordable housing. This impacts the ability to deliver promised housing supply and contributes to urban sprawl, contradicting sustainable urban development principles. Delays also lead to increased holding costs for developers, diverting funds from infrastructure development. The 70/30 policy aiming for 70% of new homes in established suburbs is also questioned, suggesting potential misalignment with the needs of new residents and efficient land use.